Is Usage Predictable Using Belief-Attitude- Intention Paradigm?

Introduction The benefits of information technology (IT) on individuals (Bernard, 2004; Leidner & Elam., 1993-94), groups(Leidner & Fuller, 1997) and organizations usage (Devaraj & Kohli., 2003) have driven information systems (IS) research for more than two decades. Numerous studies and articles have been published each year about individual acceptance of IT in different contexts. This important stream of research examines factors related to, among others, adoption, use, adaptation, diffusion, and appropriation of information technologies. Over the decades, various theories and paradigms have been proposed in order to get better understanding of individual acceptance behavior on IT. The technology acceptance model (TAM) one of the intention models, is perhaps the most widely applied theoretical model in IS research. The core formulation of TAM argues that an individual's system usage is determined by behavioral intention, which is, in turn, influenced by two beliefs: perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. Another dominant research model to understand user acceptance of technology is the theory of planned behavior (TPB). According to the TPB, behavioral intentions to perform a behavior are jointly determined by three factors: attitude toward the behavior, subjective norms (SN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC). Grounded in social psychology, TPB has been widely applied to diverse disciplines such as leisure behavior, marketing/consumer behavior and medicine (Ajzen, 1991). In the IS filed, researchers also found empirical support for predicting the intention on the adoption of new technologies by using TPB (e.g. Harrison, Mykytyn, & Riemenschneider, 1997; Taylor & Todd, 1995; Yi, Jackson, Park, & Probst, 2006). As research mainstream, substantial empirical studies have been conducted using this beliefs-attitudes-intention paradigm of human behavior extended from Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) the theory of reasoned action (TRA). Although TAM has been extensively used, very few studies (if any) have attempted to examine the model by using "actual system usage" rather than self-reported use. For instance, in the studies reported by Legris, Ingham, and Collerette (2003), only one study measures actual system usage (Taylor & Todd, 1995). The research of TPB also confronts a similar situation (e.g. Carswell & Venkatesh, 2002; Yi et al., 2006). Since most of the studies use self-reported usage, it can be argued that the power of TAM has yet to extend beyond the conceptual perceptions domain. In this study, we aim to explore the TAM with actual use as a construct. This is done within the context of e-learning. In order to get a holistic overview, we integrate the constructs of TAM and TPB, and include actual system usage records in our research model. Research Model and Hypotheses It is not surprising that a long list of theories and models that IS researchers have used to predict or explain factors influencing individual acceptance of information technologies. The TAM and the TPB are two of the most widely applied theoretical models in addressing concerns on individual decisions of IT adoption (Legris et al., 2003). Indeed, researchers also introduce effects of the holistic and positive user experience to expand the view on individual behavior towards learning activities (Choi, Kim, & Kim, 2006; Saade & Bahli, 2005). Figure 1 presents the research model for this study. Although several studies using TAM suggest that exclusion of attitude from the model (Venkatesh, 1999; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Yi et al., 2006), attitude towards the system has been identified as an essential determinant to behavioral intention, as described in the TPB. Indeed, in recent studies, attitude shows its effect on individual online acceptance behavior (Dinev & Hu, 2007; Heijden, 2003; Hsu & Lu, 2004; Lee, Cheung, & Chen, 2005; Moon & Kim, 2001; Saade, Nebebe, & Tan, 2007). …

[1]  Mun Y. Yi,et al.  Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: Toward an integrative view , 2006, Inf. Manag..

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

[3]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[4]  A. Adam Whatever happened to information systems ethics? Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea , 2004 .

[5]  Chin-Lung Hsu,et al.  Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience , 2004, Inf. Manag..

[6]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[7]  Matthew K. O. Lee,et al.  Acceptance of Internet-based learning medium: the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation , 2005, Inf. Manag..

[8]  I. Ajzen The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[9]  M. McCord,et al.  Technology Acceptance Model , 2007 .

[10]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Measuring System Usage: Implications for IS Theory Testing , 1995 .

[11]  Hans van der Heijden,et al.  Factors influencing the usage of websites: the case of a generic portal in The Netherlands , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[12]  Raafat George Saadé,et al.  The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: an extension of the technology acceptance model , 2005, Inf. Manag..

[13]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Creation of Favorable User Perceptions: Exploring the Role of Intrinsic Motivation , 1999, MIS Q..

[14]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[15]  John Ingham,et al.  Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[16]  Rajiv Kohli,et al.  Information Technology Payoff in the Health-Care Industry: A Longitudinal Study , 2000, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[17]  Qing Hu,et al.  The Centrality of Awareness in the Formation of User Behavioral Intention toward Protective Information Technologies , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[18]  David F. Larcker,et al.  Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics: , 1981 .

[19]  George A. Marcoulides,et al.  Modern methods for business research , 1998 .

[20]  David Gefen,et al.  Structural Equation Modeling Techniques and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice , 2000 .

[21]  Deborah Compeau,et al.  Social Cognitive Theory and Individual Reactions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal Study , 1999, MIS Q..

[22]  Alan D. Carswell,et al.  Learner outcomes in an asynchronous distance education environment , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[23]  Young-Gul Kim,et al.  Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context , 2000, Inf. Manag..

[24]  Mark A. Fuller,et al.  Improving student learning of conceptual information: GSS supported collaborative learning vs. individual constructive learning , 1997, Decis. Support Syst..

[25]  Elena Karahanna,et al.  Time Flies When You're Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs About Information Technology Usage , 2000, MIS Q..

[26]  Cynthia K. Riemenschneider,et al.  Executive Decisions About Adoption of Information Technology in Small Business: Theory and Empirical Tests , 1997, Inf. Syst. Res..

[27]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[28]  Dorothy Gilliland Elliott Executive information systems : their impact on executive decision making , 1992 .

[29]  Wynne W. Chin The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. , 1998 .

[30]  Soung Hie Kim,et al.  ERP training with a web-based electronic learning system: The flow theory perspective , 2007, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[31]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  A Practical Guide To Factorial Validity Using PLS-Graph: Tutorial And Annotated Example , 2005, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

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

[33]  Raafat George Saadé,et al.  Viability of the "Technology Acceptance Model" in Multimedia Learning Environments: A Comparative Study , 2007 .

[34]  Henry C. Lucas,et al.  Technology Use and Performance: A Field Study of Broker Workstations* , 1999 .