CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 818Technology Adoption and User BehaviourInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationGender and Technology in Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 134 of the 134 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Moving Beyond Intentions and Toward The Theory of Trying: Effects of Work Environment and Gender on Post-Adoption Information Technology Use1

Ahuja, Manju K., Bennett, Jason·2005·MIS Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/25148691
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Grounded in the theory of trying, this study examines the influence of the work environment and gender on trying to innovate with information technology. The study extends the innovation diffusion literature by offering a theory-driven explanation for examining trying to innovate with IT and a parsimonious measure for this construct. Drawing on the theory of reasoned action, we argue that work environment impediments render intentions inadequate for examining post-adoption IT use. Instead of examining intentions, we introduce the goal-based construct of trying to innovate with IT as an appropriate dependent variable for examining post-adoption IT use. Statistical analysis supports the reliability and validity of a parsimonious measure of trying to innovate with IT. The study focuses on two research questions. First, do perceptions of the work environment such as overload and autonomy influence individuals’ trying to innovate with IT? Second, does gender influence the relationship between perceptions of the environment and trying to innovate with IT? The model articulates how perceptions of the environment moderated by gender may influence trying to innovate with IT. Results provide evidence that overload and autonomy are antecedents to trying to innovate with information technology. Further, findings confirm that autonomy interacts with overload to determine trying to innovate with IT and that these relationships vary by gender. Implications for research and practice are offered.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/25148691

Cites

134 of 134 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 133 references

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Agarwal, 2000, Individual Acceptance of Information Technologies, 85
  2. Barclay, 1995, The Partial Least Squares (PLS) Approach to Causal Modeling: Personal Computer Adoption and Use an Illustration, Technology Studies, 2, 285
  3. Camman, 1979, The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire
  4. Chin, 1998, The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling, 295
  5. Clarke, 1992, Strategies for Involving Girls in Computer Science, 71
  6. Cohen, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
  7. Fullerton, 2001, Labor Force Projections to 2010: Steady Growth and Changing Composition, Monthly Labor Review, 21
  8. Goff, 2001, Balancing Acts, Computerworld, 35, 49
  9. Hackman, 1975, Work Redesign
  10. Hofstede, 1991, Organizations and Cultures: Software of the Mind
  11. ITAA, 2000, Building the 21st Century Information Technology Work Force: Underrepresented Groups in the Information Technology Workforce
  12. Kahn, 1994, Stress in Organizations, 571
  13. Kahn, 1964, Organizational Stress: Studies in Conflict
  14. King, 2003, On-the-Fly IT, Computerworld, 37, 35
  15. Linn, 1982, Ability Testing: Individual Differences, Prediction, and Differential Prediction, 355
  16. Maitland, 2001, A Long-Term Solution to the ITSkills Shortage, Financial Times, 9
  17. Oakley, 1972, Sex, Gender and Society
  18. Seashore, 1982, Observing and Measuring Organizational Change: A Guide to Field Practice
  19. Sejwacz, 1980, Predicting and Understanding Weight Loss: Intentions, Behaviors, and Outcomes, 101
  20. Simon, 1957, Administrative Behavior
  21. Smith, 1986, Relationships of Computer Attitudes to Sex, Grade Level, and Teacher Influence, Education, 106, 338
  22. Stone-Romero, 1988, Moderator Variables in Research: A Review and Analysis of Conceptual and Methodological Issues, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 191

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 818

Related

Metadata

Authors
Ahuja, M. K., & Bennett, J.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
  • Department of Management, College of Business and Behavioral Science, Clemson University, 101 Sirrine Hall, Clemson, SC 29634-1305, U.S.A.
ORCID
Ahuja, Manju K.
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2005-09-01
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
427-460
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
DOI
10.2307/25148691
OpenAlex
W1758167268
Cited by
818
References
133
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 42
FWCI
55.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
Keywords
work environment, gender differences, IT innovation, employee autonomy, diffusion of innovations, theory of reasoned action, moderating effect

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