CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6,664Technology Adoption and User BehaviourUsability and User Interface DesignGender and Technology in Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 139 of the 141 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model

Open access
Venkatesh, Viswanath·2000·Information Systems Research
DOI 10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Much previous research has established that perceived ease of use is an important factor influencing user acceptance and usage behavior of information technologies. However, very little research has been conducted to understand how that perception forms and changes over time. The current work presents and tests an anchoring and adjustment-based theoretical model of the determinants of system-specific perceived ease of use. The model proposes control (internal and external—conceptualized as computer self-efficacy and facilitating conditions, respectively), intrinsic motivation (conceptualized as computer playfulness), and emotion (conceptualized as computer anxiety) as anchors that determine early perceptions about the ease of use of a new system. With increasing experience, it is expected that system-specific perceived ease of use, while still anchored to the general beliefs regarding computers and computer use, will adjust to reflect objective usability, perceptions of external control specific to the new system environment, and system-specific perceived enjoyment. The proposed model was tested in three different organizations among 246 employees using three measurements taken over a three-month period. The proposed model was strongly supported at all points of measurement, and explained up to 60% of the variance in system-specific perceived ease of use, which is twice as much as our current understanding. Important theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872

Cites

139 of 139 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

Show all 141 references

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Chin W. W., 1996, Admin. Sci. Assoc. Canada-24th Conf., IS Division Proc., 65
  2. Chin W. W., 1996, Proc. 17th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems
  3. Compeau D. R., 1992, Individual Reactions to Computer Technology
  4. 10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Elasmar M. G., 1996, J. Mass Comm. Ed., 51, 46
  6. Malone T. W., 1981, Byte, 6, 258
  7. 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1994.tb01840.x · DOI
  8. 10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.843 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Slovic P., 1971, Organ. Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 641
  10. 10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.895 · DOI
  11. Todd P., 1993, INFOR, 31, 1
  12. 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb01822.x · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.2307/3150927 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 6,664

Related

Metadata

Authors
Venkatesh, V.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, College Park (US)
Corresponding author
Venkatesh, Viswanath
ORCID
Venkatesh, Viswanath
Venue
Information Systems Research
Publisher
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
Published
2000-12
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
342-365
ISSN
  • 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5536
DOI
10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872
OpenAlex
W2166982098
Cited by
6,664
References
141
Citations by year
2026: 229 · 2025: 337 · 2024: 343 · 2023: 418 · 2022: 464 · 2021: 439 · 2020: 344 · 2019: 361 · 2018: 299 · 2017: 297 · 2016: 345 · 2015: 342 · 2014: 365 · 2013: 327 · 2012: 302
FWCI
117.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Information Systems Research (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
Keywords
perceived ease of use, technology acceptance model, anchoring and adjustment, computer self-efficacy, facilitating conditions, intrinsic motivation, computer playfulness, computer anxiety, emotions, perceived enjoyment, user acceptance, employee technology use

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