Technology use within meetings: a generational perspective

Purpose This paper aims to examine generational formative referents as factors that influence meeting attendees’ adoption and technology use within virtual and hybrid meetings, and test the applicability of the technology acceptance model (TAM) as presented by Davis (1986). This study investigates how attendees’ experiences from their respective formative years (i.e. generational formative referents), the basis of the Generational Cohort Theory (GCT), influence the TAM model constructs. Design/methodology/approach A partial least squares analysis test is utilized to determine technology acceptance within meetings across three generations: Baby Boomers (1946-1964), Generation X (1965-1978) and Generation Y (1979-2000). Findings The multi-group comparison determined all three generations responded similarly with regard to the paths being tested, indicating each of the three generational cohorts within this study are influenced by the experiences of their formative years, which are different for each generation. Research limitations/implications The findings add to the limited foundation for scholars wanting to further analyze technology use within meetings, and for those interested in generational influences. Practical implications This study provides useful information for marketers and planners to increase meeting attendance, enhance attendee satisfaction, and further explore meeting engagement opportunities. Originality/value Underpinning the GCT, this study is the first within hospitality and tourism studies to investigate a theoretical model on generational technology use within meetings.

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

[2]  Abdel Elah Al-Ayyoub,et al.  Students' Decisions to Use an eLearning System: A Structural Equation Modelling Analysis , 2009, Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn..

[3]  J. Kandampully,et al.  Generation Y's dining information seeking and sharing behavior on social networking sites: An exploratory study , 2014 .

[4]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Quo vadis TAM? , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[5]  Tena B. Crews,et al.  Identifying best practices, opportunities and barriers in meeting planning for Generation Y , 2014 .

[6]  Tena B. Crews,et al.  Virtual and Hybrid Meetings for Generation X: Using the Delphi Method to Determine Best Practices, Opportunities, and Barriers , 2014 .

[7]  James C. Anderson,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACH , 1988 .

[8]  Arvid O. I. Hoffmann,et al.  The impact of fraud prevention on bank-customer relationships: an empirical investigation in retail banking , 2012 .

[9]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[10]  Dae-Young Kim,et al.  A Study on American Meeting Planners' Attitudes toward and Adoption of Technology in the Workplace , 2009 .

[11]  Fred D. Davis A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems : theory and results , 1985 .

[12]  K. Severt,et al.  Information Communication Technologies: Usages and Preferences of Generation Y Students and Meeting Professionals , 2013 .

[13]  Lu Zhang,et al.  The effect of power and gender on technology acceptance , 2014 .

[14]  K. Severt,et al.  A Comparison of Motivators and Inhibitors for Association Meeting Attendance for Three Generational Cohorts , 2009 .

[15]  Rex B. Kline,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling , 1998 .

[16]  Namkee Park,et al.  University Instructors' Acceptance of Electronic Courseware: An Application of the Technology Acceptance Model , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[17]  Dianne Gardner,et al.  Generational differences at work: introduction and overview , 2008 .

[18]  Kathryn Hashimoto,et al.  An Investigation of Technological Uses by Different Generations As It Relates to Meetings and Events: A Pilot Study , 2011 .

[19]  Jijie Wang,et al.  Information technology (IT) in Saudi Arabia: Culture and the acceptance and use of IT , 2007, Inf. Manag..

[20]  Ailsa Williams,et al.  Marketing to the generations , 2009 .

[21]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

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

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

[24]  S. Hewlett,et al.  How Gen Y and Boomers will reshape your agenda. , 2009, Harvard business review.

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

[26]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet , 2011 .

[27]  Faizan Ali,et al.  Factors affecting acceptance & use of ReWIND: Validating the extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology , 2015, Interact. Technol. Smart Educ..

[28]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: three experiments , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

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

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

[32]  Marjan Hericko,et al.  A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[33]  N. Ryder The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. , 1965, American sociological review.

[34]  H. Winklhofer,et al.  Applying the technology acceptance model to the online retailing of financial services , 2006 .

[35]  Wynne W. Chin Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling by , 2009 .

[36]  Peter Reilly,et al.  Understanding and Teaching Generation Y. , 2012 .

[37]  Jen-Her Wu,et al.  Mobile computing acceptance factors in the healthcare industry : A structural equation model , 2006 .

[38]  D. M. Pearlman,et al.  Hosting Business Meetings and Special Events in Virtual Worlds: A Fad or the Future? , 2010 .

[39]  Alastair M. Morrison,et al.  Factors Affecting Organizational Information Technology Acceptance: A Comparison of Convention and Visitor Bureaus and Meeting Planners in the United States , 2011 .

[40]  Debra Ann Grace,et al.  Travel Decision Making , 2013 .

[41]  R. Law,et al.  Progress on information and communication technologies in hospitality and tourism , 2014 .

[42]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research , 2014 .

[43]  Anil Bilgihan,et al.  Innovation in hospitality and tourism industries , 2015 .

[44]  H. Winklhofer,et al.  Index Construction with Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development , 2001 .

[45]  F. Ali,et al.  An Integrated Model of Service Experience, Emotions, Satisfaction, and Price Acceptance: An Empirical Analysis in the Chinese Hospitality Industry , 2016 .

[46]  Vincent S. Lai,et al.  Prediction of Internet and World Wide Web usage at work: a test of an extended Triandis model , 2000, Decis. Support Syst..

[47]  Michel Tenenhaus,et al.  PLS path modeling , 2005, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..