Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

Abstract

Technology and information systems have become necessary for companies and organizations to achieve their goals. Thus, several technology models and theories have been raised and adopted in different fields to increase the usage of different technologies.

Get quality help now

Writer Lyla

Verified writer

Proficient in: Acceptance

5 (876)

“ Have been using her for a while and please believe when I tell you, she never fail. Thanks Writer Lyla you are indeed awesome ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Studies showed that several theories and models were introduced attempting to examine which factors can affect and lead to a successful usage of technology. By critically reviewing the literature, the present study aims at critically discussing the strength and limitation of each of these technology acceptance models, namely, Theory or reason action (TRA), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), The extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM2) and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT).

Based on the review, this paper illustrates that there is no theory that is a free of limitation and each theory has its own strength and limitation. This study provides future researchers with a robust opportunity to carefully adopt the convenient model for conducting their empirical studies with the adoption of different technologies.

Discussion

Models Review on the usage and acceptance of technology

The investigator has done a review of the most loved models that were utilized for foreseeing and clarifying the technology acknowledgment and use regarding their limitations and strengths. These models incorporate Theory of Reasoned Action, Technology Acceptance Model, Extended Technology Acceptance Model and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. This review is then trailed by a critical examination of every hypothesis.

Through a table review of the models, unmistakably each model has its own merits and demerits.

Furthermore, there is no model that beats all confinement and concocts a model that is limitations free. Additionally, a few models utilize various terms for characterizing a portion of their elements despite the fact that they share similar concepts with different theories. For instance, in UTAUT, the development of performance expectancy is like the TAM model's usefulness constructs.

Similarly, the expectancy construct effort in UTAUT is also like the apparent simplified use in the TAM model. Alternatively, a few models have various names for their components regardless of whether they share similar terms of these variables with different elements which have various names in different theories. Generally, most models have the same constructs with different theories and there is no specific model that is limitation free. Consequently, a large portion of these models has been utilized broadly in the literature whether in its unique form or by extending it to incorporate the elements that should be analyzed.

Through the separate examination of every hypothesis separately, the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) was created by Ajzen and Fishbein (1975). It was a base and principal hypothesis for the greater part of the other later theories, for example, TAM, TAM2 and UTAUT. It clarifies the human conduct for tolerating the technology from the perspective of social psychology. This hypothesis asserts that human conduct is affected by their conduct expectation. This conduct aim is impacted by two constructs: Attitude toward the conduct and the abstract standards.

Despite the fact that TRA has been utilized broadly for anticipating a few distinct practices, it has a few disadvantages. TRA is viewed as general in nature which attempts to clarify the human conduct. Another significant limitation of TRA is that it does not consider other situational factors that may impact a person’s attitude, conduct expectation and their conduct. Additionally, broadening it by including different variables that may affect attitude does not build the illustrative intensity of the model.

Shih and Fang (2006) broadened the first TRA by including the properties of system quality, for example, ease of use, security, data quality and exchange speed to inspect their impact on the attitude toward the conduct intention. They inferred that despite the fact that these outer components have been included, the informative intensity of the model was not improved. Moreover, there is an apparent confounding risk between the abstract standards and attitude constructs since the attitude could be regularly alluded to as subjective standards. Due to the disadvantages, there was a requirement for a hypothesis that beats the TRA disadvantages. Accordingly, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was created.

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was created by Davis (1989) to beat the TRA limitation. TAM received the TRA connections interfaces, however, it included the belief factors together with attitude, goal and real use to clarify its acknowledgment. PEU and PU were considered as central determinant constructs for clients to acknowledge the technology. The abstract standards construct in TRA were dispensed in TAM. Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw (1989) clarified the explanation behind killing subjective standards from TAM as social standards construct had a poor psychometric point of view and did not impact the individual conduct intention. TAM turns out to be popular which has been for the most part referred to in studies that emphasize clients' acknowledgment and use of technology.

Despite the fact that the first TAM was broadly tried with various circumstances and various samples, and ended up being a solid and substantial model for clarifying the acknowledgment and use of systems. Many types of research expanded TAM and tried it with various applications and various settings. Besides, expanding TAM model, for the most part, constructs the illustrative intensity of the model, for instance, Luarn and Lin (2005) broadened TAM model by including a few elements as external, for example, self-viability, perceived credibility and the outcomes indicated an improvement of the logical power in his model when contrasted with the first TAM.

Mathieson (1991) expressed that despite the fact that the first TAM is prescient, in light of its simplification, it cannot give enough comprehension about the clients' adjustment to any technology based on just the principle elements of TAM: the perceived usefulness and ease of utilization. Brezavšček et al., (2012) also argued that the acknowledgment of technology through the two elements, for example, perceived ease and usefulness, can be additionally impacted by different external factors, which may influence the conduct toward the use of a specific system. In this manner, it is not astonishing that the latest studies have stretched out the first TAM. They now consider the variables that should be read for giving a more profound comprehension about the acknowledgment and use of technologies. They also expand the logical intensity of the all-encompassing model.

The all-encompassing Technology Acceptance Model (TAM2) was created by Venkatesh and Davis (2000) to conquer the limitation of the first TAM and expand the illustrative force. TAM2 kept the major determinant of the first TAM: PEU and PU. Furthermore, it took consideration of the social impact including abstract standard and image, and intellectual instrumental procedures that incorporate yield quality, work importance and result verifiability. Both TAM and TAM2 have been generally utilized for clarifying the clients' conduct acknowledgment of innovations in a few distinctive association settings. In any case, TAM2 additionally has its own restriction.

The TAM2 model inspected the social impact constructs and intellectual instrumental procedure constructs on the conduct aim through just the apparent convenience (PU). Probably, existing connections on conduct intention through Perceived Ease of utilization (PEU) were not analyzed. Moreover, Venkatesh (2000) recommended analyzing the impact of other external elements, for example, perceived self-viability, facilitating conditions. It ought to be noticed that TAM2 is not just the all-inclusive model dependent on the first TAM, a few investigations have expanded TAM and included distinctive external factors and analyzed their impacts on the acknowledgment and use of the diverse application in various settings. However, TAM2 is centered on here as it was created by a similar author, Davis, who built up the first TAM.

The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) were then constructed by Venkatesh et al (2003), to conquer the limitations that exist in the past theories. It coordinated 8 of the most well-known past hypotheses. It comprises of four determinants constructs, to be specific: social influence, facilitation condition, effort expectancy and performance expectancy which affect conduct aim and the utilization. UTAUT has a bit of leeway in that it can give a high informative force as it clarified 70% of the difference in the conduct aim.

Nevertheless, UTAUT is resolute when it is applied in an alternate setting, for example, in non-western culture as it brings about a lower informative force in the fluctuation clarified in conduct intention. Al-Gahtani et al (2007) applied UTAUT for approving it in non-western culture, explicitly in Saudi Arabia, and the outcomes indicated that the UTAUT model could just explain 39.1% of the difference in conduct aim, and 42.2 of the fluctuation in the utilization construct. Nonetheless, two fundamental determinants constructs in UTAUT which are facilitation condition and effort expectancy did not impact the conduct aim toward its use.

Different scientists also discovered the same in a lower informative force in UTAUT, for example, 64.5 % and just 35.3% without thinking about the balance and 39.1% with thinking about the balance. In this way, applying UTAUT for getting a higher exploratory force will not really guarantee that the model will be highly prescient and prompts a high rate in the change clarified in conduct goal, particularly when it is applied in various settings and cultures.

Moreover, another impediment is that the agreement in the idea of the connections between UTAUT factors does not generally exist, particularly when it is applied in an alternate setting. Additionally, UTAUT prompts low miserliness as a result of the intricate connections among constructs which likewise suggested by various impacts of balances. It is outstanding that even UTAUT which coordinated 8 of the most well-known theories is not impediment free and could not defeat all limitations which exist in past hypotheses.

Conclusion

This examination has fundamentally talked about the advantages and disadvantages of acknowledgment models. It concentrated on talking about the most famous acceptance models that were utilized with the adoption of technology, in particular TRA, TAM, TAM2, UTAUT. It is clear that there is no hypothesis that is limitation free. Along these lines, every one of them was broadly utilized with a few diverse technologies in literature. Notwithstanding, UTAUT has a preferred position in that it can give a high logical force as it clarified 70% of the fluctuation in the conduct aim. This exploration can give future investigators a powerful chance to painstakingly embrace the advantageous model for directing their observational investigations with the reception of various technologies.