Discussion
Started 7 May 2019

UTAUT vs TAM, which one is better to use ?

I'll be thankful for you if you recommended to me an article to read compares between the two models.

Most recent answer

Elmehdi Jeddou
Université Hassan 1er
l'UTAUT est plus général que le TAM

Popular replies (1)

In my opinion UTAUT is more recommended to use, since it is developed through a review and consolidation of the constructs of eight different models (theory of reasoned action, technology acceptance model, motivational model, theory of planned behavior, a combined theory of planned behavior/technology acceptance model, model of personal computer use, diffusion of innovations theory, and social cognitive theory ).
Look at UTAUT 2 as the latest version of technology acceptance models.
5 Recommendations

All replies (14)

Alexander Serenko
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
They are just different. TAM is mostly individual level (but may be applied to org settings as well) and UTAUT is org level only.
Fakhar Shahzad
Shenzhen University
hmmm
In my opinion UTAUT is more recommended to use, since it is developed through a review and consolidation of the constructs of eight different models (theory of reasoned action, technology acceptance model, motivational model, theory of planned behavior, a combined theory of planned behavior/technology acceptance model, model of personal computer use, diffusion of innovations theory, and social cognitive theory ).
Look at UTAUT 2 as the latest version of technology acceptance models.
5 Recommendations
I Agree With Danial Jahanshahi
Alexander Stevens
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Going back to basics. Read Venkatesh et al.'s (2003) seminal work that established the UTAUT. Read it critically and you will see the excellent research methods that proved the following and endure to this day.
Over time, it seems researchers that attempted to add to the model in various contexts and study designs, only reconfirmed various findings of Venkatesh et al. (2003). Holden and Karsh (2010) found that few studies in their literature review evaluated the four moderators inherent to the performance of UTAUT. For example, Dwivedi et al. (2019) aimed to revise the UTAUT via meta-analysis and structural equation modeling of data from 162 earlier studies. They found that attitude to statistically significantly predict intention to use while moderating the effects of the four key factors. However, Dwivedi et al. completely dismissed key findings and the moderators which were proven essential in Venkatesh et al. work. First, Venkatesh et al. found attitude, self-efficacy, and computer anxiety nonsignificant toward predicting user intention; however, each was fully absorbed through performance expectation and effort expectancy. Second, Venkatesh et al. found the following three contributions of the four important moderators in the UTAUT. First, age, gender, and experience affected the strength of the relationship between performance expectancy and user intention. Second, social influence is affected by all four controlling factors but nonsignificant without them. Third, facilitating conditions significantly predicts usage only when age and experience were accounted for in the examination of that relationship (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M., & Williams, M. D. (2019). Re-examining the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): Towards a Revised Theoretical Model. Information Systems Frontiers, 21(3), 719–734
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B. T. (2010). The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care. In Journal of Biomedical Informatics (Vol. 43, Issue 1, pp. 159–172). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
2 Recommendations
Abdullahi Ubale Usman
Kano State University of Technology
TAM is a subset or rather a component of UTAUT
1 Recommendation
TAM is one of the eight building models to form the UTAUT model: I do recommend you to read the article of pioneer, Venkatesh: USER ACCEPTANCE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: TOWARD A UNIFIED VIEW
Alexander Serenko Can I get the reference journal / book?
I have the same question as yasser
Shavneet Sharma
University of the South Pacific
I suggest you read this paper:
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
1 Recommendation
Muhammad Najib Ali
University of Malaya
UTAUT and TAM both are model serves for individual acceptance and organizational acceptance over the IT components by theory of reasoned action, technology acceptance model, motivational model, theory of planned behavior, a combined theory of planned behavior/technology acceptance model, model of personal computer use, diffusion of innovations theory, and social cognitive theory
1 Recommendation
I found this article that might be interesting:
Rondan-Cataluña, F.J., Arenas-Gaitán, J. and Ramírez-Correa, P.E. (2015), "A comparison of the different versions of popular technology acceptance models: A non-linear perspective", Kybernetes, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 788-805. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2014-0184
Olu Ola
Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College
Elmehdi Jeddou
Université Hassan 1er
l'UTAUT est plus général que le TAM

Similar questions and discussions

How to get started building and analyzing a UTAUT model?
Question
6 answers
  • Erasmo MoralesErasmo Morales
Hello all,
I need help getting started building and analyzing a UTATU model. I have a survey ready with some questions but I had some confusions on UATAUT and on how to analyze the data. I will be using IMB SPSS and AMOS to analyze the data once I have it.
The model I will be using is similar to a regular UTAUT model (uataut2.jpg). My model is similar but with different terminology. I have questions to evaluate all the UTAUT factors except for Behavioral Intention and Use Behavior. Should I add questions to evaluate these factors? I ask because in some research that I found, these factors are left out of the AMOS model and I do not fully understand why.
Next, I am new to using IBM AMOS and so I do not fully understand how to build the UTAUT model in the software. Specifically, how do I show the relation between Gender, Age, and Experience to Performance Expectancy... Facilitating Conditions? In the model, the arrows are pointing to the arrows in between other factors and not directly to the box and AMOS does not let you point arrows to other arrows. For example, the arrow from Gender points to the arrow going from the box of Performance Expectancy and the box Behavioral Intention; how to define this relation in AMOS, would I point the arrow from Gender box directly to the Performance Expectancy box? (amos-model-example.jpg)
Any help, advice or links to useful materials would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.

Related Publications

Chapter
PU = Perceived Usefulness (Davis, 1989) RA = Relative Advantage (Rogers, 1983) OE = Outcome expectations (Compeau & Higgins, 1995) • P1. I would find the system useful in my job (PU). • P2. Using the system enables me to accomplish tasks more quickly (RA). • P3. Using the system increases my productivity (RA). • P4. If I use the system, I will incr...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.