ipl-logo

Summary: The Technology Acceptance Model

777 Words4 Pages

are also included in the TPB. We will now introduce the third construct.
Perceived behavioral control is defined as,
“The resources and opportunities available to a person must to some extent dictate the likelihood of behavioral achievement. Of greater psychological interest than actual control, however, is the perception of behavioral control and is impact on intentions and actions. Perceived behavioral control plays an important part in the theory of planned behavior. In fact, the theory of planned behavior differs from the theory of reasoned action in its addition of perceived behavioral control.” (Ajzen I. , 1991, p. 183). Ajzen adds that in this construct control beliefs determine intention and action. He also noted, “The more resources …show more content…

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is by far one of the most frequently cited articles about predicting the usage of technology by a given set of individuals in various fields. The following part will include the basic studies, in addition to some extensions and replications of the model in various fields.
4.5 The Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989)
Davis first introduced the technology acceptance model in 1986 , as an adaptation of the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), to predict information system usage. It aims at providing an explanation of the antecedents to acceptance and use of computers and related technologies in a wide range of technological areas.
TAM has been used to trace the impact of external factors on beliefs, attitudes, and intentions by identifying a limited number of variables suggested by previous research, related to cognitive and affective determinants of the acceptance of …show more content…

First, TAM did not include the subjective norm construct in the model as an antecedent to attitude. Davis et al. (1989) noted that the SN construct is the less understood in the TRA. Its effect on intentions is mediated through attitude, by the process of internalization and identification. As a result, SN was not included in the model due to uncertain theoretical and psychometric factors..
The direct influence of the construct perceived usefulness on behavioral intention (BI) was another reason why Davis et al. (1989) did not include SN as an influential construct on BI. A description of the model will eventually show all the relations mentioned above.

Figure 21 : Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989, p. 985)
As the first version of the TAM indicates, Behavioral intention (BI) to use the system is determined by both attitude toward using (A) and the perceived usefulness (U). Their weight is determined by

More about Summary: The Technology Acceptance Model

Open Document