Cited by 2,891Technology Adoption and User BehaviourGender and Technology in EducationInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Assessing IT Usage: The Role of Prior Experience

Taylor, Shirley, Todd, Peter·1995·MIS Quarterly

Abstract

A variety of models that incorporate attitudinal, social, and control factor have been advanced to explain IT usage, of which the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is the most well know. One goal of such models is to develop diagnostic tools to predict information systems acceptance and facilitate design changes before users have experience with a system. However, empirical tests of these models have generally focused on either systems that were already in use by the study participants, or systems that the participants were familiar with, such as word processing packages and spreadsheets. Given this, it is unclear (1) whether models such as TAM are predictive of behavior for inexperienced users and, more importantly, (2) whether the determinants of IT usage are the same for experienced and inexperiened users of a system.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/249633

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Subjective norms tend to be more influential during early stages of innovation implementation when users have limited direct experience from which to develop attitudes.

    “Subjective norms tend to be more influential during early stages of innovation implementation when users have limited direct experience from which to develop attitudes (Taylor and Todd, 1995).”

    From An Analysis of Factors Affecting on Online Shopping Behavior of Consumers (2012) · cites this paper as Taylor and Todd, 1995

  • The role of intention as a predictor of behavior is well established in the literature.

    “The role of intention as a predictor of behavior is well established in the literature (e.g. Sheppard etal. 1988; Taylor and Todd 1995).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taylor, S., & Todd, P.
Affiliations
Queen's University (CA)
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
1995-12-01
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
561-570
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
OpenAlex
W1503436739
Cited by
2,891
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 107 · 2023: 109 · 2022: 130 · 2021: 157 · 2020: 124 · 2019: 132 · 2018: 137 · 2017: 110 · 2016: 128 · 2015: 175 · 2014: 182 · 2013: 147 · 2012: 156
FWCI
19.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
information technology use, technology acceptance model, prior experience, user experience, user behavior prediction, inexperienced users, social influence, controlling factors, attitudinal factors

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