How Individual Differences Influence Technology Usage Behavior? Toward an Integrated Framework

Previous studies suggest that individual differences have main effects on technology use and that they also interact with perceptions about technologies to influence technology use. However, few studies examine both effects simultaneously and thus prior research offers only a partial glimpse of the whole picture. The purpose of this study is to incorporate individual differences into TAM and examine the two effects simultaneously. Online survey method was used to collect data. Results from quantitative analyses indicate that individual differences may influence technology use directly or indirectly via perceptions and that they may also moderate the relationships between perceptions and technology use. Based on the findings, we proposed an integrated framework, which suggests that individual differences influence technology use in multiple ways. Such a framework offers a comprehensive understanding of how individual differences influence technology use and thus provides a foundation on which research models can be theorized and empirically validated.

[1]  James C. McElroy,et al.  Attitudinal and Behavioral Correlates of Computer Anxiety , 1986 .

[2]  Jason Bennett Thatcher,et al.  An Empirical Examination of Individual Traits as Antecedents to Computer Anxiety and Computer Self-Efficacy , 2002, MIS Q..

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

[4]  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..

[5]  A. Parasuraman,et al.  Technology Readiness Index (Tri) , 2000 .

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

[7]  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..

[8]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience , 1995 .

[9]  Mark Srite,et al.  Individual differences and relative advantage: the case of GSS , 2002, Decis. Support Syst..

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

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

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

[13]  Bo K. Wong,et al.  The Impact of Power Distance on Email Acceptance: Evidence from the PRC , 2003, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Bassam Hasan,et al.  An Empirical Examination of a Model of Computer Learning Performance , 2004, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[15]  Anol Bhattacherjee,et al.  Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model , 2001, MIS Q..

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

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

[18]  Charles D. Barrett.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[19]  Chang Liu,et al.  Technology acceptance model for wireless Internet , 2003, Internet Res..

[20]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  Are Individual Differences Germane to the Acceptance of New Information Technologies , 1999 .

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

[22]  Dahui Li,et al.  The Effect of Affiliation Motivation on the Intention to Use Groupware in an MBA Program , 2004, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[23]  Gary Hackbarth,et al.  Computer playfulness and anxiety: positive and negative mediators of the system experience effect on perceived ease of use , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[24]  B. Lakhanpal,et al.  Assessing the factors related to microcomputer usage by middle managers , 1994 .

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

[26]  Traci Carte,et al.  In Pursuit of Moderation: Nine Common Errors and Their Solutions , 2003, MIS Q..

[27]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic - Mail Emotion/Adoption Study , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[28]  R. Kelly Rainer,et al.  Complexity and Control as Determinants of Performance with Information Technology Innovations , 2003, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[29]  M. Reuchlin,et al.  DIFFERENTIAL PSYCHOLOGY , 1966 .

[30]  HartzelKathleen.  How self-efficacy and gender issues affect software adoption and use , 2003 .

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

[32]  R. Bagozzi,et al.  An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: Moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors , 2002 .

[33]  Roy M. Bohlin,et al.  Teacher Education Students’ Attitudes Toward Using Computers , 1993 .

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

[35]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

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

[37]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology , 1998, Inf. Syst. Res..

[38]  Geoffrey A. Moore.  Crossing the chasm : marketing and selling high-tech products to mainstream customers , 1999 .

[39]  Kathleen S. Hartzel.  How self-efficacy and gender issues affect software adoption and use , 2003, CACM.