Understanding mobile handheld device use and adoption

By Suprateek Sarker, John D. Wells. CACM, 2003

559 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems and Management, Sociology and Political Science, Human-Computer Interaction

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/59d2a81b16b7a0389bdd9794d715faa22364ee64

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems and Management

In Sociology and Political Science

In Human-Computer Interaction

Citations in the corpus

Investigating mobile wireless technology adoption: An extension of the technology acceptance model (2009, background): “Sarker and Wells (2003) claimed that the most touted advantage of MWT might be the ability to enable anytime, anywhere communication, collaboration, and commerce.”
Evaluating the Role of Trust in Consumer Adoption of Mobile Payment Systems: An Empirical Analysis (2010, background): “, 2003; Lee and Turban, 2001; Sarker and Wells, 2003], demographics [Bellman et al., 1999; Sarker and Wells, 2003], and trust [Connolly and Bannister, 2007; Gefen, 2000; Jarvenpaa and Tractinsky, 1999; McKnight et al.”
User acceptance of wearable devices: An extended perspective of perceived value (2016, background): “When mobile technology was new, mobile handheld devices were treated as novel and “cool” things, which contributed to users’ perception of an enhanced sense of selfimportance (Sarker and Wells, 2003).”
Factors affecting purchase intention on mobile shopping web sites (2009, background): “Although many MSS have been provided in different ways by online productions retailers, what appears to be missing “is a clear understanding of the motivations and circumstances from the perception of consumers themselves” ( Sarker and Wells, 2003”
Examining Trust in Information Technology Artifacts: The Effects of System Quality and Culture (2008, methodology): “Our model breaks new ground by incorporating system quality characteristics thought to be important in m-commerce scenarios—navigational structure and visual appeal [47, 75].”
Predicting technology acceptance and adoption by the elderly: a qualitative study (2008, background): “5.3 Actual use Sarker and Wells [30] suggested an exploration and experimentation module, and certainly we had the sense that many of our participants had experimented with their phones soon after coming into possession of them.”
Personal innovativeness, social influences and adoption of wireless Internet services via mobile technology (2005, background): “When penetration of Web enabled mobile technology is not substantial, users may regard these devices as symbolic of fashion and wealth, and adopt these devices to enhance their sense of self-importance (Sarker and Wells, 2003).”
Mobile Application Usability: Conceptualization and Instrument Development (2015, background): “Sarker and Wells 2003 Instant start • Mobile applications should start as quickly as possible so that people can begin using them without delay.”
Consumer adoption of the Uber mobile application: Insights from diffusion of innovation theory and technology acceptance model (2018, background): “The social factor is considered particularly important when explaining individuals ’ mobile technology adoption (Sarker & Wells, 2003).”
Adoption of Mobile Devices/Services — Searching for Answers with the UTAUT (2006, background): “Sarker and Wells [23] showed that there is missing a clear understanding of the motivations and circumstances which guide consumers to adopt and use mobile devices.”
Design aesthetics leading to m-loyalty in mobile commerce (2006, background): “Sarker and Wells [78] examined interface characteristics and network capabilities that affect the implementation and acceptance of wireless phones.”
PERSPECTIVE: Older Adults' Adoption of Technology: An Integrated Approach to Identifying Determinants and Barriers (2015, background): “Studies have also addressed that individual differences, including age, education, income, cultural background, technology self-efficacy, and life stage, can affect adoption decisions (Golvin and Anderson, 2009; Porter and Donthu, 2006; Sarker and Wells, 2003).”