2007), such as TAM2 and TAM3. Compeau and Higgins
(1995) also suggested extending TAM by including computer
self-efficacy. To address the weakness and limitations of
TAM, Venkatesh and Davis (2000) extended the TAM model
to incorporate: (a) social influence concepts, for instance,
subjective norm and voluntariness, and (b) cognitive instrumental concepts, for instance, perceived ease of use, job relevance, and output quality. “The TAM2 model introduced a
social dimension to capture the influence of the end-user
environment” (Hadji & Degoulet, 2016). In TAM2, the
variables of perceived usefulness are perceived ease of use,
job relevance, subjective norm, image, result demonstrability,
and output quality. Experience and voluntariness are two
identified moderators. The TAM2 model suggests that perceived ease of use, usefulness, and subjective norms are significant variables of usage intentions (Vatanparast, 2010).
TAM explains approximately 40% of behavioral intention,
but TAM2 explains the behavioral intention of 10–20% more
of the variance than TAM (Davis et al., 1989) (Fig. 5.11).
5.3.10 TAM3
Venkatesh and Bala (2008) improved the TAM and TAM2
models to develop an integrated and comprehensive model.
The new model is called TAM3, which pinpoints the various
variables of acceptance and the use of new technology,
which were adopted from previous research on technology
adoption. With three extensions to TAM2, the constructs of
TAM2 for PU were joined with PEOU (Venkatesh & Davis,
2000) to develop the integrated model, that is, TAM3. This
new model (TAM3) was almost similar to TAM2, except
that it included an anchor and adjustment as external variables to describe perceived ease of use. The category
anchors included computer self-efficacy, perceptions of
external control, computer playfulness, and computer anxiety, whereas the category adjustment included objective
usability and perceived enjoyment (Venkatesh & Bala,
2008). Another difference was that the experience was the
moderator between two of the anchor factors, computer
anxiety and computer, as well as two adjustment variables,
that is objective usability and perceived enjoyment.
Although TAM3 is an enhanced version of previous models,
it is not considered in this study due to the following
drawbacks: TAM3 theory is a new theory and not enough
research has been published validating it. In TAM3 research,
all participants were drawn from financial services companies, accounting service companies, manufacturing companies, and international investment banking firms. All of the
contributors were staffs of non-academic organizations and
no participants were taken from educational institutions.
5.4 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use
of Technology (UTAUT)
Venkatesh et al. (2003) compared the conceptual and
empirical similarities of eight models of technology adoption
and developed a model that combines the most common
variables of all eight models (Diep, Cocquyt, Zhu, & Vanwing, 2016; Marques, Villate, & Carvalho, 2011; Mohammadyari & Singh, 2015; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis,
2003). The new model is referred to as a ‘unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology’ (De Wit, Heerwegh &
Fig. 5.10 Technology
acceptance model (Davis, 1989)
Fig. 5.11 Extension of the TAM–TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).
Source Venkatesh and Davis, ‘A Theoretical Extension’, 188
34
5 Technology Adoption Theories and Models
(1995) also suggested extending TAM by including computer
self-efficacy. To address the weakness and limitations of
TAM, Venkatesh and Davis (2000) extended the TAM model
to incorporate: (a) social influence concepts, for instance,
subjective norm and voluntariness, and (b) cognitive instrumental concepts, for instance, perceived ease of use, job relevance, and output quality. “The TAM2 model introduced a
social dimension to capture the influence of the end-user
environment” (Hadji & Degoulet, 2016). In TAM2, the
variables of perceived usefulness are perceived ease of use,
job relevance, subjective norm, image, result demonstrability,
and output quality. Experience and voluntariness are two
identified moderators. The TAM2 model suggests that perceived ease of use, usefulness, and subjective norms are significant variables of usage intentions (Vatanparast, 2010).
TAM explains approximately 40% of behavioral intention,
but TAM2 explains the behavioral intention of 10–20% more
of the variance than TAM (Davis et al., 1989) (Fig. 5.11).
5.3.10 TAM3
Venkatesh and Bala (2008) improved the TAM and TAM2
models to develop an integrated and comprehensive model.
The new model is called TAM3, which pinpoints the various
variables of acceptance and the use of new technology,
which were adopted from previous research on technology
adoption. With three extensions to TAM2, the constructs of
TAM2 for PU were joined with PEOU (Venkatesh & Davis,
2000) to develop the integrated model, that is, TAM3. This
new model (TAM3) was almost similar to TAM2, except
that it included an anchor and adjustment as external variables to describe perceived ease of use. The category
anchors included computer self-efficacy, perceptions of
external control, computer playfulness, and computer anxiety, whereas the category adjustment included objective
usability and perceived enjoyment (Venkatesh & Bala,
2008). Another difference was that the experience was the
moderator between two of the anchor factors, computer
anxiety and computer, as well as two adjustment variables,
that is objective usability and perceived enjoyment.
Although TAM3 is an enhanced version of previous models,
it is not considered in this study due to the following
drawbacks: TAM3 theory is a new theory and not enough
research has been published validating it. In TAM3 research,
all participants were drawn from financial services companies, accounting service companies, manufacturing companies, and international investment banking firms. All of the
contributors were staffs of non-academic organizations and
no participants were taken from educational institutions.
5.4 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use
of Technology (UTAUT)
Venkatesh et al. (2003) compared the conceptual and
empirical similarities of eight models of technology adoption
and developed a model that combines the most common
variables of all eight models (Diep, Cocquyt, Zhu, & Vanwing, 2016; Marques, Villate, & Carvalho, 2011; Mohammadyari & Singh, 2015; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis,
2003). The new model is referred to as a ‘unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology’ (De Wit, Heerwegh &
Fig. 5.10 Technology
acceptance model (Davis, 1989)
Fig. 5.11 Extension of the TAM–TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).
Source Venkatesh and Davis, ‘A Theoretical Extension’, 188
34
5 Technology Adoption Theories and Models