Are Individual Differences Germane to the Acceptance of New Information Technologies

Persuading users to adopt new information technologies persists as an important problem confronting those responsible for implementing new information systems. In order to better understand and manage the process of new technology adoption, several theoretical models have been proposed, of which the technology acceptance model (TAM) has gained considerable support. Beliefs and attitudes represent significant constructs in TAM. A parallel research stream suggests that individual difference factors are important in information technology acceptance but does not explicate the process by which acceptance is influenced. The objective of this paper is to clarify this process by proposing a theoretical model wherein the relationship between individual differences and IT acceptance is hypothesized to be mediated by the constructs of the technology acceptance model. In essence then, these factors are viewed as influencing an individual's beliefs about an information technology innovation; this relationship is further supported by drawing upon extensive research in learning. The theoretical model was tested in an empirical study of 230 users of an information technology innovation. Results confirm the basic structure of the model, including the mediating role of beliefs. Results also identify several individual difference variables that have significant effects on TAM's beliefs. Theoretical contributions and practical implications that follow are discussed.

[1]  Maryam Alavi,et al.  Revisiting DSS Implementation Research: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature and Suggestions for Researchers , 1992, MIS Q..

[2]  R. Zmud.  Diffusion of Modern Software Practices: Influence of Centralization and Formalization , 1982 .

[3]  Deborah Compeau,et al.  Application of Social Cognitive Theory to Training for Computer Skills , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[4]  P. Bentler,et al.  Comparative fit indexes in structural models. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[5]  Edward J. Lusk,et al.  The Effect of Cognitive Style and Report Format on Task Performance: The MIS Design Consequences , 1979 .

[6]  Magid Igbaria,et al.  A Path Analytic Study of Individual Characteristics, Computer Anxiety and Attitudes toward Microcomputers , 1989 .

[7]  Lorne Olfman,et al.  The Importance of Learning Style in End-User Training , 1990, MIS Q..

[8]  Jane M. Howell,et al.  Influence of Experience on Personal Computer Utilization: Testing a Conceptual Model , 1994, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[9]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test† , 1996 .

[10]  Lorne Olfman,et al.  Training End Users To Compute: Cognitive, Motivational And Social Issues , 1987 .

[11]  Bernadette Szajna,et al.  Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model , 1996 .

[12]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[13]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Impact of Cognitive Styles on Information System Design , 1978, MIS Q..

[14]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[15]  Robert A. Stine,et al.  An Introduction to Bootstrap Methods , 1989 .

[16]  L. Doob,et al.  The behavior of attitudes. , 1947, Psychological review.

[17]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication , 1992, MIS Q..

[18]  Gerardine L DeSanctis,et al.  An examination of an expectancy theory model of decision support system use , 1982 .

[19]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[20]  T. Levin,et al.  Effect of Gender and Computer Experience on Attitudes toward Computers , 1989 .

[21]  R. Zmud.  INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND MIS SUCCESS: A REVIEW OF THE EMPIRICAL LITERATURE* , 1979 .

[22]  Kieran Mathieson,et al.  Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[23]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[24]  R. Kelly Rainer,et al.  The Influence of Individual Differences on Skill in End-User Computing , 1992, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[25]  Debra L. Nelson,et al.  Individual Adjustment to Information-Driven Technologies: A Critical Review , 1990, MIS Q..

[26]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  Training End Users: An Experimental Investigation of the Roles of the Computer Interface and Training Methods , 1993, MIS Q..

[27]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Prediction of goal directed behaviour: Attitudes, intentions and perceived behavioural control , 1986 .

[28]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable , 1992, Inf. Syst. Res..

[29]  Robert E. Umbaugh.  AUBREY G. CHERNICK , 1992 .

[30]  Ann Majchrzak,et al.  A Longitudinal Study of Adjustment to Technological Change: From Mass To Computer-Automated Batch Production , 1988 .

[31]  Fred D. Davis.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts , 1993, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[32]  B. K. Blaylock,et al.  COGNITIVE STYLE AND THE USEFULNESS OF INFORMATION , 1984 .

[33]  James F. Courtney,et al.  A Field Study of Organizational Factors Influencing DSS Success , 1985, MIS Q..

[34]  C. R. Franz,et al.  ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT, USER INVOLVEMENT, AND THE USEFULNESS OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS* , 1986 .

[35]  Cynthia M. Jackson,et al.  Toward an Understanding of the Behavioral Intention to Use an Information System , 1997 .

[36]  Dale Goodhue,et al.  Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance , 1995, MIS Q..

[37]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Cognitive Fit: A Theory‐Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature* , 1991 .

[38]  Gary S. Nickell,et al.  The computer attitude scale , 1986 .

[39]  Urs E. Gattiker,et al.  Computer Skills Acquisition: A Review and Future Directions for Research , 1992 .

[40]  S. Mulaik,et al.  EVALUATION OF GOODNESS-OF-FIT INDICES FOR STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELS , 1989 .

[41]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[42]  G. Huber.  Cognitive Style as a Basis for MIS and DSS Designs: Much ADO About Nothing? , 1983 .

[43]  Thomas C. Kinnear,et al.  Individual Differences and Marketing Decision Support System Usage and Satisfaction , 1987 .

[44]  Dave Mandelkern,et al.  GUIs: the next generation , 1993, CACM.

[45]  Keith J. Holyoak,et al.  The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer. , 1987 .

[46]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  Testing the Determinants of Microcomputer Usage via a Structural Equation Model , 1995, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[47]  C. Staats,et al.  Attitudes established by classical conditioning. , 1958, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[48]  Jean Scholtz,et al.  Learning second and subsequent programming languages: A problem of transfer , 1990, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[49]  Lorne Olfman,et al.  Conceptual Versus Procedural Software Training for Graphical User Interfaces: A Longitudinal Field Experiment , 1994, MIS Q..

[50]  Donna F. Davis,et al.  The Effect of Training Techniques and Personal Characteristics on Training End Users of Information Systems , 1990, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..