Table 10 Definition of the identified constructs in the technology adoption theories
Construct | Definition | Author and year |
|---|---|---|
Affect Towards Use | "Feelings of joy, elation, or pleasure, or depression, disgust, displeasure, or hate associated by an individual with a particular act." | (Thompson, 1991) |
Intrinsic motivation | “if performing an activity leads to a feeling of pleasure and results in satisfaction for the individual, such behaviour can be classified as intrinsic motivation.” | (Davis, 1992) |
Affect | “Positive contribution is made by the factor "affect" which is the extent to which an individual likes his job.” | (Bandura, 1986) |
Anxiety | “Negative contribution to desired behaviour is made by the factor "anxiety" which is the anxious reaction of the person while performing a job such as trying to use a computer with which the person is not very familiar.” | (Bandura, 1986) |
Facilitating conditions | “Facilitating conditions are defined as the degree to which an individual believes that an organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support use of the system.” | (Venkatesh 2003) |
Result demonstrability | “tangibility of the results of using the innovation.” | (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000) |
Long-term consequences | “Outcomes that have a pay-off in the future.” | Thompson, (1991) |
Subjective norm | Person's perception that most people who are important to him think he should or should not perform the behaviour in question | Venkatesh and Davis (2000) |
Image | "the degree to which use of an innovation is perceived to enhance one's... status in one's social system" | Moore and Benbasat (1991) |
Social influence | Social influence is defined as the degree to which an individual perceives that important others believe he or she should use the new system | Venkatesh and Davis (2000) |
Social factors | "Individual's internalization of the reference group's subjective culture, and specific interpersonal agreements that the individual has made with others, in specific social situations." | Thompson et. al. (1991) |
Perceived usefulness | The degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance | Fred D Davis et. al. (1989) |
Perceived ease of use | The degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort | Fred D Davis et. al. (1989) |
Job relevance | Defined as an individual's perception regarding the degree to which the target system is applicable to his or her job. Regarded as cognitive judgment that exerts a direct effect on perceived usefulness, distinct from social influence processes | Venkatesh and Davis (2000) |
Output quality | Output quality measures perception of how well the system performs the job related tasks | Davis et al. (1992) |
Performance expectancy | Performance expectancy is defined as the degree to which an individual believes that using the system will help him or her to attain gains in job performance | Venkatesh (2003) |
Effort expectancy | Effort expectancy is defined as the degree of ease associated with the use of the system | Venkatesh (2003) |
Attitudes | "Sum of beliefs about a particular behaviour weighted by evaluations of these beliefs" | Ajzen (1991) |
Perceived behavioural control | "people's perception of the ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour of interest" | Ajzen (1991) |
Job-fit | "The extent to which an individual believes that using a technology can enhance the performance of his or her job." | Thompson et. al. (1991) |
Complexity | "The degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use." | Thompson et. al. (1991) |
Extrinsic motivation | the perception that users want to perform an activity "because it is perceived to be instrumental in achieving valued outcomes that are distinct from the activity itself, such as improved job performance, pay, or promotions". Examples of extrinsic motivation are perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and subjective norm | Davis et al. (1992) |
Self-efficacy | “the judgments of how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations.” | Venkatesh (2003) |