International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology

Vol. 9, No.6 (2016), pp. 143-158

http://dx.doi.org/10.14257/ijhit.2016.9.6.13

A Critical Review of Models and Theories in Field of

Individual Acceptance of Technology

Yaser Hasan Al-Mamary*1, Murad Al-nashmi2, Yahya Abdul Ghaffar

Hassan3 and Alina Shamsuddin4
1,2
University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Administrative Sciences,
Sana'a, Yemen
3
Taiz University, Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Taiz, Yemen
4
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Faculty of Technology Management and
Business, 86400, Malaysia
*[email protected]

Abstract
Information systems and technology have become essential tools for organizations to
achieve their goals. Therefore, many technology acceptance theories and models have
been developed in the field. Research showed a number of models that introduce the
factors which make information systems successful. Based on the theoretical lens rooted
in the literature, the researchers critically reviewed ten models and theories on individual
acceptance of technology. The review identifies the major models to make explicit
assumptions. The present study tries to provide a summary of strengths and weaknesses
that have been discussed about these models and theories.

Keywords: Models and Theories, Individual Acceptance, Technology, Information

Systems.

1. Introduction
Previous research shows that selecting an appropriate theory or model has always
remained a critical task for IS researchers. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there
are few papers that review and compare the acceptance theories and models at the
individual level [1]. Hence, this study aims to compare the most important theories and
models in field of individual acceptance.
According to Venkatesh et al. [2] there are eight models and theories in the field of
individual acceptance. Those models and theories are TRA, SCT, TAM, TPB, MPCU,
MM, C-TAM-TPB, and IDT. According to Kim and Crowston [3] there are a good
number of theories and models employed in studying individuals’ ICT adoption and post-
adoption behaviors such as TRA, TAM, TPB, TAM2, IDT, SCT, and UTAUT. According
to Oliveira and Martins [4] the most used theories in field of technology adoption are
TAM, TPB, UTAUT, DOI Theory and TOE. DOI and TOE Framework are at the firm
level. The TAM, TPB and UTAUT are at the individual level. According to Al-Mamary
[5] there are many theories in field of acceptance of the technology such as TAM, IS
success model, computer usage model, personal computing acceptance model. According
to Al-Mamaery et al. [6] the most popular models in the field of information systems
success, and technology adoption such as the technology acceptance model and
information system success model focuses on the technology factors of the successful
implementation of information systems. In addition computer usage model focuses on
people factors and organizational support. In addition, personal computing acceptance
model focuses on the organizational factors.
This paper tried to indicate the strengths and weakness that are discussed in the
literature.

ISSN: 1738-9968 IJHIT

Copyright © 2016 SERSC
International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology
Vol. 9, No.6 (2016)

2. Models and Theories of Individual Acceptance of Technology

2.1. Theory of Reasoned Action (1980)
The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) was developed by (Fishbein and Ajzen [7];
Ajzen and Fishbein, [8]). TRA is one of the most fundamental and influential theories of
human behavior. It has been used to predict a wide range of behaviors [2].
The intention to accept or reject a particular technology is based on a series of tradeoffs
between the perceived benefits of the system to the user and the complexity of learning or
using the system. This phenomenon can be reasonably explained by using the theory of
reasoned action. In short, TRA proposes that individual beliefs influence attitudes, hence
creating intentions that will generate behavior [9].
According to Kurland [10] Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) is concerned with
consciously intended behaviors and links behavioral intention to the person's actual
behavior. The person's attitude toward the behavior coupled with the subjective norm
concerning the behavior (i.e., assessing whether the respondent believes that others who
are important to them think they should do X and whether they want to comply with these
wishes), determines the behavioral intention. Figure 1 depicts the theory.

Figure 1. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Ajzen & Fishbein, [8](

Source: Madden et al. [11]

Fishbein and Ajzen [7] defined attitude towards behavior as an individual’s positive or
negative feelings (evaluative effect) about performing the target behavior. Subjective
norm is the person’s perception that most people who are important to him think he
should or should not perform the behavior in question. According to Ramayah and Jantan
[9] the subjective norms reflect the person’s perception of social pressures put on him/her
to perform or not to perform the behavior in question. Subjective norms are a function of
normative beliefs. In other words, a person who believes that most people with whom
he/she is motivated to comply think he/she should perform the behavior will perceive
social pressure to do so.
In summary, there are many researchers applying Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) in
various academic disciplines. This researcher realized that this theory was not sufficient
and there were several limitations. According to Kurland [10] TRA is limited because it
assumes that actions are totally under volitional control. This assumption fails to
acknowledge that individuals' behaviors may be directed, for example, by systemic
constraints. According to Davis et al. [12] Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) is very
general. According to Baraghani [13] TRA is a general model that does not specify the

144 Copyright © 2017 SERSC

 International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology
Vol. 9, No.6 (2016)

beliefs that are operative for a particular behavior. Researchers using TRA must first
identify the beliefs that are salient for subjects regarding the behavior under investigation.
To address these limitations, Ajzen in 1991 extended the TRA and proposed a new
theory called Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) by adding the variable perceived
behavioral control. According to Kurland [10] TPB predicts that the stronger the agent's
perceived behavioral control, the more likely the agent will intend to perform the
behavior.

2.2. Social Cognitive Theory (1986)

Many theories have been proposed over the years to explain the developmental
changes that people undergo over the course of their lives. These theories differ in the
conceptions of human nature they adopt and in what they regard to be the basic causes
and mechanisms of human motivation and behavior [14]. Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)
was developed by Bandura [14]. The SCT defines human behavior as a triadic, dynamic
and reciprocal interaction of personal factors, behavior and the environment (See Figure
2). According to this theory, an individual's behavior is uniquely determined by each of
these three factors. While the SCT upholds the behaviorist notion that response
consequences mediate behavior, it contends that behavior is largely regulated
antecedently through cognitive processes. Therefore, response consequences of a behavior
are used to form expectations of behavioral outcomes. It is the ability to form these
expectations that give humans the capability to predict the outcomes of their behavior
before the behavior is performed. In addition, the SCT posits that most behavior is learned
vicariously.

Figure 2. Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, [14])

Source: Wood and Bandura [15]

According to Venkatesh et al. [2] Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) is one of the most
powerful theories of human behavior. SCT have five core constructs: outcome
expectations performance, outcome expectations personal, self-efficacy, effect and
anxiety. Compeau and Higgins [16] defined outcome expectations performance as the
performance-related consequences of the behavior. Specifically, performance
expectations deal with job related outcomes. Abbad [17] defines self-efficacy as
interpreted as one’s self-confidence in his or her ability to perform certain tasks using a
system. Venkatesh et al. [2] defines effect as an individual’s liking for a particular
behavior (e.g. computer use). Igbaria and Iivari [18] define computer anxiety as the

Copyright © 2017 SERSC 145

International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology
Vol. 9, No.6 (2016)

tendency of an individual to be uneasy, apprehensive and/or phobic towards current or

future use of computers in general.
In summary, Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) applied to a wide spectrum of areas of
study such as human functioning as career choice, athletics, organizational behavior and
mental and physical health. It has also been used in the areas of behavior in the classroom
including motivation, learning, and achievement [19]. According to Abbasi [20] Social
Cognitive Theory (SCT) provided ground-breaking concepts of self-efficacy, experience,
time to study, training and social influence (later on used as subjective norms), but the
theory itself cannot be generalized easily. SCT can be used as an umbrella to extend its
concepts and constructs into a specific model and purpose but applying the theory itself is
a very difficult task. As described earlier, SCT is not a theory specifically designed for
observing human behavior in specific areas but it is general and broad in context so it can
be widely applied in many diverse areas, such as computer utilization, Internet usage and
gratification.
Social cognitive theory is organized based on the dynamic interplay between person,
behavior and environment. It is unclear the extent to which each of these factors into
actual behavior and if one is more influential than another. Social cognitive theory can be
used to extend its concepts but applying the theory itself is a very difficult task. In
addition, this theory is more related to education and motivation.

2.3. Technology Acceptance Models

The most common technology acceptance model reviewed by previous researchers is
TAM. According to Surendran [21] Technology Acceptance Model is one of the most
popular research models to predict use and acceptance of information systems and
technology by individual users. According to Agrawal [22] Technology Acceptance
Model is one of the most influential models widely used in the studies of the determinant
of IS/IT acceptance. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), developed by Davis et al.
[12] is one of the most influential research model to determinate the level of IS adoption
at the individual level. The main variables in TAM is perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness. Figure 3 depicts the theory.

Figure 3. Technology Acceptance Model (Davis et al., [12])

Source: Davis et al. [12]

Perceived usefulness was defined by Davis [12] as "the degree to which a person
believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance". People
tend to use or not to use an application to the extent they believe that it will help them to
perform their job better.

146 Copyright © 2017 SERSC

 International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology
Vol. 9, No.6 (2016)

Meanwhile perceived ease of use explains the user's perception of the amount of effort
required to utilize the system or the extent to which a user believes that using a particular
technology will be effortless [12]. According to Petter et al. [23]; Seddon and Kiew [24];
Delone and Mclean [25]; Hwang et al. [26]; Petter and McLean [27] ease of use is a
measure of the system quality. Hence, some of researchers includes ease of use as a
measure of the system quality.
In 2000, Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2) (as illustrated in Figure 4) was
developed by Venkatesh and Davis [28] on the basis of Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM). Two processes, the social influence processes (Subjective Norm, Voluntariness
and Image) and the cognitive instrumental processes (Job Relevance, Output Quality,
Result Demonstrability and Perceived Usefulness) were integrated into this model. The
two processes were considered to be crucial to the study of user acceptance [29].
According to Wu and Wang [30]. the results of the research by Venkatesh and Davis [28]
indicated that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and subjective norm all
indirectly influence actual system use through behavioral intention. In other words,
behavioral intention is jointly determined by perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use
and subjective norm. Subjective norm is the direct and significant determinant of
perceived usefulness while perceived ease of use has a small but significant impact on
perceived usefulness.

Figure 4. Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM 2)

(Venkatesh and Davis, [28])
Source: Venkatesh and Davis [28]

In 2003, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (as

illustrated in Figure 5) was developed by Venkatesh et al. [2] on the basis of Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM), Motivational Model, the Theory of Planned Behavior, a

Copyright © 2017 SERSC 147

International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology
Vol. 9, No.6 (2016)

model combining the Technology Acceptance Model and the Theory of Planned
Behavior, the Model of PC Utilization, the Innovation Diffusion Theory and the Social
Cognitive Theory Toward a unified view.
UTAUT has four key constructs (i.e., performance expectancy, effort expectancy,
social influence, and facilitating conditions) that influence behavioral intention to use a
technology and/or technology use. According to UTAUT, performance expectancy, effort
expectancy and social influence are theorized to influence behavioral intention to use a
technology, while behavioral intention and facilitating conditions determine technology
use [31].

Figure 5. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

(Venkatesh et al., [2])
Source: Venkatesh et al. [2]

Venkatesh and Bala [32] combined TAM2 (Venkatesh and Davis, [28]) and the model
of the determinants of perceived ease of use (Venkatesh, [33]) to develop an integrated
model of technology acceptance TAM3, shown in Figure 6. TAM3 presents integrated
model of the determinants of individual level (IT) adoption and use. Technology
Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3) posits three relationships that were not empirically tested in
Venkatesh [33] and Venkatesh and Davis [28]. Venkatesh and Bala [32] suggest that
experience will moderate the relationships between (1) perceived ease of use and
perceived usefulness; (2) computer anxiety and perceived ease of use; and (3) perceived
ease of use and behavioral intention.
TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala, [32]) is based on a theoretical framework consisting of
four categories the authors say are a synthesis of all previous TAM research. Each of the
four categories: individual differences (Computer Self Efficacy, Computer Anxiety,
Computer Playfulness); system characteristics (Job Relevance, Output Quality, Result
Demonstrability, Perceived Enjoyment, Objective Usability); social influence (Subjective
Norm, Image); and facilitating conditions (Perception of External Control) are made up of
their own variables based on the two main determinants of PU and PEOU [34].

148 Copyright © 2017 SERSC

 International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology
Vol. 9, No.6 (2016)

Figure 6. Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3)

(Venkatesh and Bala, [32])
Source: Venkatesh and Bala [32]

In summary, Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) suggests that when a new

technology is presented to the users, the users decide when and how they will use the
technology based on a number of factors: perceived usefulness and perceived ease-of-use.
Note that use or acceptance of the technology in some cases needs another factor such as:
information quality, top management support and computer self-efficacy etc. According
to Abugabah et al. [35] previous research had used system usage and user satisfaction to
measure system success and the TAM variables to predict usage of information systems.
However, researchers later on suggested that TAM variables may be insufficient
predictors of system usage and success. What is important is they used user performance
or what is sometimes called individual impact as an indicator to system success or system
effectiveness. Al Haderi [36] mentioned that information quality could enhance the
employee’s intention to use or adopt the technology when they see it is useful. According
to Chen and Hsiao [37] for IS acceptance, top management should focus on providing
sufficient support. According to Ragu-Nathan et al. [38] top management support gives
significant impact on the information systems performance. Aktag [39] claimed that
computer self-efficacy is the most essential factor related to computer usage. Therefore,
there are several aspects to encourage the end-user to accept or use the technology.
Moreover, TAM2, TAM3 and UTAU assume that the user of the system volunteers to
use the system. Voluntary use environment mean users believe that they have a choice in
the technology adoption or use decision. But in some cases use of the system is
mandatory. In addition, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)
does not include individual factors that may help explain information system acceptance
[40].

Copyright © 2017 SERSC 149

International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology
Vol. 9, No.6 (2016)

2.4. Technology, Organization, and Environment Framework (1990)

Technology, Organization and Environment (TOE) Framework was developed by
Tornatzky and Fleischer [41]. It identifies three aspects of an enterprise's context that
influence the process by which it adopts and implements a technological innovation:
technological context, organizational context and environmental context. The
Technology, Organization and Environment (TOE) as originally presented, and later
adapted in IT adoption studies, provides a useful analytical framework that can be used
for studying the adoption and assimilation of different types of IT innovation (Oliveira
and Martins, [4]). Figure 7 depicts the theory.

Figure 7. Technology, Organization, and Environment Framework

(Tornatzky and Fleischer, [41])
Source: Tornatzky and Fleischer [41]

According to Tornatzky and Fleischer [41] the technological context includes the
internal and external technologies that are relevant to the firm. Technologies may include
both equipment as well as processes. The organizational context refers to the
characteristics and resources of the firm including the firm’s size, degree of centralization,
degree of formalization, managerial structure, human resources, amount of slack
resources and linkages among employees. The environmental context includes the size
and structure of the industry, the firm’s competitors, the macroeconomic context and the
regulatory environment.
In summary, TOE framework is focused technology (availability and characteristics),
organization (formal and informal linking structures, communication processes, size and
slack), and environment (industry characteristics and market structure, technology support
infrastructure and government regulation). But these factors are not consistent with the
other researchers. Al-Busaidi and Al-Shihi [42] developed a theoretical framework for
acceptance of learning management systems in Oman. This framework provides a
comprehensive look at the critical factors. These critical factors are related to the
instructor, organization and technology. Technology factors can be related to the system
quality, information quality and service support quality. Organization factors can be
related to motivation, technology alignment, organization support, technical support and
training. Instructor factors can be related to self-efficacy, attitude toward systems,
experience, teaching style and personal innovativeness. User characteristics can be related
to age, education, IS experience, user involvement & participation and training.
Organizational characteristics can be related to top management support, organizational

150 Copyright © 2017 SERSC

 International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology
Vol. 9, No.6 (2016)

culture and business process reengineering. According to Yusof et al. [43] human,
organization and technology are the essential components of IS; the impacts of HIS are
assessed in the net benefits. Technology factors can be related to the system quality,
information quality and service support quality. Human factors can be related to system
use and user satisfaction. Organization factors can be related to structure and
environment.

2.5. Theory of Planned Behavior (1991)

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is an extension of the Theory of Reasoned
Action (TRA) (Ajzen and Fishbein [8]; Fishbein and Ajzen [7]) made necessary by the
original model's limitations in dealing with behaviors over which people have incomplete
volitional control [44].
The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is one of the most widely cited and applied
behavior theories. It is one of a closely inter-related family of theories which adopt a
cognitive approach to explaining behavior that centres on individuals’ attitudes and
beliefs. The TPB posits intention to act as the best predictor of behavior. Intention is itself
an outcome of the combination of attitudes towards a behavior. That is the positive or
negative evaluation of the behavior and its expected outcomes and subjective norms are
the social pressures exerted on an individual resulting from their perceptions of what
others think they should do and their inclination to comply with these. The TPB added a
third set of factors as affecting intention (and behavior); perceived behavioral control.
This is the perceived ease or difficulty with which the individual will be able to perform
or carry out the behavior and is very similar to notions of self-efficacy [45].
According to Venkatesh et al. [2] the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) extended the
theory of reasoned action (TRA) by adding the construct of perceived behavioral control.
In the TPB, perceived behavioral control is theorized to be an additional determinant of
intention and behavior.
According to Egmond and Bruel [46] the model of the Theory of Planned Behavior,
attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control predict the intention which in
turn predicts the behavior. Background variables as demographic factors, are supposed to
influence the behavior through the three determinants and the intention. Attitudes,
subjective norms and the perceived behavioral control, explain the behavioral intention
before the behavior takes place. The intention is a good predictor of the actual behavior.
Theory also says that the perceived behavioral control is an estimate of the skills needed
for expressing the behavior and the possibility to overcome barriers. Therefore, a direct
influence of perceived behavioral control on behavior is supposed. The actual behavior
leads to feedback about the expectations of the behavior. In addition, the model of the
theory of planned behavior assumes that consumers make decisions by calculating the
costs and benefits of different courses of action and choosing the option that maximizes
their expected net benefits.
The TPB has been applied to a wide range of behaviors in order to better understand
which individuals behave in which way. It is one of the best-supported social
psychological theories with respect to predicting human behavior [47]. Figure 8 depicts
the theory in the form of a structural diagram.

Copyright © 2017 SERSC 151

International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology
Vol. 9, No.6 (2016)

Figure 8. Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, [44])

Source: Ajzen [44]

According to Ajzen [44] perceived behavioral control relates to the extent to which the
person believes that he has control over personal or external factors that may facilitate or
constrain the behavioral performance.
In 1995, TAM-TPB Model was developed by Taylor and Todd [48]. In a more
complex approach, Taylor and Todd [48], combined TAM-TPB model the predictors
from TAM and TPB model, such as, attitude toward behavior (adapted from TRA/TPB),
subjective norm (adapted from TRA/TPB), perceived behavioural control (adapted from
TPB), and perceived usefulness (adapted from TAM) in their studies of assessing IT
usage [49]. According to the combined TAM-TPB Model, behavior is influenced by
behavioral intention, which, in turn, is influenced by attitude, subjective norm, perceived
behavioral control, and perceived usefulness. The C-TAM-TPB also predicts that
perceived behavioral control will have a direct effect on behavior in addition to its
indirect effect through intentions. Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are
determinants of attitude, whereas perceived ease of use directly affects perceived
usefulness [50].
Taylor and Todd [48] posited that the relationships among the constructs appearing in
combined TAM-TPB Model would be moderated by user experience. Their empirical
study substantiated this assumption since the impact of perceived usefulness, attitude, and
perceived behavioral control on behavioral intentions was stronger in case of users with
relatively more experience. In contrast, the impact of subjective norm was attenuated
under high levels of experience. An apparent implication of Taylor and Todd's study is
that when firms design and implement an IT system, they should take into account the
user's level of experience since less experienced users will tend to rely on different factors
(e.g. perceived usefulness) than experienced ones in order to start using the system [50].
Figure 9 depicts the theory in the form of a structural diagram.

152 Copyright © 2017 SERSC

 International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology
Vol. 9, No.6 (2016)

Figure 9. Combined TAM-TPB (Taylor and Todd, [48])

Source: Taylor and Todd [48]
In summary, the main assumption of theory of reasoned action (TRA) and theory of
planned behavior (TPB) is that individuals are rational in considering their actions and the
implications of their actions (decision-making). The theory of planned behavior mainly
focuses on the intention and behavior. According to Egmond and Bruel [46] the model of
the Theory of Planned Behavior assumes that consumers make decisions by calculating
the costs and benefits of different courses of action and choosing the option that
maximizes their expected net benefits. The theory of Planned Behavior belongs to the so-
called group of ‘rational choice models’. But in some cases the use of the system is
compulsory. The users don't have options to use the system or not. This means this theory
is more suited as an optional choice only.

2.6. Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory (1995)

The theory of adoption and diffusion of innovations is a useful systemic framework to
describe either adoption or non adoption of new technology. Diffusion occurs
progressively within one market (a system of users) when information and opinions about
a new technology are shared among potential users through communication channels. In
this way, users acquire a personal knowledge about new technology. Knowledge is the
first step of Rogers’ five stages process of adoption. The other four steps are: persuasion,
decision (to adopt or to reject new technology), implementation and confirmation.
Accepting this framework, non adoption can be explained as the final outcome of an
individual process of adoption that failed. Rogers argues that a great number of conditions
(e.g. personal limitations of the potential user) and/or external obstacles (e.g. ineffective
communication channels) may inhibit the success of the adoption process [51].
Diffusion of innovations is a theory that seeks to explain how, why, and at what rate
new ideas and technology spread through cultures. Diffusion is the process in which an
innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among members of a
social system. It is a special type of communication in that the messages are concerned
with new ideas. The four main elements in the diffusion of innovations are the innovation,
communication channels, time and the social system [52].
According to Rogers [53] the perceived attributes of an innovation are one important
explanation of the rate of adoption of an innovation. From 49 to 87 percent of the variance
in rate of adoption is explained by five attributes: relative advantage, compatibility,

Copyright © 2017 SERSC 153

International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology
Vol. 9, No.6 (2016)

complexity, trial ability and absorbability. Figure 10 shows the variables that determining
the rate of adoption innovations.

Figure 10. Variables Determining the Rate of Adoption Innovations

(Rogers, [53])
Source: Rogers [53]

In summary, Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) Theory is often simplified to focus solely

on a product or innovation, disregarding the complex societal, cultural, economic and
other factors that determine how the product is adopted into society. According to Ward
[54] there have been many attempts to explore model of diffusion of innovations;
however the model have weaknesses in predicting the behavior of individuals and
organizations. According to Oliveira and Martins [4] Diffusion of Innovation (DOI)
Theory are at the firm level and not for the individual level.
In addition, Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) Theory is more related to higher education
and educational environments. According to Medlin [55] Roger’s diffusion of innovations
theory is the most appropriate for investigating the adoption of technology in higher
education. Moreover, diffusion of innovation (DOI) theory misses some important facets
in the diffusion of complex technologies. Therefore DOI researchers should carefully
recognize the complex, networked and learning intensive features of technology. In
addition, DOI theory does not offer adequate constructs to deal with collective adoption
behaviors [56].
From the previous researchers, we can summarized that, (1) DOI theory focus solely on
a product or innovation and ignore other factors that determine how the product is
adopted, (2) DOI have weaknesses in predicting the behavior of individuals, (3) DOI
theory does not offer adequate constructs to deal with collective adoption behaviors, and

154 Copyright © 2017 SERSC

 International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology
Vol. 9, No.6 (2016)

(4) DOI more related to educational environments. Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory
users must decide to adopt or reject new technology. But in some cases the users had no
choice because the technology was already adopted. This means this theory is more suited
as an optional choice only.

3. Conclusion
This paper made a review of literature of technology acceptance models at the
individual level. Ten models in field of individual acceptance of technology have been
critically reviewed. These models and theories are: Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA),
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Technology
Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2), Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT), Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3), Technology, Organization, and
Environment Framework (TOE), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), Combined TAM-
TPB, and Diffusion of Innovation (DOI). The study is also potentially useful as it showed
the strengths and the weakness in each model. This can provide a robust opportunity to
future researchers to adopt suitable models to conduct empirical tests in different
technology settings.

References
[1] A. Tarhini, N.A.G. Arachchilage, R. Masa‟deh and M.S. Abbasi, “A Critical Review of Theories and
Models of Technology Adoption and Acceptance in Information System Research”, International
Journal of Technology Diffusion, vol. 6, no. 4, (2015), p. 1-20.
[2] V. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis and F.D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology:
Toward a unified view”, MIS quarterly, (2003), pp. 425–478.
[3] Y. Kim and K. Crowston, “Technology adoption and use theory review for studying scientists‟
continued use of cyber-infrastructure”, Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology, vol. 48, no. 1, (2011), pp. 1–10.
[4] T. Oliveira and M.F. Martins, “Literature review of information technology adoption models at firm
level” The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, vol. 14, no. 1, (2011), pp.110-121.
[5] Y. H. Al-Mamary, A. Shamsuddin and N. A. A. Hamid, “Enhancing Technological Capability of
Telecommunications Sector in Yemen: A Technology Adoption Approach”, Mediterranean Journal of
Social Sciences, vol. 6, no. 4S1, (2015a), pp. 108-112.
[6] Y. H. Al-Mamary, A. Shamsuddin, N. A. Abdul Hamid, Al-Maamari and Hasan Mohammed, “Adoption
of Management Information Systems in Context of Yemeni Organizations: A Structural Equation
Modeling Approach”, Journal of Digital Information Management, vol. 13, no. 9, (2015b), pp. 429-444.
[7] M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen, “Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and
research”, Goodhue, (1975).
[8] I. Ajzen and M.Fishbein, “Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior”, (1980).
[9] T. Ramayah and M. Jantan, “Technology acceptance: An individual perspective current and future
research in malaysia”, Review of Business Research, vol. 2, no. 1, (2004), pp. 103 111.
[10] N. B. Kurland, “Ethical intentions and the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior”, Journal of
applied social psychology, vol. 25, no. 4, (1995), pp. 297–313.
[11] T. J. Madden, P. S Ellen and I. Ajzen, “A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory
of reasoned action”, Personality and social psychology Bulletin, vol. 18, no. 1, (1992), pp. 3–9.
[12] F. D. Davis, R. P. Bagozzi and P.R. Warshaw, “User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison
of two theoretical models”, Management science, vol. 35, no.8, (1989), pp. 982–1003.
[13] N.S. Baraghani, “Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: masters thesis”, (2008).
[14] A. Bandura, “Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory”, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
(1986).
[15] R. Wood and A. Bandura, “Social cognitive theory of organizational management”, Academy of
management Review, vol. 14, no. 3, (1989), pp. 361–384.
[16] D.R. Compeau and C.A. Higgins, “Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer
skills”, Information systems research, vol. 6, no. 2, (1995), pp. 118–143.
[17] M. Abbad, “Proposed model of e-learning acceptance. In: Education and e Learning Innovations
(ICEELI), 2012 International Conference on, IEEE, (2012), pp. 1–9.
[18] M. Igbaria and J. Iivari, “The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage”, Omega, vol. 23, no. 6, (1995),
pp. 587–605.
[19] E. Grigg, “Social Cognitive Theory VS. Social Comparison Theory: Examining the Relationship
between Social Influence and Weight Loss”, Master‟s thesis, (2013).

Copyright © 2017 SERSC 155

International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology
Vol. 9, No.6 (2016)

[20] M.S. Abbasi, Culture, demography and individuals‟ technology acceptance behaviour: A PLS based
structural evaluation of an extended model of technology acceptance in South-Asian country context”,
Ph.D. thesis, Brunel University Brunel Business School, (2011).
[21] P. Surendran, “Technology acceptance model: A survey of literature. International”, Journal of Business
and Social Research, vol. 2, no. 4, (2012), pp. 175–178.
[22] S. K. Agrawal, “Knowledge management”, International Journal of Advance Research in Computer
Science and Management Studies, vol. 1, no. 7, (2013), pp. 451–456.
[23] S. Petter, W. DeLone and E. McLean, “Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions,
measures, and interrelationships”, European journal of information systems, vol. 17, no. 3, (2008), pp.
236–263.
[24] P. Seddon and M.Y. Kiew, “A partial test and development of delone and mclean‟s model of is
success”, Australasian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 4, no. 1, (1996), pp. 90–109.
[25] W. H. Delone and E.R. Mclean, “Measuring e-commerce success: Applying the delone & mclean
information systems success model”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, vol. 9, no. 1,
(2004), pp. 31–47.
[26] H. G., Hwang, I.C. Chang, F.J. Chen and S.Y. Wu, “Investigation of the application of kms for diseases
classifications: A study in a taiwanese hospital”, Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 34, no1, (2008),
pp. 725–733.
[27] S. Petter and E.R. McLean, “A meta-analytic assessment of the delone and mclean is success model: An
examination of is success at the individual level”, Information & Management, vol. 46, no. 3, (2009),
pp. 159–166.
[28] V. Venkatesh and F.D. Davis, “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four
longitudinal field studies”, Management science, vol. 46, no. 2, (2000), pp. 186-204.
[29] M. Wu, H. Chou, Y.C. Weng and Y. Huang, “Tam-2 based study of website user behavior-using web
2.0 websites as an example”, WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, vol. 4, no. 8, (2011),
pp. 133–151.
[30] J. H. Wu and S.C. Wang, “An empirical study of consumers adopting mobile commerce in taiwan:
analyzed by structural equation modeling”, (2003), pp. 81–94.
[31] V. Venkatesh, J.Y. Thong and X. Xu, “Consumer acceptance and use of information technology:
extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology”, MIS quarterly, vol. 36, no. 1, (2012),
pp. 157–178.
[32] V. Venkatesh and H. Bala, “Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions”,
Decision sciences, vol. 39, no. 2, (2008), pp. 273–315.
[33] V. Venkatesh, “Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and
emotion into the technology acceptance model”, Information systems research, vol. 11, no. 4, (2000),
pp. 342–365.
[34] N.L. Howard, P. Marshall and P.A. Swatman, “Reconceptualising motivation in adoption and
acceptance research: Back to basics”, In: Proceedings of the 21st Australasian Conference on
Information Systems, Brisbane, (2010).
[35] A. Abugabah, L. Sanzogni and A.E. Poropat, “The impact of information systems on user performance:
A critical review and theoretical model”, In: international conference on information systems (ICIS),
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET), (2009), pp. 809–819.
[36] S.M. Al Haderi, “System characteristic facilitates the acceptance of information technology in middle
east culture”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, vol. 5, no. 6, (2014), pp. 64–69.
[37] R.F Chen and J.L. Hsiao, “An investigation on physicians acceptance of hospital information systems: a
case study”, International journal of medical informatics, vol. 81, no. 12, (2012), pp. 810–820.
[38] B.S. Ragu-Nathan, C.H. Apigian, T. Ragu-Nathan and Q. Tu, “A path analytic study of the effect of top
management support for information systems performance”, Omega, vol. 32, no. 6, (2004), pp. 459–471.
[39] I. Aktag, “Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, performance and personal outcomes of Turkish
physical education teachers”, Educational Research and Reviews, vol. 10, no. 3, (2015), pp. 328–337.
[40] Y.A. Hakami, A.R.b.C Hussin and H.M. Dahlan, “Technology acceptance for cbt in secondary schools
of saudi Arabia”, In: Fifth International Conference on Intelligent Systems, Modelling and Simulation,
IEEE, (2014), pp. 804–807.
[41] L.G. Tornatzky and Fleischer, “The Processes of Technological Innovation”, Lexington Books, (1990).
[42] K.A. Al-Busaidi and H. Al-Shihi, “Instructors‟ acceptance of learning management systems: A
theoretical framework”, Communications of the IBIMA 2010, (2010), pp. 1–10.
[43] M.M. Yusof, J. Kuljis, A. Papazafeiropoulou and L.K Stergioulas, “An evaluation framework for health
information systems: human, organization and technology-fit factors (hot-fit)”, International journal of
medical informatics, vol. 77, no. 6, (2008), pp. 386–398.
[44] I. Ajzen, “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational behavior and human decision processes, vol.
50, no. 2, (1991), pp. 179–211.
[45] J. Morris, M. Marzano, N. Dandy and L. Obrien, “Theories and models of behaviour and behaviour
change”, Forest Research, Tech. Rep, (2012), pp. 1–27.
[46] C. Egmond and R. Bruel, “Nothing is as practical as a good theory: Analysis of theories and a tool for
developing interventions to influence energy behaviour”, Scientific reports produced within the behave

156 Copyright © 2017 SERSC

 International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology
Vol. 9, No.6 (2016)

project, evaluation of energy behavioural change programmes intelligent energy–europe (iee) eie,
(2007).
[47] L. A.S. Sommer, “The theory of planned behaviour and the impact of past behavior”, International
Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), vol. 10, no. 1, (2011), pp. 91–110.
[48] S. Taylor and P. Todd, “Assessing it usage: The role of prior experience, MIS quarterly, (1995), pp.
561– 570.
[49] B.L. Lim, “Factors Influencing Email Usage: Applying The Utaut Model”, Ph.D. thesis, USM, (2005).
[50] N. Panagopoulos, “Sales Technology: Making the Most of Your Investment”, Business Expert Press ,
(2010).
[51] J. MacVaugh and F. Schiavone, “Limits to the diffusion of innovation: A literature review and
integrative model”, European Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 13, no. 2, (2010), pp. 197–221.
[52] E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of innovations 5th Edition. Simon and Schuster, (2003).
[53] E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster, (1995).
[54] R. Ward, “The application of technology acceptance and diffusion of innovation models in healthcare
informatics”, Health Policy and Technology, vol. 2, no. 4, (2013), pp. 222–228.
[55] B.D. Medlin, “The factors that may influence a faculty member‟s decision to adopt electronic
technologies in instruction”, Ph.D. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, (2001).
[56] K Lyytinen and J. Damsgaard, “What’s wrong with the diffusion of innovation theory?” Springer,
(2001).

Authors
Yaser Hasan Al-Mamary, he is an Assistant Professor of
Management Information Systems, Faculty of Administrative
Sciences, University of Science and Technology, Yemen.

Murad Mohammed Al-Nashmi, he is an Assistant Professor of

organizational communication and management, Faculty of
Administrative Sciences, University of Science and Technology,
Yemen.

Yahya Abdul Ghaffar, he is an Associate Professor of

Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Taiz
University, Yemen.

Alina Shamsuddin, she graduated with a PhD in Technology

Management from University of Strathclyde, UK (2007) and is
currently Professor at the Faculty of Technology Management and
Business, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia. Alina Shamsuddin
is Currently Deputy Dean (Teaching, Learning and Academic
Training) Centre for Academic Development and Training.

Copyright © 2017 SERSC 157

International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology
Vol. 9, No.6 (2016)

158 Copyright © 2017 SERSC