Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)*

* Source:

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R. “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models,” Management Science, 35, 1989, 982-1003.


Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2)*

* Source:

Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies,” Management Science, 46, 2000, 186-204.


Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3)*

* Source: Venkatesh, V. and Bala, H. “TAM 3: Advancing the Technology Acceptance Model with a Focus on Interventions,” Manuscript in-preparation.


Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)*

* Source:

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, F.D., and Davis, G.B. “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View,” MIS Quarterly, 27, 2003, 425-478.

Construct Definitions


Attitude: Individual’s positive or negative feeling about performing the target behavior (e.g., using a system).

Behavioral intention: The degree to which a person has formulated conscious plans to perform or not perform some specified future behavior.

Computer anxiety: The degree of an individual’s apprehension, or even fear, when she/he is faced with the possibility of using computers.

Computer playfulness: The degree of cognitive spontaneity in microcomputer interactions.

Computer self-efficacy: The degree to which an individual beliefs that he or she has the ability to perform specific task/job using computer.

Effort expectancy: The degree of ease associated with the use of the system.

Facilitating conditions: The degree to which an individual believes that an organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support use of the system.

Image: The degree to which use of an innovation is perceived to enhance one’s status in one’s social system.

Job relevance: Individual’s perception regarding the degree to which the target system is relevant to his or her job.

Objective usability: A comparison of systems based on the actual level (rather than perceptions) of effort required to complete specific tasks.

Output quality: The degree to which an individual believes that the system performs his or her job tasks well.

Performance expectancy: The degree to which an individual believes that using the system will help him or her to attain gains in job performance.

Perceived ease of use: See the definition of effort expectancy.

Perceived enjoyment: The extent to which the activity of using a specific system is perceived to be enjoyable in it’s own right, aside from any performance consequences resulting from system use.

Perceived usefulness: See the definition of performance expectancy.

Perception of external control: See the definition of facilitating conditions.

Result demonstrability: Tangibility of the results of using the innovation.

Social influence: The degree to which an individual perceives that important others believe he or she should use the new system.

Subjective norm: Person’s perception that most people who are important to him think he should or should not perform the behavior in question.

Voluntariness: The extent to which potential adopters perceive the adoption decision to be non-mandatory.