Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
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
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
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model for longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186-204
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 27-58
Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (fifth edition). New York: The Free Press
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
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
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
Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of infor-mation technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 318-340
Orlikowski, W. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427
Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 921-951
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
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
Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-252
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
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),657-678
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
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
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),399-426
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),192-222
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
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
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), 665-694
Chin, W. (1998). Issues and opinions on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1),7-10
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Physica-Verlag Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Basaglia, S., Caporarello, L., Magni, M., Pennarola, F. (2008). Individual Adoption of Convergent Mobile Technologies In Italy. In: Interdisciplinary Aspects of Information Systems Studies. Physica-Verlag HD. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2010-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2010-2_9
Publisher Name: Physica-Verlag HD
Print ISBN: 978-3-7908-2009-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-7908-2010-2
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)