The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Toward an Understanding of the Behavioral Intention to Use an Information System
Abstract
Organizational investment in information systems is often large and risky given the variety of information requirements placed on systems today. To make more informed decisions and to meet the challenge of developing systems that satisfy these demands, system developers need to achieve a better understanding of factors that ultimately lead to system usage. To enhance this understanding, we posit a holistic framework to examine several constructs suggested in the literature that lead to the behavioral intention to use an information system. Our framework includes situational involvement, intrinsic involvement, argument for change, perceived usefulness, ease of use, prior usage, and attitude constructs. We extend the Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which is founded on the Theory of Reasoned Action. A diverse sample from industry is used to test our model. Structural equation modeling is used to examine the entire pattern of intercorrelations among the constructs and to test related propositions. A hierarchical structure is used to compare the explanatory ability of TAM with our extension. Our model explains a large portion of the covariance among the constructs that lead to a user's behavioral intention to use an information system and compares favorably with TAM. The results indicate that (1) the direct effect of situational involvement on behavioral intention as well as attitude is significant in the negative direction, (2) attitude seems to play a mediating role, and (3) intrinsic involvement plays a significant role in shaping perceptions. Finally, we conclude that the user involvement construct needs to be separated into its psychological as well as its participative components for developers to understand its impact on the systems development process.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Bentler, P. M. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · Cited by 25,266
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Mathieson, K. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.173 · Cited by 4,216
User Involvement and MIS Success: A Review of Research
Ives, B., & Olson, M. H. (1984) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.30.5.586 · Cited by 1,318
Management Information Systems: Appreciation and Involvement
Swanson, E. B. (1974) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.21.2.178 · Cited by 529
Chaiken, S., & Stangor, C. (1987) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.38.020187.003043 · Cited by 518
Attitude-behavior relations: A comparison of the Fishbein-Ajzen and the Bentler-Speckart models
Fredricks, A. J., & Dossett, D. L. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.501 · Cited by 290
Cited by
Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/s0378-7206(01)00143-4 · Cited by 4,250
A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003 · Cited by 2,906
The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present, and Future
Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. T. (2003) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.01250 · Cited by 2,572
Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013
Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1 · Cited by 2,458
The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors
Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00183.x · Cited by 2,207
Metadata
- Authors
- Jackson, C. M., Chow, S., & Leitch, R. A.
- Venue
- Decision Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-04
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 357-389
- ISSN
- 0011-7315 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5915
- OpenAlex
- W2034338878
- Cited by
- 752
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 15.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.