Technology Acceptance Model information systems theory

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is an information systems theory that models how users come to adopt and use technology,

The model assumes that when users provided with new technology,

Some factors, affect their decision on how and when they will use, namely Perceived Utility (PU) – Fred Davis defined it as “the extent to which a person believes that using a particular system will increase his or her work efficiency Perceived ease of use,

(PEOU) – Davis defined it as “the extent to which a person believes that the use of a particular system will be effortless” (Davis 1989),

Technology Acceptance Model is continually being. Studied and expanded – two significant improvements are TAM 2 (Venkatesh & Davis 2000 and Venkatesh 2000) and the Unified Theory of Technology Acceptance and Use (or UTAUT, Venkatesh, et al. 2003). TAM 3 was also proposed in the context of e-commerce, given the impact of trust and perceived risk on system usage (Venkatesh & Bala 2008).

technology acceptance


Technology Acceptance Model is one of the most important extensions of Aizen and Fishbein’s theory of sound action in literature. The technology adoption model by Davis (Davis, 1989; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989) is the most widely used technology adoption and usage model by users (Venkatesh, 2000). It was developed by Fred Davis & Richard Bagozzi Davis 1989, Bagozzi,

Davis & Warshaw 1992 [1]. Technology Acceptance Model replaces many of the TRA relationship measures with two technology adoption measures – ease of use and utility. TRA and TAM, both of which have strong behavioral elements, suggest that when someone forms an intention to act, he can act without restrictions. There will be many restrictions in the real world, such as limited discretion (Bagozzi, Davis & Warshaw 1992). Bagozzi, Davis, and Warshaw say:

Since new technologies, such as personal computers, are complex, and in the minds of decision-makers, there is an element of uncertainty about their successful adoption, people form attitudes and intentions to try to learn how to use new technology before they begin using. Attitudes towards use and intentions to use can be poorly formed or inconclusive, or they can arise only after a preliminary desire to learn how to use technology. Thus, actual use cannot be a direct consequence of such attitudes and intentions. (Bagozzi, Davis & Warshaw 1992)

Earlier research on the spread of innovation also suggested a significant role for perceived ease of use. Tornatzky and Klein (1982) analyzed adoption, finding that compatibility, relative advantage, and complexity had the most significant relationships with adoption in a wide range of types of innovations. Eason studied perceived usefulness from correspondence between systems,

tasks, and job profiles, using the terms “task correspondence” to describe a metric (cited in Stewart 1986). Legris, Ingham & Collerette 2003 suggest that the Technology Acceptance Model should be expanded to include variables that take into account change processes and that this can achieve by adopting an innovative model in TAM.


Several researchers have reproduced the original Davis study (Davis 1989) to provide empirical evidence of the relationship between utility, ease of use and use of the system (Adams, Nelson, and Todd, 1992; Davis, 1989; Hendrickson, Massey, Cronan,

1993; Segars and Grover. 1993; Subramanian 1994; Szajna 1994). Much attention paid to verifying the reliability and credibility of the questionnaire tool used by Davis. Adams et al. (Adams 1992) reproduced the work of Davis (Davis 1989) to demonstrate the validity and reliability of his instrument and its measurement scales. They also expanded it to different parameters and,

using two different samples, showed the internal consistency and reliability of replication of the two scales. Hendrickson et al. (Hendrickson, Massey & Cronan 1993) found high safety and excellent reliability of retesting. Szajna (Szajna 1994) found that the tool had predictive value for the intent to use, self-assessment of use, and attitudes to use. The amount of this study confirmed the validity of the Davis tool, and to support its use with different groups of users and different software options.

Segars and Grover (Segars & Grover 1993) revised the replication of the work of Davis (Adams, Nelson & Todd, 1992) Adams et al. They criticized the measurement model used and postulated another model based on three principles: utility, efficiency, and ease of use. These findings have not yet reproduced. However, some aspects of these results were tested and supported by the Workman (Workman 2007) by dividing the dependent variable by using information versus using technology.

Mark Cale and his colleagues developed (or perhaps made more popular) the Davis model in what they call the utility / EOU grid, which is a 2 × 2 grid, where each quadrant represents a different combination of two attributes. In the context of using software, it provides a mechanism for discussing the current mix of utility and EOU for specific software packages and for building another course if another combination required, such as introducing even more powerful software (Keil, Beranek & Konsynski 1995). The technology acceptance model has used in most technological and geographical contexts. One of these contexts is healthcare, which is overgrowing [2]

Venkatesh and Davis expanded the original technology acceptance model to explain perceived usefulness and usage intentions from the point of view, of social influence (subjective norms, voluntariness, image) and cognitive-instrumental processes (relevance of work, product quality, demonstration of results, perceived ease of use). The extended model, called TAM2, was tested in both voluntary and mandatory conditions. The results fully supported TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis 2000).

In an attempt to integrate major competing user acceptance models, Venkatesh et al. Formulated a unified theory of the adoption and use of technology (UTAUT). This model was found to outperform each of the individual models (the adjusted R square is 69 percent) (Venkatesh et al. 2003). UTAUT has been. Adopted in some recent health research. [3]

Alternative models

MPT Model: Regardless of TAM, Scherer (Scherer 1986) developed a suitable human model and technology in 1986 as part of her dissertation research, funded by the National Science Foundation. The MPT model is fully described, in its 1993 text (Scherer 2005, 1st ed. 1993),

Life in a state of sticking, now in its 4th edition, The MPT model has concomitant assessment measures used in technology selection and decision making, as well as research findings of differences between technology users, non-users, avoidants, and reluctant users.

HMSAM: Technology Acceptance Model has been useful in explaining the many uses of systems (e.g., e-learning, learning management systems, web portals, etc.) (Fathema, Sutton, 2013, Fathema, Shannon, Ross, 2015, Fathema, Ross, Witte 2014). However, TAM is not ideal for explaining the adoption of purely internal or hedonistic systems (for example, online games, music, learning for pleasure). Thus,

Lowry et al. They proposed a model alternative to the technology acceptance model, called the model of adoption of the hedonic motivation system (HMSAM) for such systems. (Lowry et al.) HMSAM is designed to improve understanding of the passage of hedonic systems (HMS). HMS are systems used primarily to fulfill users ’internal motivations, such as online gaming, virtual worlds, online stores,

learning/education, dating, digital music repositories, social networks, the pornography only, gamified systems, and general Gamification. Instead of a slight expansion of TAM, HMSAM is an HMS-specific adoption model based on an alternative theoretical perspective that, in turn, is based on flow-based cognitive absorption (CA). HMSAM can be especially useful for understanding the elements of gamification when using systems.

Extended Technology Acceptance Model: several studies have proposed extending the original TAM (Davis, 1989) by adding external variables to it to study the influence of external factors on user attitudes, behavioral intentions and actual use of technology. Several factors have considered so far. For example, perceived self-efficacy, facilitating the conditions and quality of systems (Fathema, Shannon, Ross, 2015, Fathema, Ross, Witte, 2014). This model has also been used to adopt healthcare technologies. [four]


Despite the frequent use of the Technology Acceptance Model, it widely criticized, which led the original authors to redefine it several times. Criticism of TAM as a “theory” includes dubious heuristic value, limited explanatory and predictive power, triviality, and the absence of any practical value (Chuttur 2009),

Benbasat & Barki suggest that TAM  diverted the attention of researchers from other important research problems and created the illusion of progress in the accumulation of knowledge Also,

independent efforts by several researchers to extend the technology acceptance model to adapt it to the ever-changing IT environment [sic] led to a state of general chaos and confusion “(Benbasat & Barki 2007).

In general, TAM focuses on the individual” user “of the computer, with the notion of “perceived utility”, with an extension that allows you to enter more and more factors explaining, how the user “perceives” “utility” and mostly ignores the development and implementation of information security,

without a doubt, where there are more technologies than It’s better and the social consequences of using information security. Lunceford argues that the structure of perceived utility and ease of use overlooks other issues, such as cost and structural imperatives that force users to adopt the technology. [5] For recent analysis and criticism of TAM, see Bagozzi (Bagozzi 2007).

Legris et al. [6] state that, together, TAM and TAM2 make up only 40% of the technological system used.

Perceived ease of use is less likely to be a determining factor in attitudes and intentions of use according to research on telemedicine (Hu et al. 1999), mobile commerce (Wu & Wang 2005. & online banking (Pikkarainen 2004)

A study by Okafor, D.J., Nico, M. & Azman, B.B. (2016), found that perceived ease of use does not affect the adoption of multimedia online technologies for Malaysian SMEs. Responses from participants in this study indicate that for them, perceived ease of use does not mention their behavioral intention to adopt online multimedia technologies (MOT) in the future. Instead of not taking MOT if they are complicated, some participants said that they want to learn it or practice more

Technology Transfer | facebook research | Technology Literacy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Contact Us

Please fill the required information in the form & send us,
We will respond as soon as possible; we will not share your personal information.