Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Introduction Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

One More Time Trust Matters: A Theoretical Investigation of the Role of Technology Mediated Trust in the UTAUT Model

verfasst von : Luca Pistilli, Ferdinando Pennarola

Erschienen in: Blurring the Boundaries Through Digital Innovation

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Investigation about technology acceptance (TA) remains one of the most important research field in information system literature, but the “founding father models” originated the notion of TA in a completely different scenario. We argue that, in a world where IT artifacts disseminate thanks to—and not only because of—unprecedented social media penetration, the TA models must be revisited and upgraded. In this paper, the construct of trust plays a central role, because it allows the acknowledgement of the influencing role played by institutions and organizations that have reached a credible and sustainable presence in the information technology market. We started from the TAM and UTAUT models, as departing platforms of TA models, being the mostly widely cited in the recent literature. This paper defines and explores the theoretical contribution of technology-mediated trust, as a new moderating factor adding value to the UTAUT model. Implications for future empirical research are finally presented.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Integration of Machine Learning Insights into Organizational Learning: A Case of B2B Sales Forecasting
Nächstes Kapitel Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants Behaviour in Trust Choices: An Experimental Study on Social Trust Attitudes and Cognition
Literatur
1.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W.: Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q. 27(1), 51–90 (2003)
2.
Bélanger, F., Carter, L.: Trust and risk in e-government adoption. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 17(2), 165–176 (2008)CrossRef
3.
Benbasat, I., Wang, W.: Trust in and adoption of online recommendation agents. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 6(3), 72–101 (2005)
4.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)
5.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., Perrone, V.: Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organ. Sci. 9(2), 141–159 (1998)CrossRef
6.
Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model—4 longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000)CrossRef
7.
Venkatesh, V.: Determinants of perceived ease of use, integrating control, intrinsic motivation and emotion into the TAM. Inf. Syst. Res. 11(4), 342–365 (2000)CrossRef
8.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology—toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)
9.
Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39(2), 273–315 (2008)CrossRef
10.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology—extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 36(1), 157–178 (2012)
11.
Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRef
12.
Adams, D.A., Nelson, R.R., Todd, P.A.: Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: a replication. MIS Q. 16(2), 227–247 (1992)CrossRef
13.
Hendrickson, A.R., Massey, P.D., Cronan, T.P.: On the test-retest reliability of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use scales. MIS Q. 17(2), 227–230 (1993)CrossRef
14.
Segars, A.H., Grover, V.: Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: a confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Q. 17(4), 517–525 (1993)CrossRef
15.
Subramanian, G.H.: A replication of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use measurement. Decis. Sci. 25(5/6), 863–873 (1994)CrossRef
16.
Szajna, B.: Software evaluation and choice: predictive evaluation of the Technology Acceptance Instrument. MIS Q. 18(3), 319–324 (1994)CrossRef
17.
Brown, S.A., Venkatesh, V.: Model of adoption of technology in households: a baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Q. 29(3), 399–426 (2005)
18.
Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W., Chervany, N.L.: Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post- adoption beliefs. MIS Q. 23(2), 183–213 (1999)CrossRef
19.
Bharracherjee, A., Premkumar, G.: Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: a theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Q. 28(2), 229–254 (2004)
20.
Bhattacherjee, A.: Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Q. 25(3), 351–370 (2001)CrossRef
21.
Rai, A., Lang, S., Welker, R.: Assessing the validity of IS success models: An empirical test and theoretical analysis. Inf. Syst. Res. 13(1), 50–69 (2002)CrossRef
22.
Delone, W.H., McLean, E.R.: The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten year update. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 19(4), 60–95 (2003)
23.
Roca, J.C., Chiu, C.M., Martínez, F.J.: Understanding e-learning continuance intention: an extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 64(8), 683–696 (2006)CrossRef
24.
Venkatesh, V., Goyal, S.: Expectation disconfirmation and technology adoption—polynomial modeling and response surface analysis. MIS Q. 34(2), 281–303 (2010)
25.
Bretz, R.D., Judge, T.A.: Realistic job previews: a test of the adverse self-selection hypothesis. J. Appl. Psychol. 83(2), 330–337 (1998)CrossRef
26.
Taylor, S., Todd, P.A.: Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Inf. Syst. Res. 6(2), 144–176 (1995)CrossRef
27.
Bergeron, F., Rivard, S., Serre, L.: Investigating the support role of the information center. MIS Q. 14(3), 247–260 (1990)CrossRef
28.
Cragg, P., King, M.: Small-firm computing: motivators and inhibitors. MIS Q. 17(1), 47–60 (1993)CrossRef
29.
Harrison, D.A., Mykytyn, P.P., Riemenschneider, C.K.: Executive decisions about adoption of information technology in small business: theory and empirical tests. Inf. Syst. Res. 8(2), 171–195 (1997)CrossRef
30.
Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decis. Sci. 27(3), 451–481 (1996)CrossRef
31.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W.: Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q. 27(1), 51–90 (2003)
32.
Srivastava, S.C., Chandra, S., Theng, Y.L.: Evaluating the role of trust in consumer adoption of mobile payment systems: an empirical analysis. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 27, 561–588 (2010)
33.
Bahmanziari, T., Pearson, J.M., Crosby, L.: Is trust important in technology adoption? A policy capturing approach. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 43(4), 46–54 (2003)
34.
Lippert, S.K., Davis, M.: A conceptual model integrating trust into planned change activities to enhance technology adoption behavior. J. Inf. Sci. 32(5), 434–448 (2006)CrossRef
35.
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., McCabe, K.: Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 10(1), 122–142 (1995)CrossRef
36.
Rapoport, A., Chammah, A.M.: Prisoner’s dilemma. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (1965)
37.
Kreps, D.M., Milgrom, P., Roberts, J., Wilson, R.: Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners’ dilemma. J. Econ. Theory 27(2), 245–252 (1982)CrossRef
38.
Larzelere, R.E., Huston, T.L.: The dyadic trust scale: toward understanding inter-personal trust in close relationships. J. Marriage Fam. 42(3), 595–604 (1980)CrossRef
39.
Eichengreen, B.J.: Globalizing Capital: A History of the International Monetary System. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1998)
40.
Kiyotaki, N., Wright, R.: On money as a medium of exchange. J. Polit. Econ. 97(4), 927–954 (1989)CrossRef
41.
Ford, D.: Trust and Knowledge Management: The Seeds Of Success. Working Paper WP 01–08. Queen’s University, New York (2001)
42.
Tullberg, J.: Trust—the importance of trustfulness versus trustworthiness. J. Socio Econ. 37(5), 2059–2071 (2008)CrossRef
43.
Earley, P.C., Mosakowski, E.: Cultural intelligence. Harv. Bus. Rev. 82(10), 139–146 (2004)
44.
Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., Zingales, L.: Cultural biases in economic exchange. Quart. J. Econ. 124(3), 1095–1131 (2009)CrossRef
45.
Kurtzberg, T. R.: Creative styles and teamwork: effects of coordination and conflict on group outcomes. Ph.D. thesis. University of Chicago, Chicago (2000)
46.
De Dreu, C.K., Weingart, L.R.: Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 88(4), 741–749 (2003)CrossRef
47.
Jehn, K.A.: A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Adm. Sci. Q. 40(2), 256–282 (1995)CrossRef
48.
Madhok, A.: Revisiting multinational firms’ tolerance for joint ventures: a trust-based approach. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 37(1), 30–43 (2006)CrossRef
49.
Luo, Y.: Building trust in cross-cultural collaborations: toward a contingency perspective. J. Manage. 28(5), 669–694 (2002)
50.
Stewart, K.J.: Trust transfer on the world wide web. Organ. Sci. 14(1), 5–17 (2003)CrossRef
51.
Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P., Mullen, M.R.: Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23(3), 601–620 (1998)
52.
Li, L.: The effects of trust and shared vision on inward knowledge transfer in subsidiaries’ intra-and inter-organizational relationships. Int. Bus. Rev. 14(1), 77–95 (2005)CrossRef
53.
Senge, P.M.: The fifth discipline. Meas. Bus. Excell. 1(3), 46–51 (1997)CrossRef
54.
Barrett, F.J.: Creating appreciative learning cultures. Organ. Dyn. 24(2), 36–49 (1995)CrossRef
55.
Cao, J., Galinsky, A.D., Maddux, W.W.: Does travel broaden the mind? Breadth of foreign experiences increases generalized trust. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 5(5), 517–525 (2014)CrossRef
56.
Tonoyan, V.: Trust and Entrepreneurship: A West–East Perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham (2005)
57.
Lambsdorff, J.G.: How confidence facilitates illegal transactions, an empirical approach. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 61(4), 829–854 (2002)CrossRef
58.
Bjørnskov, C., Paldam, M.: The New Institutional Economics of Corruption. Routledge, London (2004)
59.
Coleman, J.S.: Foundations of Social Theory. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1990)
60.
Abbott, S., Freeth, D.: Social capital and health starting to make sense of the role of generalized trust and reciprocity. J. Health Psychol. 13(7), 874–883 (2008)CrossRef
61.
Rose-Ackerman, S.: Trust, honesty and corruption: reflection on the state-building process. Eur. J. Sociol. 42(03), 526–570 (2001)CrossRef
62.
Gillespie, N., Dietz, G.: Trust repair after organization-level failure. Acad. Manag. Rev. 34(1), 127–145 (2009)CrossRef
63.
Maguire, S., Phillips, N.: ‘Citibankers’ at Citigroup: a study of the loss of institutional trust after a merger. J. Manage. Stud. 45(2), 372–401 (2008)CrossRef
64.
Patnasingam, P., Gefen, D., Pavlou, P.A.: The role of facilitating conditions and institutional trust in electronic marketplaces. J. Electron. Commer. Organ. 3(3), 69–82 (2005)CrossRef
65.
Hagen, J.M., Choe, S.: Trust in Japanese interfirm relations: institutional sanctions matter. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23(3), 589–600 (1998)
66.
Gefen, D., Pavlou, P., Benbasat, I., McKnight, H., Stewart, K., Straub, D.: ICIS panel summary: should institutional trust matter in information systems research? In: ICIS 2005 Proceedings. AIS Electronic Library (2005)
67.
Lacohée, H., Cofta, P., Phippen, A., Furnell, S.: Understanding Public Perceptions: Trust and Engagement in ICT Mediated Services. Paul Co Pub Consortium, London (2008)
68.
Bohmann, K.: About the sense of social compatibility. AI Soc. 3(4), 323–331 (1989)CrossRef
69.
Pennington, R., Wilcox, H.D., Grover, V.: The role of system trust in business-to-consumer transactions. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 20(3), 197–226 (2003)
70.
Gefen, D., Benbasat, I., Pavlou, P.: A research agenda for trust in online environments. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 24(4), 275–286 (2008)CrossRef
71.
Yates, D., Paquette, S.: Emergency knowledge management and social media technologies: a case study of the 2010 Haitian earthquake. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 31(1), 6–13 (2011)CrossRef
72.
Anantharam, P., Henson, C.A., Thirunarayan, K. Sheth, A.P.: Trust model for semantic sensor and social networks: a preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 2010 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference (NAECON), IEEE (2010)
73.
Pentina, I., Zhang, L., Basmanova, O.: Antecedents and consequences of trust in a social media brand: a cross-cultural study of Twitter. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29(4), 1546–1555 (2013)CrossRef
74.
Glaeser, E.L., Laibson, D.I., Scheinkman, J.A., Soutter, C.L.: Measuring trust. Quart. J. Econ. 115(3), 811–846 (2000)CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
One More Time Trust Matters: A Theoretical Investigation of the Role of Technology Mediated Trust in the UTAUT Model
verfasst von
Luca Pistilli
Ferdinando Pennarola
Copyright-Jahr
2016
Buch
Blurring the Boundaries Through Digital Innovation

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-38973-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-38974-5

Copyright-Jahr: 2016

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38974-5_8

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise