Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,545

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Model of Adoption of Technology in Households: A Baseline Model Test and Extension Incorporating Household Life Cycle1

Brown, Susan A., Venkatesh, Viswanath·2005·MIS Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/25148690
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Individual adoption of technology has been studied extensively in the workplace. Far less attention has been paid to adoption of technology in the household. In this paper, we performed the first quantitative test of the recently developed model of adoption of technology in households (MATH). Further, we proposed and tested a theoretical extension of MATH by arguing that key demographic characteristics that vary across different life cycle stages would play moderating roles. Survey responses were collected from 746 U.S. households that had not yet adopted a personal computer. The results showed that the integrated model, including MATH constructs and life cycle characteristics, explained 74 percent of the variance in intention to adopt a PC for home use, a significant increase over baseline MATH that explained 50 percent of the variance. Finally, we compared the importance of various factors across household life cycle stages and gained a more refined understanding of the moderating role of household life cycle stage.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/25148690

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 11 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V.
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2005-09-01
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
399-426
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
DOI
10.2307/25148690
OpenAlex
W2099702286
Cited by
1,545
References
11
FWCI
52.08
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

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.