Individual Adoption of Convergent Mobile Technologies In Italy

  • S. Basaglia
  • L. Caporarello
  • M. Magni
  • F. Pennarola


The present study integrates the technology acceptance and convergence streams of research to develop and test a model of individual adoption of convergent mobile technologies. Adopting structural equation modeling, we hypothesize that relative advantage, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions affect directly individual attitude and, indirectly the intention to use convergent mobile technologies. The model explains a highly significant 53.2% of the variance for individual attitude, while individual attitude accounts for 33.9% of the variance in behavioral intention.


Behavioral Intention Relative Advantage Technology Adoption Mobile Technology Technology Acceptance Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W., and Chervany, N.L. (1999). Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 183-213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic mo-tivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11 (4),342-366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model for longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186-204 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 27-58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (fifth edition). New York: The Free Press Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., and Davis, F.D. (2003). User acceptance of infor-mation technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karahanna, E., Ahuja, M., Srite, M., and Galvin, J. (2002). Individual differences and relative advantage: The case of GSS. Decision Support Systems, 32, 327-341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tornatzky, L.G. and Klein, K.J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption im-plementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29 (1),28-44 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of infor-mation technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 318-340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Orlikowski, W. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 921-951 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burkhardt, M.E. and Brass, D.J. (1990). Changing patterns or patterns of change: The ef-fects of a change in technology on social network structure and power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 104-128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Agarwal, R. (2000). Individual acceptance of information technologies. In R. W. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the domains of IT management: Projecting the future from the past (pp. 85-104). Cincinnati: Pinnaflex Educational Resources Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kraut, R., Mukhopadhyay, T., Szczypula, J., Kiesler, S., and Scherlis, B. (1999). Informa-tion and communication: Alternative uses of the internet in households. Information Systems Research, 10(4), 287-303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., and Sambamurthy, V. (2003). Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly, 27(4),657-678Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gallivan, M.J., Spitler, V.K., and Koufaris, M. (2005). Does information technology training really matter? A social information processing analysis of coworkers’ influence on IT usage in the workplace. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 153-192 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moore, G.C. and Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications for a changing work force. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 375-403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brown, S.A. and Venkatesh, V. (2005). Model of Adoption of Technology in Households: A Baseline Model Test and Extension Incorporating Household Life Cycle. MIS Quarterly, 29 (3),399-426Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(21),192-222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gen-der, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quar-terly, 24(1), 115-139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ahuja, M.K. and Thatcher, J.B. (2005). Moving beyond intentions and toward the theory of trying: Effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information technology use. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 427-459 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Agarwal, R. and Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 665-694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chin, W. (1998). Issues and opinions on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1),7-10Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fornell, C. and Bookstein, F. (1982). Two structural equation models: Lisrel and pls applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(3), 440-452 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Basaglia
    • 1
  • L. Caporarello
    • 1
  • M. Magni
    • 1
  • F. Pennarola
    • 1
  1. 1.Università BocconiMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations