The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Veni, Vidi, Vici: Breaking the TAM Logjam
Abstract
Benbasat and Barki (2007) argue that TAM has been both a blessing and curse for the IS field and they detail reasons why this is the case. Our response to their critique is to highlight areas of agreement, disagree with one of their assertions, and extend their thinking along another, related line. Specifically, we agree that some TAM constructs, namely perceived usefulness and system usage, need to be more closely examined in order to break up the "black box" portrayal of these concepts. Our view of Benbasat and Barki's characterization of TAM as unassailable is that common methods bias has never been well tested and that TAM linkages may in fact be methodological artifacts. Finally, it is argued that the field desperately needs more parsimony in TAM models and that meta-analysis is one good way of achieving this goal.
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
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model
Szajna, B. (1996) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.42.1.85 · Cited by 1,656
Information System Success: Individual and Organizational Determinants
Sabherwal, R., Jeyaraj, A., & Chowa, C. (2006) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0583 · Cited by 685
The Technology Acceptance Model: A Meta-Analysis of Empirical Findings
Ma, Q., & Liu, L. (2004) · Journal of Organizational and End User Computing · doi:10.4018/joeuc.2004010104 · Cited by 660
What do data really mean? Research findings, meta-analysis, and cumulative knowledge in psychology.
Schmidt, F. L. (1992) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.47.10.1173 · Cited by 564
Cited by
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41410412 · Cited by 15,756
Organizational impact of system quality, information quality, and service quality
Gorla, N., Somers, T. M., & Wong, B. (2010) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2010.05.001 · Cited by 965
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., Chan, F. K. Y., Hu, P. J.-H., & Brown, S. A. (2011) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00373.x · Cited by 852
Polites, G. L., & Karahanna, E. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2012/36.1.02 · Cited by 215
Predicting collaboration technology use: integrating technology adoption and collaboration research
Brown, S. A., Dennis, A. R., & Venkatesh, V. (2010) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222270201 · Cited by 592
Metadata
- Authors
- Georgia State University, U., Straub, D., Burton-Jones, A., & University of British Columbia
- Venue
- Journal of the Association for Information Systems
- Publisher
- Association for Information Systems
- Published
- 2007-04
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 223-229
- ISSN
- 1536-9323 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2123276406
- Cited by
- 234
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 32.39
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Veni, Vidi, Vici: Breaking the TAM Logjam. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.17705/1jais.00124
- The paper
- Georgia State University, U., Straub, D., Burton-Jones, A., & University of British Columbia. (2007). Veni, Vidi, Vici: Breaking the TAM Logjam. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00124
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.
