Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

Venkatesh et al., (2003) integrated and accomplished many models of IT acceptance which comprised of eight well-known models: the Theory of reasoned action (Davis et al., 1989), the Technology acceptance model (Davis,1989), the Motivational model (Davis et al., 1992), the Theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), a model combining the Technology acceptance model and the Theory of planned behaviour (Taylor and Todd, 1995), the model of PC utilization (Thompson et al., 1991), the Innovation diffusion theory (Rogers, 1995) and Social cognitive theory (Compeau and Higgins, 1995).

All these theoretical models are associated in the UTAUT model and composed of four primary factors of usage intention – performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions and these are direct determinants of IS/IT behavioural intention and ultimately behaviour (Venkatesh et al., 2003). The theory also undertakes the effect of core constructs that is qualified by gender, age, experience and voluntariness of use (Venkatesh et al., 2003).

Figure 8: The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

Source: Venkatesh et al (2003)

The above figure 8 by Venkatesh et al., (2003) presents the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. There are three distinct features associated with this model: Determinants, modifiers and results. The end result that the model aimed at arriving at is the user behaviour. Some demographics were identified to be modifiers including age, gender and experience. Another factor which acted as a key modifier is the voluntariness of use. The three main determinants impacting the behavioral intention of an individual included performance expectancy, effort expectancy. Apart from them facilitating conditions was a determinant which directly impacted user behaviour.

The authors speculated that four of them have their important role in determining the user acceptance and usage behaviour. On the basis of user acceptance literature and the outcomes of models’ it was observed that comparison, attitude, computer self-efficacy and anxiety were hypothesized so that they don’t directly impact on behavioural intention.

The constructs which directly show no impact on behavioural intentions and usage are performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influences and facilitating conditions. Even though, the UTAUT model has been identified for higher percentage of the variance (R²) in usage intention (Venkatesh et al., 2003) there are studies that describe the IS adoption behaviour which is confined to validation, application and replication for its power to predict IS.

Although the TAM is an extension of TRA, author reviewed this section separately, as the focus of this study was based on the TAM Model. The following section discuss in depth on TAM from both theoretical and empirical perspective. In addition, TAM evolution, limitations and strengths of the TAM also discussed in the following section.