Management Science and Research March 2014, Volume 3, Issue 1, PP.1-15
A Value-Driving Based Approach for User Acceptance of Information Technology Research Kun Zhao Information School, Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, Kunming, China Email: zkfudan@sina.com
Abstract Problems arisen from the research on user acceptance of information technology (UAIT) have gained substantial attention from researchers. To deal with the existing problems, this paper attempts to outline a theoretical framework for future research. Firstly, general problem descriptions of UAIT research and its research framework are formulated and detailed analyses into the nature of the research have been made. Secondly, based on traditional TAM-based research paradigm, several fundamental premises that are essential to undertake research in this area have been induced. Thirdly, through a simple case that illustrates how a cat will behave in choosing its favorite food of fish in a specific scenario, the behavioral mechanism of user in choice of information technology is delineated, and finally, from process viewpoint, deep insights are given to the relationships between activities of cognition and use, and then a value-driving based research model is outlined and a research program centered round the concepts of utility value and behavioral values proposed. The outlined research program is a brave new attempt to deal with UAIT research problem. It gives a new perspective to build research model, and has promise to introduce some kinds of analytical methods to analyses of influential factors in the problem. Keywords: Information Technology Adoption; Behavior Decision; Cognitive; Formal Analysis; Valuable Driving
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 A Brief History of UAIT Research User acceptance or adoption of information technology (UAIT) is one of the rising areas for information systems research in recent two decades. Based on the presupposition that user acceptance is a critical success factor for information technology adoption and can be sufficiently explained, accurately predicted, and effectively managed by means of a host of relevant factors[1], research is carried out centered round the essential questions such as how and why new information technology can be accepted and used by user. The underlying information technology includes computer systems and its application systems in personal and business uses, examples are PC computers, word processing software, e-mail software and other various information systems. To answer these questions, models are formulated to interpret factors that influence the behavior of user in information technology adoption. These models, usually called as technology acceptance model, are constructed based on knowledge from the areas including sociology, psychology, behavior science, computer science, information technology and information system applications, and their validity are validated via empirical tests. The research is believed can be beneficial to the development of information technology and the decision-making for user in choice of technology. UAIT research originates from Davis’s work in 1989[2], when he proposed the well-known Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). TAM is formulated based on Fishbein and Ajzen’s theory of reasoned action (TRA) [3]. It uses the constructs of beliefs, attitudes, intentions and the logical connections among them as its core constructs to predict computer use, which TRA uses to explain virtually any human behavior. The underlying rationale of TAM is that, ‘given that TRA predicts any behavior, and it could be used to predict computer use’ [4]. So TAM is actually a -1www.ivypub.org/msr
special case for TRA in computer application contexts. For the purpose of explaining the acceptance of a technology by individual, two specific beliefs, Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), are introduced to serve as external determinants. Since its origin, TAM has remarkable advantage over its competing models [5] (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). Many empirical studies show that PU and PEOU can explain more than 40% behavioral intentions change [2] [6] [7] [8]. However, TAM only explains how the adoption and use of an information technology by user are influenced by some specific features of the technology perceived by user. To interpret the influences exerted by factors from subjective and social sides of user, Venkatesh and Davis [5] expand TAM to TAM2. In TAM2, social influence process and cognitive instrumental process are introduced to further explain how the usefulness of a technology perceived by user and the behavioral intentions of the user toward the technology are formed. Factors extracted from social influence process include subjective norm, voluntariness and image of the user, and factors from cognitive instrumental process include job relevance, output quality, result demonstrability and perceived ease of use. The success of TAM and TAM2 attracts substantial attention from researchers worldwide, many studies related to modifications and extensions of these models have emerged. With attempts of modifying and extending these models so as to improve their adaptive and validity in various application contexts, many other theories are introduced into the research, including Motivational Model (MM), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT), Model of PC Utilization (MPCU), Combined TAM and TPB (C-TAM-TPB), etc. While these attempts have made the research booming, they also result in a state of theoretical confusion and chaos in the research [9]. Under this situation, with the attempt of integrating the relevant theories into one, Venkatesh and Morris [10] put forward another well-known model, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Thereafter, to have a better understanding of how PEOU of a technology is formed by user, Venkatesh and Bala [11] expand TAM2 to TAM3. From TAM to TAM2, UTAUT, and then to TAM3, a paradigm for UAIT research has formed. Even though the adoption contexts have evolved into multiple fields as in knowledge adoption[12], application development outsourcing decision[13][14], and various online service innovation[15, 16, 17, 18], and some other theories such as Theory of User Satisfaction[19][20] and Elaboration Likelihood Model[21] are also introduced into the research[12][22][23][24], TAM-based models are still served as the core in the development of the theory and the techniques and methods used in them are widely accepted. In some sense, UAIT research is an application of the basic theories from the areas such as psychological science, behavioral science and so forth in the context of information technology applications. From this viewpoint, UAIT research has a broad theoretical constitution. Many basic models for individual behavior from these areas as mentioned above can be used as the foundation for theory development in UAIT research.
1.2 Some Essential Problems in TAM-based Research While TAM-based research paradigm gains focus from researchers, the problems arisen from the phenomenon of the research and embodied in the approach and methods used in the paradigm draw attention from some careful researchers. Bagozzi worries about that the booming of TAM-based research has made the study of technology adoption is reaching a stage of chaos, and knowledge is becoming increasingly fragmented with little coherent integration [25]. He also notes that parsimony is the main strength of TAM in which simple relationships among beliefs, attitudes, intentions, PU and PEOU are used to predict the use of a technology by user, and it is these simplified logical relationships that make researchers would have ‘overlooked essential determinants of decisions and action, and turned a blind eye to inherent limitations in TAM’. In remark on the deficiency of TAM-based research, Benbasat and Barki point out that TAM-based research has paid scant attention to the antecedents of its belief constructs, and has led to the creation of an illusion of progress in knowledge accumulation [9]. In their view, the inability of TAM paradigm as a theory is that it could not provide a systematic means of expanding and adapting its core model, so that the effort to ‘patch-up’ TAM in evolving -2www.ivypub.org/msr
information technology adoption contexts has not been based on solid and commonly accepted foundations, this has resulted in a state of theoretical confusion and chaos for TAM-based research. Viewing the great amount of literature in TAM-based research, we can see that it is a general practice that researchers use some typical works as examples followed to carry out their research. For example, follows the approach that Davis has done in TAM, or Venkatesh and Morris have in UTAUT, to refine their ‘new’ theoretical models by modifying the existing elements, or adding or deleting new/old ones into/from the reference model. Obviously, some questions can be posed to the practices of the research: in what sense the practice is of scientific, how the reliability of the result obtained can be guaranteed and to what extent the result is universal? By the eyes of post positivistic philosophy of science, Silva holds that researchers in this field have not carefully scrutinized the philosophical and epistemological foundations of the TAM-based research [4], so it is hard to known to what extent the practice of TAM-based research meets the criteria for scientific theories established for causal, positivistic explanations. Among the many influential factors identified by researchers in various information technology adoption contexts, while only PU and PEOU have been widely recognized as remarkable factors that have influences on user behavior, the others are still challenged, far from reaching a unified understanding. If UAIT research can only reach the achievement as that, considering the substantial efforts that have been devoted to and the knowledge about information technology adoption we have gained from the research, we would like to ask what value the research is of both for real practice and theory development of information technology applications. In conclusion, the booming of TAM-based research has resulted in a state of theoretical confusion and chaos. The existing problems in TAM-based research motioned above constitute hindrance to progress. Therefore, there is call for paradigm shift [25]. Motivated by above comments, this paper attempts to outline a new schema to deal with the research problem. For this purpose, the paper proceeds as follows. In the second section formal analyses on UAIT research are conducted. In the third section a made-up case is described, and the lessons learn from the case are discussed in the fourth section. The fifth section discusses the characteristics and goals of UAIT research. The sixth section presents the proposed research model and sketch for further research. The final section presents some conclusions.
2 FORMAL ANALYSES OF UAIT RESEARCH PROBLEM AND ITS RESEARCH PREMISES 2.1 A Behavioral System Model for UAIT Research Generally, the general problem description (GPD) for UAIT research can be expressed as follows. In a specific case of information technology application, when a specific technology is considered in use, which factors in the environment would have influences on the behavior of users toward the technology, specifically, which factors would have led to adoption or rejection of the technology? Looking the situation from the perspective of individual action, user can be viewed as the subject of behavior, the technology as the object, and the action actually excised the technology by the user as the result (adoption or rejection). In this way, the GPD of UAIT research can be modelled as a behavioral system, illustrated as a ‘black box’ model shown in figure 1.
External Features and Subjective Features
Behavioral Subject Behaves to reach a behavioral result by information processing
Feedback
FIG. 1 ‘BLACK BOX’ MODEL OF BEHAVIORAL SYSTEM
-3www.ivypub.org/msr
Adoption or Rejection
In figure 1, factors from the features of behavioral object and behavioral environment, and from the features of behavioral subject that may have influences on the information application behavior of itself, act as information input of the behavioral system, the former factors can be viewed as external factors and the later ones internal factors (or subjective factors). When inputted into the system, they are processed by the subject in a systematic way, and then a behavioral result is reached, i.e. adoption or rejection of the technology. The subject plays positive roles in the process of information processing, and modulates the entire actions in some way, thus a feedback mechanism is formed. In order to find out the influential factors that lead to the behavior of user toward the technology occurs, one way is to open the ‘black box’ to see HOW the behavioral result is reached. That is, to look for the mechanism through which the influence of factors function. TAM-based research provides a way to open the ‘black box’. TRA proposes that the behavior of an individual could be predicted, if the beliefs, attitudes and intentions of the individual are known [4]. TAM is formulated out taking this proposition as its theoretical premise. The two variables introduced in the model, PU and PEOU, which are the descriptive variables of the features of the technology, are used to interpret the external factors that have influences on the beliefs of an individual. In other words, TAM proposes that PU and PEOU are the extrinsic motivations of causing the behavior of an individual, and it is these two external factors that play determinant roles which lead to the change of attitudes and behavioral intentions of an individual and then cause a specific behavior of the individual to happen. According to the way of what TAM does in opening the ‘black box’, the mechanism to explain how the individual is influenced by environment factors and then reach at a specific behavior can be illustrated as figure 2. In figure 2, s1, s2 and s3 represent the behavioral variables such as belief, attitude and intention of an individual respectively. The succeeding models such as TAM2, UTAUT and others are all within the framework; the efforts made of modifying and extending TAM are mainly focused on how to explain the external and subjective factors that may have influence on the behavioral variables, s1, s2, s3 etc. Behavioral Subject
External Features and Subjective Features
s1 s2
Adoption or Rejection
s3 FIG. 2 A BEHAVIORAL MECHANISM MODEL OF TAM-BASED RESEARCH
2.2 Formal Descriptions of the Research P[roblem and its Theoretical Premises According to the above GPD of UAIT research and the behavioral mechanism model, the fundamental premise embodied in the approach of TAM-based research could be induced as follows. TAM paradigm proposition: The behavior of an individual in the adoption of a technology results from a process in which external factors exert their influences on some sort of an individual behavioral mechanism. In TAM paradigm, the relationships among beliefs, attitudes and intentions proposed by TRA constitute the descriptions of the underlying individual behavioral mechanism. Therefore, the task of the research can be decomposed into two parts. One is to look for factors that have influences on the mechanism, and another one is to manage to make it clear that how influences of the factors exert on the behavioral variables. 1) Static analyses of user behavior From the above GPD and proposition of UAIT research, several inferences could be induced as follows. Inference 1: The adoption of information technology by individual is a behavioral process. In this process, factors from the environment exert their effects on individual who act as the behavioral subject and cause the changes of the -4www.ivypub.org/msr
internal behavioral states of the subject. When the changes lead the subject up to show some significant actions, the behavioral process is finished. Inference 2: The changes of internal behavioral states of the subject are observable and measurable, presented in the way of changes in some sort of characteristic variable. Therefore, the adoption behavior of the subject can be investigated by observing the changes of these characteristic variables. Therefore, the characteristic variable is also called as state variable. Inference 3: The logical connections among the internal behavioral states linked causally in some senses. This means that change in a state (antecedent) will cause change in another state (consequence). However, this kind of causality is usually understood as statistical correlation, rather than as a single causal connection. Denoting the external factor that has influence on the subject as ai, where i=1,2,…，n, all the factors make up a set, denoted by A, A={ a1, a2, …, an }.The state variable that is used to measure the change of the internal state of the subject as si, where i =1,2,…,m, all the state variables make up another set, denoted by S, S={s1, s2, …, sm }. If state si has influence on state sj, there is a binary relationship between si and sj, denoted by rsij, rsij=<si , sj>. If external factor ai having influence on state sj, there is also a binary relationship between ai and sj, denoted by raij, raij=<ai, sj>. So, all the possible relationships rsij between each state variables constitute a correlation matrix defined in the space of S×S, denoted by RS. All the relationships raij between each external factors ai (i=1, 2, …, n) and state variable si (i=1, 2, …, m) also constitute a correlation matrix defined in the space of A×S, denoted by RA. Matrix RS and RA are as following,
r11s s r S R 21 ... rs m1
r12s r22s ... rms 2
r11a r12a ... r1sm a ... r2sm r21 r22a A ，R ... ... ... ... s ra ra ... rmm n1 n 2
... r1am ... r2am ... ... a ... rnm
In matrix RS, if there is a relationship between si and sj, then rsij=1, otherwise rsij=0, the same is for matrix RA. 1) Process analyses of user behavior From the dynamic perspective of time, a process is not a single instantaneous event without knowing the fleeting of time. It is a set constituted by a series of behavioral events happened in a certain time period. Because of its measurability, we can take a process start at a knowable point of time t0, and end at a knowable later point of time te. Taking the effect whatever an external factor or a state variable exerts on a state variable as a ‘behavioral event’ during the process, all relationships raij and rsij (i，j=1, 2, …) represent all the events happened in the period of [t0, te]. Ordering them in time according to when they happen, we can get a time-series-based event set that actually describe how the influential factors exert their influences on the individual. So, the user behavior could be described by the sequence of events defined by the relationships among the set of A and S. Denoting the behavioral process of a user in the adoption of an information technology as P, we have
P ei | ei E, E R A R S , i 1,2, E e5 e4 e3 e2 e1
T t0
te
FIG. 3 A TIME SERIES DIAGRAM OF A BEHAVIORAL PROCESS -5www.ivypub.org/msr
This means that the behavioral process can be represented by a time-series-based model that is defined in the space of A×S∪S×S. To make a visual understanding of above ideas, we can demonstrate the events in a coordinate, among them, the abscissa represents time, ordinate represents event where events are ordered in some way. Figure 3 illustrates a process P' with five events, e1、e2、e3、e4 and e5, in the period of [t0, te]. Due to a process is constituted of all the events that are used to represent how the influential factors affect the subject and make the internal state of the subject change in a specific period, for the convenience of discussion. it is reasonable to suppose that a process is of the characteristic of non-interruption of events, i.e. at any time t in period [t0, te], there is at least one event is in progress. So, there are two ways for events to occur: in parallel or serial. For example, as Figure 3 shows, while event e1 was in progress, event e4 happened, and e1 run parallel with e4 in a period; as soon as e4 ended, e2 started immediately and in this case, e4 and e2 occurred serially. From the above formal descriptions of UAIT research problem, it is clear that the external factor set A, user behavioral state variable set S and event set E constitutes all the elements of the problem. The tasks for UAIT research are to find the factor set A' (A'⊆A) and state variable set S' (S'⊆S), and confirm that it is the factors in A' exert their influences on the state variables in S' that result the actual action of a user toward the technology under consideration, and make it clear that how these happen by giving explicit descriptions of the behavioral process P' (P'⊆P) or event set E' (E'⊆E). In order to make further analyses, another inference is induced as below. Inference 4: Influential factors can be classified in accordance with the characteristics of their attributes in some way. For example, according to the attribution of factors, factors such as PU and PEOU, as well as adaptability, flexibility and so forth, which represent the characteristics of a technology in its performance, can be sorted to the category of technical attribute. Factors such as gender, age, educational background, position, social status, learning ability, application experience and so forth, which represent the general characteristics of an individual and may be relevant to the ability of an individual in information technology application, can be sorted to the category of subjective attribute. Factors from the application environment, such as the goal and the complexity of the task that the technology will be used for, the degree of voluntary or mandatory of an individual in choice of a technology, can be sorted to the category of task and environment attribute, and etc. Inference 4 not only gives an approach of how to look for the influential factors in UAIT research, but also outlines a dimensional framework that shows the contents of the research. On the one hand, the research needs to find out which factors may affect the behavior of an individual in adopting a technology, on the other hand, it also needs to well organize them in the way that they can be used to better explain how these effects will exert on. A1: Subjective attribute P': Behavioral process
A2: Technology attribute
A3: Task-environmental attribute
FIG. 4 A DIMENSIONAL DIAGRAM OF UAIT RESEARCH
For example, if sort the influential factor set A into three categories, A1, A2 and A3, representing factors from the above three aspects, subjective attribute, technical attribute, task-environmental attribute respectively. It in fact gives three dimensions for analyzing the external factors. In this case, UAIT research framework could be illustrated as a -6www.ivypub.org/msr
dimensional diagram as shown in Figure 4. As shown in Figure 4, user acceptance of a technology is the behavioral result produced by the influences that exert onto process P' by factors from the three aspects. From the perspective of contexture, influences from these three aspects can be viewed as three elementary processes, P1, P2 and P3, respectively, and user behavior in accepting a technology can be ‘summed up’ by the three elementary processes, Acceptance behavior P' = P1⊕P2⊕P3 where ‘⊕’ means that these elementary processes interweave mutually in some way to produce their superposition effects, such as in serial or parallel way. 2) Summary and discussion The above analyses show that user behavior is the result produced through some processes interweaves mutually to exert their effects. Therefore, study on the mechanism of how each process works and the relationships between each process are also the important contents for UAIT research. However, the approach that TAM paradigm used to deal with the problem puts the effects of all factors onto a unitary process, rather than the different processes and then sums them up. It is this treatment makes TAM-based models possess a remarkable characteristic of parsimony and have the power in interpreting some influential factors, such as PU and PEOU, meanwhile, it also embodies limitations of interpreting many other factors, such as subjective attributes, and after all, it is unable to provide a full understanding of user behavior. Looking at the behavioral process from the perspective of action paths in which factors exert their influences, the working mechanism that TAM-based models used to interpret the influence of factors are made up of linear relationships. For example, the action paths of PU and PEOU are ‘PU→attitude→behavioral intention’ and ‘PEOU →attitude→behavioral intention’ respectively. Just taking an individual relationship into account, no matter in whatever sense, theoretical or real practice, it is not hard to understand what correlation means between the variables linked by the relationship, and it is also seems useless to dispute the correctness of the relationship. However, if the question that we posed is how PU and PEOU joint together to affect the attitude of an individual, or in turn, how the attitude of a user toward information technology forms, and how about the behavioral intention again? This kind of simple linear relationship is unconvincing. This suggests that if we want to effectively explain user behavior, it still needs to seek for the ‘essential determinants of decisions and actions’ [25] that causes the actual behavior of an individual. From the perspective of time series again, we can see that the working paths and effects imposed in behavioral states between serial events and parallel events are different. Serial events make the changes of behavioral states spread out in time sequence, while parallel ones produce superposition effects on the behavioral states. The linear features of TAM-based models can better explain the working mechanism of serial events, but are obviously inadequate to explain the paralleled ones. For example, if there are more than one event imposed their effects conjunctly on a behavioral state, what effect would it be for the change of the state? And if the effects were imposed on different behavioral states at the same time, what kind of impact would be produced to the correlation among the relevant states? Furthermore, the linear relationships embodied in TAM-based models fail to take an important characteristic of the behavioral system into account, the feedback functions as shown in Figure 1. In fact, the roles of behavioral subject are not only manifested in taking the subjective characteristics as input that affect its own behavioral state, but more importantly, in the course of the behavioral states changing, the initiatives of a subject will regulate the changes of the states in some ways as well. It is worth to note that these phenomena have been investigated in some other individual behavioral decision cases [26] [27] [28]. Therefore, if we want to fully and effectively explain the changes of all kinds of behavioral states, and make the working mechanism that serves as the foundations for the formulating of our research models can simulate the actual behavioral process and the essential determinants of decisions and actions of an individual, it is essential to have deeply and accurately understanding of the behavioral mechanism of user in real information technology application -7www.ivypub.org/msr
contexts. For this purpose, this paper will make further analyses through a simple case that illustrates how a cat will behave in choosing its favorite food of fish in a specific scenario.
3 A SIMPLE CASE: CAT AND FISH At a feast of fat things, if there is only one dish of food that is made of fish, a cat will not hesitate to eat it up. There is no doubt that the cat will be greatly satisfied with this dish. Choosing fish is the reasonable choice for cat that is in favor of fish as its food. However, if there were many dishes of fish in different flavor at the feast, choosing which one would make the cat satisfy? If the cat is rational and always wants to take the most delicious food of fish as its meal, but facing many delicious dishes of fish, it could not choose the most favorable one by tasting them one by one, in this situation, how would the cat do? If different cooks cook the foods and every cook always wants his food to be chosen by the cat, in this case, how should the cooks do? If the cat always identifies its most favorable food by sense of smell, in case of a cook who wants his food to be as the meal of the cat, the cook should make his every effort to make the flavor of his food can be sensed by the cat through its olfaction, so that let the cat can distinguish them from each other. In this situation, the cook needs not only to do his best in the skills of cooking, but also to carefully investigate the habits and characteristics of the cat. So that by knowledge of understanding how a cat identifies its favorite food through smell, the cook can enable the flavor of his food to be presented through the characteristics of smell, so let it can be sensed by the cat. Again, if the cooks are all very good at cooking skills and have knowledge of the habits and characteristics of the cat, every food they cooked each has its own merits of flavor, so that the cat cannot identify its most favorable food only by the sense of smell. In this case, if the cat still wants to choose the most favorable food as its meal, it is most possible for the cat to be provided with some other capability except for the ability of identifying food by smell. The capability maybe beyond the instinct of cat; for instance, with knowledge on food and experience in identifying them, and most importantly, it must be provided with a comprehensive capability of synthesizing all the characteristics of the flavors it sensed and making a final decision according to its own criterion of food choosing. In this situation, whether a cat is able to have its favorable food depends on both the cooksâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; cooking skills and wisdom of understanding the habits and characteristics of cat, and on the instincts of cat in identifying food as well as its wisdom beyond. If the host in the case is a dog instead of a cat, however, and the dog has the ability of identifying food of fish just as a cat, the difference between them is only that the dog likes bone rather than fish. Then, in front of a food that has been identified as a delicious food of fish, the dog will choose it or not? If the case goes as to make the dog choose between bones and fish, it is easy to understand that no matter how delicious the food of fish is, the dog would choose the food of bones instead of fish! From the scenario of the case, we can see that what makes it different in the choice for cat or dog is not the difference of the ability in identifying food between them, but the difference between their values on food. It is clear that to turn the cognitive result on food into the actual behavior of choice, behavioral values of their own are essential determinants for decisions. Whether a cat can take its favorable food as its meal and whether the cat can choose the food cooked by a cook elaborately, are two sides of the same coin. In the course of the food cooked by cooks turning into the delicious meal of a cat, the characteristics of the food that can be externalized to let them be sensed by the cat, the cognitive pattern of the cat to identify the food of fish, and the behavioral values of the cat that promote the cognitive result turn into the actual behavior of choice are indispensable.
4 LESSONS LEARN FROM THE CASE The situation that a cat faced in choosing its food of fish is just the same as those a user faced in choosing an information technology. To answer the question of what kind of information technology can be accepted and used by -8www.ivypub.org/msr
user, it not only requires to have knowledge of the external characteristics of the technology that can be perceived and the cognitive pattern of user to identify a technology, but also to understand the intrinsic motivations that drive a user to turn his cognitive result of a technology into his actual behavior. The user behavior explained by TAM paradigm, is that when external factors exert their influences on some behavioral variables of a user (such as attitudes and behavioral intentions, etc.), it would have led to the happening of some sort of using behavior. It is clear to see that the behavioral mode embodied in this school of models is made up of a unitary process and a mechanism of action that is triggered by intentions. By the eyes of this mechanism, the behavior of cat in choosing its favorite food of fish would be something like this: when some characteristics of the food have been sensed, it would lead the cat to take it as its meal. It is possible that acting on this way would lead the cat to choose the food that is actually what it wants. But it is in great doubt that if the choice is reasonable considering there are probably many other delicious foods that is better than the one be chosen. We would even doubt if the cat really does in this way to choose its favorite food in real world. Return in the case of information application, it is reasonable that it makes us have willingness (reflected by the behavioral intention variable in the models) to use the technology under consideration just by means of sensing some perceived characteristics of them. However, the problem lies in that if the willingness can mirror our actual using actions toward the technologies. In other words, whether there are explicit distinctions between the subjective willingness and the actual using behavior and how to distinguish them. These are also essential questions for UAIT research to answer. From the perspective of activities, we can view a process is constituted of multiple activities, for example, the activities to understand the characteristics of technologies and their application environment, the activities to synthesize all obtained information to make judgment and decisions, and the activities to perform real actions to implement the decisions, etc. Therefore, if taking cognition and use of a technology as two independent behavioral processes respectively, which are distinguished from each other but mutually related, and taking it as reasonable that there are some important driving factors between subjective intention and actual using action that enable the actual using action of an individual indeed. It is extremely required explicit descriptions for the two processes to be given, so let us have knowledge about the characteristics of them and the connections and differences between them, and in addition to, about what subjective roles a subject plays and how to play in the two processes. Based on the above discussions, UAIT research problem can be induced as below from above process-based viewpoint. It provides with another premise for research. Process based proposition: The user behavior of information technology acceptance is through the cognition of external factors by user, and results from the combined effects of the cognitive result and the behavioral values of the user.
5 CHARACTERISTICS AND GOALS OF UAIT RESEARCH From the perspective of decision, user behavior of information technology acceptance is also a kind of decision, that is, the decision about whether a user accepts and uses the technology under consideration. In traditional decision science, the goal of the research is to solve the problems of optimal decision-making. The correct answers to these problems should be at least the theoretically optimized one. For this reason, it not only requires the decision maker in the problems to be with full rationality, but requires the problems to be with full information as well. In this case, the decision maker cannot only know all the possible alternatives for actions, but can also evaluate out the possible effects of each alternative correctly. In UAIT research, however, the basic condition that can lead to the understanding of all the possible alternatives for actions and their effects are absent. It is just the same as above story that the dishes of food are served one by one and the latter one would not be served before the former one is due and withdraw, rather than in the way that all the dishes of food are served at the same time, the cat has no chance by comparing them with each other to find out which one is its favorite. In this case, can the cat still be able to take its favorable food as its meal? If the cat still wants to do so, how would it do? In this circumstance, it is better for the cat to be with the contextual information about how the food will be served. -9www.ivypub.org/msr
Therefore, compared with traditional decision science in the nature of research problems and research goals, UAIT research is characterized by the following aspects. (1) User behavior of information technology acceptance is a kind of rational behavior for decision-making under condition of limited information. The so-called ‘rational’, is not of the meaning that traditional ‘full rationality’ means, but of the meaning in the sense that the behavioral subject will combine all of the information that can be obtained to consider the consequences and significant of actions according to his own behavioral values before decision is made and any action is taken. (2) If taking understanding of the relevant information as antecedents for decisions, traditional decision science is for the research of how to get to the best consequences under the antecedent condition of full information, it focuses on looking for the corresponding methods for decision-making. UAIT research, due to the limitation of information that can be obtained, it takes cognitive activities to obtain possible information from the environment of information technology application as antecedents, and use of the technology as consequences, it focuses on the rationality of the way in which user behaves, i.e. the logical links between the antecedents of obtaining information through cognitive activities and the consequences of using the technology or not. Accordingly, the goals of UAIT research are to investigate the elementary cognitive patterns of an individual in choosing information technology by analyzing characteristics of the application environment, the working mechanism of how the characteristics impact on the individual, and the cognitive principles of the behavioral subject, so that help the subject to act in a reasonable way in estimating the utility value contained in the behavioral object, so as to make a reasonable decision. Consequently, the question that UATI research can answer is as that in what manner a user acted is reasonable in choosing a technology. However, it cannot answer the question as that in what manner a user acted is NOT reasonable, and cannot guarantee that an optimal behavioral result will be obtained in accordance with the reasonable manner. In the case of cat and fish, no matter how the cooks do their best nor does the cat, it cannot ensure that the cat can take its favorable food as its meal, but to a cat of ‘rational’, it should act on certain kind of behavioral manner to choose its favorite food.
6 PROPOSED RESEARCH MODEL AND SKETCH FOR RESEARCH 6.1 Value-driving based Research Model Based on the above discussions, cognitive process and using process are introduced to interpret the user behavior of information technology acceptance and two important concepts of utility value and behavioral values are proposed, which are used as two constructs to model the recognized value of a specific information technology under consideration and subjective criteria of user in decision-making respectively. Then a value-driving based research model is suggested as shown in Figure 5. This model uses input-output links to explain the relationships among the different processes, and highlights the roles that user plays in the processes.
Behavioral Subject
Behavioral Values
Decisionmaking
Cognitive Ability
External Factors
Cognitive process
Utility Value
FIG. 5 PROPOSED VALUE-DRIVING BASED RESEARCH MODEL - 10 www.ivypub.org/msr
Using process
(1) Activities related to cognition and use of an information technology constitute two separate processes in the whole process of user acceptance of information technology, cognitive process and using process, they are related each other through and distinguished by decision-making activities. (2) Decision-making is the ‘critical point’ of the two processes. It is the end of cognitive activities and the start of using activities, where using activities include activities of accepting and using or rejecting the technology. Decisionmaking plays an important role in the completely behavioral process for behavior converting. It is worth to note that the output of cognitive process is not the actual using behavior of user toward the technology, but the information input of decision-making activities. Only when the inputted information, combined with other information, says, information about the behavioral values of the user, has been processed through decision-making activities in a synergistic way, can the cognitive result turn into the actual behavior of use. In other words, there is no necessary logical causality between cognitive results and actual behavior of use. For example, being ‘good stuff’ is the reason for us to use a thing, but it will not necessarily be used by us at all. (3) Different process has different goals and characteristics of user behavior. Cognitive process aimed at looking for the contents that are related to the utility value of the technology, such as the performance, characteristics, functionalities, and purport of the technology. It emphasizes the objectivity of the activity, i.e. it requires user make his every effort to make the cognitive result reflect the authenticity of the technology. The main problem that needs to be solved at this stage is what kinds of external factors would have their influences on user, no matter individual differentiations of users. The goal of using process is to accomplish the utility value of the technology perceived by user. However, whether the perceived utility value of the technology can be realized depends largely on the behavioral values of the user. Therefore, using process is of remarkable subjectivity, and it is a process of values driving. (4) In the two processes of cognition and use, behavioral subject plays its roles in different ways. Factors relevant to the cognitive ability of user have also their influences on cognitive process, while the social attributes relevant to the behavioral values of users impact on the using process.
6.2 A Sketch for Research As discussed above, because cognitive process and using processes have their own characteristics different from each other and the subject seeks different behavioral goals at different process stages, it is required that different approaches and methods are used in research to deal with the corresponding problems at each stage. So as to make UAIT research reach at the purpose of providing us with a well understanding about what the manner of rationality is for a user that should present in the acceptance of an information technology. 1) Cognitive process In TAM paradigm, it mainly uses empirical methods to find the influential factors, with a hope of which all of these attempts can be summed up to a total understanding of the whole behavior manner of user. It follows an approach of bottom-up, i.e. from the part to the whole. For this purpose, it needs to integrate individual factors into the proposed model and verify them. As a result, with the progressing of the research, the factors under investigation would continue to accumulate, and lead to the phenomenon of the merging of research ‘achievement’. Correspondingly, problems embodied in the research are also arising, examples are the chaos in theories, the knowledge obtained in fragments, and with little coherent, as discussed above, which cannot be integrated into a theoretical model effectively. Driven by the motivation of the subject to understand the utility value of the object, cognitive process will end at the time when the value is formed. To make the behavior manner of the subject in a rational way at this stage, it requires the subject act in an impersonal way to make his understandings about the object come by a careful observation on the object, rather than by simply taking it as granted from his own judgment, so as to make the utility value of the object perceived by user through cognitive activities reflect the ‘original value’ of the object. Activities related to the discovering of utility value of the object make up all activities of cognitive process. Therefore, what the utility value of a technology is, how it is made up, how environmental factors affect the cognition of user in the formation of his - 11 www.ivypub.org/msr
utility value toward the technology, and so forth, form core questions of research at this stage. For the purpose of answering these questions, research will be carried out centered round explaining the concept of utility value in the succeeding work, with attempt of setting up a sound theoretical framework that can be served as a guideline in analyzing factors that may have their influences on user behavior of information technology acceptance. Consequently, an analytical approach is suggested to adopt in the research, by which some kinds of analytical methods will be used to analyze the features of the behavioral environment according to the characteristics of cognitive process. 2) Using process Using process is the process of a subject implementing his actual using behavior on the object under consideration, and it naturally serves as the end of UAIT research. According to the goals of the research, research at this stage should aim at explaining how the actual using behavior of the subject is produced. In order to answer this question, TAM paradigm uses the relationship in the relationships of ‘attitude→behavioral intention→actual behavior’ as a working mechanism to interpret the changes of behavioral states of user that are believed to produce the using action, where the relationship of ‘behavioral intention→actual behavior’ directly links the theoretical behavior and actual behavior of users. In the aspect of interpreting the motivations or driving forces, TAM paradigm uses individual factors as explanatory variables to interpret the user acceptance behavior. This means that it holds that individual factors could directly lead to the changes of behavioral states of user, and then trigger the actual using behavior of user; examples are the influences of PU and PEOU on behavioral intentions. However, as mentioned above, as to the questions as how all influences of different individual factors being synthesized by user to present an understandable behavioral intention or how to interpret the superposition effects of parallel events, TAM paradigm fails to give an effective explanation. To deal with the relationship between theoretical behavior and actual behavior, the relationship of ‘behavioral intention→actual behavior’ used in TAM-based models, almost take the theoretical behavior equivalent to actual using behavior. But in fact, behavioral intention, reflecting the subjective willingness of user, has obvious distinctions from actual using behavior. For example, in real world, not all the things that have been recognized by an individual and make the individual have the willingness to use them can be put into actual uses. This inconsistency between theoretical and actual behavior makes difficulties both for theoretical research and empirical test in several information technology application contexts [29] [30]. This paper argues that, what makes the inconsistency between theoretical and actual behavior, is just that UAIT research needs to inquire into to look for the intrinsic motivations of user to use a technology. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the theoretical behavior from actual behavior, to define an explicit boundary for UAIT research. To do so, it is not only for the convenience of theoretical research, but also for the consideration of the complexity of influential factors in real information technology application contexts. As a matter of fact, the question of what the intrinsic motivations of user in adopting an information technology are and the question of what the relationship between theoretical behavior and actual behavior is, to some extent, are the both sides of the same question. As long as an effective explanation has been given to the reason that makes the inconsistency between theoretical and actual behavior from the intrinsic motivations of user, an explicit definition about the relationship between theoretical and actual behavior can be outlined theoretically. Keeping in mind the above questions, and in order to make an effective explanation to the comprehensive effects of external factors exerted on the behavioral subject, the proposed research model shown in Figure 5 takes ‘utility value’ as the output of cognitive process. The underlying ideas are that all the external factors are the effective factors that impact on the formation of utility value of a subject toward the object, rather than the factors that exert their influences on the internal states of the subject directly, and utility values, as the output of cognitive process, is the direct effective factor of the behavioral states of the subject. These ideas suggest that cognitive process and using process is linked through decision-making activity, so that it provides a research approach to explain how all the factors combined together to generate comprehensive effects on the behavioral subject. On the other hand, the acquirement of utility value of the object is insufficient to enable the actual using behavior of - 12 www.ivypub.org/msr
the subject. The factors from the subjective side of user also function. For this consideration, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;behavioral valuesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; are introduced in Figure 5 to interpret the effects of the factors from the subjective side of user on the generating of actual using behavior, so as to explain the intrinsic motivations of user in the acceptance of information technology. The acquired utility value of a technology as well as the behavioral values of user constitutes elementary information that a user can obtain for decision. In the succeeding process of decision-making, the intention whether to accept the technology under consideration or not is formed by processing all of the information, so as to conclude all the activities in the process of information technology acceptance. Taking decision-making activity as a critical point between the two processes of cognition and use can explicitly outline a domain for UAIT research, and make it clear what the user behavior means in the research. Study on how the behavioral values of user is constituted, and plus with the utility value of technology, function in the decisionmaking of user also makes up important contents for UAIT research.
7 CONCLUSIONS Through a brief review of UAIT research history, it is clear that some critical problems exist in the research. In order to seek effective ways to deal with the problems, through analyzing the fundamental features of the research problem, formal analyses of the research problem are conducted in detail by using some of the systematic methods, and then formal descriptions about the corresponding research framework are presented. For the purpose of providing a deep understanding about the behavioral mechanism of user in information technology adoption, behavioral characteristics of user, essential of the research problem and its constitutional elements are summed up through the analysis of a simple case that illustrates how a cat will behave in choosing its favorite food of fish in a specific scenario. From the process view point, deep insights are given to the relationship between the processes of cognition and use, which are two key process in the user adoption of information technology, and then a value-driving based research model is outlined and a research program centered round the concepts of utility value and behavioral values is proposed. The proposed model breaks through the type of behavioral mode that is unitary process based and intention triggered, which are widely used in traditional TAM-based models, and a two-process-stage analysis is suggested in analyzing the entire user behavior of information technology adoption. The proposed research model, taking decision-making as an important activity in information technology adoption and served as a critical point to distinguish cognitive process from using process, will be favorable to define an explicit domain for UAIT research in theory and eliminate the obstacles in the research that result from the inconsistency between theoretical behavior and actual behavior. The proposed research framework is an innovative attempt to deal with UAIT research problem. It has enlightened directions for future research. As it has implied and suggested in the framework, a values-driving mechanism should be used to explain the user behavior in information technology adoption and a top-down approach should be used to analyze the influential factors, therefore, except for above mentioned questions such as the constitution of behavioral values and utility value and their functionalities in decision-making, and the analytical approach and methods used in the analyses of influential factors, some other questions are also worth taking into consideration, examples are, if and how behavioral values and utility value evolve in diversifying application contexts, how contextual information exert influences on user, and how about the functionalities of feedback in behavioral decision making. In conclusion, based on above discussions, it is reasonable to hope that the proposed framework and succeeding works will be helpful in strengthening the theoretical foundations and enriching the methods for UAIT research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT This paper has been subsidized by a research project (208128) of the Key Project of Science Research Program, which is supported by Chinese Ministry of Education.
- 13 www.ivypub.org/msr
REFERENCES [1]
Hu, P.J. Chau, P.Y.K. Sheng, O. R. L. & et al. “Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology.” Journal of Management Information Systems, 16 (2), 1999:91-112
[2]
Davis, F.D. “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology.” MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 1989:319-340
[3]
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1980
[4]
Silva, L. “Post-positivist Review of Technology Acceptance Model.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8 (4), 2007: 255-266
[5]
Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F.D. “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies.” Management Science, 46 (2), 2000:186-204
[6]
Mathieson, K. “Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior.” Information Systems Research, 2 (3), 1991:173-191
[7]
Plouffe, C.R. Hulland, J.S. & Vandenbosch, M. “Research Report: Richness Versus Parsimony in Modeling Technology Adopttion Decisions-Understanding Merchant Adoption of a Smart Card Based Payment System.” Information Systems Research, 12 (2), 2001:208-222
[8]
Taylor, S. & Todd, P.A. “Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models.” Information Systems Research, 6, 1995:144-176
[9]
Benbasat, I. & Barki, H. Quo vadis, TAM?. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8 (4), 2007:211-218
[10] Venkatesh, V. Morris, M.G. Davis, G. B.. & et al. “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view.” MIS Quarterly, 27 (3), 2003:425-478 [11] Venkatesh, V. & Bala, H. “Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions.” Decision Sciences, 39(2), 2008:273-315 [12] Sussman, S.W. & Siegal, W. S. “Informational influence in organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge Adoption.” Information Systems Research, 14 (1), 2003:47-65 [13] Benamati, J. & Rajkumar, T. M. “The application development outsourcing decision: An application of the techchnology acceptance model.” The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42 (4), 2002:35-43 [14] Benamati, J. & Rajkumar, T. M. “An Outsourcing Acceptance Model: An Application of TAM to Application Development Outsourcing Decisions.” Information Resources Management Journal, 21 (2), 2008:80-102 [15] Cenfetelli R.T., Benbasat I., & Al-Natour, S. “Addressing the What and How of Online Services: Positioning Supporting-Services Functionality and Services Quality for Business-to-Consumer success.” Information Systems Research, 19 (2), 2008:161-181 [16] Ozdemir, S. & Trott, P. “Exploring the adoption of a service innovation: A study of Internet banking adopters and non-adopters.” Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 13 (4), 2009:284–299 [17] Rotchanakitumnuai, S. and Speece, M. “Modeling electronic service acceptance of an e-securities trading system.” Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109 (8), 2009:1069-1084 [18] Yaghoubi, N. M. & Bahmani, E. “Factors Affecting the Adoption of Online Banking: An Integration of Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of Planned Behavior.” International Journal of Business and Management, 5 (9), 2010:159-165 [19] Bailey, J.E. & Pearson, S. W. “Development of A Tool for Measuring and Analyzing Computer User Satisfaction.” Management Science, 29 (5), 1983:530-545 [20] DeLone, W.H. & McLean, E. R. “The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update.” Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (4), 2003: 9-30 [21] Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. “The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.” Advanced Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 1986:123-205 [22] Zviran, M., Pliskin, N. & Levin, R. “Measuring User Satisfaction and Perceived Usefulness in the ERP Context.” The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 45 (3), 2005:43-52 [23] Bhattacherjee, A. & Sanford, C. “Influence Processes for Information Technology Acceptance: an Elaboration Likelihood Model.” MIS Quarterly, 30 (4), 2006:805-825 [24] Tam, K.Y. & Ho, S.Y. “Web Personalization as a Persuasion Strategy: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective.” Information Systems Research, 16 (3), 2005:271-291
- 14 www.ivypub.org/msr
[25] Bagozzi, R.P. “The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a Proposal for a Paradigm Shift.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8 (4), 2007:244-254 [26] Baker, F. & Rachlin, H. “Probability of reciprocation in repeated prisoner’s dilemma games.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(1), 2001:51-67 [27] Brown, J.C. “The effects of behavioral and outcome feedback on prudent decision-making under conditions of present and future uncertainty.” Judgment and Decision Making, 1 (1), 2006:76-85 [28] Zeelenberg, M. “Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision making.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12 (2), 1999:93-106 [29] Brown, S. A., Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M. & R.Burkman, J. “Do I really have to? User acceptance of mandated technology.” European Journal of Information Systems, 11 (4), 2002:283- 295 [30] Burton-Jones, A. & Straub, D. W. Jr. “Reconceptualizing System Usage: An Approach and Empirical Test.” Information Systems Research, 17 (3), 2006:228-246
AUTHORS Kun Zhao, Ph. D in management, Professor, works in the School of Information, Yunnan University of Finance & Economics, Kunming, China. Teach Principles of management information system, information resources development and management as undergraduate and graduate courses. Major field of study is user behavior and information technology adoption.
- 15 www.ivypub.org/msr