A Psychological Model to Understand E-Adoption in the Context of the Digital Divide

The digital divide is often conceptualised as inequalities of access to technology. While access is obviously a precursor to technology use, research consistently shows that the digital divide is not explained simply by access to technology; apparent in the evidence of digital divides within communities of equitable wealth or within the same geographical location. This chapter acknowledges the interplay between psychological as well as socio-economic factors as important in the adoption of technology. Within this approach we construct a model based on the Technology Acceptance Model, the Theory of Planned Behaviour, Innovation Diffusion Theory, Hofstede’s culture framework, and Social Cognitive Theory. The framework for the model is based on a combination of an extension of the Technology Acceptance Model, Innovation Diffusion Theory, and Social Cognitive Theory. The underlying theoretical assumptions are based on Social Cognitive Theory. While some aspects of these individual theories have already been applied to understanding the digital divide, this chapter develops a more comprehensive psychological model of e-adoption than currently exists in the literature. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-1852-7.ch074

[1]  D. Meichenbaum.  Paying Homage: Providing Challenges , 1990 .

[2]  Donna Weaver McCloskey,et al.  Evaluating Electronic Commerce Acceptance with the Technology Acceptance Model , 2004, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

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

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

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

[6]  Steven W. Floyd,et al.  Towards modelling the effects of national culture on IT implementation and acceptance , 2001, J. Inf. Technol..

[7]  Albert L. Lederer,et al.  The technology acceptance model and the World Wide Web , 2000, Decis. Support Syst..

[8]  Jane M. Howell,et al.  Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization , 1991, MIS Q..

[9]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Model of Adoption and Technology in Households: A Baseline Model Test and Extension Incorporating Household Life Cycle , 2005, MIS Q..

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

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

[12]  Mark Warschauer,et al.  Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide , 2002, First Monday.

[13]  Maung K. Sein,et al.  Conceptualizing the ICT Artifact: Toward Understanding the Role of ICT in National Development , 2004, Inf. Soc..

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

[15]  Nan Yang,et al.  Mediated Quality: An Approach for the eLearning Quality in Higher Education , 2013, Int. J. Digit. Lit. Digit. Competence.

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

[17]  M. Fishbein,et al.  The Role of Theory in Developing Effective Health Communications , 2006 .

[18]  Cheolho Yoon,et al.  Convenience and TAM in a ubiquitous computing environment: The case of wireless LAN , 2007, Electron. Commer. Res. Appl..

[19]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  A Longitudinal Investigation of Personal Computers in Homes: Adoption Determinants and Emerging Challenges , 2001, MIS Q..

[20]  Ann E. Schlosser,et al.  The Evolution of the Digital Divide: How Gaps in Internet Access May Impact Electronic Commerce , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

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

[22]  V. Venkatesh,et al.  AGE DIFFERENCES IN TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION DECISIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR A CHANGING WORK FORCE , 2000 .

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

[24]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Why Don't Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior , 2000, MIS Q..

[25]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Gender Differences in the Perception and Use of E-Mail: An Extension to the Technology Acceptance Model , 1997, MIS Q..

[26]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  The Effect of Culture on IT Diffusion: E-Mail and FAX in Japan and the U.S , 1994, Inf. Syst. Res..

[27]  Diane M. Strong,et al.  Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs , 1999, Inf. Manag..

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

[29]  R. Rettie,et al.  Adoption and usage of M-commerce: a cross-cultural comparison of Hong Kong and the United Kingdom , 2005 .

[30]  Olivia R. Liu Sheng,et al.  Examining the Technology Acceptance Model Using Physician Acceptance of Telemedicine Technology , 1999, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

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

[32]  G. Hofstede.  The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories , 1983 .

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

[34]  Jen-Her Wu,et al.  What drives mobile commerce?: An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model , 2005, Inf. Manag..

[35]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Information Technology Adoption Across Time: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Pre-Adoption and Post-Adoption Beliefs , 1999, MIS Q..

[36]  Robert LaRose,et al.  Internet Self-Efficacy and the Psychology of the Digital Divide , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[37]  P. Musa.  Making a case for modifying the technology acceptance model to account for limited accessibility in developing countries , 2006 .

[38]  Maureen Diana Sasso.  Evolution of a Collaborative Undergraduate Information Literacy Education Program , 2005 .

[39]  Camillo Regalia,et al.  Longitudinal Impact of Perceived Self-Regulatory Efficacy on Violent Conduct , 2002 .

[40]  Antonio Cartelli,et al.  Frameworks for the Benchmarking of Digital and: Knowledge Management Best Practice In SME and Organizations , 2010, Int. J. Digit. Lit. Digit. Competence.

[41]  Arun Vishwanath,et al.  Comparing Online Information Effects , 2003, Commun. Res..

[42]  Naveen Donthu,et al.  Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics , 2006 .

[43]  Mary Ellen Oslick,et al.  “Gotta Love Technology!”: Pre-Service Teachers’ Transformation in a Blended Online Multicultural Literature Course , 2013 .

[44]  Orlando De Pietro.  Authentic and Situated Learning with the Use of an Adaptive Search Engine and a QR-Code in Mobile Mode , 2013, Int. J. Digit. Lit. Digit. Competence.

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

[46]  Stephanie Huffman,et al.  Technological Tools for the Literacy Classroom , 2013 .

[47]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  Extending the technology acceptance model: the influence of perceived user resources , 2001, DATB.

[48]  G. Hofstede.  The business of international business is culture , 1994 .

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

[50]  A Bandura,et al.  Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing transgressive behavior. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.