Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model

No description
by

Tasha Sisney

on 26 June 2016

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model

Who is Viswanath Venkatesh?
Viswanath Venkatesh is a Professor and the first holder of the George and Boyce Billingsley Chair in Information Systems at the Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas. He has developed research that focuses on understanding the diffusion of technologies in organizations and society. For over a decade, he has worked with several companies and government agencies in different capacities ranging from a systems engineer to a special consultant to the Vice-President, and has rigorously studied real world phenomena.
Theory Developers
Viswanath Venkatesh (primary)
Michael G. Morris
Gordon B. Davis
Fred D. Davis

Date of Development
The UTAUT was developed and tested in
2003
based on social cognitive theory including a combination of the constructs of eight prominent information technology (IT) acceptance research models: theory of reasoned action (TRA), theory of planned behavior (TPB), technology acceptance model (TAM), combined technology acceptance model and theory of planned behavior (C-TAM-TPB), model of PC utilization (MPCU), innovation diffusion theory (IDT), and socio cognitive theory (SCT) (Taiwo & Downe, 2013, p. 49).
Models and Theories of Individual Acceptance
The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model
By: Nancy Dicenzo, Chakira Lane, and Tasha Sisney
The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)
– drawn from social psychology, and used to predict a wide range of behaviors.
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
- designed to IS contexts, and created to predict information technology acceptance and usage on the job.
Motivational Model (MM)
- was applied how motivation affects new technology and use.
Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
– extended TRA, and is perceived behavior control is theorized to be additional determinant of intention and behavior.
Combined Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of Planned Behavior (C-TAM-TPB)
– combines the predictors of TPB with perceived usefulness from TAM to provide a hybrid model.
Model of PC Utilization (MPCU)
- theory of human behavior, and presents a competing perspective to that proposed by TRA and TPB.
Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT)
– grounded in sociology, and used to study a variety of innovations, ranging from agricultural tools to organizational innovation.
Socio Cognitive Theory (SCT)
– most powerful theories of human behavior, and employed to study performance (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003, p. 428-432).

Context Use
UTAUT provides a useful tool for assessing the likelihood of successful user acceptance and use when introducing new technology to a population (e.g., workplace, classroom).
Helps managers or trainers understand the psychology behind technology acceptance to proactively design “interventions” (e.g., training support, marketing) targeted at potential users who are less likely to adopt and use new technology systems (Venketesh et al., 2003, p. 425-426).
What is the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Technology Use Model?
UTAUT is a technology acceptance model within “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view”. It aims to explain user intentions to use an information system and subsequent usage behavior. UTAUT was formulated with four core determinants of intention and usage: 1)
performance expectancy
, 2)
effort expectancy
, 3)
social influence
, and 4)
facilitating influences
(Wikipedia, 2015, p. 1).
Four Core Determinants of Intention and Usage
Performance expectancy
deals with an individual’s motivation for adopting and using a specific technology. There are five factors related to performance expectancy: perceived usefulness, outside motivation, relative advantage, and expected outcomes (Venketesh et al., 2003, p. 447).
Effort expectancy
deals with how easy it will be for an individual to use a specific technology. There are factors related to effort expectancy: perceived ease of use, complexity, and actual ease of use (p. 250)
S
ocial influence
deals with how an individual thinks others perceive his or her acceptance and use of a new system. There are three factors related to social influence: subjective norm, social factors, and image (p. 251).
Facilitating conditions
deals with how much support an individual perceives he or she will have in relation to using a new system. There are three factors related to facilitating conditions: perceived behavioral control, facilitating conditions, and compatibility (p. 253).
Moderators within the UTAUT Model
For each of the four determinants, there are four key moderators within the UTAUT model that provide the theoretical justification for the hypothesis:
gender
,
age,

voluntariness
, and
experience
(Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 447).
Determinants Not Theorized in UTAUT Model

Self-efficacy
and
anxiety
were considered direct determinants of acceptance and use in some of the eight models used to create UTAUT. However, UTAUT does NOT include them (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 447).
Advantages of the UTAUT Model
Disadvantages of the UTAUT Model
Bonus Information
References
UTAUT provides a foundation to guide future research in this area (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 467).
UTAUT combines competing models with similar sets of determinants into one unified model (p. 425).
UTAUT outperformed all eight base models in empirical testing (p. 425).
UTAUT explains as much as 70 percent of variance in behavioral intention (p. 471).
According to Taiwo and Downe (2013), a UTAUT survey revealed that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and peer influence determine students’ behavioral intention.
According to The Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology (2013), the UTAUT theory “is cited in many articles but not actually used.”
The use of social influence construct has been controversial (Venkatesh, et. al 2003). Studies have included and excluded them, which have led to conflicting results regarding the data.
The paring down of test-group scales used to test UTAUT are such that the moderating factors of each construct (age, gender, experience, and voluntariness) could be eliminated therefore potentially nullifying the validity of the theory (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 467-468).
Using gender and age differences as factors is dependent on socially constructed gender and age roles, which change over time (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 467).
Two new factors were added to the UTAUT model (learning opportunities and enjoyment) and applied to determine the acceptance and use of educational games (See Ibrahim, Khalil, & Jaafar, 2001).
An important direction for future research within the UTAUT model, is to integrate this type of research into other established type of work. For example, addressing the link between user acceptance and individual or organizational usage outcome (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 470).
The UTAUT model is considered a valid model that correctly analyzes data. However, according to Venkatesh (et al., 2003, p467), “it should be noted that
performance expectancy
appears to be a determinant of intention in most situations: the strength of the relationship varies with gender and age such that it is more significant for men and younger workers.” and likewise, “..the effect of
effort expectancy
on intention is also moderated by gender and age such that it is more significant for women and older workers and those effects decrease with experience.”
Viswanath Venkatesh. (n.d.). Retrieved September 1, 2015 from http://www.vvenkatesh.com/default.asp

Ibrahim, R., Khalil, K., & Jaafar, A. Towards educational games acceptance model (EGAM): A revised unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). International Journal of Research and Reviews in Computer Science (IJRRCS). 2(3), 839-846.

Taiwo, A. A., & Downe, A.G. (2013). The theory of user acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): A meta-analytic review of findings. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 49(1), 48-58. http://www.jatit.org/volumes/Vol49No1/7Vol49No1.pdf

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Wikipedia. Retrieved September 1, 2015, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_theory_of_acceptance_and_use_of_technology

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., & Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 27(3), 425-478.

Williams, M., Rana, N., Dwivedi, Y., & Lal, B. Is UTAUT really used or just cited for the sake of it? A systematic review of citations of UTAUT’s originating article. Paper presented at the 19th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2011, Helsinki, Finland. AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1230&context=ecis2011


Relating the Four Moderators to the Four Determinants
Performance expectancy
- The degree that performance expectancy factors will influence an individual's acceptance and use of a new technology will be affected most by gender and age. Younger men will be most strongly influenced by these factors.
Effort expectancy
- The degree that effort expectancy factors will influence an individual’s acceptance and use of a new technology will be affected most by gender, age, and experience. Older women without a lot of experience with the system will be most strongly influenced by these factors.
S
ocial influence
- The degree that factors contributing to social influence will affect an individual's acceptance and use of a new system will be moderated gender, age, voluntariness, and experience. The greatest effect being on older women with little experience in mandatory settings.
Facilitating conditions
- Because of the connected relationships between several of the factors listed in the other determinants, it’s be found that if factors from both performance expectancy and effort expectancy are present, then facilitating conditions do NOT have a significant effect on acceptance or use of a new technology (Venketesh et al., 2003, p. 447-453).
Full transcript