Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Technology acceptance model
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Criticisms== TAM has been widely criticised, despite its frequent use, leading the original proposers to attempt to redefine it several times. Criticisms of TAM as a "theory" include its questionable heuristic value, limited explanatory and predictive power, triviality, and lack of any practical value.{{sfn|Chuttur|2009}} [[Izak Benbasat|Benbasat]] and [[Henri Barki|Barki]] suggest that TAM "has diverted researchers' attention away from other important research issues and has created an illusion of progress in knowledge accumulation. Furthermore, the independent attempts by several researchers to expand TAM in order to adapt it to the constantly changing IT environments has lead{{sic}} to a state of theoretical chaos and confusion".{{sfn|Benbasat|Barki|2007}} In general, TAM focuses on the individual 'user' of a computer, with the concept of 'perceived usefulness', with extension to bring in more and more factors to explain how a user 'perceives' 'usefulness', and ignores the essentially social processes of IS development and implementation, without question where more technology is actually better, and the social consequences of IS use. Lunceford argues that the framework of perceived usefulness and ease of use overlooks other issues, such as cost and structural imperatives that force users into adopting the technology.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lunceford|first=Brett|date=2009|title=Reconsidering Technology Adoption and Resistance: Observations of a Semi-Luddite|url=https://www.academia.edu/510375|journal=Explorations in Media Ecology|volume=8|issue=1|pages=29β47|doi=10.1386/eme.8.1.29_1 |s2cid=256491768 }}</ref> For a recent analysis and critique of TAM, see Bagozzi.{{sfn|Bagozzi|2007}} Legris et al.<ref>Legris et al. 2003, p. 191.</ref> claim that, together, TAM and TAM2 account for only 40% of a technological system's use. Perceived ease of use is less likely to be a determinant of attitude and usage intention according to studies of telemedicine,{{sfn|Hu|Chau|Sheng|1999}} mobile commerce,{{sfn|Wu|Wang|2005}}) and online banking.{{sfn|Pikkarainen|Pikkarainen|Karjaluoto|2004}}
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)