CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 119Technology Adoption and User BehaviourInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationERP Systems Implementation and Impact

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A conceptual model integrating trust into planned change activities to enhance technology adoption behavior

Lippert, Susan K., Davis, Miles·2006·Journal of Information Science
DOI 10.1177/0165551506066042
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Trillions of dollars are annually spent on the development and implementation of information technology within the United States and around the world. On average, roughly 50% of such systems are considered failures or fall short of meeting the expectations set forth by management. The lost productivity and high costs associated with these shortcomings necessitate the identification of alternative frameworks for facilitating the successful acceptance and continued internalization of new technologies. Internalization is defined as the effective and continued use of a technology over time. As such, this paper introduces a conceptual model for examining the effect of trust and planned change initiatives on technology adoption behavior. We propose that technology trust and interpersonal trust, when coupled with planned change initiatives, lead to greater technology adoption and internalization. A series of propositions are introduced and examined between trust, planned change, technology adoption, and internalization. Implications and recommendations for future explorations and development are presented.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0165551506066042

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. B. Gomolski, 2004, IT Spending and Profitability: What the Numbers Show
  2. U.S. Government Accounting Office, 2003, Contracting for Information Technology
  3. Standish Group, 1994, The CHAOS Report
  4. R. Agarwal, 1998, Decision Sciences, 22, 15
  5. 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335 · DOI · Paper page
  6. C. Argyris, 1985, Action Science
  7. 10.2307/258786 · DOI · Paper page
  8. K. Lewin, 1951, Field Theory in the Social Sciences
  9. D.E. Denning, Proceedings of the 1993 Association for Computing Management SIGSAC on New Security Paradigms Workshop, 36
  10. Gartner Group, 2003, IT Spending: How do You Stack Up?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 119

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lippert, S. K., & Davis, M.
Affiliations
  • Drexel University (US)
  • Shenandoah University (US)
Venue
Journal of Information Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2006-10
Volume
32
Issue
5
Pages
434-448
ISSN
  • 0165-5515 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-6485
DOI
10.1177/0165551506066042
OpenAlex
W2167860992
Cited by
119
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
7.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Journal of Information Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › ERP Systems Implementation and Impact
Keywords
trust in technology, interpersonal trust, planned change, technology adoption, organizational change, information technology implementation, conceptual model

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