A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model

By Venkateshviswanath, D. DavisFred. 2000

885 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/be68c16548864c495714471e41162a9db340fa28

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Handbook of Consumer Finance Research (2008, background): “…processes (subjective norm, voluntariness, and image), cognitive instrumental processes (job relevance, output quality, and result demonstrability) (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000 ), computer self-effi cacy, perception of external control, computer anxiety, computer playfulness, perceived enjoyment, and…”
Preference for robot service or human service in hotels? Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020, unknown): “The technology acceptance model (TAM) has been useful in examining individuals’ acceptance and adoption of novel technologies (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000).”
Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: a longitudinal study (2003, background): “Venkatesh and Davis [61] also pointed out the need for a better understanding of key technology acceptance determinants.”
Examining user acceptance of computer technology: an empirical study of student teachers (2005, background): “Among them, TAM was specifically designed to explain individual technology acceptance/adoption decisions across a wide range of organizational contexts, computer technologies, and user populations (e.g., Davis 1986; Venkatesh & Davis 2000).”
Quo vadis TAM? (2007, background): “With a few exceptions (e.g., Bhattacherjee 2001; Bhattacherjee and Premkumar 2004; Karahanna et al. 1999; Kim and Malhotra 2005; Venkatesh and Davis 2000), many TAM studies typically focus on static models and measure all model constructs concurrently.”
Transparency and trust in artificial intelligence systems (2020, methodology): “While the original model focussed on perceived usefulness and ease of use (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), numerous extensions and variations have considered additional drivers, factors, moderators, and outcomes within the broader area of technology acceptance (Venkatesh et al., 2016).”
Reward crowdfunding contribution as planned behaviour: An extended framework (2019, unknown): “…is room for employing alternative theoretical anchors and frameworks for analyzing crowdfunding-contributor behavior and its antecedents, such as, the technology acceptance model (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), social capital theory (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986).”