TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE
MODEL
Davis et al. (1989) originally formulated the Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM) in an attempt to understand why people accept or reject information
systems. Davis (1986) adapted Fishbein and Ajzen's (1980) Theory of Reasoned
Action (TRA) to intentions to accept the information technology. The original
TAM explained the causal links between beliefs (usefulness of an IS and ease of
using the IS) and users' attitudes, intentions and “actual computer adoption behaviour”. The purpose of the TAM was to explain and predict
user acceptance of IS from measures taken after a brief period of interaction
with the system. Figure 1 shows the original
TAM model.
Figure 1: Original
TAM Model
A person's acceptance of an IS is hypothesized to be
determined by his or her intention to accept it. The intention, in turn, is
determined by the person's attitude toward the IS and his/her perceptions
concerning its usefulness. Attitudes are formed from beliefs a person holds
about the IS. The beliefs in the TAM consist of the targeted IS user's
perceptions of its usefulness and its ease of use. External variables, such as
the task, user characteristics, political influences, organizational factors,
and the development process, are expected to influence technology acceptance behavior
indirectly by affecting beliefs, attitudes, or intentions. The TAM intended to
resolve the previous mixed and inconclusive research findings associating various
beliefs and attitudes with IS acceptance. It had the potential to integrate
various development, implementation, and usage research streams in IS.
Davis et al. (1989) empirically tested the original TAM and
found that the data partially supported the model. In a post hoc data analysis
combining the TRA and TAM, Davis et al. (1989) suggested a revision of the original
TAM which they claimed was a “powerful [model] for predicting and explaining
user behaviour based on only three theoretical constructs: intention, perceived
usefulness, and perceived ease of use”. The
revised TAM proposed by Davis et al. (1989) is presented in figure 2.
Figure 2: Revised TAM
Model
The model has two versions: one concerning pre-implementation
beliefs about usefulness and ease of use and the other involving post-implementation
beliefs about usefulness and ease of use. The other notable difference between
the original and revised TAM models is the lack of the attitude construct. In addition to empirical findings (Davis et
al. 1989, Adams et al. 1992) that support the notion of different models for
pre- and post-implementation beliefs and acceptance, it is expected that
beliefs or attitudes differ or change with experience. The pre-implementation version of the TAM
predicts the acceptance of technology with perceptions of usefulness and ease
of use of the technology measured before its actual implementation. The post-implementation
model uses perceptions of ease of use and usefulness as determinants of
technology acceptance after implementation of the technology.
After a brief interactive introduction to an IS (the pre-implementation
version), both the usefulness and ease of use beliefs are depicted as having a
direct effect on intentions concerning the technology. In other words, an
individual would rely on both their perceptions of usefulness and ease of use
to form their intentions. These intentions then predict acceptance behaviour.
After a period of actually using the IS (the post-implementation version), the
ease of use belief is depicted as having an indirect effect on intentions. The implication is that once individuals have
been using an IS, their subsequent intentions are formed from their perceptions
of its usefulness. Intentions then are expected to predict future technology
acceptance behaviour.
Source: Szajna, Bernadette (1996), "Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model", Management Science, 42 (1), pp. 85-92