Cited by 140Technology Adoption and User BehaviourGender and Technology in EducationInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Technology acceptance research: Meta-analysis

Open access
Marikyan, Davit, Papagiannidis, Savvas, Stewart, Gavin·2026·Journal of Information Science

Abstract

Rapid digitalisation has resulted in a literature about technology acceptance that is ever increasing in size, naturally creating debates about the developments in the field and their implications. Given the size of the literature and the range of factors, theories and applications considered, this article reviewed the relevant literature using a meta-analytical approach. The objective of this review was twofold: (a) to provide a comprehensive analysis of the factors contributing to technology acceptance and investigate their effects, depending on theoretical underpinnings, and (b) to explore the conditions explaining the variance in the effects of predictors time-, application- and journal-wise. This review analysed data from 693 papers. A total of 21 independent predictors having differential effects on attitude, intention and use behaviour were found. The effects of the predictors were different depending on the theoretical frameworks they were related to. The analysis of the consistency of the role of the predictors suggested that there was no longitudinal change in their effect sizes. However, a significant variance was found when comparing predictors across research applications and the journals in which the papers were published. The analysis of publication bias demonstrated a tendency to publish studies with significant results, although no evidence was found of p -value manipulation.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/01655515231191177

Cites

154 of 154 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. [16][16] Lee Y, Kozar KA and Larsen KR. The technology acceptance model: past, present, and future. Commun Assoc Inform Syst 2003; 12: 50. -
  2. [22][22] Marikyan D and Papagiannidis S. Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: a review . Newcastle upon Tyne: Business School, Newcastle University, 2021. -
  3. [23][23] Marikyan D and Papagiannidis S. Technology acceptance model: a review . Newcastle upon Tyne: TheoryHub, 2022. -
  4. [27][27] Tamilmani K, Rana NP, Dwivedi Y et al. Exploring the role of 'price value' for understanding consumer adoption of technology: a review and meta-analysis of UTAUT2 based empirical studies. In: Proceedings of the PACIS 2018 , https://aisel.aisnet. org/pacis2018/64/ -
  5. [33][33] Cavus N, Omonayajo B and Mutizwa MR. Technology acceptance model and learning management systems: systematic literature review. Int J Interact Mob Technol 2022; 17: 36223. -
  6. [39][39] Tao D. Intention to use and actual use of electronic information resources: further exploring technology acceptance model (TAM). AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2009; 2009: 629-633. -
  7. [52][52] Kumar A, Sikdar P and Alam MM. E-retail adoption in emerging markets: applicability of an integrated trust and technology acceptance model. Int J eBus Res 2016; 12: 44-67. -
  8. [59][59] Hasan A, Biswas C, Roy M et al. The applicability of theory of planned behaviour to predict domestic tourist behavioural intention: the case of Bangladesh. Geoj Tour Geosite 2020; 31: 1019-1026. -
  9. [73][73] Heinsch M, Wyllie J, Carlson J et al. Theories informing eHealth implementation: systematic review and typology classification. J Med Intern Res 2021; 23: e18500. -
  10. [76][76] Blut M, Chong A, Tsiga Z et al. Meta-analysis of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): challenging its validity and charting a research agenda in the Red Ocean. J Assoc Inform Syst 2022; 23: 13-95. -
  11. [83][83] Al-Rahmi WM, Alias N, Othman MS et al. Social media use, collaborative learning and students' academic performance: a systematic literature review of theoretical models. J Theor Appl Inform Technol 2017; 95: 5399-5414. -
  12. [84][84] Williams M, Rana N, Dwivedi Y et al. Is UTAUT really used or just cited for the sake of it? A systematic review of citations of UTAUT's originating article , 2011, ww.researchgate.net/publication/221408168\_Is\_UTAUT\_really\_used\_or\_just\_cited\_for\_the\_ sake\_of\_it\_a\_systematic\_review\_of\_citations\_of\_UTAUT's\_originating\_article -
  13. [94][94] Mangalaraj G, Jeyaraj A and Prater E. Differential effects on assimilation stages for supply chain management information systems. J Comput Inform Syst 2017; 60: 1-15. -
  14. [100][100] Croom S. Introduction to research methodology in operations management. Res Oper Manage 2009; 2009: 43-83. -
  15. [132][132] Li YH and Huang JW. Applying theory of perceived risk and technology acceptance model in the online shopping channel. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 2009; 53: 919-925. -
  16. [135][135] Park SY. An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students' behavioral intention to use elearning. J Educ Technol Soc 2009; 12: 150-162. -
  17. [145][145] Baldinger AL and Rubinson J. Brand loyalty: the link between attitude and behavior. J Ad Res 1996; 36: 22-35. -
  18. [157][157] Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. Handb Moral Behav Develop 1991; 1: 45-103. -
  19. [160][160] Ro ¨cker C. Why traditional technology acceptance models won't work for future information technologies. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 2010; 65: 237-243. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marikyan, D., Papagiannidis, S., & Stewart, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Marikyan, Davit
Venue
Journal of Information Science
Published
2023-08-10
Volume
52
Issue
2
Pages
429-450
ISSN
  • 0165-5515 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-6485
OpenAlex
W4385724764
Cited by
140
References
154
Citations by year
2026: 54 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 1
FWCI
36.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Information Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
technology acceptance, technology acceptance model, user attitudes, user intention, effect size heterogeneity, publication bias, digitalization

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