Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of

Technology
The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) examines the
acceptance of technology, determined by the effects of performance expectancy,
effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions.

By Davit Marikyan (Business School, University of Bristol, UK) & Savvas

Papagiannidis (Business School, Newcastle University, UK)
How to cite: Marikyan, D. & Papagiannidis, S. (2023) Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use
of Technology: A review. In S. Papagiannidis (Ed), TheoryHub Book. Available at
https://open.ncl.ac.uk / ISBN: 9781739604400

Theory Factsheet
Proposed By: Venkatesh et al., 2003
Parent Theory: Theory of Reasoned Action, Technology Acceptance Model, Motivational Model, Theory of
Planned Behaviour, Diffusion of Innovation, Social Cognitive Theory
Discipline: Information systems management
Unit of Analysis: Individual
Level: Micro-level
Type: Theory for Explaining and Predicting
Operationalised: Quantitatively

Introduction

The growth of an e-commerce sector, emerging digital technologies, such as big data, Artificial
Intelligence, cloud computing and robotics, drive the implementation of new technologies in
organisations (Verhoef et al., 2021). The advances in information communication technology (ICT)
have dramatically changed the way organisations conduct business. The application of the
technologies in the workplace has redefined inter- and intra-organisational communication has
streamlined business processes to ensure benefits, such as higher productivity, the wellbeing of
employees and the satisfaction of consumers (Papagiannidis & Marikyan, 2020). To achieve such
benefits, companies make massive spending on technologies. However, investment in ICT
implementation does not guarantee successful deployment and often bring low returns (Davis,
1989; Venkatesh et al., 2003). The results of market research suggest that the success rate of new
technology adoption in organisations, whereby technologies bring expected return on investment
(i.e. improved performance), is below 30 percent. The number is less optimistic if consider the
companies, who could improve performance, but could not sustain the improvements in the long-
term (De la Boutetière, Montagner & Reich, 2018). Given the consequences of technology adoption
TheoryHub Book: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

on organisations’ performance and a cost-revenue structure, the technology utilisation-acceptance

gap remains one of the major areas of research in the IS literature.

Research community accelerated its interest towards technology acceptance in the private and
organisational contexts almost three decades ago (Davis, 1989; Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Goodhue,
1995; Leonard-Barton & Deschamps, 1988). By 2000, technology acceptance research had resulted
in a substantial body of evidence on user behaviour related to technology adoption (Hu et al., 1999).
Numerous models/theories had been introduced to understand the acceptance of the technology,
which cumulatively explained 40% of the variance in technology use intention (Davis, 1989; Davis,
Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989; Taylor & Todd, 1995; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). The models had roots in
different disciplines, which limited the applications of these theories to certain contexts. For
example, the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Theory of Reasoned Action offer a psychological
perspective on human behaviour by examining the variables, such as perceived behavioural control,
attitude and subjective norms (Ajzen, 2011). The theories provide generic insights into individuals’
attitudinal underpinnings, which make them applicable to a wide range of research contexts, not
limited to information system management. In contrast, Diffusion of Innovation Theory focuses on
innovation-specific factors that determine users’ behaviour when it comes to new technology
adoption (Moore & Benbasat, 1991). In addition, the models had different perspectives, reflecting
the type of variables in the model, such as subjective norm, motivational factors, attitudinal factors
related to technology performance, social factors, experience and facilitating conditions (Venkatesh
et al., 2003; Taylor & Todd, 1995; Ajzen, 2011; Thompson, Higgins & Howell, 1991; Davis, Bagozzi &
Warshaw, 1992; Venkatesh & Speier, 1999). The selection of either of the models constrains
research findings to particular scenarios and conditions. Therefore, a unified approach was needed
to embrace variables reflecting different perspective and disciplines and increase the applications of
the theory to different contexts (Venkatesh et al., 2003).

To provide a holistic understanding of technology acceptance, Venkatesh et al. (Venkatesh et al.,

2003) set the objective for developing a unified theory of technology acceptance by integrating key
constructs predicting behavioural intention and use. To fulfil this objective, the seminal IS
acceptance literature was reviewed to draw up theoretical and contextual similarities and
differences among technology acceptance theories originating from three research streams – i.e.
social psychology, IS management and behavioural psychology (see (Venkatesh et al., 2003)). Given
that the theories stem from different disciplines, they cast diverse perspectives on technology
acceptance and adoption. The socio-psychological perspective on research on individual behaviour
was represented by the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). Based on TRA and TPB, individuals’ behaviour is measured by the
effect of attitude toward behaviour, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control on
behavioural intention (Ajzen, 2011). The theories are used in IS management to explore the role of a
perceived difficulty in performing the task, the effect of group norms and attitude on accepting
technology (Karahanna, Straub & Chervany, 1999; Zhang & Mao, 2020). TRA contributed greatly to IS
acceptance theories, by providing a theoretical framework that explained human behaviour (Ajzen,
2011; Davis, 1989). SCT is based on the assumption that behavioural, cognitive and environmental
factors (i.e. outcome expectations-performance, outcome expectations-personal, self-efficacy, affect
and anxiety) have an interactive effect on individuals’ behaviour (Bandura, 2001). The theory has
been used to investigate human-computer interaction (Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Compeau, Higgins
& Huff, 1999). The acceptance of technology from the vantage point of IS management was largely
explained by Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), combined TAM and TPB model (C-TAM-TPB),
Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) and the model of PC utilisation (MPCU). While TAM and C-TAM-
TPB stress the importance of cognitive response to IS features in predicting behaviour (Venkatesh et
al., 2003; Taylor & Todd, 1995), IDT focuses on system characteristics and properties in determining
the adoption of innovation (e.g. relative advantage, complexity, compatibility, image) (Moore &
Benbasat, 1991). MPCU has very narrow implications, as the model encompasses the factors
TheoryHub Book: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

underpinning the utilisation of personal computers (i.e. job fit, complexity, long-term consequences,
affect towards use, facilitating conditions and social factors) (Thompson, Higgins & Howell, 1991),
unlike other theories examining IS and innovation adoption (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Taylor & Todd,
1995; Moore & Benbasat, 1991). The behavioural psychology perspective on technology acceptance
was represented by the Motivational Model (MM), suggesting that technology adoption and use
behaviour can be explored through user motivations (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1992; Venkatesh &
Speier, 1999). Users tend to evaluate the likelihood of engaging in behaviour by the degree to which
behaviour stimulates instrumental rewards (extrinsic motives) and/or internal reinforcement, such
as enjoyment, satisfaction and fun (intrinsic motives) (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1992).

The review of the above theories led Venkatesh to identify limitations, which in turn triggered the
need to develop the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. The primary limitation
was that the literature had not empirically tested and compared dominant technology acceptance
models, which left room for speculation on the predictive power of the constructs of each theory.
The studies examining technology use behaviour had mainly focused on simple systems (e.g. PC) and
overlooked the use of more complex technologies (Venkatesh et al., 2003). The focus on one
technology constrains the explanatory power of theories, as individuals’ experiences, purchase
decisions and use cases vary depending on IT systems and contexts (Brown, Venkatesh & Hoehle,
2015). For example, the motivations of consumers purchasing entertainment technology are not
similar to the needs of employees driving the usage of enterprise management systems. The latter
technology has a strong utilitarian value and is predominantly used in mandatory settings. Also,
there were methodological limitations identified in prior literature. Most studies had used a cross-
sectional approach, by measuring variables at pre- or post-acceptance stages (e.g. (Venkatesh et al.,
2003; Taylor & Todd, 1995)), although some constructs (e.g. experience) needed to be examined
over time. The limitations suggested using a longitudinal approach to fully understand the dynamics
of technology acceptance and use. Finally, previous studies had focused on the technology
acceptance in a voluntary context (when society does not have an effect on technology use), which
put a constraint on the generalisability of the findings. Therefore, to ensure the wider implication of
the models, technology acceptance was investigated both in mandatory and voluntary settings. The
empirical comparison of the theories enabled authors to develop a unified acceptance model, which
embraced and reflected all key acceptance factors (Venkatesh et al., 2003).

Theory

The theoretical model of UTAUT suggests that the actual use of technology is determined by
behavioural intention. The perceived likelihood of adopting the technology is dependent on the
direct effect of four key constructs, namely performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social
influence, and facilitating conditions. The effect of predictors is moderated by age, gender,
experience and voluntariness of use (Venkatesh et al., 2003).

Performance expectancy is defined as "the degree to which an individual believes that using the
system will help him or her to attain gains in job performance" (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Performance
expectancy is based on the constructs from Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), TAM2, Combined
TAM and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (CTAMTPB), Motivational Model (MM), the model of PC
utilisation (MPCU), Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) (i.e.
perceived usefulness, extrinsic motivation, job-fit, relative advantage and outcome expectations). It
is the strongest predictor of use intention and is significant in both voluntary and mandatory settings
(Zhou, Lu & Wang, 2010; Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2016).
TheoryHub Book: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

Effort expectancy is defined as "the degree of ease associated with the use of the system"
(Venkatesh et al., 2003). Effort Expectancy is constructed from perceived ease of use and complexity
driven from TAM, MPCU, IDT, which share a similarity in definitions and scales. The effect of the
construct becomes nonsignificant after extended usage of technology (Gupta, Dasgupta & Gupta,
2008; Chauhan & Jaiswal, 2016).

Social Influence is defined as "the degree to which an individual perceives that important others
believe he or she should use the new system" (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Social influence is similar to
the subjective norms, social factors and image constructs used in TRA, TAM2, TPB, CTAMTPB, MPCU,
IDT in the way that they denote that the behaviour of people is adjusted to the perception of others
about them. The effect of social influence is significant when the use of technology is mandated
(Venkatesh et al., 2003). In the mandatory context, individuals might use technology due to
compliance requirement, but not personal preferences (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). This might
explain the inconsistent effect that the construct demonstrated across further studies validating the
model (Zhou, Lu & Wang, 2010; Chauhan & Jaiswal, 2016).

Facilitating conditions is defined as "the degree to which an individual believes that an

organisation's and technical infrastructure exists to support the use of the system" (Venkatesh et al.,
2003). The facilitating conditions construct is formed from compatibility, perceived behavioural
control and facilitating conditions constructs drawn from TPB, CTAMTPB, MPCU and IDT. Facilitating
conditions have a direct positive effect on intention to use, but after initial use, the effect becomes
nonsignificant. Therefore, the model proposes that facilitating conditions have a direct significant
effect on use behaviour (Venkatesh et al., 2003).

The moderation effects of age, gender, experience and voluntariness of use define the strength of
predictors on intention. Age moderates the effect of all four predictors. Gender effects the
relationships between effort expectancy, performance expectancy and social influence. Experience
moderates the strength of the relationships between effort expectancy, social influence and
facilitating conditions. Voluntariness of use has a moderating effect only on the relationship
between social influence and behavioural intention (Venkatesh et al., 2003).

UTAUT has made several contributions to the literature. The model provides empirical insight into
technology acceptance by comparing prominent technology acceptance theories, which often offer
competing or partial perspectives on the subject. UTAUT demonstrates that proposed factors
account for 70 percent of the variance in use intention (Venkatesh et al., 2003), offering stronger
predictive power compared to the rest of the models that examine technology acceptance (e.g.
(Davis, 1993; Sheppard, Hartwick & Warshaw, 1988)). The interactive effect of some constructs with
personal and demographic factors demonstrates the complexity of the technology acceptance
process, which is dependent on individuals’ age, gender and experience (Venkatesh et al., 2003).

The model is presented in figure 1.

Figure 1: UTAUT
TheoryHub Book: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

UTAUT2 and other extensions

The original UTAUT framework was developed to explain and predict the acceptance of technology
in an organisational context (Venkatesh et al., 2003), although, later it was tested in non-
organisational settings too (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012; Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2016). Over the
years, UTAUT showed wide application, which enhanced the generalisability of the theory
(Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012; Neufeld, Dong & Higgins, 2007). Given the variance of information
communication technologies and the advances in the sector, a number of scholars extended UTAUT
to adapt it to the context or improve its predictive power (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012).

The adaptations of the model were underpinned by four main approaches, reflecting a) the
modification of the model to different contexts, b) the alterations of the endogenous variables, c)
the addition of attitudinal antecedents, and d) the examination of various moderating variables. The
first stream of research extended the model to apply it to new technologies (e.g. enterprise systems,
e-health systems), focus on new user segments (e.g. healthcare professionals), and examine it in
new geographical and cultural settings (e.g. India, China) (Chang et al., 2007; Yi et al., 2006; Gupta,
Dasgupta & Gupta, 2008). For instance, the model was extended by a set of web-specific constructs,
including trust and personal web innovativeness to explore how well it predicts the use of web tools
(Casey & Wilson-Evered, 2012). Another stream of research extended UTAUT by incorporating
additional endogenous variables (e.g. (Sun, Bhattacherjee & Ma, 2009)), such as satisfaction and
continuous intention to use (Maillet, Mathieu & Sicotte, 2015). The third stream of research
scrutinised additional determinants of use and behavioural intention, such as task-technology fit and
personality traits (Zhou, Lu & Wang, 2010; Wang, 2005). Finally, some studies extended UTAUT by
introducing new contextual and moderating variables, such as culture, ethnicity, religion,
TheoryHub Book: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

employment, language, income, education and geographical location, among others (Im, Hong &
Kang, 2011; Al-Gahtani, Hubona & Wang, 2007; Riffai, Grant & Edgar, 2012).

Although the adaptations of the model enriched the understanding of the theory applications, the
research was mainly limited to organisational settings (Chang et al., 2007; Yi et al., 2006; Gupta,
Dasgupta & Gupta, 2008; Im, Hong & Kang, 2011; Al-Gahtani, Hubona & Wang, 2007). The literature
lacked evidence about a user behavioural model, which could explain the utilisation of technology by
consumers rather than employees. However, such evidence was important, given arguments in prior
studies suggesting that the determinants of acceptance in organisational and non-organisational (i.e.
consumer) settings are not the same. It was found that the importance of the factors reflecting the
costs and benefits of behaviour varied based on the context (e.g. (Brown & Venkatesh, 2005; van der
Heijden, 2004; Brown, Venkatesh & Bala, 2006; Brown & Venkatesh, 2005; Kim, Malhotra &
Narasimhan, 2005)).

Given the above limitations, Venkatesh et al. proposed an extension of UTAUT, named UTAUT2
(Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012). The model (Figure 2) set out to address two main objectives. First,
compared to all prior attempts to extend the model, UTAUT2 was not designed to have a specific
focus (e.g. new technology, geographical location). Instead, the goal of the theory was to represent
an overarching framework for examining technology acceptance. The extension was designed to give
a higher precision in explaining user behaviour (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012; Alvesson & Kärreman,
2007). The second objective was to propose a behavioural model of consumer technology
acceptance, in contrast to UTAUT, which was developed to examine technology in organisational
settings. To fulfil the objective, Venkatesh et al. planned to extend the UTAUT model with new
constructs, tackling behavioural and attitudinal determinants of the utilisation of technology in the
non-organisational context (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012). The authors developed UTAUT2 by
introducing three new constructs and altering some relationships (e.g. removing the voluntariness)
in the original model to adapt it to the consumer technology use context. Such an approach offered
a new theoretically justified mechanism for predicting technology acceptance, which was
encouraged and endorsed by prior research (Bagozzi, 2007; Venkatesh, Davis & Morris, 2007). In
addition to advancing the technology acceptance literature (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012), UTAUT2
aimed to achieve wider generalisability by addressing the private user segment .

UTAUT 2 postulates that the use of technology by individuals is underpinned by the effect of the
three additional constructs, namely, hedonic motive, cost/perceived value and habit, moderated by
age, gender and experience. Hedonic motivation is defined "as the fun or pleasure derived from
using technology, and it has been shown to play an important role in determining technology
acceptance and use" (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012). The inclusion of this construct was justified by
the findings of prior studies in the IS and marketing domains which found that the perceived hedonic
nature of the outcome (e.g. perceived enjoyment) was a significant predictor of consumer
technology use (Brown & Venkatesh, 2005; van der Heijden, 2004). The rationale for integrating cost
in the new model was based on the relative importance of the factor in the context of consumer
product use compared to the usage of technology in workplace settings. For example, when
technology is used by employees in organisations, users do not feel responsible for the cost that is
associated with the use of technology, due to the lack of direct financial implications for them
(Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012). In contrast, the use of consumer technology implies a higher
perception of the responsibility, due to direct costs borne by the use of technology. The lower the
costs, the more intensive is the use of technology (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012; Brown, Venkatesh
& Bala, 2006; Brown & Venkatesh, 2005). Since UTAUT and UTAUT2 utilised subjective measures,
the cost factor was represented by price value. Price value is defined as "consumers’ trade-off
between the perceived benefits of the applications and the monetary cost for using them"
(Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012). A positive relationship between perceived value and intention to use
indicates that a user perceives the benefits of technology use as higher and more important than the
TheoryHub Book: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

associated monetary costs. The third variable included in UTAUT2 is habit, which is defined as "the
extent to which people tend to perform behaviours automatically" (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012).
The construct was operationalised based on prior studies which had brought the automaticity
perspective into the research. In contrast to a reason-oriented framework (e.g. TRA and TPB), which
states that behavioural intention results from deliberate evaluations, the automaticity perspective
considers technology use to be an automatic and unconscious behaviour (e.g. (Limayem, Hirt &
Cheung, 2007; Kim, Malhotra & Narasimhan, 2005)). Habit was hypothesised to have a direct and
indirect effect on actual use through behavioural intention (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012). However,
the effect of either of the paths is dependent on the degree to which people rely on routinised
behaviour in accepting/using technology (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012; Ajzen, 2011). The extended
version of UTAUT resulted in a number of theoretical contributions. The model explains 74 %of the
variance in behavioural intention and 52 % of the variance in technology use, which suggests that
the model has high predictive validity when applied to the consumer segment. The supported effects
of price value, hedonic motivation and habit indicate three significant drivers of consumers’
intention to use or actual use of technology (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012). Specifically, the
introduction of the habit factor demonstrated the alternative theoretical mechanism in examining
technology use (Bagozzi, 2007). Such an approach challenged the role of intention (Venkatesh, Davis
& Morris, 2007), which was commonly used as a proxy for behaviour (e.g. (Venkatesh et al., 2003;
Ajzen, 2011)). The inclusion of hedonic motivation in the model was found to be more important
than performance expectancy and was significant across a wide range of studies (Alalwan, Dwivedi &
Rana, 2017; Megadewandanu, Suyoto & Pranowo, 2016). In addition, the integration of price value
in UTAUT2 addressed the need to measure the costs of IS use in the consumer context. Finally,
extended UTAUT determines the role of personal factors (gender, age, and experience) in
moderating the effect that hedonic motivation, price value and habit have on behavioural intention
and/or use (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012).

Figure 2: UTAUT2
TheoryHub Book: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

Applications

UTAUT and UTAUT2 have been tested in different geographical contexts to understand the role of
culture in technology adoption and solidify the generalisability of the theory tenets (Gupta, Dasgupta
& Gupta, 2008; Im, Hong & Kang, 2011; Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012). The majority of findings
showed that the role of UTAUT constructs was significant irrespective of the difference in cultures.
For example, the employment of the model in a comparative study on technology acceptance in the
USA and China demonstrated the high explanatory power of the model across the two geographical
settings. However, the model accounts for a greater variance in the behavioural intention when
fewer moderators are tested (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012). When UTAUT was examined in Korea
TheoryHub Book: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

and the USA, the strength of the relationships slightly varied, although the significance was invariant
across the two samples (Im, Hong & Kang, 2011). Similar results were observed when the UTAUT
model was tested cross-culturally in individualistic vs. collectivistic nations. The model was shown to
be viable in both types of cultures, but the strength of the relationships was different, suggesting a
strong moderating role of culture on the model paths (Udo, Bagchi & Maity, 2016). UTAUT2 was also
validated in different countries with contrasting cultures, economies and level of technology
penetration. In Jordan, mobile banking adoption was not affected by social influence (Alalwan,
Dwivedi & Rana, 2017). When comparing the adoption of education technology in Korea, Japan and
the US, both the strength of the relationships and the significance of the effects were different
across samples. For Korean users, the intention to use e-learning correlated with habit and
perceived efficacy. For Japanese users, the behavioural intention was underpinned by habit, price
value and social influence, while US users stressed only the habit and price value factors.
Surprisingly, effort expectancy was not significant for any country, which might indicate that the
technology being tested did not demand any effort to operate it (Jung & Lee, 2020). UTAUT2
applications demonstrate that insight into the conditions associated with culture is required, such as
nations’ socio-economic status or norms.

The original and extended UTAUT models have been used to examine technology acceptance in a
number of different sectors, such as healthcare (Chang et al., 2007), e-government (Gupta, Dasgupta
& Gupta, 2008; Chan et al., 2010), mobile internet (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012; Thong et al.,
2011), enterprise systems (Chauhan & Jaiswal, 2016; Ling Keong et al., 2012) and mobile banking and
apps (Zhou, Lu & Wang, 2010; Mütterlein, Kunz & Baier, 2019). The applications of UTAUT
demonstrated a strong dependence of behavioural intention on the two perception factors, namely
perceived performance and perceived ease of use. For example, the technology acceptance
framework was used to understand the acceptance of a pharmacokinetics-based clinical decision
support systems. All constructs had significant effects on intention, except for facilitating conditions,
which influenced only the actual utilisation of the technology (Chang et al., 2007). The investigation
of the factors driving the adoption of e-government by employees in a state organisation in a
developing country demonstrated the significant influence of all the UTAUT variables moderated by
gender, while performance and effort expectancy showed the strongest effects (Gupta, Dasgupta &
Gupta, 2008). When the model was used to explore the acceptance of ERP software training, three
out of four predictors of use intention were found to be significant. While effort expectancy,
performance expectancy and facilitating conditions influenced employees' intention to adopt
training tools, the effect of social influence was not supported. Such findings were probably due to
the instrumental nature of ERP software and the high contingency of its use on utility factors that
overshadow the role of social influence on users’ decisions (Chauhan & Jaiswal, 2016). The
applications of UTAUT2 showed that the significance and the strength of behavioural determinants
differed across cases. The utilisation of UTAUT2 to investigate the antecedents of mobile app
adoption confirmed the role of performance expectancy, social influence, hedonic motivation and
habit (Mütterlein, Kunz & Baier, 2019). However, in two other studies investigating mobile banking
adoption, the role of social influence was not confirmed (Ajzen, 2011; Baptista & Oliveira, 2015). The
strongest observed effects were demonstrated by performance expectancy, hedonic motivation and
habit (Baptista & Oliveira, 2015).

Practical Implications

UTAUT and UTAUT2 could have a number of applications in practice. UTAUT can be used to examine
the anticipated acceptance rate of a product and ensure sufficient stock to satisfy the consumers’
demand. Evidence that the model provides can be used by practitioners to design more user-
TheoryHub Book: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

oriented products. UTAUT underscores the role of social influence and facilitating conditions, thus
highlighting the importance of contextual analysis in strategies for technology implementation and
promotion (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012). The application of UTAUT2 enables technology producers
and vendors to measure how the trade-off between monetary price and the value of the product
influences the utilisation of their technology. Companies have the opportunity to reconsider cost-
structures to adjust the pricing policy to the relative value attached to the product, because the
benefits that users get from the purchase of technology may not justify the price that they pay. By
investigating the effect of habit on users’ intention, technology producers and distributors are able
to define the marketing communication strategies that may address the beliefs that fuel automatic
behaviour (e.g. advertising the utility of the product in various scenarios). By measuring the effect of
hedonic motivation, product developers and managers can adjust the offering in such a way as
either to enhance the hedonic value of technology or augment hedonic cues for marketing the
product. Finally, the moderation effects in UTAUT2 enable practitioners to identify which user
segment demands more marketing effort to address habits, deliver hedonic value and demonstrate
better value for money (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012).

Limitations

The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology provides a holistic tool to measure
technology acceptance and technology use (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Venkatesh, Davis & Morris,
2007). However, despite the rigorousness of the model, UTAUT has some theoretical and
methodological limitations that were not addressed in further studies (Venkatesh et al., 2003;
Venkatesh, Davis & Morris, 2007). UTAUT faced critique with regards to its inability to explain
behavioural intention in different settings. Limited external validity of the model motivated further
studies to extend the model by adding additional determinants of behaviour, such as trust, self-
efficacy, computer self-efficacy, innovativeness, perceived threats, perceived risk (Martins, Oliveira
& Popovič, 2014; Slade et al., 2015). Also, the model was extended by introducing new moderating
effects, such as income, location, culture, technology readiness (Im, Hong & Kang, 2011; Borrero et
al., 2014) (for a more comprehensive insight see the review by (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2016)). Still,
some key factors, like computer self-efficacy, remained under-researched. Although it was
confirmed that this factor plays a role in behavioural intention (Bandura & Locke, 2003), only an
indirect effect of self-efficacy on intention was tested while developing UTAUT (Venkatesh et al.,
2003).

The concern over the wide application of UTAUT was noted by Dwivedi et al. (Dwivedi et al., 2019),
who stated that the majority of studies in the IS context cite the original UTAUT paper without using
the model. Those surprising findings lead to the conclusion that UTAUT might not be as robust as it
claimed to be, given overrated citations compared to the actual implication of the theory. Thus,
based on the analysis of MASEM (Combined meta-analysis and structural equation modelling), a
revised version of UTAUT was proposed, which included attitude construct as a partial mediator of
the effects of exogenous constructs on behavioural intentions (Dwivedi et al., 2019).

The major methodological limitation of UTAUT concerns the development of the scales that were
used to measure the core constructs. For the final measurement development, the study used the
highest loading items for each scale. While this approach was supported by the literature (Hevner et
al., 2004), there was debate as to whether it may be useful to validate the measurements or even
develop new ones to eliminate potential content validity issues (Venkatesh et al., 2003). In addition,
the intention to use and use behaviour scales were adopted from prior studies (e.g. (Davis, 1989)),
but alternative measurements should be developed and validated in future studies (Venkatesh et al.,
2003).
TheoryHub Book: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

UTAUT2 also has some limitations inherent in the methodology. The model utilises a self-reported
scale to measure intention to use (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012), which jeopardises the accuracy
and validity of the research conclusions. UTAUT2 shares this limitation with many other technology
acceptance models (e.g. TAM, original UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Davis, 1989)). In addition,
similar to other technology acceptance models, UTAUT 2 can face a threat of common method
variance (Straub & Burton-Jones, 2007; Sharma, Yetton & Crawford, 2009). To reduce the potential
of common method bias, different methodological approaches need to be used (e.g. using
experimental settings that can make manipulation checks possible).

Concepts

Performance Expectancy (Independent): The degree to which an individual believes that

using the system will help him or her to attain gains in job performance. (Venkatesh et al.,
2003)

Effort Expectancy (Independent): The degree of ease associated with the use of the system.
(Venkatesh et al., 2003)

Social Influence (Independent): The degree to which an individual perceives that important
others believe he or she should use the new system. (Venkatesh et al., 2003)

Facilitating Conditions (Independent): The degree to which an individual believes that an

organisations and technical infrastructure exist to support use of the system. (Venkatesh et
al., 2003)

Behavioural Intention (Independent/Dependent): A person’s subjective probability that he

will perform some behavior. (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975)

Use Behaviour (Dependent): The actual use of the system/technology (Venkatesh et al.,
2003)

Experience (Moderator): The passage of time from the initial use of a technology by an
individual. (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012)

Voluntariness of Use (Moderator): The degree to which use of the innovation is perceived
as being voluntary, or of free will (Moore & Benbasat, 1991)

Hedonic Motivation (Independent): The fun or pleasure derived from using a technology,
which has been shown to play an important role in determining technology acceptance and
use (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012)

Price Value (Independent): A consumer's trade-off between the perceived benefits of the
applications and the monetary cost of using them. (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012)

Habit (Independent): The extent to which people tend to perform behaviours automatically.
(Limayem, Hirt & Cheung, 2007)
TheoryHub Book: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

References

Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology &
Health, 26 (9), 1113-1127.

Al-Gahtani, S.S., Hubona, G.S. & Wang, J. (2007). Information technology (IT) in Saudi Arabia:
Culture and the acceptance and use of IT. Information & Management, 44 (8), 681-691.

Alalwan, A.A., Dwivedi, Y.K. & Rana, N.P. (2017). Factors influencing adoption of mobile
banking by Jordanian bank customers: Extending UTAUT2 with trust. International Journal of
Information Management, 37 (3), 99-110.

Alvesson, M. & Kärreman, D. (2007). Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory

development. Academy of Management Review, 32 (4), 1265-1281.

Bagozzi, R. (2007). The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a Proposal for a
Paradigm Shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8 (4), 244-254.

Bandura, A. & Locke, E.A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88 (1), 87-99.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annual Review of

Psychology, 52 (1), 1-26.

Baptista, G. & Oliveira, T. (2015). Understanding mobile banking: The unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology combined with cultural moderators. Computers in Human
Behavior, 50, 418-430.

Borrero, J.D., Yousafzai, S.Y., Javed, U. & Page, K.L. (2014). Expressive participation in
Internet social movements: Testing the moderating effect of technology readiness and sex
on student SNS use. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 39-49.

Brown, & Venkatesh (2005). Model of Adoption of Technology in Households: A Baseline

Model Test and Extension Incorporating Household Life Cycle. MIS Quarterly, 29 (3), 399.

Brown, S., Venkatesh, V. & Bala, H. (2006). Household technology use: Integrating
household life cycle and the model of adoption of technology in households. The
Information Society, 22 (4), 205-218.

Brown, S.A., Venkatesh, V. & Hoehle, H. (2015). Technology adoption decisions in the
household: A seven-model comparison. Journal of the Association for Information Science
and Technology, 66 (9), 1933-1949.

Casey, T. & Wilson-Evered, E. (2012). Predicting uptake of technology innovations in online

family dispute resolution services: An application and extension of the UTAUT. Computers in
Human Behavior, 28 (6), 2034-2045.

Chan, F., Thong, J., Venkatesh, V., Brown, S., Hu, P. & Tam, K. (2010). Modeling Citizen
Satisfaction with Mandatory Adoption of an E-Government Technology. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 11 (10), 519-549.
TheoryHub Book: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

Chang, I., Hwang, H., Hung, W. & Li, Y. (2007). Physicians’ acceptance of pharmacokinetics-
based clinical decision support systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 33 (2), 296-303.

Chauhan, S. & Jaiswal, M. (2016). Determinants of acceptance of ERP software training in

business schools: Empirical investigation using UTAUT model. The International Journal of
Management Education, 14 (3), 248-262.

Compeau, D., Higgins, C.A. & Huff, S. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory and Individual
Reactions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal Study. MIS Quarterly, 23 (2), 145.

Compeau, D.R. & Higgins, C.A. (1995). Application of Social Cognitive Theory to Training for
Computer Skills. Information Systems Research, 6 (2), 118-143.

Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of
Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319.

Davis, F.D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user
perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38 (3),
475-487.

Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. & Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology:
A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science, 35 (8), 982-1003.

Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. & Warshaw, P.R. (1992). Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use
Computers in the Workplace1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22 (14), 1111-1132.

De la Boutetière, H., Montagner, A. & Reich, A. (2018). Unlocking success in digital

transformations.

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.

Goodhue, D.L. (1995). Understanding User Evaluations of Information Systems.

Management Science, 41 (12), 1827-1844.

Gupta, B., Dasgupta, S. & Gupta, A. (2008). Adoption of ICT in a government organization in
a developing country: An empirical study. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17
(2), 140-154.

Hevner, March, Park, & Ram (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS
Quarterly, 28 (1), 75.

Hu, P.J., Chau, P.Y., Sheng, O.R.L. & Tam, K.Y. (1999). Examining the Technology Acceptance
Model Using Physician Acceptance of Telemedicine Technology. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 16 (2), 91-112.

Im, I., Hong, S. & Kang, M.S. (2011). An international comparison of technology adoption.
Information & Management, 48 (1), 1-8.
TheoryHub Book: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

Jung, I. & Lee, J. (2020). A cross‐cultural approach to the adoption of open educational
resources in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51 (1), 263-280.

Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W. & Chervany, N.L. (1999). Information Technology Adoption
Across Time: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Pre-Adoption and Post-Adoption Beliefs. MIS
Quarterly, 23 (2), 183.

Kim, S.S., Malhotra, N.K. & Narasimhan, S. (2005). Research Note—Two Competing
Perspectives on Automatic Use: A Theoretical and Empirical Comparison. Information
Systems Research, 16 (4), 418-432.

Leonard-Barton, D. & Deschamps, I. (1988). Managerial Influence in the Implementation of

New Technology. Management Science, 34 (10), 1252-1265.

Limayem, Hirt, & Cheung (2007). How Habit Limits the Predictive Power of Intention: The
Case of Information Systems Continuance. MIS Quarterly, 31 (4), 705.

Ling Keong, M., Ramayah, T., Kurnia, S. & May Chiun, L. (2012). Explaining intention to use
an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system: an extension of the UTAUT model. Business
Strategy Series, 13 (4), 173-180.

Maillet, ?., Mathieu, L. & Sicotte, C. (2015). Modeling factors explaining the acceptance,
actual use and satisfaction of nurses using an Electronic Patient Record in acute care
settings: An extension of the UTAUT. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 84 (1), 36-
47.

Martins, C., Oliveira, T. & Popovič, A. (2014). Understanding the Internet banking adoption:
A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application.
International Journal of Information Management, 34 (1), 1-13.

Megadewandanu, S., Suyoto, & Pranowo (2016). Exploring mobile wallet adoption in
Indonesia using UTAUT2: An approach from consumer perspective.

Moore, G.C. & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an Instrument to Measure the

Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Information Systems
Research, 2 (3), 192-222.

Mütterlein, J., Kunz, R.E. & Baier, D. (2019). Effects of lead-usership on the acceptance of
media innovations: A mobile augmented reality case. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 145, 113-124.

Neufeld, D.J., Dong, L. & Higgins, C. (2007). Charismatic leadership and user acceptance of
information technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 16 (4), 494-510.

Papagiannidis, S. & Marikyan, D. (2020). Smart offices: A productivity and well-being

perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 51, 102027.
TheoryHub Book: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

Riffai, M., Grant, K. & Edgar, D. (2012). Big TAM in Oman: Exploring the promise of on-line
banking, its adoption by customers and the challenges of banking in Oman. International
Journal of Information Management, 32 (3), 239-250.

Sharma, Yetton, & Crawford (2009). Estimating the Effect of Common Method Variance: The
Method—Method Pair Technique with an Illustration from TAM Research. MIS Quarterly, 33
(3), 473.

Sheppard, B.H., Hartwick, J. & Warshaw, P.R. (1988). The Theory of Reasoned Action: A
Meta-Analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future
Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (3), 325.

Slade, E., Williams, M., Dwivedi, Y. & Piercy, N. (2015). Exploring consumer adoption of
proximity mobile payments. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 23 (3), 209-223.

Straub, D. & Burton-Jones, A. (2007). Veni, Vidi, Vici: Breaking the TAM Logjam. Journal of
the Association for Information Systems, 8 (4), 223-229.

Sun, Y., Bhattacherjee, A. & Ma, Q. (2009). Extending technology usage to work settings: The
role of perceived work compatibility in ERP implementation. Information & Management,
46 (6), 351-356.

Taylor, S. & Todd, P.A. (1995). Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of
Competing Models. Information Systems Research, 6 (2), 144-176.

Thompson, R.L., Higgins, C.A. & Howell, J.M. (1991). Personal Computing: Toward a
Conceptual Model of Utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15 (1), 125.

Thong, J.Y.L., Venkatesh, V., Xu, X., Hong, S. & Tam, K.Y. (2011). Consumer Acceptance of
Personal Information and Communication Technology Services. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 58 (4), 613-625.

Udo, G., Bagchi, K. & Maity, M. (2016). Exploring Factors Affecting Digital Piracy Using the
Norm Activation and UTAUT Models: The Role of National Culture. Journal of Business
Ethics, 135 (3), 517-541.

Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology:
Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27 (3), 425.

Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu (2012). Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology:
Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Quarterly, 36 (1),
157.

Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F.D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance
Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46 (2), 186-204.

Venkatesh, V. & Speier, C. (1999). Computer Technology Training in the Workplace: A

Longitudinal Investigation of the Effect of Mood. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 79 (1), 1-28.
TheoryHub Book: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

Venkatesh, V., Davis, F. & Morris, M. (2007). Dead Or Alive? The Development, Trajectory
And Future Of Technology Adoption Research. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 8 (4), 267-286.

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. & Xu, X. (2016). Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 17 (5), 328-376.

Verhoef, P.C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi Dong, J., Fabian, N. & Haenlein,
M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda.
Journal of Business Research, 122, 889-901.

Wang, H. (2005). The Role of Personality Traits in UTAUT Model under Online Stocking.
Contemporary Management Research, 1 (1), 69-82.

Yi, M.Y., Jackson, J.D., Park, J.S. & Probst, J.C. (2006). Understanding information technology
acceptance by individual professionals: Toward an integrative view. Information &
Management, 43 (3), 350-363.

Zhang, J. & Mao, E. (2020). Cash, credit, or phone? An empirical study on the adoption of
mobile payments in the United States. Psychology & Marketing, 37 (1), 87-98.

Zhou, T., Lu, Y. & Wang, B. (2010). Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking
user adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (4), 760-767.

van der Heijden (2004). User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 28
(4), 695.

How to cite: Marikyan, D. & Papagiannidis, S. (2023) Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use
of Technology: A review. In S. Papagiannidis (Ed), TheoryHub Book. Available at
https://open.ncl.ac.uk / ISBN: 9781739604400

Last updated: 2023-09-23 10:58:26 - Exported: 2023-09-23 11:00:57

ISBN: 978-1-7396044-0-0

Legal: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. The TheoryHub
is an open access resource which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are
allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose,
without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. For more information please visit: https://open.ncl.ac.uk.