Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

Decision Support Systems 38 (2004) 19 – 31


It’s all about attitude: revisiting the technology

acceptance model
Hee-dong Yang a,*, Youngjin Yoo b,1
College of Management, Ewha Womans University, 11-1 Daehyun-Dong, Sodaemun-Ku, Seoul 120-750, South Korea
Information Systems Department, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University,
10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA
Received 1 April 2002; accepted 1 February 2003
Available online 21 November 2003


We expanded Davis et al.’s technology acceptance model (TAM) by considering both the affective and the cognitive
dimensions of attitude and the hypothesized internal hierarchy among beliefs, cognitive attitude, affective attitude and
information systems (IS) use. While many of the earlier findings in TAM research were confirmed, the mediating role of
affective attitude between cognitive attitude and IS use was not supported. Our results cast doubts on the use of the affective
attitude construct in explaining IS use. Meanwhile, we found that cognitive attitude is an important variable to consider in
explaining IS usage behaviors. Our results suggest that attitude deserves more attention in IS research for its considerable
influence on the individual and organizational usage of IS.
D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Technology acceptance; Attitude; Structural equation model

1. Introduction usefulness is defined as ‘‘the degree to which a person

believes that using a particular system would enhance
Davis [15] and Davis et al. [17] developed the his or her job performance.’’ It relates to job effec-
technology acceptance model (TAM) to explain the tiveness, productivity (time saving) and the relative
acceptance of information technology in performing importance of the system to one’s job. On the other
tasks and identified two important beliefs that influ- hand, perceived ease of use refers to ‘‘the degree to
ence the usage of information systems (IS): perceived which a person believes that using a particular system
usefulness (PU) and ease of use (PEU). Perceived would be free of effort,’’ in terms of physical and
mental effort as well as ease of learning. It is these two
beliefs, according to TAM, that determine one’s
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-2-3277-3582; fax: +82-2- intention to use technology. Thus, TAM has emerged
E-mail addresses: hdyang@ewha.ac.kr (H. Yang), as a salient and powerful model that can be used to
yxy23@po.cwru.edu (Y. Yoo). predict potential IS usage by measuring users’ beliefs
Tel.: +1-216-368-0790. after they are exposed to the system even for a short

0167-9236/$ - see front matter D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
20 H. Yang, Y. Yoo / Decision Support Systems 38 (2004) 19–31

period of time through training, prototype or mock-up influential in the technology acceptance process, we
models [53]. can support organizations’ efforts to implement infor-
Focusing primarily on the affective aspect of mation technology.
attitude, Davis et al. [17, p. 984] further found that To address these issues, we attempt to answer the
the influence of attitude on IS use was at best modest following two questions. First, can we empirically
in predicting future IS use. They found that the distinguish the affective and cognitive aspects of
influence of attitude on IS use disappeared when PU attitude in the context of explaining IS use? Second,
was considered to predict IS use. This led them to if the answer to the first question is presumably yes,
conclude that attitude offers little value in predicting what is the causal relationship between two belief
IS use, leaving two users’ beliefs—perceived useful- constructs in TAM (PU and PEU) and two attitude
ness and perceived ease of use—as powerful and constructs (affective and cognitive attitude) leading to
parsimonious predictors. The validity and reliability IS use?
of constructs of the model have been well supported Our research makes important contributions to the
by various studies [1,2,11,15,19,28,44]. growing body of technology acceptance literature by
The social psychology literature, however, clearly showing that a better understanding of the role of
suggests that attitude has both affective and cognitive attitude can enhance the model’s predictability about
components [1,4,5,13,51,56]. The affective compo- users’ acceptance of information technology. Our
nent of attitude refers to how much the person likes study shows that cognition and affect operate through
the object of thought [34], while the cognitive com- different psychological mechanisms in order to influ-
ponent refers to an individual’s specific beliefs related ence the use of IS. In particular, the cognitive dimen-
to the object [4,5]. In light of this, a close examination sion of attitude directly influences individuals’ IS use,
of the measurement of attitude performed/provided by while the affective dimension needs to be treated as an
Davis et al. raises the following issues. First, although outcome variable of its own. Given the social function
the underlying theory they used assumed no cognitive of attitude [37], and the positive impact of its cogni-
component of attitude, the indicators for the attitude tive dimension established in our study, organizations
construct they used included both the cognitive and can focus on improving the cognitive dimensions of
affective aspects. Second, provided attitude has both attitude in order to improve an individual’s adoption
cognitive and affective aspects, it should be examined of information systems as well as an eventual, orga-
whether both aspects of attitudes mediate the impact nization-wide implementation.
of PU and PEU on IS use. According to a dyadic view In addition, our research contributes to the attitude
of attitude [13,39,51,56], the cognitive and affective literature by empirically demonstrating that two dimen-
components of attitude operate through different psy- sions of attitude operate through different psycholog-
chological mechanisms. Therefore, one can argue that ical mechanisms with respect to individual technology
one of the reasons that Davis et al. did not find a use behaviors. In particular, we attempt to make
significant influence of attitude in their study was theoretical distinctions between similar constructs—
because the potentially significant influence of cogni- the affective component of attitude, the cognitive
tion was offset by the insignificant influence of affect. component of attitude and beliefs—and empirically
In addition, attitude deserves more careful atten- demonstrate their differences.
tion in IS, not only in terms of refining the measure- This paper is organized as follows. After the
ments in TAM constructs, but also its potentially introduction, we explain the backgrounds of our
powerful influence on the implementation of technol- research. We review the attitude construct and explain
ogy and the diffusion of IT-enabled innovation in how the affective and cognitive aspects of attitude are
organizations. According to attitude literature, attitude different from each other. We also point out the
is has a social function [22,36]. It is contagious, different mediating role of two attitudes between
malleable and fragile in that people influence each PU, PEU and IS use. We introduce our research
other’s attitudes by affirming or contradicting them models and followed by a description of research
through interactions and mutual experiences. By methodology. Finally, we analyze the results and
better understanding which aspect of attitude is more discuss their implications.
H. Yang, Y. Yoo / Decision Support Systems 38 (2004) 19–31 21

2. Research rationale and motivation respondents’ feelings toward the object, while the
cognitive scales indicate the position that best
Ajzen and Fishbein’s [3] theory of action (TRA) is describes the traits or characteristics of the object.
a widely used general theory on the determinants of Therefore, 12 affective word pairs (love/hateful, de-
consciously intended behaviors. Building on TRA, lighted/sad, happy/annoyed, calm/tense, excited/
TAM posits that individuals form their intention to bored, relaxed/angry, acceptance/disgusted, joy/sor-
perform certain behaviors based in part on their row, positive/negative, like/dislike, good/bad, and
affective feelings about the systems—a condition desirable/undesirable) and 7 cognitive word pairs
labeled as attitude—and in part by their beliefs, which (useful/useless, wise/foolish, safe/unsafe, beneficial/
also influence their attitude. In doing so, TAM con- harmful, valuable/worthless, perfect/imperfect, and
ceptualizes attitude as an affective uni-dimensional wholesome/unhealthy), respectively, constitute the
construct. affective and cognitive versions of attitude [13].
Contrary to TAM, however, Petty et al. [39] have Davis et al. [17] measured attitude according to the
argued that ‘‘the most common classification for the following five items on 7-point semantic differential
basis of attitude is affect and cognition’’ (p. 613).2 The rating scales: ‘‘All things considered, my using Write-
affective dimension of attitude focuses on how much One in my job is good/bad, wise/foolish, favorable/
the person likes the object of thought [34] and unfavorable, beneficial/harmful, and positive/nega-
measures the degree of emotional attraction toward tive.’’ According to the definition of Crites et al.
the object [4]. On the other hand, the cognitive [13], Davis et al.’s measures of attitude contain both
dimension of attitude refers to an individual’s specific affective and cognitive aspects in a single attitude
beliefs related to the object [4,5] and consists of the construct.
evaluation, judgment, reception, or perception of the Meanwhile, the affective dimension of attitude is
object of thought based on values [9]. influenced by beliefs [49] and the beliefs can be
The dyadic view presumes the affective and cog- either evaluative or non-evaluative (true or false)
nitive dimensions to be independent variables that [37]. An evaluative belief can be considered as a
affect behavioral intention. Weiss and Cropanzano cognitive attitude, thus developed from non-evalu-
[56] introduced four empirical studies that identified ative beliefs and values [50]. Values mean preferred
the independent influences of the affective and cog- end states and preferred ways of doing things
nitive components of attitude. Similarly, Triandis [51] [39,49]. For example, building technology that is
argued that a better understanding of the relationship useful for task completion and easy to use is gener-
between attitude and behavior can be gained through ally accepted as having value in the IS community.
the separation of the affective and cognitive compo- Upon the use of the tool, users can form non-
nents of attitude. Within the IS literature, Goodhue evaluative beliefs about the usefulness and ease of
[25] and Swanson [45] have both recognized that the use of the tool. Based on such non-evaluative beliefs,
distinction between affective and cognitive dimen- users will form their evaluative beliefs about the
sions has frequently been overlooked in IS attitude system. Such evaluative beliefs (i.e., the cognitive
research. An evaluative disposition toward behavior attitude) in turn develop into users’ affective attitudes
might be different depending on whether it is inferred (like or hate). Thus, there is a hierarchical relation-
from an affective or a cognitive response [35]. ship among these four constructs: affective attitude is
Crites et al. [13] listed the semantic pairs to measure influenced by cognitive attitude, which is affected by
each aspect of an attitude construct. They defined the non-evaluative beliefs, which is in turn developed by
affective scales as the position that best describes values [50].

While the tripartite model argues that attitude has affective, 3. Research models
cognitive and conative components [3,8,34,37], the affective and
conative scales loaded on the same factor in the study of Stephen et
al. (1994) [41]. This empirical result suggests that the conative Fig. 1 shows the two models we tested in this
component is associated strongly with the affective aspects. study. Model I depicts the original TAM with mixed
22 H. Yang, Y. Yoo / Decision Support Systems 38 (2004) 19–31

Fig. 1. Research models. Model I. Original TAM with mixed attitude measure. Model II. Revised TAM with separate affective and cognitive

attitude measure. Model II is the revised TAM that fusion [20]. Our interest here is to predict usage
we developed in the previous section, i.e., cognitive behaviors rather than intentions to use. Thus, con-
and affective attitude constructs are distinguished by sistent with a number of TAM studies in the past
their different mediating roles. Furthermore, in Mod- that excluded intension and instead included IS use
el II, we hypothesize the internal hierarchy of [1,43], we chose to use IS use as our dependent
attitude between its cognitive and affective dimen- variable.
sions. Comparisons of these two models allow us to Second, following Davis [15, pp. 477 –478], we
see the efficacy of the attitude construct in explain- hypothesize that PEU would influence PU but not
ing individuals’ use of information technology. In vice versa. This hypothesized relationship has been
particular, we can examine whether the weak role of supported by much empirical evidence [2,10,15 –
attitude in TAM is due to the construct’s intrinsic 17,31,33,46– 48,53].
characteristics as explained by Davis et al. [17], or Third, following the original TAM, we assume PU
due to the way the construct was measured in their directly influences IS use, whereas PEU does not.
study. Many empirical studies [10,15 – 17,42,44,46 – 48]
There are four things in common in both have consistently identified PU as a primary factor
models. First, we choose IS use, not the behavior that influences IS use, while PEU plays a much less
intention (to use IS), as the dependent variable. important role, particularly later in the adoption
Ajzen and Fishbein [3] indicated intentions should process.
be measured close to the behavioral observation to Fourth, attitude is hypothesized to mediate the
ensure an accurate prediction. Thus, behavioral influences of PU and PEU on IS use. There are
intention may lack practical value in predicting many empirical studies supporting this hypothesis
long-term future IS use (Ref. [7, p. 135]). Fur- [16,17,30,33]. The significance of these mediating
thermore, stable use of IS, not early adoption after paths, along with affective or cognitive attitude
a brief exposure to the technology, is a more measures, is one of our main interests in this
appropriate measure of technology innovation dif- study.
H. Yang, Y. Yoo / Decision Support Systems 38 (2004) 19–31 23

4. Methodology influence of attitude operationalization and the rela-

tionship between two attitudes and the other variables.
4.1. Data collection Structural equation modeling has many advantages
over path analysis or regression analysis, especially
Data were collected from undergraduate students when the observed variables contain measurement
who major in management information systems (MIS) errors and the interesting relationship is among the
at a college of management in the New England latent (unobservable) variables [24].
region of the United States. Students were asked to
fill out spreadsheet usage surveys anonymously and 5.1. Test of the measurement model
submit them to the class instructors on a voluntary
basis. One point (out of 100 total possible points) was Table 1 presents the results of the reliability testing
accredited to their voluntary participation to this using Cronbach alpha coefficients, which ranged from
survey. It took 9 weeks to finish collecting surveys. 0.8341 to 0.9427. Construct validity was assessed
Harris and Schaubroeck [26] recommended a mini- using confirmatory factor analysis. In our dataset, all
mum sample size of 200 to guarantee robust structural the measures loaded onto their underlying factors.
equation modeling. In total, 211 completed question- Generally, to show convergent validity, all item load-
naires were returned for spreadsheet usage out of 420 ing scores need to be greater than 0.707 [23,29]. As
handouts, satisfying this recommendation. The return shown in Table 2, all factor loading scores were
ratio was as 50.2%. higher than the suggested 0.707.
Given the conceptual proximity among four con-
4.2. Measurements structs (affective attitude, cognitive attitude, PEU,
and PU), we examine the discriminant validity of
Appendix A shows all the measurement items that measures using three different measurement models
were used in the study. We used Davis et al.’s [17] and Amos. The first measurement model assumes
original items for perceived usefulness (four items), that there is only one latent variable, having all
perceived ease of use (four items), and system use. indicators loaded on a single factor. The second
Through several empirical studies, these items’ valid- model assumes that there are three latent variables
ity and reliability have been established [1,11,17, (attitude, PEU, and PU). Finally, the last model
46,53]. assumes that there are four latent variables (cognitive
Out of their original 12 pairs of affective and 7 attitude, affective attitude, PEU, and PU). The dif-
pairs of cognitive measurement of Crites et al. [13], ference in Chi-square statistics was used to test the
three items were chosen for each group. Three se- superiority of one measurement model over another
mantic pairs for affective measures included good/ in these comparisons [23]. Table 3 shows the results
bad, happy/annoyed, and positive/negative. Three of the hierarchical comparisons that we conducted on
semantic pairs for cognitive measures included wise/ our data set. The first comparison demonstrated the
foolish, beneficial/harmful, and valuable/worthless. superiority of the three-factor model over the one-
Two affective pairs (good/bad, positive/negative) factor model. The second comparison demonstrated
and two cognitive pairs (wise/foolish, beneficial/ the superiority of the four-factor model over the
harmful) were chosen because they were used by three-factor model.
Davis et al. [17]. Two additional pairs, one for
affective and one for cognitive attitude, were chosen Table 1
from the list of Crites et al. [13]. Reliability estimates
Construct Items Cronbach’s
5. Data analysis PU 4 0.9427
PEU 4 0.8991
Data analysis was conducted using a structural ATTITUDE 6 0.9177
equation modeling tool, Amos, to investigate the IS USE 2 0.8341
24 H. Yang, Y. Yoo / Decision Support Systems 38 (2004) 19–31

Table 2 Table 4
Confirmatory factor analysis model Discriminant validity
Items PU PEU Affective Cognitive IS use PU PEU Affective Cognitive IS use
attitude attitude attitude attitude
1 0.89 PU 0.847a
(na) PEU 0.445b 0.834
2 0.91 Affective attitude 0.528 0.398 0.780
(19.91) Cognitive attitude 0.480 0.348 0.614 0.788
3 0.92 IS use 0.311 0.364 0.255 0.372 0.898
(20.55) a
Diagonal: (average variance extracted from the observed
4 0.87 variables by the latent variables)1/2=(Sk2/q)1/2.
(18.23) b
Off-diagonals: correlation between latent variables=(shared
5 0.87 (na) variance)1/2.
6 0.75 (12.80)
7 0.84 (15.25)
8 0.87 (16.34)
9 0.84 (na) shared with other constructs, thereby confirming the
10 0.91 (17.60) discriminant validity.
11 0.95 (18.73)
12 0.92 (na)
13 0.90 (20.73) 5.2. Test of the model
14 0.91 (21.05)
15 0.78 Structural equation modeling was conducted using
(na) Amos to test the fit between the research models (Fig.
16 0.91
1) and the data set. In the literature, a variety of
measures are suggested to test the fit between the
na is set to metric.
The numbers in the parentheses are t-values. Loadings greater than
model and data [6,21,27]. In general, the goodness-of-
0.7 or t-values greater than 2.0 (which is significant at a = 0.05) fit is satisfactory when the Goodness of Fit Index
indicate the convergent validity. (GFI) is greater than 0.9, the Adjusted Goodness of
Fit Index (AGFI) is greater than 0.8, the Root Mean
Square Residual (RMSR) is lower than 0.1, and the
We further examined the discriminant validity
chi-square divided by degree of freedom (v2/df) is less
using the square root of the average variance extracted
than 5 [27].3 Fig. 2 shows the fit indices of the
[14,21,40]. As shown in Table 4, all square roots of
original TAM and the revised model.
the average variance extracted displayed on a diagonal
As for the original TAM, the various goodness-of-
of a correlation matrix are greater than the off-diag-
fit statistics indicate that the model shows a poor fit
onal construct correlations in the corresponding rows
with the data. In our dataset, the value of GFI is 0.73,
and columns. Combined with the results from confir-
the AGFI is 0.64, the RMSR is 0.12, and the v2/df is
matory factor analysis, this indicates that each con-
5.7. On the other hand, for the revised model, the
struct shared more variance with its items than it
value of GFI is 0.90, the AGFI is 0.85, the RMSR is
0.09, and v2/df is 2.2. Thus, the revised model shows
Table 3
the improved goodness-of-fit statistics in all four
Competing measurement modeling fitness indices, compared to the original TAM. Fur-
v2 df thermore, all fitness indices of the revised model
passed the criterion-value. Overall, it is clear that
One-factor Model (M1) 1379.40 77
Three-factor Model (M2) 513.46 74 the revised model shows a better fit with the data,
Four-factor Model (M3) 161.62 71 demonstrating a superior explanatory power of the
technology usage by individuals.
Model comparisons Dv2 Ddf P
M1 – M2 865.94 3 < 0.001 3
More restrictive criteria are sometimes cited: e.g., 0.90 for
M2 – M3 290.46 3 < 0.001
AGFI, 0.05 for RMSR, and 3:1 for v2/df [23].
H. Yang, Y. Yoo / Decision Support Systems 38 (2004) 19–31 25

Fig. 2. Model path estimates: standardized estimates (t-values). Model I. Original TAM with mixed attitude measure. Model II. Revised TAM
with separated affective and cognitive attitude.

Fig. 2 also shows the path coefficients in the not mediate the relationship between cognitive atti-
models. Because the revised model has a better tude and IS use.
fit with our data set than the original TAM, we
would focus on the path coefficients of Model II.
In this model, all the paths were significant, except 6. Discussions and conclusions
for the one from the affective attitude to IS use
and the path from PEU to affective attitude. Most The purposes of our study were (a) to empirically
findings of traditional TAM are repeated here: examine whether two aspects of attitude (cognitive vs.
PEU influences PU; PU has more influences on affective) can be separated with high degrees of
attitude than does PEU; PU has a direct influence reliability and validity in the context of IS technology
on IS use. acceptance and (b) to examine whether IS use is
One significant difference was the important me- influenced by affective attitude, which is influenced
diating role of the cognitive attitude between users’ by cognitive attitude, which is in turn influenced by
beliefs (PU and PEU) and IS use. Contrary to Davis et PU and PEU. The answer to the first questions was
al. [17], our results showed that the cognitive dimen- ‘‘yes’’ and the answer to the second question is in part
sion of attitude played an important role in explaining positive.
IS use. The beta coefficient from cognitive attitude to First, we found that, in the context of technology
IS use (0.51) is more than twice the value of the beta acceptance, affective and cognitive attitudes are two
coefficient from PU to IS use (0.25). On the other separate socio-psychological constructs. Since Davis
hand, the path between affective attitude and IS use is et al.’s [17] finding that attitude adds little value in
not significant, suggesting that affective attitude does explaining IS use, the attitude construct has often been
26 H. Yang, Y. Yoo / Decision Support Systems 38 (2004) 19–31

ignored in understanding technology acceptance. Attitude has a social function. Attitude serves both
Some studies even treated user beliefs and attitudes private and public identity concerns [37]. Even though
as if they were interchangeable. Our results show that attitude has been treated as a vague and fragile
they are not. This is an important point to note in the construct in the IS area, its importance on individual
context of technology acceptance literature, which behavior and social influence has been steadily rec-
often treats attitude as an affective construct, ignoring ognized in psychology [37]. Attitude is contagious
its cognitive dimension (e.g., Ref. [17]). Future re- and as people work together, they express their own
search in this area should pay closer attention to the and listen to each other’s attitudes [50]. Therefore,
differences between the cognitive and affective organizations and managers need to care about the
dimensions of attitude in users’ acceptance of tech- positive attitude change.
nology. Changes in attitude occur quickly and require
Second, consistent with many previous TAM stud- less challenge than the changes in non-evaluative
ies, we found that PU has a direct influence on IS use. beliefs or values [50]. Many theories and pro-
We found, however, that only cognitive attitude medi- grams have been developed for positive attitude
ates the influence of PU and PEU on IS use. Contrary change such as the direct influence of individuals
to our expectation, affective attitude did not mediate (e.g., enhancing people’s motivations, abilities, me-
the influence of cognitive attitude on IS use. This mories, or moods), the improvement of contextual
result raises a question about the plausibility of the cues (e.g., classical conditioning), or the consider-
proposed hierarchical structure among affective atti- ation of persuasive messages (e.g., message cred-
tude, cognitive attitude, and non-evaluative beliefs as ibility, message memory, two-sided communication,
hypothesized (non-evaluative beliefs ! cognitive atti- etc.).
tude ! affective attitude). Even though attitude can be changed quickly,
The results also explain why Davis et al. [17] continuous efforts should also be given to maintain
did not find that the role of attitude was significant the attitude because it is temporary, unstable, and
in their study. The weak relationship between at- malleable [50]. Motivations, capability, experiences
titude and IS use in their study might have been and education all influence attitude development and
due to the mixed measure of the attitude construct. maintenance. Thus, attitude maintenance and change
As our results suggest, when the cognitive dimen- should be considered as a complementary tool to
sion of attitude is considered, attitude explains more traditional implementation techniques that can be
than twice as many variances of IS use as does PU. used to improve the user’s acceptance of new tech-
This clearly suggests that we can significantly nology.
enhance our understanding and prediction of IS
use by considering the cognitive dimension of at- 6.1. Limitations
It is also important to note that the affective The current study has several limitations. First, the
dimension of attitude does not explain IS use at original TAM includes behavioral intention as a
all. Interestingly, however, cognitive attitude influen- mediator in the model, whereas we did not include
ces the affective attitude in various models of our this factor in our model. For a more rigid investiga-
study. Taken together, we propose that the affective tion of TAM, we could have used behavioral inten-
attitude in technology acceptance needs to be treated tion as well as self-reported use behavior. The value
as a dependent variable of its own, not as a mediator. of behavioral intention within the context of technol-
Or, perhaps it is more directly related to another ogy acceptance is found in its early diagnostic func-
important dependent variable in IS research, such as tion which enables management to predict the
user satisfaction. Given the significant differences potential acceptance (or rejection) of the systems by
between the cognitive and affective dimensions of the intended users after a short exposure to the
attitude, we suggest focusing on the cognitive di- system. However, we believe that the research of
mension of attitude in explaining or predicting IS technology acceptance (including ours) is ultimately
use. concerned with explaining and predicting the users’
H. Yang, Y. Yoo / Decision Support Systems 38 (2004) 19–31 27

usage behavior rather their intentions. Therefore, we well known that individuals’ attitudes and beliefs
feel that our use of self-reported usage without toward technology change over time as they become
behavioral intention is consistent with the goal of more experienced. In this light, one can expand the
our study. TAM into a reciprocal model in which attitude
Second, we used only perceptual measures of IS influences IS use, which in turn influences the
use. Earlier studies have shown that individuals’ users’ attitude in the subsequent phases. It would
perceptions of IS usage are sometimes different require further theorization efforts and more sophis-
from their actual usage pattern [12,18,43,52]. ticated empirical techniques to examine such dy-
Therefore, our results need to be cautiously inter- namic relationships.
preted. Also, one can examine the relationship between
Third, while the goodness of fit indices of our TAM and another well-studied dependent variable in
model meet the minimum requirements suggested IS research, user satisfaction [18]. Our results show
by Hayduk [27], it does not meet more stringent that affective attitude should be treated as the
requirements (i.e., RMSR = 0.05) recommended by dependent variable rather than as the mediator. We
Gefen et al. [23], which is more respected by IS see a possible conceptual linkage between affective
researchers. They warned that ‘‘[i]t is important to attitude and user satisfaction, through which TAM
note that large [RMSR] values mean high residual can be expanded to include user satisfaction as
variance, and that such values reflect a poorly another important dependent variable in addition to
fitting model’’ (p. 35). Therefore, our results IS use.
could have been influenced by correlated residual
variances. 6.3. Implications for practice
Finally, our sample consisted of college students
learning these tools for course credit. Therefore, no Two important implications for IS managers can
organizational setting is considered in our data set. be drawn from the results. First, by replacing Davis
However, past research suggests that social, orga- et al.’s five attitude measurement items with our
nizational, and cultural contexts influence individu- three-item cognitive attitude measure, managers can
als’ decisions about technology acceptance [22,32, predict IS use more successfully. Second, and more
38,54,55]. Our study did not consider those ‘‘so- importantly, our results suggest that individual users’
cial’’ variables. Future research can study how attitudes do influence technology acceptance. Par-
social norms and existing social practices influence ticularly, our results suggest that encouraging among
the formation of individuals’ attitude in the con- users a positive cognitive approach to the systems
text of technology acceptance. In particular, one can also substantially improve the users’ acceptance
can examine the relative influences of the mechan- of the technology. Also, managers can indirectly
ical characteristics of the technology as well as improve the users’ acceptance of the technology
social norms on individuals’ attitudes toward tech- by affecting individuals’ cognitive attitude. While
nology. the importance of users’ beliefs underscores the
value of system design and user’s training, the im-
6.2. Implications for future research portance of users’ attitudes underscores the signifi-
cance of communication with users about the
Despite these limitations, our results offer several systems.
insights into the technology acceptance process.
First, given the important role of attitude (particu-
larly cognitive attitude) in the technology accep- Acknowledgements
tance process, it is critical to examine the evolution
patterns of both cognitive and affective attitudes We thank Sora Kang for her assistance in
over time and how their relationships change. It is conducting statistical analyses for this paper.
28 H. Yang, Y. Yoo / Decision Support Systems 38 (2004) 19–31

Appendix A . Measurement instrument

H. Yang, Y. Yoo / Decision Support Systems 38 (2004) 19–31 29

References [14] A.M. Croteau, L. Raymond, F. Bergeron, Testing the validity

of miles and snow’s typology, Academy of Information and
[1] D.A. Adams, R.R. Nelson, P.A. Todd, Perceived usefulness, Management Sciences Journal 2 (1999) 2.
ease of use, and usage of information technology: a replica- [15] F.D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and
tion, MIS Quarterly (1992, June) 227 – 247. user acceptance of information technology, MIS Quarterly
[2] R. Agarwal, J. Prasad, Are individual differences germane to (1989, September) 318 – 340.
the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision [16] F.D. Davis, User acceptance of information technology:
Sciences 30 (1999) 2. system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral im-
[3] I. Ajzen, M. Fishbein, Understanding Attitudes and Predict- pacts, International Journal of Man – Machine Studies 38
ing Social Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, (1993) 3.
1980. [17] F.D. Davis, R.P. Bagozzi, P.R. Warshaw, User acceptance of
[4] R.P. Bagozzi, R.E. Burnkrant, Attitude organization and the computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models,
attitude – behavior relationship, Journal of Personality and So- Management Science 35 (1989) 8.
cial Psychology 37 (1979) 6. [18] W.H. DeLone, E.R. McLean, Information systems success: the
[5] R.P. Bagozzi, R.E. Burnkrant, Attitude organization and the quest for the dependent variable, Information Systems Re-
attitude – behavior relationship: a reply to Dillon and Ku- search 3 (1992) 1.
mar, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49 [19] W.J. Doll, A. Hendrickson, X. Deng, Using Davis’s perceived
(1985) 1. usefulness and ease-of-use instruments for decision making: a
[6] P.M. Bentler, D.G. Bonett, Significance tests and goodness of confirmatory and multigroup invariance analysis, Decision
fit in the analysis of covariance structures, Psychological Bul- Sciences 29 (1998) 4.
letin 88 (1980) 3. [20] R.G. Fichman, C.F. Kemerer, The illusory diffusion of inno-
[7] F. Bergeron, L. Raymond, S. Rivard, M.-F. Gara, Determi- vation: an examination of assimilation gaps, Information Sys-
nants of EIS use: testing a behavioral model, Decision Support tems Research 10 (1999) 3.
Systems 14 (1995) 2. [21] C. Fornell, Issues in the application of covariance structure
[8] L. Berkowitz, Attitudes and Action: A Survey of Social Psy- analysis: a comment, Journal of Consumer Research 9 (1983)
chology, CBS College Publishing, New York, 1986. 443 – 448.
[9] S. Chaiken, C. Stangor, Attitudes and attitude change, Annual [22] J. Fulk, Social construction of communication technology,
Review of Psychology 38 (1987) 575 – 630. Academy of Management Journal 36 (1993) 5.
[10] P.Y.K. Chau, An empirical assessment of a modified technol- [23] D. Gefen, D.W. Straub, M.-C. Boudreau, Structural equation
ogy acceptance model, Journal of Management Information modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice,
Systems 13 (1996) 2. Communications of the Association for Information Systems
[11] W.W. Chin, P.A. Todd, On the use, usefulness, and ease of use 4 (7) (2000) 1 – 77.
of structural equation modeling in MIS research: a note of [24] A.S. Goldberger, Structural equation models: an overview, in:
caution, MIS Quarterly 19 (1995) 2. A.S. Goldberger, O.D. Duncan (Eds.), Structural Equation
[12] F. Collopy, Biases in retrospective self-reports of time use: an Models in the Social Science, Chapter 1, Seminar Press,
empirical study of computer users, Management Science 42 New York, 1973, pp. 1 – 18.
(1996) 5. [25] D. Goodhue, I/S attitudes: toward theoretical and definitional
[13] S.L. Crites Jr., L.R. Fabrigar, R.E. Petty, Measuring the affec- clarity, Database 19 (3/4) (1988) 6 – 15.
tive and cognitive properties of attitudes: conceptual and [26] M. Harris, J. Schaubroeck, Confirmatory modeling in organ-
methodological issues, Personality and Social Psychology izational behavior/human resource management: issues and
Bulletin 20 (1994) 6. applications, Journal of Management 16 (1990) 2.
30 H. Yang, Y. Yoo / Decision Support Systems 38 (2004) 19–31

[27] L.A. Hayduk, Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL: [46] B. Szajna, Empirical evaluation of the revised technology
Essentials and Advances, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Balti- acceptance model, Management Science 42 (1996) 1.
more, MD, 1987. [47] S. Taylor, P.A. Todd, Understanding information technology
[28] A.R. Hendrickson, P.D. Massey, T.P. Cronan, On the test – usage: a test of competing models, Information Systems Re-
retest reliability of perceived usefulness and perceived ease search 6 (1995) 2.
of use scales, MIS Quarterly (1993, June) 227 – 230. [48] S. Taylor, P.A. Todd, Assessing IT usage: the role of prior
[29] K.G. Joreskog, D. Sorbum, LISREL 7: A Guide to the Pro- experience, MIS Quarterly 19 (1995) 4.
gram and Applications, 2nd ed., SPSS, Chicago, IL, 1989. [49] A. Tesser, D.R. Shaffer, Attitudes and attitude change, Annual
[30] E. Karahanna, D. Straub, N.L. Chervany, Information tech- Review of Psychology 41 (1990) 479.
nology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of [50] R.C. Thompson, J.G.J. Hunt, In the black box of alpha, beta,
pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs, MIS Quarterly 23 and gamma change: using a cognitive-processing model to
(1999) 2. assess attitude structure, Academy of Management Review
[31] H.C. Lucas Jr., V.K. Spitler, Technology use and performance: 21 (1996) 3.
a field study of broker workstations, Decision Sciences 30 [51] H.C. Triandis, Value, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior,
(1999) 2. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, University of Nebraska
[32] M.L. Markus, Toward a ‘‘Critical Mass’’ theory of interactive Press, Lincoln, NE, 1980.
media, in: J. Fulk, C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and [52] A.W. Trice, M.E. Treacy, Utilization as a dependent variable
Communication Technology, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, in MIS research, Proceedings of the International Conference
1990, p. 194. of Information Systems, 1986.
[33] K. Mathieson, Predicting user intentions: comparing the tech- [53] V. Venkatesh, F.D. Davis, A model of the antecedents of per-
nology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior, ceived ease of use: development and test, Decision Sciences
Information Systems Research 2 (1991) 3. 27 (1996) 3.
[34] W.J. McGuire, Attitudes and attitude change, in: G. Lindzey, [54] V. Venkatesh, F.D. Davis, A theoretical extension of the tech-
E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Chapter nology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies,
19, Random House, New York, 1985, pp. 233 – 346. Management Science 46 (2000) 186 – 204.
[35] N.P. Melone, A theoretical assessment of the user-satisfaction [55] K.E. Weick, Technology as equivoque: sensemaking in new
construct in information systems research, Management Sci- technologies, in: P.S. Goodman, L.E. Sproull, et al. (Eds.),
ence 36 (1990) 1. Technology and Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
[36] J.C. Nunnally, I.H. Bernstein, Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., 1990, pp. 1 – 44.
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994. [56] H.M. Weiss, R. Cropanzano, Affective events theory: a theo-
[37] J.M. Olson, M.P. Zanna, Attitudes and attitude change, Annual retical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of
Review of Psychology 44 (1993) 117 – 154. affective experiences at work, in: B.M. Staw, L.L. Cummings
[38] W.J. Orlikowski, The duality of technology: rethinking the (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press,
concepts of technology in organizations, Organization Science Greenwich, CT, 1996, pp. 1 – 74.
3 (1992) 3.
[39] R.E. Petty, D.T. Wegener, L.R. Fabrigar, Attitudes and attitude
change, Annual Review of Psychology 48 (1998) 609 – 648.
[40] D.S. Staples, J.S. Hulland, C.A. Higgins, A self-efficacy
theory explanation for the management of remote workers Further reading
in virtual organizations, Journal of Computer-Mediated Com-
munication 3 (1998) 4. [1] J.C. Anderson, D.W. Gerbing, Structural equation modeling in
[41] L.C. Stephen Jr., R.F. Leandre, E.P. Richard, Measuring the practice: a review and recommended two-step approach, Psy-
Affective and Cognitive Prosperities of Attitudes: Conceptual chological Bulletin 103 (1988) 3.
and Methodological Issues, Personality and Social Psychology [2] E. Babbie, The Practice of Social Research, 7th ed., Wads-
Bulletin 20 (1994). worth, Belmont, CA, 1995.
[42] D. Straub, M. Keil, W. Brenner, Testing the technology ac- [3] R.M. Baron, D.A. Kenny, The moderator – mediator variable
ceptance model across cultures: a three country study, Infor- distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strate-
mation and Management 33 (1997) 1. gic, and statistical considerations, Journal of Personality and
[43] D. Straub, M. Limayem, E. Karahanna-Evaristo, Measuring Social Psychology 51 (1986) 6.
system usage: implications for IS theory testing, Management [4] J. Etezadi-Amoli, A.F. Farhoomand, A structural model of end
Science 41 (1995) 8. user computing satisfaction and user performance, Information
[44] G.H. Subramanian, A replication of perceived usefulness and Management 30.
and perceived ease of use measurement, Decision Sciences [5] L.R. James, J.M. Brett, Mediators, moderators, and tests for
25 (5/6) (1994) 863 – 874. mediation, Journal of Applied Psychology 69 (1984) 2.
[45] E.B. Swanson, Measuring user attitudes in MIS research: a [6] F.N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research, 3rd ed.,
review, OMEGA: The International Journal of Management Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1986.
Science 10 (1982) 2. [7] V. Venkatesh, F.D. Davis, A theoretical extension of the tech-
H. Yang, Y. Yoo / Decision Support Systems 38 (2004) 19–31 31

nology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies, Man- Youngjin Yoo is an Assistant Professor in the Information Systems
agement Science 46 (2000) 2. Department at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case
[8] N. Venkatraman, The concept of fit in strategy research: toward Western Reserve University. He holds a PhD in Information
verbal and statistical correspondence, Academy of Management Systems from the University of Maryland and an MBA and BS in
Review 14 (1989) 3. Business Administration from Seoul National University. His re-
search interests include knowledge management in global organ-
Hee-Dong Yang is an Assistant Professor in the College of izations and technology-enabled organizational transformation. His
Management at Ewha Womans University in Korea. He has a papers have been presented at several leading conferences (the
PhD from Case Western Reserve University in Management of Academy of Management, ICIS, AIS, and HICSS) and have
Information Systems. He was previously an Assistant Professor at appeared in leading academic and practitioner journals such as
the University of Massachusetts-Boston. His research interests Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly, the Academy of
include electronic commerce, the organizational impact of informa- Management Journal, Journal of Strategic Information Systems,
tion technology, the technology acceptance model, and strategic use Journal of Management Education, and International Journal of
of information systems. His papers have appeared in the Journal of Organizational Analysis and Information Systems Management. He
Information Technology Management, International Journal of serves on the editorial board of the Journal of AIS.
Electronic Commerce, and have been presented at many leading
international conferences (ICIS, HICSS, Academy of Management,