J ournal of the

A ssociation for
I nformation
S ystems

Research Paper ISSN: 1536-9323

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology:

A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

Viswanath Venkatesh
Department of Information Systems, Walton College of Business,
University of Arkansas
vvenkatesh@vvenkatesh.us

James Y. L. Thong Xin Xu

Department of Information Systems, Business Statistics Department of Management and Marketing,
and Operations Management, Faculty of Business,
School of Business and Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology xin.xu@polyu.edu.hk
jthong@ust.hk

Abstract:

The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) is a little over a decade old and has been used
extensively in information systems (IS) and other fields, as the large number of citations to the original paper that
introduced the theory evidences. In this paper, we review and synthesize the IS literature on UTAUT from September
2003 until December 2014, perform a theoretical analysis of UTAUT and its extensions, and chart an agenda for
research going forward. Based on Weber’s (2012) framework of theory evaluation, we examined UTAUT and its
extensions along two sets of quality dimensions; namely, the parts of a theory and the theory as a whole. While our
review identifies many merits to UTAUT, we also found that the progress related to this theory has hampered further
theoretical development in research into technology acceptance and use. To chart an agenda for research that will
enable significant future work, we analyze the theoretical contributions of UTAUT using Whetten’s (2009) notion of
cross-context theorizing. Our analysis reveals several limitations that lead us to propose a multi-level framework that
can serve as the theoretical foundation for future research. Specifically, this framework integrates the notion of research
context and cross-context theorizing with the theory evaluation framework to: 1) synthesize the existing UTAUT
extensions across both the dimensions and the levels of the research context and 2) highlight promising research
directions. We conclude with recommendations for future UTAUT-related research using the proposed framework.

Keywords: Theory Evaluation, Technology Acceptance and Use, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT), Research Context, Literature Review, Multi-level Framework.

Choon-Ling Sia was the accepting senior editor. This paper was submitted on October 3, 2013 and went through two revisions.

Volume 17 Issue 5 pp. 328 – 376 May 2016

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
329 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

1 Introduction
Research on individual acceptance and use of information technology (IT) is one of the most established
and mature streams of information systems (IS) research (Venkatesh, Davis, & Morris, 2007). There is also
research on technology adoption by groups and organizations (e.g., Sarker & Valacich, 2010; Sarker,
Valacich, & Sarker, 2005; Sia, Lee, Teo, & Wei, 2001; Sia, Teo, Tan, & Wei, 2004) that holds the premise
that one must first use a technology before one can achieve desired outcomes, such as improvement in
employee productivity and task/job performance in organizations. Researchers have proposed and tested
several competing models (e.g., the technology acceptance model or TAM) and models based on the theory
of planned behavior (TPB) to explain and predict user acceptance and use of IT. About a decade ago,
Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis (2003) synthesized these models into the unified theory of acceptance
and use of technology (UTAUT). UTAUT identifies four key factors (i.e., performance expectancy, effort
expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions) and four moderators (i.e., age, gender, experience,
and voluntariness) related to predicting behavioral intention to use a technology and actual technology use
primarily in organizational contexts. According to UTAUT, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and
social influence were theorized and found to influence behavioral intention to use a technology, while
behavioral intention and facilitating conditions determine technology use. Moreover, various combinations
of the four moderators were theorized and found to moderate various UTAUT relationships. In longitudinal
field studies of employees’ acceptance of technology, UTAUT explained 77 percent of the variance in
behavioral intention to use a technology and 52 percent of the variance in technology use. Recently,
Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu (2012) proposed and tested UTAUT2, which incorporates new constructs (i.e.,
hedonic motivation, price value, and habit) that focus on new theoretical mechanisms (see Bagozzi, 2007;
Benbasat & Barki, 2007; Venkatesh et al., 2007) in a consumer context. UTAUT2 explained 74 percent of
the variance in consumers’ behavioral intention to use a technology and 52 percent of the variance in
consumers’ technology use.
Although research considers UTAUT to have reached its practical limit of explaining individual technology
acceptance and use decisions in organizations (Venkatesh et al., 2003), UTAUT-based research has thrived
(Venkatesh et al., 2012). Specifically, research has applied UTAUT as is, applied it with other theories, or
extended it to study a variety of technologies in both organizational and non-organizational settings. The
continued growth of UTAUT-based research has partly arisen due to the proliferation and diffusion of new
ITs—such as enterprise systems (Sykes, 2015; Sykes, Venkatesh, & Johnson, 2014), collaboration
technology in knowledge-intensive firms (e.g., Brown, Dennis, & Venkatesh, 2010), mobile Internet for
consumers (e.g., Thong, Venkatesh, Xu, Hong, & Tam, 2011; Venkatesh et al., 2012), agile IS (Hong,
Thong, Chasalow, & Dhillon, 2011), e-government for citizens (Chan, Thong, Venkatesh, Brown, Hu, & Tam,
2010), and health IS in the healthcare industry (e.g., Venkatesh, Sykes, & Zhang, 2011)— in organizations
and society. IT has penetrated almost every aspect of the society, and various individuals in various contexts
now use it. While the past decade has generated a large number of new ITs and associated studies based
on UTAUT, in analyzing the literature, we found that the IS discipline is at a crossroads regarding what the
future holds for UTAUT and, in particular, the possible theoretical contributions from further research into
technology acceptance and use. We believe that systematically evaluating the contributions of the existing
UTAUT-based studies can reveal the utility of UTAUT and the limitations of existing UTAUT-based research
from which one can then develop a new framework of technology acceptance and use with a view toward
charting promising future research directions. In this paper, we:
1. Comprehensively review the UTAUT literature from September 2003 to December 2014,
2. Evaluate UTAUT and its extensions based on a systematic framework of theory evaluation 1, and
3. Propose a multi-level framework of technology acceptance and use based on the notion of cross-
context theorizing to both synthesize existing research and identify future research directions.
This paper proceeds as follows. In Section 2, we describe how we conducted the literature review and, in
Section 3, we summarize the UTAUT studies in the IS literature. In Section 4, we employ Weber’s (2012)
framework of theory evaluation to analyze UTAUT and its extensions, and as a result, we identify three
major limitations of this literature. In Section 5, we integrate Weber’s (2012) framework, Whetten’s (2009)
notion of cross-context theorizing, and Johns’ (2006) conceptualization of various dimensions of research

1
We focus on the theoretical contributions rather than method issues in the literature review. Nevertheless, we do agree that method
issues can influence findings and conclusions. The current research can serve as a foundation for future research into the interplay
between theoretical development and research methodology.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 330

context at two different levels to propose a multi-level framework that synthesizes UTAUT extensions and
highlights gaps and opportunities in this research domain. In Section 6, we discuss the implications of our
framework and provide recommendations for future research. Finally, in Section 7, we conclude the paper.

2 Literature Review
We used the “cited reference search” method in Web of Science and searched for papers that have cited
the original UTAUT paper (i.e., Venkatesh et al., 2003) from September 2003 until December 2014. We also
searched the proceedings of two major Association for Information Systems (AIS) conferences: International
Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) and Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) in
the AIS online library. To ensure we did not miss any important studies, we further searched each source
with the search criterion containing the full name of the theory (i.e., “unified theory of acceptance and use
of technology”, its abbreviation (i.e., “UTAUT”), and other variants, such as “user acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view” in “all field”. We examined the papers and conference proceedings that
Web of Science generated in the following sequence: 1) we started with papers published in the AIS Senior
Scholars’ basket of eight IS journals; 2 2) we expanded our set of papers to include those published in the
journals listed in the MIS journal rankings on the AIS website; 3 and 3) finally, we expanded our literature
review to include the two AIS conferences (ICIS and AMCIS). In total, we found 1,267 papers.
We first examine the distribution of journal papers (i.e., excluding the two AIS conferences) found from
September 2003 to December 2014 (see Appendix A). In total, 858 journal papers in our review timeframe
cited the original paper about UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003): 245 came from the AIS Senior Scholars’
basket of eight journals and 613 came from other IS journals. For the eight journals in the AIS Senior
Scholars’ basket, the breakdown of citations to the UTAUT paper showed that MIS Quarterly had the largest
number of citations (72), followed by the European Journal of Information Systems (51) and the Journal of
the Association for Information Systems (32). The top-three journals with the most citations to the original
UTAUT paper were Computers in Human Behavior (125), Information & Management (55), and Behavior &
Information Technology (48). In the two AIS conferences, AMCIS had 272 UTAUT citations and ICIS had
137. Appendix A summarizes the number of UTAUT citations in each IS journal and conference by year.
The total number of UTAUT citations in each year has steadily increased from 24 in 2004 to 160 in 2011,
with a slight drop in 2012 and 2013 (132 citations and 137 citations, respectively) but back to an increase
in 2014 (167 citations). In the AIS Senior Scholars’ basket of journals, the number of UTAUT citations has
been over 20 in most years (i.e., in 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014). Similarly, for the
remaining IS journals, the number of citations was over 60 from 2009 to 2014. Overall, we found an
increasing number of citations to the UTAUT paper over the years.
We analyzed the papers to arrive at a classification scheme for the different themes present in the UTAUT
citations, which resulted in a consensus on four broad themes of the UTAUT citations: 1) a general citation to
the original UTAUT paper, 2) an application of UTAUT, 3) an integration of UTAUT with other theories, and 4)
an extension to UTAUT. Next, we independently examined all 1,267 papers to classify them into the four
themes. After performing our independent classifications, we compared the results. We discussed any
differences before finalizing the classification of the paper (Appendix B summarizes our classification scheme).

2.1 General Citation

We classified a paper into this category if it only cited the UTAUT paper in passing and did not use UTAUT
in any substantial manner, such as applying UTAUT or integrating UTAUT with other theories or extending
UTAUT. Most of the papers in this category cited UTAUT in their general discussion (e.g., Kim, 2009; Sarker
& Valacich, 2010; Sarker et al., 2005). Some of these general-citation papers were TAM-based studies
(e.g., Burton-Jones & Hubona, 2006). We also included research-in-progress studies that applied,
integrated, or extended UTAUT (e.g., Yun, Han, & Lee, 2011) in this category because they had not tested
their UTAUT-based models yet.

2.2 UTAUT Application

We classified a paper into this category if it was an empirical study that applied either part of or the complete
UTAUT as its research model in a particular setting. For instance, Gupta, Dasgupta, and Gupta (2008)

2
http://ais.site-ym.com/?SeniorScholarBasket
3
http://ais.site-ym.com/?JournalRankings

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
331 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

examined UTAUT in the context of e-government adoption in a developing country. Their model comprised
all the main effects and one moderator—gender. Note that we did not count studies that applied TAM (Davis,
1989) and its updates (e.g., TAM3: Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) in this category but as general citations.

2.3 UTAUT Integration

We classified a paper into this category if it was an empirical study that integrated part of or the complete
UTAUT with at least one other theory with theoretical significance as its research model. For instance, Hong
et al. (2011) integrated UTAUT with the IS continuance model and other mechanisms (e.g., habit and
personal innovativeness with IT) to examine the drivers of user acceptance of agile IS. Note that we did not
count studies that integrated TAM (Davis, 1989) and its updates (e.g., TAM3: Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) in
this category but as general citations.

2.4 UTAUT Extension

We classified a paper into this category if it was an empirical study that included part of or the complete
UTAUT as the baseline model. In addition, the paper needed to extend the baseline model with either new
exogenous, endogenous, moderation, or outcome mechanisms (more on this later). For instance, Neufeld,
Dong, and Higgins (2007) studied the impacts of charismatic leadership on the four UTAUT beliefs (i.e.,
performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions) that, in turn,
influenced behavioral intention and use. Note that we did not count studies that extended TAM (e.g.,
Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and its updates (TAM2: Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; TAM3:
Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) in this category but as general citations.
Appendix C shows the 1,267 UTAUT citations along the four broad themes. One can classify most of the
UTAUT citations in the general citation category (1,205). In addition, we found 12 UTAUT applications, 13
UTAUT integrations, and 37 UTAUT extensions. This relatively small number of UTAUT-based studies (62
in the past 11 years approximately) in major IS journals and conferences signals an imperative need for
directions to refine the theory. In Section 3, we discuss the findings from our literature review about the
UTAUT applications, integrations, and extensions.

3 Synthesis of the UTAUT Literature

Researchers have applied, integrated, and extended UTAUT to study individual technology acceptance and
use across a variety of settings (e.g., different user types, different organization types, different types of
technologies, different tasks, different times, and different locations). First, one can categorize technology
users into different groups, such as employees, consumers, and citizens. For instance, Hong et al. (2011)
used a sample of employees at all levels of an organization (i.e., board directors, senior managers, middle-
level managers, and operational personnel). Zhou, Lu, and Wang (2010) used a sample of mobile service
users (i.e., consumers). Venkatesh, Thong, Chan, Hu, and Brown (2011) studied citizens’ use of e-
government services. Other studies have targeted more specific types of users, such as teachers (Pynoo
et al., 2011) and physicians (Chang, Hwang, Hung, & Li, 2007). Second, one can group organizations by
industry sectors (e.g., manufacturing and service sectors, or private and public organizations. Research has
examined a variety of organizations, such as schools (Pynoo et al., 2011), hospitals (Chang et al., 2007)
and government organizations (Gupta et al., 2008). Third, one can study different types of technology.
Research has examined a range of technologies from the general, such as the Internet (Gupta et al., 2008),
to the more specific, such as agile IS (Hong et al., 2011), digital-learning contexts (Pynoo et al., 2011),
mobile banking (Zhou et al., 2010), and e-government services (Venkatesh et al., 2011). Fourth, one can
study different types of tasks. Tasks that the target technology supports include idea generation and
decision making in technology design (Brown et al., 2010), the filing of income tax (Carter & Schaupp, 2008),
and medical diagnosing (Chang et al., 2007). Fifth, one can study technology use at different times (i.e., its
adoption, initial use, or post-adoptive use). For example, Zhou et al. (2010) focused on user adoption of
mobile banking, whereas Venkatesh, Brown, Maruping, and Bala (2008) included adoption, initial use, and
post-adoptive use. Sixth, one can group studies by the location (i.e., countries, economic sectors, and so
on) in which the target technology has been adopted and used. Some studies have examined technology
acceptance and use in locations other than the Western countries, such as India (Gupta et al., 2008), China
(Venkatesh & Zhang, 2010) and Korea (Im, Hong, & Kang, 2011). Other studies have focused on specific
economic sectors, such as services (e.g., Hong et al., 2011), education (e.g., Chiu & Wang, 2008), food
service (e.g., Yoo, Han, & Huang, 2012), medical services and healthcare (e.g., Liang, Xue, Ke, & Wei,
2010), and the public sector (e.g., Dasgupta & Gupta, 2011). In general, research has repeatedly confirmed

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 332

the robustness of UTAUT and its main effects. However, research has scarcely examined the moderating
effects of age, gender, experience, and voluntariness. Most studies have tested only the main effects (e.g.,
Chang et al., 2007), whereas others examined a subset of the moderation effects (e.g., Gupta et al., 2008).
Overall, many studies support the generalizability of UTAUT, albeit only in terms of its main effects. In
Sections 3.1 to 3.3, we discuss UTAUT applications, integrations, and extensions.

3.1 Review of UTAUT Applications

We summarize the research contexts and the relationships validated in the UTAUT applications in Table 1
(Appendix D provides the specific UTAUT hypotheses). The UTAUT applications’ research contexts varied.
We found only one study that applied UTAUT in its original research context (i.e., in traditional business
organizations) (Garfield, 2005). Researchers have applied UTAUT to other types of organizations, such as
educational institutions (i.e., universities and schools: El-Gayar & Moran, 2007; Liao, Shim, & Luo, 2004;
Pynoo et al., 2011), academic societies (e.g., Gruzd, Staves, & Wilk, 2012), government agencies (e.g., Al-
Shafi, Weerakkody, & Janssen, 2009; Gupta et al., 2008), and hospitals (Alapetite, Andersen, & Hertzum,
2009; Chang et al., 2007). These organizations were located not only across a variety of economic sectors,
but also across diverse countries/regions, such as Asia (e.g., India, Qatar, Taiwan), Europe (Belgium), and
the USA. Users have included students and teachers, government employees, and physicians. Researchers
have also examined various types of technologies (e.g., mobile computing technologies such as Tablet PCs:
El-Gayar & Moran, 2007; Garfield, 2005), clinical decision support systems (Chang et al., 2007), e-
government services (Al-Shafi et al., 2009), digital-learning environments (Liao et al., 2004; Pynoo et al.,
2011), and social media (Gruzd et al., 2012). In terms of timing, most of the UTAUT applications focused
on users’ adoption decisions. However, Alapetite et al. (2009) compared the levels of performance
expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions before and after adoption. Only
Pynoo et al. (2011) followed the original UTAUT specification and examined technology use in three periods
(i.e., user adoption, initial use, and post-adoptive use). Moreover, most of the UTAUT applications examined
only the main effects. Few studies tested the moderation effects of individual differences specified in the
original UTAUT. For example, Gupta et al. (2008) examined the moderating effects of gender and Al-Shafi
et al. (2009) examined the moderating effects of age, gender, and experience. Overall, we found few studies
that have tested the moderation effects in studying technology use in existing UTAUT applications.
Cumulatively, this finding is both surprising and disappointing because the empirical evidence does not
allow one to draw conclusions regarding the generalizability of UTAUT or make inferences about all possible
boundary conditions.

3.2 Review of UTAUT Integrations

Researchers have also integrated UTAUT with other theoretical models to study technology acceptance
and use and related issues (see Table 2). For instance, Yoo et al. (2012) studied the impacts of extrinsic
motivation and intrinsic motivation on employees’ intention to use e-learning in the workplace. They
conceptualized performance expectancy, social influences, and facilitating conditions as the components of
extrinsic motivation, and effort expectancy as a component of intrinsic motivation. Guo and Barnes (2011,
2012) also adopted the same theoretical foundation to examine consumers’ purchase intention in the virtual
world, but they viewed performance expectancy and effort expectancy as components of extrinsic
motivation. Venkatesh et al. (2011) integrated UTAUT beliefs into the two-stage expectation-confirmation
model of IS continuance (Bhattacherjee & Premkumar, 2004) to study citizens’ continued use of e-
government technologies. Other studies have integrated UTAUT with theoretical perspectives such as the
equity-implementation model (Hess, Joshi, & McNab, 2010), IS success model (Kim, Jahng, & Lee, 2007),
and task-technology fit (Zhou, Lu, & Wang, 2010). We can say that these studies have made some progress.
However, here too, there is a lack of integration of the UTAUT moderating variables.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
333 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

Table 1. Summary of UTAUT Applications

Relationships
Source User Technology Task Time Organization Location
validated
Electronic Clinical Expectations vs.
Alapetite et al. Speech
Physicians medical Adoption departments in experiences of
(2009) recognition
recording a hospital UTAUT variables
Main effects and the
Al-Shafi et al. E-government Fifteen public moderating effects of
Citizens Adoption Qatar
(2009) services agencies age, gender, and
experience
Main effects and the
Accessing
moderating effects of
Bühler & Bick political social Political Adoption
Citizens Germany age, gender,
(2013) media campaigns and use
experience, and
appearances
voluntariness
Clinical
Chang et al. decision Main effects in
Physicians Diagnosing Adoption Three hospitals Taiwan
(2007) support UTAUT
system
El-Gayar and A public Midwest Main effects in
Students Tablet PC Learning Adoption
Moran (2007) university USA UTAUT
The American
Society for
Gruzd et al. Academic Adoption Main effects in
Social media Research Information
(2012) researchers and use UTAUT
Science and
Technology
Main effects and the
Gupta et al. A government
Employees Internet Adoption India moderating effects of
(2008) organization
gender
Web-based
Liao et al. Main effects in
Students learning Learning Adoption A university South USA
(2004) UTAUT
environment
Teaching, Adoption, Dutch-
Digital-
Pynoo et al. communication, initial use, A secondary speaking Main effects in
Teachers learning
(2011) and and final school part of UTAUT
environment
administration use Belgium
Seid & Lessa Main effects in
Telecenter Adoption Ethiopia
(2012) UTAUT
Social
networking and
daily ‘functions’
Social media
such as Main effects and the
Workman and
Consumers navigation, Use Florida, USA moderating effects of
(2014) smartphone
weather experience
applications
information, &
travel
arrangement
Note: we leave the cells empty if the source (papers) did not provide enough information.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 334

Table 2. Summary of UTAUT Integrations

Dependent
Source Technology Theoretical foundation Role of UTAUT Other mechanisms
variable
Performance expectancy,
Motivation theory, Perceived value,
Guo & Barnes Purchase effort expectancy, and
Virtual world transaction cost theory, and enjoyment, general
(2011, 2012) intention social influences affect
UTAUT achievement, and habit
intention
Online Equity-implementation
Hess et al. Intention to
discussion model (Joshi, 1991) and Main effects in UTAUT Perceived equity
(2010) use
forum UTAUT
Tripartite model of attitude
Performance expectancy, Disconfirmation and
(e.g., Eagly & Chaiken,
Hong et al. User effort expectancy, social satisfaction, comfort with
Agile IS 1993), status quo bias,
(2011) acceptance influences, and facilitating change, habit, and
omission bias, and the
conditions affect Intention personal innovativeness
availability heuristic
IS success model (DeLone Performance expectancy
Kim et al. Portfolio of IT User satisfaction affects IT
IT use & McLean, 1992) and and social influences
(2007) applications use
UTAUT affect IT utilization
Usage, value, risk, image,
Main effects of UTAUT as
Lian & Yen Online User Innovation resistance theory and tradition as the
the drivers of online
(2014) shopping acceptance and UTAUT barriers of online shopping
shopping acceptance
acceptance
Innovativeness and
compatibility from DOI,
Miltgen, Technology acceptance
Social influences and perceived usefulness and
Popovic, & User model (TAM), diffusion of
Biometrics facilitating conditions perceived ease of use
Oliveira acceptance innovations (DOI), and
affect user acceptance from TAM, trust, privacy
(2013) UTAUT
concern, and perceived
risks
Task-technology fit affects
performance expectancy
Oliveira,
and adoption intention,
Faria, Task-technology fit theory Main effects of UTAUT
Mobile User environmental factors and
Thomas, & (TTF), initial trust model, and and the moderating effects
banking adoption performance expectancy
Popovic UTAUT of age and gender
affect initial trust that in
(2014)
turn influences adoption
intention
Pramatari & Performance expectancy Attitude, technology
RFID-enabled Consumer Theory of planned behavior
Theotokis and effort expectancy anxiety, and privacy
services acceptance (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975)
(2009) affect attitude concern
Sun, Liu, User satisfaction,
IS continuance, flow theory, Main effects of social
Peng, Dong, Social Continuance perceived enjoyment,
social capital theory, and influence and effort
& Barnes networking intention norms, trust, tie strength,
UTAUT expectancy
(2014) and perceived usefulness
Performance expectancy,
IS continuance model
effort expectancy, social
(Bhattacherjee &
Venkatesh et E-government Continuance influences, and facilitating Trust, satisfaction, and
Premkumar, 2004) and trust
al. (2011) technology intention conditions as pre-usage attitude
(e.g., McKnight, Choudhury,
beliefs, disconfirmation,
& Kacmar, 2002)
and post-usage beliefs
Performance expectancy,
social influences, and
Motivation theory (e.g.,
facilitating conditions as
Calder & Staw, 1975): Attitude and anxiety as
Yoo et al. E-learning in Intention to components of extrinsic
extrinsic motivation and components of intrinsic
(2012) the workplace use motivation; effort
intrinsic motivation affect motivation
expectancy as a
intention
component of intrinsic
motivation
Performance expectancy, Task-technology fit affects
Task-technology fit theory effort expectancy, social performance expectancy
Zhou et al. Mobile User
(Goodhue & Thompson, influences, and facilitating and user adoption;
(2010) banking adoption
1995) and UTAUT conditions affect user technology characteristics
adoption affects effort expectancy

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
335 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

3.3 Review of UTAUT Extensions

We found four main types of UTAUT extensions: new exogenous mechanisms, new endogenous
mechanisms, new moderating mechanisms, and new outcome mechanisms. New exogenous mechanisms
refer to the impacts of external predictors on the four exogenous variables in UTAUT (i.e., performance
expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions). For instance, Neufeld et al.
(2007) theorized and found that charismatic leadership had a positive impact on performance expectancy,
effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions. New endogenous mechanisms refer to: 1)
new predictors’ impact on the two endogenous variables in UTAUT (i.e., behavioral intention and use
behavior) or 2) the enrichment of the four exogenous variables and the two endogenous variables in the
original UTAUT. For instance, although not using UTAUT per se, Venkatesh et al. (2008) examined the
impact of behavioral expectation on technology use. Similarly, Eckhardt, Laumer, and Weitzel (2009)
enriched the social influence construct with five dimensions based on the source of the influence (i.e., from
the same department, from other operating departments, from the IT department, from the customers, and
from the suppliers). Venkatesh et al. (2008) provide an example of enriching the endogenous variables:
they conceptualized and measured technology use by duration, frequency, and intensity. New moderating
mechanisms include new moderating effects added to the original UTAUT, including the moderation of new
relationships. For example, Venkatesh et al. (2008) examined the moderating effect of experience on the
relationship between behavioral intention and technology use, and the relationship between behavioral
expectation and technology use. New outcome mechanisms refer to the new consequences of behavioral
intention and technology use added to the original UTAUT. For instance, Sun, Bhattacherjee, and Ma (2009)
studied the impact of technology use on individual performance. Figure 1 shows the four types of UTAUT
extensions at a more abstract level. Table 3 summarizes the four types of UTAUT extension studies.

Figure 1. Types of UTAUT Extensions

As Table 3 shows, we found 37 UTAUT extensions. Most UTAUT extensions employed new endogenous
mechanisms or new moderation mechanisms followed by new exogenous mechanisms and new outcome
mechanisms. Many of the extension studies incorporated new variables predicting behavioral intention
and/or technology use (i.e., new endogenous mechanisms). For instance, when studying consumers’ use
of mobile Internet services, Venkatesh et al. (2012) incorporated hedonic motivation and price value as new
predictors of behavioral intention and habit as a new predictor of both intention and technology use. Note
that we included refinements of the original UTAUT constructs in the new endogenous mechanisms
category. For example, Bourdon and Sandrine (2009) conceptualized both social influences and facilitating
conditions as multi-dimensional constructs. Venkatesh et al. (2012) measured technology use as both
breadth of use and depth of use. Specifically, they measured technology use by a formative index of six
questions on consumers’ usage frequencies of six popular mobile Internet applications.
We also found UTAUT extensions with new moderation mechanisms. These new moderation mechanisms
include individual differences (e.g., income, education, migration background: Niehaves & Plattfaut, 2010),
technology characteristics (e.g., ICT service type: Thong et al., 2011; type of recommender system: Wang,
Townsend, Luse, & Mennecke, 2012), organizational-level factors (e.g., organizational facilitating
conditions: Park, Lee, & Yi, 2011), and cultural differences (e.g., Korea vs. USA: Im et al., 2011). Note that
we included the moderation of new relationships by the original moderating variables in UTAUT in this

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 336

category as long as they were proposed/tested in conjunction with new independent variables. For example,
Venkatesh et al. (2012) specified age, gender, and experience as moderators of the impacts of hedonic
motivation, price value, and habit on behavioral intention and technology use. We found seven studies that
extended UTAUT with exogenous mechanisms. For example, Brown et al. (2010) identified a
comprehensive set of technology characteristics, individual and group characteristics, task characteristics,
and situational characteristics relevant to collaboration as predictors of the four UTAUT predictors. Finally,
Table 3 shows that research has examined outcome mechanisms less than the other types of extensions.
Only two studies—Sun et al. (2009) and Xiong et al. (2013)—examined new performance-based outcomes.
Table 3. Summary of UTAUT Extensions
New New
New New
Source endogenous outcome
exogenous mechanisms moderation mechanisms
mechanisms mechanisms
Alaiad & Zhou (2013) Trust
Al-Gahtani, Hubona, Culture (Saudi Arabia vs.
& Wang (2007) USA)
Alshare & Mousa
Espoused culture values
(2014)
Borrero, Yousafzai,
Javed, & Page Technology readiness
(2014)
Enriching social
Bourdon & Sandrine
influences;
(2009)
enriching facilitations
Collaboration-related
constructs: technology
characteristics, individual
Brown et al. (2010) characteristics, group
characteristics, task
characteristics, and
situational characteristics
Carter & Schaupp Trust, self-efficacy, and
(2008) experience
Casey & Wilson-
Trust and innovativeness
Evered (2012)
Task value, task cost, and
Chiu & Wang (2008) Computer self-efficacy
computer self-efficacy
Dasgupta & Gupta
Organizational culture
(2011)
Eckhardt et al.
Enriching social influences Adopter vs. non-adopter
(2009)
Im et al. (2011) Culture (Korea vs. USA)
Lallmahomed, Ab Hedonic performance
Rahim, Ibrahim, & expectancy;
Rahman (2013) enriching system use
Liang et al. (2010) Team climate for innovation
Adoption, perceived
economic benefit, and
Ethnicity, religion, language,
Liew, Vaithilingam, & perceived social benefit;
employment, income,
Nair (2014) enriching use behavior
education, and marital status
(economic use and social
use)
Loose, Weeger, &
Perceived threats
Gewald (2014)
Lu, Yu, & Liu (2009) Income and location
Martins, Oliveira, &
Perceived risk Perceived risk
Popovic (2014)

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
337 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

Table 3. Summary of UTAUT Extensions

New New
New New
Source endogenous outcome
exogenous mechanisms moderation mechanisms
mechanisms mechanisms
Adaptive service
components, computational
McKenna,
service components,
Tuunanen, & Self-efficacy
collaborative service
Gardner (2013)
components, and networking
service components
Tax performance
McLeod, Pippin, &
expectancy; Professionals vs. novices
Catania (2009)
privacy and risk
Neufeld et al. (2007) Charismatic leadership
Niehaves & Plattfaut Income, education, and
(2010) migration background
Oh & Yoon (2014) Trust and flow experience E-learning vs. online game
Organizational facilitating Organizational facilitating
Park et al. (2011)
conditions conditions
Perceived financial control
Saeed (2013)
and ease of navigation
Schaupp, Carter, & Optimism bias and
McBride (2010) perceived risk
Professional development,
Shibl, Lawley, &
time, cost, training, security, Involvement
Debuse (2013)
integration, and workflow
Individual
Sun et al. (2009) Perceived work compatibility
performance
IT service type;
Thong et al. (2011)
Adoption vs. continued use
Venkatesh & Zhang
Culture
(2010)
Age, gender, and experience
moderate the impacts of
Behavioral expectation facilitating conditions on
Venkatesh et al. behavioral expectation;
(2008) Duration, frequency, and experience moderates the
intensity of use impacts of behavioral
intention and behavioral
expectation on use.
Age, gender, and experience
Hedonic motivation, habit,
moderating the impacts of
Venkatesh et al. and price value
hedonic motivation, habit,
(2012)
and price value on intention
and use respectively.
Type of recommender
Wang et al. (2012) Trust
system; type of product
Enriching social influence,
Perceived innovativeness
Wang, Jung, Kang, & knowledge sharing User groups (silent vs. social
with IT and computer self-
Chung (2014) outcome expectancy, and users)
efficacy
security.
Weerakkody, El-
Haddadeh, Al-Sobhi, Trust of Internet and trust
Shareef, & Dwivedi of Intermediaries
(2013)
Xiong, Qureshi, & Job fit, attitude, self- Economic
Najjar (2013) efficacy, and anxiety development
Attitude, anxiety,
Yuen, Yeow, Lim, &
perceived credibility, and Culture
Saylani (2010)
self-efficacy

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 338

4 Theoretical Analysis of UTAUT and its Extensions

We focus on UTAUT extensions because this research category has the greatest potential for making
significant theoretical contributions to IS research on technology acceptance and use. We adopt Weber
(2012) as the foundation for our analysis because it provides a systematic framework and criteria for both
evaluating and developing IS theories, which is a good fit with our overall research objective (i.e., to evaluate
the existing UTAUT-based research and identify the future directions for further development of theories of
technology acceptance and use). First, we summarize Weber’s (2012) framework and criteria for theory
evaluation and development based on which we evaluate UTAUT and point out its key merits and major
limitations. Second, we analyze the UTAUT extensions to identify the key theoretical tensions between
UTAUT extensions and Weber’s (2012) evaluation criteria. Third, we introduce our multi-level framework of
technology acceptance and use that highlights these tensions. Finally, we identify promising future research
directions and provide associated recommendations.
Weber’s (2012) overall framework comprises the theory evaluation criteria for both the parts of a theory and the
theory as a whole (see Tables 4 and 5). The parts of a theory have four dimensions: the constructs, the
associations, the states, and the events (see the first column in Table 4). The theory as a whole has five
dimensions: the importance, the novelty, the parsimony, the level, and the falsifiability of the focal theory (see the
first column in Table 5). Each dimension includes several evaluation criteria (see second column in Tables 4 and
5). Following the criteria, we evaluate the quality of UTAUT (see third column in Tables 4 and 5).
Overall, in evaluating UTAUT based on Weber (2012), our findings suggest it is a high quality theory. In
particular, UTAUT performs well in defining and articulating its parts (the focal class of things, the attributes
in general, the associations, and the state space: see Table 4). Given that it synthesizes existing theories,
UTAUT as a whole also performs well in the importance, novelty, and falsifiability dimensions: it focuses on
the important phenomenon of technology acceptance and use, makes important changes to existing
theories by introducing higher-order moderation effects in the model, and it is subject to rigorous empirical
validation (Table 5). However, UTAUT as a whole has two limitations: its relatively low parsimony due to the
complex interactions among the attributes as implied by the moderation effects and the lack of a meso-level
formulation of the model (see Table 5).
Paradoxically, our analysis indicates that UTAUT’s merits (see above) hinder further efforts in refining and
extending UTAUT. That is, UTAUT’s well-defined parts, the well-accepted importance and boundary of
research on individual technology acceptance and use in organizations, and UTAUT’s well-established and
falsifiable way of articulating novelty (i.e., adding/deleting constructs and associations to UTAUT) have
bound research that extends UTAUT. These factors not only lead to the limited number of UTAUT
extensions but also hamper further significant theoretical advancement of the theory. To save space, we
provide details of our analysis in Appendix E and summarize the results below.
As Table E1 in Appendix E shows, we classified the theoretical advancements in the parts of UTAUT
extensions into three categories following Weber’s (2012) framework. The first category included studies
that focused on the original user class (individual users in organizations) and extended UTAUT by either
enriching an established attribute (e.g., social influence: Bourdon & Sandrine, 2009; Eckhardt et al., 2009)
or adding new attributes (e.g., behavioral expectation: Venkatesh et al., 2008). The second category had
extensions that expanded the boundary of the user class to include consumers, citizens, and so on, and,
accordingly, introduced new user attributes (e.g., citizens: Carter & Schaupp, 2008; Niehaves & Plattfaut,
2010; consumers: Lu et al., 2011; Venkatesh et al., 2012). Finally, the third category had extensions that
incorporated new classes and their attributes into UTAUT. Some studies extended UTAUT by incorporating
the technology/task class and the technology/task-type attribute (Thong et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2012) 4.
Park et al. (2011) incorporated the organization class and the attribute of organizational facilitating
conditions into UTAUT and examined cross-level associations in their model 5 . Extension studies also
included the location class and the culture attribute in the model (Al-Gahtani et al., 2007; Im et al., 2011;
Venkatesh & Zhang, 2010; Yuen et al., 2010). Overall, UTAUT extensions have mainly focused on the

4
Following Weber (2012), we do not count studies of attributes of technology and/or task as perceived by individual users into the
category of incorporating new classes in UTAUT because all individual user perceptions are essentially still user attributes (see
Table 1 in Weber (2012) and the last paragraph on page nine in Weber (2012)).
5
Following the previous footnote’s logic, we still counted individual user’s perceptions of organization attributes as user attributes.
Thus, we counted Liang et al. (2010) as adding a new attribute to UTAUT. In contrast, because Park et al. (2011) conceptualized
and measured facilitating conditions at the organization level (i.e., invariant at the individual user level), we counted their work as
incorporating a new class and its attribute.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
339 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

constructs and associations, and the original UTAUT has bound these extensions with only incremental
expansions of the classes, attributes, and associations.
As Table E2 in Appendix E shows, we classified UTAUT extensions’ importance to research as researchers
have advocated into three categories. The first category emphasized the importance of some “new”
technology, such as knowledge-sharing systems (Bourdon & Sandrine, 2009), collaboration technology
(Brown et al., 2010), e-government services (e.g., McLeod et al., 2009), and IT for consumers (e.g.,
Venkatesh et al., 2012). The second category included studies that were motivated by the importance of
some higher-level contextual factors, such as culture (e.g., Al-Gahtani et al., 2007; Dasgupta & Gupta, 2011;
Im et al., 2011), organizational facilitations (Park et al., 2011), leadership (Neufeld et al., 2007), and team
climate (Liang et al., 2010). 6 Finally, only a handful of studies were more theory driven. For example, two
studies focused on the importance of theoretical advancement in re-conceptualizing technology use in
UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2008; Lallmahomed et al. 2013). Following the motivations above, most UTAUT
extensions mainly established their novelty by making changes to UTAUT (e.g., Sun et al., 2009; Venkatesh
& Zhang, 2010). In terms of parsimony, most studies reduced or omitted the complexity of the higher-order
moderations in UTAUT (e.g., Al-Gahtani et al., 2007; Sun et al., 2009). However, some studies further
increased the number of associations (e.g., Brown et al., 2010; Liew et al. 2014; Venkatesh et al., 2012).
Finally, most UTAUT extensions still followed the micro formulation with only one exception—Park et al.
(2011), who modeled organizational facilitating conditions at the group level (i.e., a meso formulation). In
summary, motivated by the importance of new technologies, higher-level contextual factors, and theoretical
advancement, UTAUT extensions again mainly made incremental changes to UTAUT as a whole with mixed
progress toward parsimony and only one meso-level formulation.
The above analysis indicates that the UTAUT literature basically followed the “UTAUT paradigm” and took
the relatively easier approach to novelty by adding new mechanisms (i.e., constructs and associations) to
UTAUT (e.g., Venkatesh et al., 2012) or enriching established mechanisms (e.g., Bourdon & Sandrine,
2009). This approach limits the theoretical contributions’ significance. Thus, we propose the need for a
paradigm shift of UTAUT extensions in particular and of research on technology acceptance and use in
general. To this end, we borrow the theoretical notion of contextualization (e.g., Hong, Chan, Thong,
Chasalow, & Dhillon, 2014; Johns, 2006; Whetten, 2009) to further analyze contributions of the existing
UTAUT literature. We adopt the contextualization approach not only because context has become one of
the important theoretical lens in the IS field (e.g., Hong et al., 2014) but also based on our observation that
existing UTAUT research has explicitly or implicitly referred to “new contexts” as one of the major research
motivations/contributions (see the “importance” column in Table E2 in Appendix E and Appendix F). We
adopt Whetten’s (2009) framework of cross-context theorizing to evaluate the UTAUT literature’s
contributions—in particular, the distinction between contextualizing theory (theory in context) and theorizing
about context (theory of context) and the distinction between contribution of theory and contribution to theory
(Whetten, 2009: Table 1, p. 37). We show from our analysis that the existing UTAUT literature has mainly
focused on “UTAUT in context” with a few theory applications that have focused on “UTAUT of context” (see
Table 5). Based on the findings, we derive specific recommendations for future UTAUT-based research that
can make more meaningful and significant contributions.

6
Most of these studies were formulated at the individual level with one exception (i.e., Park et al., 2011).

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 340

Table 4. Weber’s (2012) Framework and Theory Evaluation of the Parts of UTAUT*
Dimensions of
Evaluation criteria Evaluation of UTAUT *
parts of a theory
• Underlying inside-boundary class of things identified clearly. • Information system users in
• Inside-boundary attributes in general defined precisely. organizations identified clearly as the
Explanatory note: inside-boundary class of things.
A construct in a theory represents an attribute in general of some • Ten inside-boundary attributes in
class of things in its domain. For example, performance general defined precisely (i.e.,
Constructs expectancy is one attribute in general of information systems users performance expectancy, effort
as the class of things. Note that all user’s “perceptions” (e.g., expectancy, social influence,
user’s perception of technologies) are essentially attributes of the facilitating conditions, behavioral
“user” class. For instance, “perceived system responsiveness” is a intention, use behavior, age, gender,
user attribute, while “system response time” is an online system experience, and voluntariness of use).
attribute (Weber, 2012).
• Inside-boundary associations defined precisely. • Inside-boundary higher-order
• Compelling justification provided for associations. moderation effects (i.e., contingent
Explanatory note: associations) defined precisely (i.e.,
In a static setting, an association shows that the values of one H1, H2, H3, H4b, and H6 7).
construct somehow relate to the values of another construct. For • Compelling justifications provided for
instance, high values of performance expectancy will tend to be the associations.
Associations
associated with high values of behavioral intention.
In a dynamic setting, an association shows a history of values for
instances of one construct is conditional on a history of values for
instances of another construct. For example, the rate of change of
behavioral intention is conditional on the rate of change of
performance expectancy.
• Inside-boundary states specified clearly. • Although UTAUT does not explicitly
• Outside-boundary states specified clearly. specify the inside-boundary and
Explanatory note: outside-boundary states, it
A state of a thing is a vector of attributes in particular (i.e., a vector incorporates voluntariness of use,
of attributes in general with their associated values). For instance, social influence, and facilitating
a state of one IS user at T1 in the empirical test of UTAUT is conditions to explain a general state
depicted as: space that includes most instances in
use = 2 hours per day the organizational setting (e.g., while a
States intention = 6 user may have low performance
performance expectancy = 5 efficacy, low effort efficacy, and, thus,
effort expectancy = 3 low intention, the user’s use can be
social influence= 4 high due to high social influence
facilitating conditions = 7 and/or high facilitating conditions
age = 36 and/or mandatory conditions).
gender = male
experience = post-training
voluntariness of use = mandatory.
• Inside-boundary events specified clearly. • As UTAUT is essentially a static
• Outside-boundary events specified clearly. theory, it does not specify the inside-
Explanatory note: and outside-boundary events.
An event of a thing is a change from one of its states to another of
its states. For instance, at T2 in the empirical test of UTAUT, the
state of the user (from the row above) changes to:
use = 3 hours per day
intention = 7
Events
performance expectancy = 6
effort expectancy = 5
social influence = 4
facilitating conditions = 7
age = 36
gender = male
experience = 1 month
voluntariness of use = mandatory.
* We adopted the evaluation criteria from Weber (2012) to systematically assess UTAUT. We each independently evaluated
UTAUT following Weber (2012) and reached a consensus with each evaluation criterion. Table 4 summarizes our evaluation of
the parts of UTAUT.

7
Please refer to Appendix D for all the hypotheses of UTAUT.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
341 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

Table 5. Weber’s (2012) Framework and Theory Evaluation of UTAUT as a Whole*

Dimensions of
the theory as a Evaluation criteria Evaluation of UTAUT
whole
• Importance to practice. • UTAUT is important to practice because individual technology
• Importance to research acceptance and use in organizations is important to IT
Importance (citation evidence). business value.
• UTAUT is important to research as evidenced by the 1,267
citations to the original paper.
• New focal phenomena. • UTAUT synthesizes eight representative and influential
• New ways to conceive research models of individual technology acceptance and use.
existing focal phenomena. The novelty of UTAUT mainly lies in the new and important
• New and important changes changes it makes to existing theories:
made to an existing theory: 1) It omits three constructs related to technology acceptance
1) Adding/deleting and use (computer anxiety, computer self-efficacy, and
constructs attitude) from the final model
Novelty 2) Adding/deleting 2) It adds the higher-order moderation effects in the model
associations 3) It precisely defines the moderation effects, and
3) Defining constructs and 4) It precisely specifies the boundary of the theory (i.e.,
associations more technology acceptance and use by individuals inside
precisely, and organizations) as the focal phenomenon.
4) Specifying the boundary
of the theory more
precisely.
• Achieving a good level of • Although UTAUT has achieved a high level of explanatory
explanatory power in power, its level of parsimony is relatively low with the large
relation to focal phenomena number of associations implied by the higher-order
Parsimony
using a relatively small moderation effects.
number of constructs and
associations.
• One should formulate the • UTAUT is at the micro/individual level. However, given that the
theory at an appropriate focal phenomenon is individual technology acceptance and
Level
level (micro/meso/macro). use inside organizations, a meso-level formulation is also
necessary.
• One should articulate the • UTAUT’s parts and level are clear and precise; UTAUT is
theory clearly so that it is subject to robust empirical tests.
Falsifiability
subject to robust empirical
tests.
* We adopted the evaluation criteria from Weber (2012) to systematically assess UTAUT. We each independently evaluated
UTAUT following Weber (2012) and reached a consensus with each evaluation criterion. Table 5 summarizes our evaluation of
UTAUT as a whole.

4.1 Cross-context Theorizing Based on UTAUT

The role of context in influencing theorizing and empirical findings has received much attention (e.g., Johns,
2006). Researchers have conceptualized context in several ways. Cappelli and Sherer (1991) defined context
as the surroundings associated with and that help to illuminate a particular phenomenon. Contextual factors
are, in general, located at the levels “above those expressly under investigation” (p. 56) (i.e., organizational
factors constitute the context for individual members and the external environment is the context for
organizations). Similarly, Mowday and Sutton (1993) characterized context as “stimuli and phenomena that
surround and thus exist in the environment external to the individual, most often at a different level of analysis”
(p. 198). Johns (2006) more generally defined context as “situational opportunities and constraints that affect
the occurrence and meaning of organizational behavior as well as functional relationships between variables”
(p. 386). Recently, Hong et al. (2014) defined the IS research context as the characteristics and usage contexts
of the technology artifact and comprehensively discussed contextualizing IS research. We adopt Hong et al.’s
(2014) definition of the IS research context in the current research.
To evaluate the theoretical contributions of the UTAUT literature from the contextualization perspective, we
adopted Whetten’s (2009) framework of cross-context theorizing. Whetten (2009) distinguishes two types of
cross-context theorizing: contextualizing theory (theories in context) and theorizing about context (theories of

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 342

context). Contextualizing theory refers to the extent to which a theory explicitly accounts for relevant contextual
conditions. In contrast, theorizing about context uses context effects as explanations and develops new and
improved context-effects explanations (Whetten, 2009). In Whetten’s (2009) view, context effects refer broadly
to the set of factors surrounding a phenomenon that exert direct or indirect influence on it (see also Johns,
2006). Each type of cross-context theorizing has two types of theoretical contributions (i.e., contribution of the
theory and contribution to the theory), which results in a two-by-two categorization of theoretical contributions
of cross-context theorizing. Whetten (2009, p. 37) discusses the research question, purpose, method, and
outcome of these four types of contributions. We employ this two-by-two categorization to analyze the
contributions of UTAUT literature in the current study. Table 6 summarizes the results.
Table 6. Cross-context Theorizing of UTAUT Extensions

Type of
UTAUT in context UTAUT of context
theorizing
Contribution of Contribution to Contribution to
Type of Contribution of
contextualized contextualized context-effects
contribution context-effects UTAUT
UTAUT UTAUT UTAUT
Understand differences
Use UTAUT research
Understand a new Improve UTAUT by in context-specific
results to identify new
context via context- showing how it works technology acceptance
Purpose context-effects theories
sensitive application of differently in a new and use via UTAUT and
or to refine current
UTAUT. context. relevant context-effects
context effects.
theories.
To ensure the To account for
consistency of UTAUT observed differences
relationships across in UTAUT Use context-
Add to the library of
contexts, control for relationships across distinguishing effects as
Method context effects suitable
context-distinguishing contexts, incorporate explanations added to
for UTAUT.
effects related to context-distinguishing UTAUT.
technology acceptance effects as
and use. interactions.
UTAUT integrations &
UTAUT extensions—
Contributions of UTAUT extensions— Opportunities for future
UTAUT applications. new moderation
UTAUT literature new endogenous research.
mechanisms.
mechanisms.
Pynoo et al. (2011)
Venkatesh et al. (2012)
followed the original
added the impacts of
UTAUT specification
Thong et al. (2011) hedonic motivation,
and examined
examined ICT service price value, and habit
technology use in three Opportunities for future
Example type as a new on behavioral intention
periods (i.e., user research.
moderator added to and technology use as
adoption, initial use,
UTAUT. moderated by specified
and post-adoptive use)
age, gender, and
in the digital-learning
experience.
context.

As Table 6 shows, the existing UTAUT literature has mainly made the first three types of cross-context
theorizing contributions; namely, contribution of contextualized UTAUT, contribution to contextualized
UTAUT, and contribution of context-effects UTAUT. Contextualized UTAUT research mainly comprises
UTAUT applications and UTAUT extensions with new moderation mechanisms identified in our literature
review. For example, Pynoo et al. (2011) followed the original UTAUT specification and examined
technology use in three periods (i.e., user adoption, initial use, and post-adoptive use) in the digital-learning
context. Thong et al. (2011) examined ICT service type as a new moderator added to UTAUT. Moreover,
existing UTAUT literature also covered one type of context-effects UTAUT research (i.e., contribution of
context-effects UTAUT). For example, Venkatesh et al. (2012) added the impacts of hedonic motivation,
price value, and habit on behavioral intention and technology use as moderated by age, gender, and
experience. From analyzing these studies, we note the lack of paradigm-shifting research that identifies new
context-effects theories or significantly refines the current context effects and in which UTAUT is not
necessarily the major component of a new theory but rather a stepping stone to identify a new theory. We
believe a paradigm shift is the most promising direction for future research to make significant contributions
to the UTAUT literature in particular and to research on technology acceptance and use in general.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
343 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

Whetten (2009) provides two specific suggestions for the paradigm-shifting cross-context theorizing: 1) to
identify multiple new context effects in a combinational configuration and 2) to add a contextual moderation
(i.e., adding interactions among context effects). Accordingly, we propose two enablers. First, to help
researchers identify a combination of multiple new context effects, we provide a topology of research context
of technology acceptance and use based on Johns (2006) and identify some potentially new
libraries/dimensions of context effects. Second, to help researchers theorize about contextual moderators,
we layer different libraries/dimensions of context effects in a multi-level framework. Finally, we illustrate the
application of our framework to the formulation of a research model of the impacts of transformational
leadership on ERP feature use.

4.2 Research Context of Technology Acceptance and Use

We extend Johns’ (2006) topology to identify eight dimensions of the context of technology acceptance and
use. Johns (2006) identified seven dimensions of context at two different levels; namely, the omnibus-level
context that comprises the who, where, when, and why dimensions and the discrete-level context with the
task, social, and physical dimensions. Specifically, we integrate relevant IS research (e.g., Burton-Jones &
Straub, 2006; Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) and adapt the seven context dimensions in Johns (2006) to be
more specific to the technology acceptance and use setting; namely, user (who), location (where), time
(when), rationale (why), task (task), organization (social) and environment (physical). We add one more
discrete dimension (i.e., technology) to represent the IT artifact (Table 7).
One can conceptualize these eight dimensions as different classes with different attributes that are relevant
to individual technology acceptance and use (Weber, 2012). More importantly, each class/dimension serves
as the template for a library of context effects (i.e., attributes) (Whetten, 2009). In Section 5, we use UTAUT
extensions to illustrate our conceptualization and identify future research opportunities. We discuss the eight
dimensions of the research context of technology acceptance and use one by one below. Overall, based on
these dimensions, our analysis suggests that the existing literature has studied four of them (environment,
organization, location, and events) less than the others (see Appendix F) 8. Following Whetten (2009), one
could focus on these four categories to identify the combinations of new context effects.
First, we focus on the technology user class instead of the general organizational members to which Johns
(2006) refers. Our conceptualization of technology users also extends Johns (2006) and Goodhue and
Thompson (1995) to include consumers and citizens who fall outside the organizational boundary. User
attributes include demographics, occupation, and user type (e.g., employees, consumers, and citizens). As
Table F1 in Appendix F indicates, the existing UTAUT literature has extensively examined the user class.
Studies have theorized user demographics (e.g., age, gender, experience) as moderators in the original
UTAUT and later as moderating new relationships (e.g., Venkatesh et al., 2008; Venkatesh et al., 2012).
Liang et al. (2010) studied physicians as an occupational group and their associated tasks (making
prescriptions and conducting lab tests) to examine the impact of team climate for innovation on technology
use. Consumers as a user type served as the context for the extensions in UTAUT2 (Venkatesh et al., 2012)
and, in particular, for the new endogenous mechanism underlying the relationship between price value and
behavioral intention. Other individual attributes of users have also served as mechanisms of UTAUT
extensions. For instance, Brown et al. (2010) studied the impacts of technology experience and computer
self-efficacy as the antecedents to performance expectancy and effort expectancy (i.e., new exogenous
mechanisms). Several studies have also examined the impacts of computer self-efficacy on behavioral
intention and use (e.g., Carter & Schaupp, 2008; Chiu & Wang, 2008).

8
We found that none of the UTAUT extensions explicitly addressed the roles of the environment class and rationale class and, thus,
omit these two in Appendix F.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 344

Table 7. Dimensions of the Context of Technology Acceptance and Use

Context Johns’ (2006)

Our conceptualization based on Weber (2012)
dimension conceptualization
The individuals who use technologies to assist them in performing their
tasks (Burton-Jones & Straub, 2006; Goodhue & Thompson, 1995).
Who: the occupational
User class and demographic We focus on technology users instead of the general organizational
context. members. Technology users can be employees, consumers, or citizens
with a variety of user attributes, such as their demographics and
occupation.
The IT artifact that individual users use in carrying out their tasks
(Burton-Jones & Straub, 2006; Goodhue & Thompson, 1995).
Technology
No such dimension.
class Technology attributes mainly include the overall function and the
features of different technologies in the same class and other
characteristics, such as usability.
The goal-oriented processes and tasks supported by the target
technology in turning inputs into outputs (Burton-Jones & Straub, 2006;
Task: autonomy, Goodhue & Thompson, 1995).
uncertainty,
Task class
accountability, resources, Task attributes include task type, such as decision making vs. idea
etc. generation, stages of the process/sequence of tasks (e.g., software
design, coding, testing) and others (e.g., autonomy, uncertainty,
accountability).
The time relative to the implementation/introduction of the target
technology (i.e., adoption, initial use, and post-adoptive use)
When: the time (absolute
(Jasperson, Carter, & Zmud, 2005).
Time/event and relative) at which the
class research was conducted
We extend this notion by including other events, such as pre-
or research events occur.
implementation and post-implementation interventions—e.g., incentive
alignment (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).
The social context of technology acceptance and use (i.e., team,
unit/division, organization, user community, informal social network,
etc.) (Jasperson et al., 2005).

Social context: social We conceptualize the organization class as the social context of
Organization
density, social structure, technology acceptance and use that not only includes formal
class
social influence, etc. organization forms, such as project teams, functional unit, business
division, and the entire organization but also informal social entities,
such as user communities and other informal social networks. Examples
of organization attributes include team climate, organizational culture,
unit leadership, and centrality of the informal social network.
The location where the target technology is implemented or introduced,
Where: the location of the adopted, and used.
Location class research site (region,
culture, industry). Location attributes include various factors, such as national culture,
regional economic status, and industry competition.
The physical environment and conditions in which the target technology
Physical context: is used.
Environment
temperature, light, built
class
environment, decor, etc. Environment attributes include temperature, light, conditions of the
building, etc.
The rationale for conducting the research or collecting research data.
Why: the rationale for
conducting the research Rationale attributes are typically research purposes. For example,
Rationale class
or collecting research Jawahar and Williams (1997) found that performance appraisals made
data. for administrative purposes were one-third of a standard deviation more
favorable than those made for developmental or research purposes.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
345 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

Second, we add a new class (i.e., technology) to the context of technology acceptance and use to represent
the IT artifact (Hong et al., 2014). Technology attributes mainly include the overall function and the features
of the target technology (Burton-Jones & Straub, 2006) and other characteristics, such as usability. The
target technologies served as the stimuli for UTAUT extensions in several studies. For instance, enterprise
information systems (EIS) provided the context for Neufeld et al. (2007) to study the influences of
charismatic leadership on UTAUT beliefs. E-government technologies involving sensitive information served
as several studies’ context for extensions, such as trust, risk, and privacy (Carter & Schaupp, 2008; McLeod
et al., 2009; Schaupp et al., 2010). As another example, Brown et al. (2010) examined the impacts of social
presence, immediacy, and concurrency of online collaboration technology on performance expectancy and
effort expectancy.
Third, task attributes include task type, such as decision making versus idea generation, stages of the
process/sequence of tasks (e.g., software design, coding, testing), and other characteristics (e.g.,
autonomy, uncertainty, accountability). Users perform a variety of tasks that new technologies support
(Burton-Jones & Straub, 2006; Jasperson et al., 2005). Thus, research has associated tasks with the target
technology as the context for UTAUT extensions. For instance, Web-based learning (Web as the technology
and learning as the task) both provide values (e.g., goal attainment, utility, playfulness) and incur costs (e.g.,
social isolation, delay in responses, risk of arbitrary learning), which, in turn, influence the use of the
technology (Chiu & Wang, 2008). Similarly, electronic tax filing, electronic tax preparation, and Internet
banking provide the context in which research has hypothesized trust, risk, and credibility as UTAUT
extensions because users are now using the new Internet technology to perform tasks that involve sensitive
information (Carter & Schaupp, 2008; Schaupp et al., 2010; Yuen et al., 2010). Most UTAUT extensions
have conceptualized tasks in a general manner (e.g., learning (Chiu & Wang, 2008), organizational tasks
(Sun et al., 2009), knowledge contribution (Bourdon & Sandrine, 2009)). Research has not explicitly
examined task types, stages, and other characteristics. An exception is Brown et al. (2010), who included
task type—idea generation and decision making—as an exogenous mechanism.
Fourth, following Weber (2012), we extend the time dimension to include events that can change attribute
states over time, such as interventions that can change user perceptions about the technology (Venkatesh
& Bala, 2008). UTAUT extensions typically take a relative view of time (Johns, 2006) and specify three
different stages of technology acceptance and use relative to the implementation/introduction of the target
technology: adoption, initial use, and post-adoptive use (Jasperson et al., 2005). Adoption refers to the
stage before and right after a target technology implementation/introduction when users make the
acceptance decision based on information from training, trial usage, and other second-hand resources.
Initial use refers to the stage when users begin to apply the technology to accomplish their work/life tasks.
Post-adoptive use refers to the stage when users mainly engage in the feature-level use of the technology,
such as using existing features, adopting new features, and initiating the extension of features. Although
Jasperson et al. (2005) focused on the post-adoptive behavior in work systems, we follow the
conceptualization of system usage of Burton-Jones and Straub (2006) and extend Jasperson et al. (2005)
to other settings, such as consumers’ or citizens’ technology use. As Table F1 in Appendix F shows, most
UTAUT extensions focused on the adoption stage (e.g., Carter & Schaupp, 2008; Eckhardt et al., 2009; Lu
et al., 2009) and several studies have examined both adoption and initial use (e.g., Brown et al., 2010;
Venkatesh & Zhang, 2010). A handful of studies have extended the time frame into the post-adoptive stage
(e.g., Neufeld et al., 2007; Sun et al., 2009; Venkatesh et al., 2008; Venkatesh et al., 2012).
Fifth, we define the organization class as the social context of technology acceptance and use that not only
includes formal organization forms, such as project teams, functional unit, business division, and the entire
organization but also informal social entities, such as user communities and other informal social networks.
Examples of organization attributes include team climate, organizational culture, unit leadership, and
centrality of the informal social network. Several UTAUT extensions examined the impacts of some of these
attributes on technology acceptance and use, such as charismatic leadership (Neufeld et al., 2007), team
climate for innovation (Liang et al., 2010), and organizational culture (Bourdon & Sandrine, 2009; Dasgupta
& Gupta, 2011). Although, conceptually, organization attributes function at higher levels, which influences
the mechanisms at the individual level, most of the existing UTAUT extensions modeled the impacts of
these factors without leveraging the levels perspective (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). An exception is Park et
al. (2011), who hypothesized organization-level facilitating conditions to affect technology adoption and
moderate relationships at the individual level.
Sixth, we adapt the location class (i.e., the where dimension (industry, region, culture) in Johns (2006)) to
the context of technology acceptance and use. Location attributes include various factors, such as national

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 346

culture, regional economic status, and industry competition. The existing UTAUT extensions have mainly
focused on the moderating effects of national culture on the UTAUT relationships. For instance, Al-Gahtani
et al. (2007) compared the results from testing UTAUT in Saudi Arabia with those in the original UTAUT
study conducted in the USA (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Venkatesh and Zhang (2010) compared the UTAUT
relationships between China and the USA. Im et al. (2011) examined the differences in the empirical results
between a Korean sample and an American sample. Yuen et al. (2010) provided a cross-cultural
comparison of UTAUT relationships between developed countries (USA and Australia) and developing
countries (Malaysia). Work has not examined other location attributes (e.g., regional and industrial
characteristics) in existing UTAUT extensions.
Finally, both the environment class and the rationale class have the potential to influence the theorizing and
empirical findings related to technology acceptance and use. The environment class corresponds to the
physical context dimension in Johns (2006), with the attributes related to physical environment and
conditions (e.g., temperature, light, building) in which the target technology is used. The rationale class
corresponds to the why heuristics in Johns (2006) and refers to the rationale for conducting the research or
collecting data (e.g., if one surveys users to evaluate a system or conduct research). As Table F1 in
Appendix F shows, we found no UTAUT extensions that explicitly addressed the roles of the environment
class and the rationale class in shaping their research models.
In summary, our analysis of UTAUT extensions suggests that one can synthesize existing research along
the eight classes of research context of technology acceptance and use (Hong et al., 2014; Johns, 2006).
Moreover, the notions of the research context and cross-context theorizing complement our theoretical
analysis of UTAUT and its extensions based on Weber (2012) and reveals that, as a first direction, future
research should focus on adding libraries of new context effects from the environment, organization,
location, and event dimensions (Whetten, 2009). Whetten (2009) also suggests adding contextual
moderation as the second approach to contribute to context-effects theory. Thus, we present a multi-level
framework to specify different libraries of context effects at different levels to facilitate the theorizing of the
contextual moderation (Figure 2).

5 A Multi-level Framework of Technology Acceptance and Use

As Figure 2 shows, we propose a multi-level framework of technology acceptance and use that highlights
the important areas for future research. As the middle part of Figure 2 shows, we first extend UTAUT with
the theoretical mechanisms from UTAUT2 (Venkatesh et al., 2012). Individual beliefs include performance
expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, hedonic motivation, and price value that influence
behavioral intention. Because price value is not relevant in organizational contexts (see Venkatesh et al.,
2012), studies in such settings can omit it. Facilitating conditions and habit influence both behavioral
intention and technology use. All the above relationships form the baseline model of UTAUT/UTAUT2 (as
the dotted box in the middle part of Figure 2 depicts) to help researchers identify new context-effects theories
or to refine current context effects (Whetten, 2009). Finally, we add the individual outcomes of technology
acceptance and use to the baseline model. We omit the moderation effects of age, gender, experience, and
voluntariness from the baseline model following our evaluation of the parsimony of UTAUT. Thus, we
describe the baseline model only with main effects.
The baseline model: The main effects in UTAUT/UTAUT2 should serve as the baseline model of
future research for parsimony and refining current context effects and/or
identifying new context effects.
The lower part of Figure 2 depicts individual-level contextual factors. We merged the moderating effects of
age, gender, and experience in UTAUT into the impacts of the user attributes, which the double arrows
pointing from the user characteristics box to the baseline model depicts. One can expand user attributes to
include other demographic variables. In addition, technology attributes, task attributes, rationale attributes,
and events/time also act as contextual factors that engender different extensions (i.e., new exogenous
mechanisms, new endogenous mechanisms, and new moderation mechanisms) to the baseline model.
The upper part of Figure 2 represents higher-level contextual factors. First, the physical environment
surrounding individual users serves as the immediate context of technology acceptance and use.
Environment attributes include lights, temperature, and so on. Second, we merged the moderation effects
of voluntariness in UTAUT into the impacts of organization attributes, which the double arrows pointing from
the organization-attributes box to the baseline model at the individual level depicts. One can also
conceptualize social influence and facilitating conditions in UTAUT as organization attributes (Burton-Jones

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
347 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

& Gallivan, 2007; Park et al., 2011). Other organization attributes can include climate, organizational culture,
leadership, collective technology use, and outcomes that have cross-level effects (i.e., main effects and/or
moderating effects) at the individual level. Finally, location attributes (e.g., national culture, economic
development, industry competition) can also serve as higher-level contextual factors that have cross-level
impacts on the baseline model at the individual level. Although viewing location/organization attributes as
higher-level factors is implicit in how we conduct analysis/studies across contexts (e.g., testing UTAUT in
fresh contexts), we need multi-sample, multi-study research to theorize the influences of
location/organization attributes in the model.

Figure 2. A Multi-level Framework of Technology Acceptance and Use

6 Recommendations for Future Research Directions

We can derive several implications from our multi-level framework—we leverage the framework to provide
recommendations for future research on technology acceptance and use (as the double-line boxes in Figure
2 depicts) following Weber (2012) and Whetten (2009).
First, our framework suggests focusing on the novelty of contribution through new conceptualizations of
technology acceptance and use and/or on new phenomena. Following Weber (2012), our evaluation of UTAUT
extensions suggests that most studies have specified new changes to UTAUT and neglected potential
extensions of UTAUT with contributions of much novelty (i.e., new focal phenomena and/or new conceptions
of focal phenomena). Whetten (2009) also suggests one can make significant contributions of cross-context
theorizing through either refining current context effects or identifying new context-effect theories. Thus, we
believe that re-conceptualizing technology use can serve as the foundation for refining current context effects,
while focusing on new phenomena facilitates the identification of new context-effects theories.
We highlight these two directions of future research in the middle part of Figure 2. One promising direction
is to conceptualize technology use at the feature level and link it to individual outcomes in our framework.
Technology features generally refer to the building blocks or components of the technology designed to
support user tasks (Burton-Jones & Straub, 2006; Jasperson et al., 2005). Research has theorized feature-

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 348

level use, which includes both exploitation (i.e., extent to which a user exploits features of the system to
perform his/her task) and exploration (i.e., search for novel or innovative ways of doing things with the
technology), as a driver of individual outcomes, particularly individual task performance (Burton-Jones &
Gallivan, 2007; Burton-Jones & Straub, 2006). Similarly, Jasperson et al. (2005) also conceptualized post-
adoptive use as users’ feature adoption decisions, feature use behaviors, and feature extension behaviors
after an IT application was installed, made accessible to the user, and applied by the user in accomplishing
the user’s work activities. They further proposed that users’ post-adoptive technology use produces the
cumulative impacts on the higher-level work system performance. Thus, users’ performance improves as
they use features more, apply more features in their work, and find new or innovative ways of using the
features. In addition to work performance, the impacts of feature-level use on other job-related outcomes
(e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment) and consumer outcomes (e.g., brand loyalty (Xu, Thong,
& Venkatesh, 2014) or users’ quality of life) are worth investigating.
Although researchers consider it as an important research area, our literature review indicated that UTAUT
extensions and IS research in other areas have not adequately examined the link between feature-level use
and individual outcomes (see Sykes & Venkatesh, forthcoming). We found only one UTAUT extension that
examined the impact of technology use on individual performance: in this study, the authors measured
technology use by self-reported usage frequency (Sun et al., 2009). Other UTAUT-based studies have
mainly measured technology use by usage duration, frequency, and intensity or a subset of these three
measures on a self-report basis (e.g., Brown et al., 2010, Liang et al., 2010; Venkatesh et al., 2008). Several
UTAUT extensions have measured technology use with one or two items on the breadth of application use.
For instance, as we note elsewhere, Venkatesh et al. (2012) measured consumers’ frequency of use of six
different mobile applications. Al-Gahtani et al. (2007) measured use by the variety of application usage and
the variety of tasks supported by IT. Similarly, IS research that linked technology use to individual impacts
measured technology use mainly using duration, frequency, and intensity or a subset of the three measures.
Also, research has mainly operationalized individual impact as performance. For instance, Yuthas and
Young (1998) measured use as duration and volume and examined the impact of technology use on cost
control performance. Goodhue and Thompson (1995) operationalized system use with perceived
dependence and examined its influence on perceived performance. An exception is Burton-Jones and
Straub (2006), who examined the impact of feature-level use (i.e., deep structure use) on objective task
performance; similarly, Sykes and Venkatesh (forthcoming) examined the impact of deep structure use on
supervisor-rated performance.
A handful of studies have measured technology use at the feature level, and we lack research on the impacts
of feature-level use on the various individual outcomes. Our framework suggests that UTAUT/UTAUT2 can
serve as a baseline model for future research to examine the determinants of feature-level use and the link
between feature-level use and different individual outcomes. For instance, we can still refine current UTAUT
beliefs and contextual factors to still serve as the determinants of feature-level use (e.g., one can refine
usage experience to reflect user expertise that affects user learning about different systems features).
Moreover, one can combine/organize new context effects along the different dimensions of contextual
factors less explored in previous research—i.e., environment factors, location factors, organization factors,
and events. For instance, organizational-level factors, such as work system interventions, can stimulate
feature-level use (Jasperson et al., 2005). Furthermore, one can also identify new context-effects theories
by integrating the baseline model in our framework with other theories to examine the impact of feature-
level use on different individual outcomes. For example, one can integrate research on person-job fit
(Edwards, 1991) with UTAUT to examine the impact of feature use on person-job fit. Thus, we note the
following two recommendations for future research:
Recommendation 1: Conceptualize individual technology use at the feature level and use
UTAUT/UTAUT2 as the baseline model to refine the conceptualization and
measurement of the current context factors that have impacts on feature-level use.
Recommendation 2: Link feature use to different individual outcomes and use UTAUT/UTAUT2 as
the baseline model to identify new context effects along the following four
dimensions: environment, location, organization, and event.
In addition to refining current context effects and identifying new context effects, Whetten (2009) also
suggests theorizing contextual moderations (i.e., higher-order interactions among context factors) for the
contribution to context-effects theory. To facilitate this cross-context theorizing, we propose significantly
enriching the specification of contextual factors at higher levels of a hierarchy—from the immediate physical
environment to the intermediate social/organizational context and to the relatively remote

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
349 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

segment/industry/country context. Such an enrichment is also consistent with our evaluation of UTAUT and
its extensions based on Weber (2012)—we lack meso-level formulations of research models. In addition to
examining the impacts of different user attributes, technology attributes, and task attributes, existing UTAUT
extensions have mainly theorized and tested the impacts of organizational factors such as climate, culture,
and leadership at the individual level.
As Figure 2 indicates, we identified eight dimensions of the context of technology acceptance and use from
existing literature and aligned them at different levels in our framework. Among them, we specified the
attributes of users, technology, tasks, research rationale, and events at the individual level and environment
attributes, organization attributes, and location attributes at higher levels. Note that one can break down
organizations into other structures that warrant a multi-level examination (e.g., team, business unit). For
instance, one can incorporate factors related to team processes and outcomes supported by technology—
such as trust in teams (e.g., Sarker, Ahuja, Sarker, & Kirkeby, 2011), agility in teams (Sarker & Sarker,
2009), group polarization (e.g., Sia, Tan, & Wei, 2002), and group system interface (e.g., Sia, Tan, & Wei,
1997)—into the baseline model to study how team-level factors influence individual acceptance and use. A
multi-level approach to study the impacts of contextual factors on technology acceptance and use can
address several limitations of an individual-level study and delineate the impacts of the organizational
factors at different levels (Burton-Jones & Gallivan, 2007; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) and, thus, provide
support for the falsifiability of the extensions (Weber, 2012).
Recommendation 3: Theorize the cross-level influences of the environment factors, the
organization factors, and the location factors on feature use and individual
outcomes and conduct multi-level research to empirically examine the impacts
of these contextual factors.
Finally, one can also theorize a higher-order contextual moderation by incorporating the event dimension.
This type of extension is also consistent with our evaluation of the “parts” of UTAUT and its extensions
based on Weber (2012), which suggests a focus on time/events that change the states of the attributes of
different classes of things, especially user perceptions, technology use, and outcomes over time. This type
of extension will provide richer theoretical and managerial implications by transforming UTAUT from a static
theory to a dynamic one. UTAUT and its extensions typically take a relative view of time (Johns, 2006) and
consider the implementation/introduction of the target technology as the major event. Existing research
specifies three different stages of technology acceptance and use in general: adoption, initial use and post-
adoptive use (Jasperson et al., 2005). As we discuss in Section 2, most UTAUT extensions have focused
on one or two of the three stages with a few exceptions. We propose focusing on examining the dynamics
of user perceptions, technology use, and individual outcomes over time in future UTAUT extensions. For
instance, researchers can examine the change of usage frequency and job performance across the three
phases of adoption, initial use, and post-adoptive use, and theorize what contextual factors may help users
learn and explore different system features more quickly. Alternatively, researchers may introduce other
events, such as managerial interventions (e.g., change management strategies), as new contextual factors
and investigate the effectiveness of these interventions by examining the change of user perceptions of the
target technology, their use pattern, and the outcomes in both the short and long run. In this regard, one
can employ latent growth modeling to empirically assess the new theoretical models (see Bala & Venkatesh,
2013 for an LGM illustration).
Recommendation 4: Incorporating time/events in the contextual moderation to examine the impacts
of time/events on the change of the states of user perceptions, use patterns,
and outcomes.
To illustrate our recommendations in a holistic manner, we provide a simple multi-level model below that
reflects some of the key directions we identify and discuss (see Figure 3).
As Figure 3 shows, the illustrative model first focuses on a new focal phenomenon (i.e., individual job
performance) as determined by feature-level technology use. This new focus augments the importance of
the work to both research (the positive link between technology use and an individual outcome) and practice
(individual job performance). The model also offers two new conceptions of the focal phenomenon: it
conceptualizes technology use at the feature level and habit as user habit with the legacy system.
Presumably, the old habit will have negative impact on the use of the new system and further inhibit the
improvement of individual job performance. We introduce transformational leadership as an organization
attribute at a higher level in the model. Through intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation,
transformational leadership acts will both increase users’ feature-level use and reduce the negative impact

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 350

of legacy system habit. One can test this meso-level model using HLM. One can also modify the illustrative
model to incorporate the time/event class. For instance, researchers may study the change of feature-level
use and job performance over time and examine the impacts of legacy system habit and transformational
leadership on this process. Presumably, legacy system habit may hinder user learning and use of the
features of the new system and, thus, negatively affect the slope of the learning curve, while transformational
leadership may have the opposite effect. One can employ latent growth modeling to test such a model.
The theoretical contributions the above model makes from the perspective of cross-context theorizing
comprise: 1) refining current context effects—legacy system habit to feature-level use, 2) adding a new
library of context effects with a new focal outcome—job performance (i.e., effects from legacy system habit
to feature level use to job performance and the moderation effects of transformational leadership), and 3)
incorporating time/events in the contextual moderation.

Transformational
Leadership

- +
Facilitating
Conditions

Behavioral Feature-level + Job

Intention Use Performance

Legacy -
System Habit

Figure 3. Impacts of Transformational Leadership on Post-adoptive Use and Performance

7 Conclusion
We comprehensively review the UTAUT literature from September 2003 until December 2014 to understand
the latest developments in research on technology acceptance and use. We organize the existing UTAUT
extensions into four types: new exogenous mechanisms, new endogenous mechanisms, new moderation
mechanisms, and new outcome mechanisms. Moreover, we theoretically analyze the literature following
Weber’s (2012) framework of theory evaluation. To assess and facilitate the theoretical contributions from
the UTAUT literature, we further analyze the literature based on the concept of cross-context theorizing
(Whetten, 2009). We integrate the results of our theoretical analysis with eight dimensions of the context for
technology acceptance and use to present a multi-level framework. This framework not only synthesizes
existing UTAUT extensions but also (more importantly) highlights promising future research directions
(identifying new libraries of context effects and specifying contextual moderation) to make significant
theoretical contributions to the technology acceptance and use domain.

Acknowledgements
We thank the Senior Editor, Choon-Ling Sia, and the anonymous review panel for their many helpful
suggestions. This project was partially funded by a grant from the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong
(SBI11.BM04).

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
351 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

References
Alaiad, A., & Zhou, L. (2013). Patients’ behavioral intention toward using healthcare robots. In Proceedings
of the19th Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1-11).
Alapetite, A., Andersen, H. B., & Hertzum, M. (2009). Acceptance of speech recognition by physicians: A
survey of expectations, experiences, and social influence. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 67(1), 36-49.
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(4), 681-691.
Al-Shafi, S., Weerakkody, V., & Janssen, M. (2009). Investigating the adoption of eGovernment services in
Qatar using the UTAUT model. In Proceedings of the 15th Americas Conference on Information
Systems (pp. 1-10).
Alshare, K., & Mousa, A. (2014). The moderating effect of espoused cultural dimensions on consumer’s
intention to use mobile payment devices. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on
Information Systems (pp.1-15).
Bagozzi, R. P. (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.
Benbasat, I., & Barki, H. (2007). Quo vadis, TAM? Journal of the Association for Information Systems,
8(4), 212-218.
Bhattacherjee, A., & Premkumar, G. (2004). Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information
technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 229-254.
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.
Bourdon, I., & Sandrine, O. (2009). Towards an understanding of knowledge management systems: UTAUT
revisited. In Proceedings of the 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1-13). San
Francisco, CA.
Brown, S. A., Dennis, A. R., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Predicting collaboration technology use:
Integrating technology adoption and collaboration research. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 27(2), 9-53.
Bühler, J., & Bick, M. (2013). The impact of social media appearances during election campaigns. In
Proceedings of the 19th Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1-11).
Burton-Jones, A., & Gallivan, M. J. (2007). Toward a deeper understanding of system usage in
organizations: A multilevel perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 657-679.
Burton-Jones, A., & Hubona. G. (2006). The mediation of external variables in the technology acceptance
model. Information & Management, 43(6), 706-718.
Burton-Jones, A., & Straub, D. W. (2006). Reconceptualizing system usage: An approach and empirical
test. Information Systems Research, 17(3), 228-246.
Calder, B. J., & Staw, B. M. (1975). Self-perception of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 599-605.
Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. D. (1991). The missing role of context in OB: The need for a meso-level approach.
In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 55-110). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Carter, L., & Schaupp, L. C. (2008). Efficacy and acceptance in e-file adoption. In Proceedings of the 14th
Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1-11).
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.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 352

Chan, F. K. Y., Thong, J. Y. L., Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., Hu, P. J. H., and Tam, K. Y. (2010) Modeling
citizen satisfaction with mandatory adoption of an e-government technology. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 11(10), 519-549.
Chang, I. C., Hwang, H. G., Hung, W. F., & Li, Y. C. (2007). Physicians' acceptance of pharmacokinetics-
based clinical decision support systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 33(2), 296-303.
Chiu, C. M., & Wang, E. T. G. (2008). Understanding web-based learning continuance intention: The role
of subjective task value. Information & Management, 45(3), 194-201.
Dasgupta, S., & Gupta, B. (2011). Impact of organizational culture on technology use in a developing country. In
Proceedings of the 17th Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1-10). Detroit, Michigan.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent
variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Eckhardt, A., Laumer, S., & Weitzel, T. (2009). Who influences whom? Analyzing workplace referents' social
influence on IT adoption and non-adoption. Journal of Information Technology, 24(1), 11-24.
Edwards, J. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique.
In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 283-357). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
El-Gayar, O., & Moran, M. (2007). Evaluating students’ acceptance and use of tablet PCs in collegiate
classrooms. In Proceedings of the 13th Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1-10).
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and
research. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Garfield, M. J. (2005). Acceptance of ubiquitous computing. Information Systems Management, 22(4), 24-31.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly,
19(2), 213-236.
Gruzd, A., Staves, K., & Wilk, A. (2012). Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research
practices of faculty using the UTAUT model. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2340-2350.
Guo, Y., & Barnes, S. (2011). Purchase behavior in virtual worlds: An empirical investigation in second life.
Information & Management, 48(7), 303-312.
Guo, Y., & Barnes, S. J. (2012). Explaining purchasing behavior within World of Warcraft. Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 52(3), 18-30.
Gupta, B., Dasgupta S., & Gupta, A. (2008). Adoption of ICT in a government organization in a developing
country: An empirical study. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(2), 140-154.
Hess, T. J., Joshi, K., & McNab, A. L. (2010). An alternative lens for understanding technology acceptance:
An equity comparison perspective. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce,
20(2), 123-154.
Hong, W., Chan, F. K. Y., Thong, J. Y. L., Chasalow, L. C., & Dhillon G. (2014). A framework and
guidelines for context-specific theorizing in information systems research. Information Systems
Research, 25(1), 111-136.
Hong, W., Thong, J. Y. L., Chasalow, L. C., & Dhillon, G. (2011). User acceptance of agile information
systems: A model and empirical test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(1), 235-272.
Im, I., Hong, S., & Kang, M. S. (2011). An international comparison of technology adoption: Testing the
UTAUT model. Information & Management, 48(1), 1-8.
Jasperson, J. S., Carter, P. E., & Zmud, R. W. (2005). A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive
behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 525-557.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
353 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

Jawahar, I. M., & Williams, C. R. (1997). Where all the children are above average: The performance
appraisal purpose effect. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 905-925.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management
Review, 31(2), 386-408.
Joshi, K. (1991). A model of users’ perspective on change: The case of information systems technology
implementation. MIS Quarterly, 15(2), 229-242.
Kim, C., Jahng, J., & Lee, J. (2007). An empirical investigation into the utilization-based information
technology success model: Integrating task-performance and social influence perspective. Journal of
Information Technology, 22(2), 152-160.
Kim, S. S. (2009). The integrative framework of technology use: An extension and test. MIS Quarterly,
33(3), 513-537.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations. In
K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp.
3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lallmahomed, M. Z. I., Ab Rahim, N. Z., Ibrahim, R., & Rahman, A. A. (2013). Predicting different
conceptualizations of system use: Acceptance in hedonic volitional context (Facebook). Computers
in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2776-2787.
Lian, J. W., & Yen, D. C. (2014). Online shopping drivers and barriers for older adults: Age and gender
differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 133-143.
Liang, H. G., Xue, Y. J., Ke, W. L., & Wei, K. K. (2010). Understanding the influence of team climate on IT
use. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(8), 414-432.
Liao, Q., Shim, J. P., & Luo, X. (2004). Student acceptance of web-based learning environment: An empirical
investigation of an undergraduate IS course. In Proceedings of the 10th Americas Conference on
Information Systems (pp. 3092-3098).
Liew, E. J. Y., Vaithilingam, S., & Nair, M. (2014). Facebook and socio-economic benefits in the developing
world. Behavior & Information Technology, 33(4), 345-360.
Loose, M., Weeger, A., & Gewald, H. (2013). BYOD–the next big thing in recruiting? Examining the
determinants of BYOD service adoption behavior from the perspective of future employees. In
Proceedings of the 19th Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1-12).
Lu, J., Yu, C. S., & Liu, C. (2009). Mobile data service demographics in urban China. Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 50(2), 117-126.
Martins, C., Oliveira, T., & Popovic, 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.
McKenna, B., Tuunanen, T., & Gardner, L. (2013). Consumers' adoption of information services. Information
& Management, 50(5), 248-257.
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-
commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334-359.
McLeod, A., Pippin, S., & Catania, V. (2009). Using technology acceptance theory to model individual
differences in tax software use. In Proceedings of the 15th Americas Conference on Information
Systems (pp. 1-11).
Miltgen, C. L., Popovic, A., & Oliveira, T. (2013). Determinants of end-user acceptance of biometrics:
Integrating the “big 3” of technology acceptance with privacy context. Decision Support
Systems, 56, 103-114.
Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. (1993). Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups to
organizational contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44(1), 195-229.
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.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 354

Niehaves, B., & Plattfaut, R. (2010). The age-divide in private Internet usage: A quantitative study of
technology acceptance. In Proceedings of the 16th Americas Conference on Information Systems
(pp. 1-14).
Oh, J. C., & Yoon, S. J. (2014). Predicting the use of online information services based on a modified UTAUT
model. Behavior & Information Technology, 33(7), 716-729.
Oliveira, T., Faria, M., Thomas, M. A., & Popovic, A. (2014). Extending the understanding of mobile
banking adoption: When UTAUT meets TTF and ITM. International Journal of Information
Management, 34(5), 689-703.
Park, S. H., Lee, L., & Yi, M. Y. (2011). Group-level effects of facilitating conditions on individual acceptance
of information systems. Information Technology and Management, 12(4), 315-334.
Pramatari, K., & Theotokis, A. (2009). Consumer acceptance of RFID-enabled services: A model of multiple
attitudes, perceived system characteristics and individual traits. European Journal of Information
Systems, 18(6), 541-552.
Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Duyck, W., & Duyck, P. (2011). Predicting secondary
school teachers' acceptance and use of a digital learning environment: A cross-sectional study.
Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 568-575.
Saeed, K. A. (2013). Perceived financial control and acceptance of mobile banking services: An empirical
assessment. In Proceedings of the 19th Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1-9).
Sarker, S., Ahuja, M. Sarker, S., & Kirkeby, S. (2011). The role of communication and trust in global virtual
teams: A social network perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(1), 273-309.
Sarker, S., & Sarker, S. (2009). Exploring agility in distributed information systems development teams: An
interpretive study in an offshoring context. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 440-461.
Sarker, S., & Valacich, J. S. (2010). An alternative to methodological individualism: A non-reductionist
approach to studying technology adoption by groups. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 779-808.
Sarker, S., Valacich, J. S., & Sarker, S. (2005). Technology adoption by groups: A valence perspective.
Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6(2), 37-71.
Schaupp, L. C., Carter, L., & McBride, M. E. (2010). E-file adoption: A study of US taxpayers' intentions.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 636-644.
Seid, A., & Lessa, L. (2012). Adoption of telecenters in south Wollo zone of Amhara regional state in
Ethiopia: Special emphasis on internet services. In Proceedings of the 18th Americas Conference on
Information Systems (pp. 1-9).
Shibl, R., Lawley, M., & Debuse, J. (2013). Factors influencing decision support system acceptance.
Decision Support Systems, 54(2), 953-961.
Sia, C. L., Lee, M. K. O., Teo, H. H., & Wei, K. K. (2001). Information channels for creating awareness in IT
innovations: An exploratory study of organizational adoption intentions of ValuNet. Electronic
Markets, 11(3), 206-215.
Sia, C. L., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K. K. (1997). Effects of GSS interface and task type on group interaction:
An empirical study. Decision Support Systems, 19(4), 289-300.
Sia, C. L., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K. K. (2002). Group polarization and computer-mediated communication:
Effects of communication cues, social presence, and anonymity. Information Systems Research,
13(1), 70-90.
Sia, C. L., Teo, H. H., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K. K. (2004). Effects of environmental uncertainty on
organizational intention to adopt distributed work arrangements. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 51(3), 253-267.
Sun, Y., Liu, L., Peng, X. M., Dong, Y., & Barnes, S. J. (2014). Understanding Chinese users'
continuance intention toward online social networks: An integrative theoretical model. Electronic
Markets, 24(1), 57-66.
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(4), 351-356.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
355 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

Sykes, T. A. (2015). Support structures and their impacts: A longitudinal field study of an enterprise system
implementation. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 437-495.
Sykes, T. A. & Venkatesh, V. forthcoming. Explaining post-implementation employee system use and
friendship, advice and impeding social ties,” MIS Quarterly.
Sykes, T. A., Venkatesh, V., & Johnson, J. L. (2014). Enterprise system implementation and employee job
performance: Understanding the role of advice networks. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 51-72.
Thong, J. Y. L., Venkatesh, V., Xu, X., Hong, S. J., & Tam, K. Y. (2011). Consumer acceptance of personal
information and communication technology service. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
58(4), 613-625.
Venkatesh, V. 2000. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and
emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342-365.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions.
Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315.
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., Maruping, L. M., & Bala, H. (2008). Predicting different conceptualizations of
system use: The competing roles of behavioral intention, facilitating conditions, and behavioral
expectation. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 483-502.
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., Davis, F. D., & Morris, M. G. (2007). Dead or alive? The development, trajectory and future
of technology adoption research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 268-286.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology:
Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., Chan, F. K. Y., Hu, P. J. H., & Brown, S. A. (2011). Extending the two-stage
information systems continuance model: Incorporating UTAUT predictors and the role of context.
Information Systems Journal, 21(6), 527-555.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology:
Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178.
Venkatesh, V., & Zhang, X. (2010). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: US vs. China.
Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 13(1), 5-27.
Venkatesh, V., Zhang, X., & Sykes, T. A. (2011). Doctors do too little technology: A longitudinal field study
of an electronic healthcare system implementation. Information Systems Research, 22(3), 523-546.
Wang, Y., Townsend, A., Luse, A., & Mennecke, B. (2012). The determinants of acceptance of
recommender systems: Applying the UTAUT model. In Proceedings of the 18th Americas Conference
on Information Systems (pp. 1-9).
Wang, T., Jung, C. H., Kang, M. H., & Chung, Y. S. (2014). Exploring determinants of adoption
intentions towards enterprise 2.0 applications: An empirical study. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 33(10), 1048-1064.
Weber, R. (2012). Evaluating and developing theories in the information systems discipline. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 13(1), 2-30.
Weerakkody, V., Molnar, A., & El-Haddadeh, R. (2014). Indicators for measuring the success of video usage
in public services: The case of education. In Proceedings of the 20th Americas Conference on
Information System (pp. 1-8).
Whetten, D. A. (2009). An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the study of
Chinese organizations. Management and Organization Review, 5(1), 29-55.
Workman, M. (2014). New media and the changing face of information technology use: The importance of
task pursuit, social influence, and experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 111-117.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 356

Xiong, J., Qureshi, S., & Najjar, L. (2013). Factors that affect information and communication technology
adoption by small businesses in China. In Proceedings of the 19th Americas Conference on
Information Systems (pp. 1-12).
Xu, X., Thong, J. Y. L., & Venkatesh, V. (2014). Effects of ICT service innovation and complementary
strategies on brand equity and customer loyalty in a consumer technology market. Information
Systems Research, 25(4), 710-729.
Yoo, S. J., Han, S. H., & Huang, W. H. (2012). The roles of intrinsic motivators and extrinsic motivators in
promoting e-Learning in the workplace: A case from South Korea. Computers in Human Behavior,
28(3), 942-950.
Yuen, Y. Y., Yeow, P. H. P., Lim, N., & Saylani, N. (2010). Internet banking adoption: Comparing developed
and developing countries. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 51(1), 52-61.
Yun, H., Han, H., & Lee, C. (2011). Extending UTAUT to predict the use of location-based services. In
Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1-9).
Yuthas, K., & Young, S. T. (1998). Material matters: Assessing the effectiveness of materials management
IS. Information & Management, 33(3), 115-126.
Zhou, T., Lu, Y. B., & Wang, B. (2010). Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking user adoption.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 760-767.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
357 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

Appendix A: UTAUT Citations over Time

Table A1. UTAUT Citations over Time

Source 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Sum
MIS Quarterly 1 4 6 8 3 12 7 7 5 9 10 72
Information Systems
2 6 1 3 1 2 4 6 25
Research
Journal of Management
3 1 1 1 5 4 7 1 2 25
Information Systems
Journal of the Association
2 8 3 4 3 7 2 3 32
for Information Systems
European Journal of
4 4 10 4 3 3 7 5 3 8 51
Information Systems
Information Systems
1 1 2 1 4 2 2 2 15
Journal
Journal of Information
2 1 1 4 2 1 11
Technology
Journal of Strategic
3 4 1 1 5 14
Information Systems
AIS Senior Scholars’
1 17 22 28 18 25 27 28 30 18 31 245
journals: subtotal
ACM Transactions on
Computer-Human 1 1 1 1 2 6
Interaction
Behavior & Information
1 1 1 4 5 7 5 9 15 48
Technology
Business Horizons 1 1 2
Communications of the
1 1 1 3
ACM
Computers in Human
2 4 10 16 17 15 16 45 125
Behavior
Decision Sciences 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 12
Decision Support Systems 1 2 4 2 4 5 5 11 5 39
Electronic Commerce
2 3 5 2 1 13
Research and Applications
Electronic Markets 3 3 2 4 3 15
European Journal of
1 1
Operational Research
Expert Systems with
1 3 1 5 3 13
Applications
Human-Computer
1 1
Interaction
IEEE Transactions on
1 2 3 3 2 2 3 1 1 18
Engineering Management
IEEE Transactions on
Professional 1 1 1 3
Communication
IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and 1 1
Cybernetics
Information &
1 9 8 7 4 1 6 4 7 8 55
Management

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 358

Table A1. UTAUT Citations over Time

Source 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Sum
Information and
3 1 3 2 9
Organization
Information and Software
1 2 1 4
Technology
Information Research 1 1 2
Information Systems
4 1 4 1 2 1 13
Frontiers
Information Systems
1 2 2 3 8
Management
Information Technology &
1 2 2 5
Management
Information Technology &
1 1 3 1 6
People
International Journal of
1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 10
Electronic Commerce
International Journal of
4 4 4 5 1 2 3 1 24
Human-Computer Studies
International Journal of
1 2 4 3 4 4 8 9 35
Information Management
Journal of Collaborative
1 1
Computing
Journal of Computer
3 2 2 9 6 4 3 4 4 7 44
Information Systems
Journal of Database
1 1 2 4
Management
Journal of Engineering and
1 1 1 3
Technology Management
Journal of Global
1 1 1 3 2 2 2 12
Information Management
Journal of Global
Information Technology 3 3 1 1 8
Management
Journal of Information
1 1 2
Science
Journal of Organizational
5 4 6 15
and End User Computing
Journal of Organizational
Computing and Electronic 1 2 1 3 7
Commerce
Journal of Systems and
1 1 2 2 2 8
Software
Journal of the American
Society for Information 2 6 8 3 1 2 3 25
Science & Technology
Management Science 2 3 2 7
Omega 1 1 2
Organization Science 1 1
Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision 1 1 2
Processes

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
359 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

Table A1. UTAUT Citations over Time

Source 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Sum
Wirtschaftsinformatik 1 1
Other IS journals:
1 12 29 33 57 62 82 73 66 86 112 613
subtotal
Proceedings of the
International Conference 2 2 11 7 12 17 21 24 15 17 9 137
on Information Systems
Proceedings of the
Americas Conference on 20 15 27 31 25 41 26 35 21 16 15 272
Information Systems
AIS conferences:
22 17 38 38 37 58 47 59 36 33 24 409
subtotal
Grand total 24 46 89 99 112 145 156 160 132 137 167 1267

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 360

Appendix B: Classification Scheme for UTAUT Citations

Table B1. Classification Scheme for UTAUT Citations

Category Classification criteria Examples

Gupta et al. (2008) examined UTAUT
1. An empirical study that applies
in the context of e-government
either part of or the complete
adoption in a developing country.
UTAUT application UTAUT as its research model.
Their research model comprised all
2. Excludes studies that applied
the main effects and one moderator—
TAM/TAM2/TAM3.
gender.
Hong et al. (2011) integrated UTAUT
1. An empirical study that integrates
with the IS continuance model and
part of or the complete UTAUT with
other mechanisms (e.g., habit and
UTAUT integration at least one other theory.
personal innovativeness with IT) to
2. Excludes studies that integrate with
examine the drivers of user
TAM/TAM2/TAM3.
acceptance of agile IS.
1. An empirical study that includes
Neufeld et al. (2007) studied the
part of or the complete UTAUT as
impacts of charismatic leadership on
the baseline model.
the four UTAUT beliefs (i.e.,
2. The paper must extend the baseline
performance expectancy, effort
UTAUT extension model with either new exogenous,
expectancy, social influence, and
endogenous, moderation, or
facilitating conditions), which, in turn,
outcome mechanisms.
influenced behavioral intention and
3. Excludes studies that extend
use.
TAM/TAM2/TAM3.
1. Cite UTAUT in general discussions
(e.g., Kim, 2009; Sarker & Valacich,
Only cites the UTAUT paper in
2010; Sarker et al., 2005); and
General citation passing and does not use UTAUT in
2. Research-in-progress papers based
any substantial manner.
on UTAUT but without the empirical
study (e.g., Yun et al., 2011)
Note: a paper needed to satisfy all the criteria of a particular category to be classified into that category.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
361 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

Appendix C: Classification of UTAUT Citations

Table C1. Classification of UTAUT Citations

General UTAUT UTAUT UTAUT

Source Sum
citation application integration extension
MIS Quarterly 70 0 0 2 72
Information Systems Research 25 0 0 0 25
Journal of Management Information Systems 23 0 1 1 25
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 31 0 0 1 32
European Journal of Information Systems 49 0 1 1 51
Information Systems Journal 14 0 1 0 15
Journal of Information Technology 9 0 1 1 11
Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13 1 0 0 14
AIS Senior Scholars’ journals: subtotal 234 1 4 6 245
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 6 0 0 0 6
Behavior & Information Technology 45 0 0 3 48
Business Horizons 2 0 0 0 2
Communications of the ACM 3 0 0 0 3
Computers in Human Behavior 115 3 3 4 125
Decision Sciences 12 0 0 0 12
Decision Support Systems 37 0 1 1 39
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 13 0 0 0 13
Electronic Markets 14 0 1 0 15
European Journal of Operational Research 1 0 0 0 1
Expert Systems with Applications 12 1 0 0 13
Human-Computer Interaction 1 0 0 0 1
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 17 0 0 1 18
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 3 0 0 0 3
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 1 0 0 0 1
Information & Management 49 0 1 5 55
Information and Organization 9 0 0 0 9
Information and Software Technology 4 0 0 0 4
Information Research 2 0 0 0 2
Information Systems Frontiers 13 0 0 0 13
Information Systems Management 7 1 0 0 8
Information Technology & Management 4 0 0 1 5
Information Technology & People 6 0 0 0 6
International Journal of Electronic Commerce 10 0 0 0 10
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 23 1 0 0 24
International Journal of Information Management 32 0 1 2 35
Journal of Collaborative Computing 1 0 0 0 1
Journal of Computer Information Systems 41 0 1 2 44
Journal of Database Management 4 0 0 0 4
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 3 0 0 0 3
Journal of Global Information Management 12 0 0 0 12

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 362

Table C1. Classification of UTAUT Citations

General UTAUT UTAUT UTAUT

Source Sum
citation application integration extension
Journal of Global Information Technology Management 7 0 0 1 8
Journal of Information Science 2 0 0 0 2
Journal of Organizational and End User Computing 15 0 0 0 15
Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic
6 0 1 0 7
Commerce
Journal of Systems and Software 8 0 0 0 8
Journal of the American Society for Information
25 0 0 0 25
Science & Technology
Management Science 7 0 0 0 7
Omega 2 0 0 0 2
Organization Science 1 0 0 0 1
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
2 0 0 0 2
Processes
Wirtschaftsinformatik 1 0 0 0 1
Other IS journals: subtotal 578 6 9 20 613
Proceedings of the International Conference on
136 0 0 1 137
Information Systems
Proceedings of the Americas Conference on
257 5 0 10 272
Information Systems
AIS conferences: subtotal 393 5 0 11 409
Grand total 1205 12 13 37 1267

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
363 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

Appendix D: UTAUT Hypotheses

Table D1. UTAUT Hypotheses

The influence of performance expectancy on behavioral intention is moderated by gender and age, such
H1
that the effect is stronger for men, particularly younger men.
The influence of effort expectancy on behavioral intention is moderated by gender, age, and experience,
H2 such that the effect is stronger for women, particularly younger women and those younger women in the
early stages of experience with the new technology.
The influence of social influence on behavioral intention is moderated by gender, age, voluntariness, and
H3 experience, such that the effect is stronger for women, particularly older women and particularly in
mandatory settings in the early stages of experience with the new technology.
H4a Facilitating conditions will not have a significant influence on behavioral intention.
The influence of facilitating conditions on usage is moderated by age and experience, such that the effect is
H4b
stronger for older workers particularly with more experience with the new technology.
H5a Computer self-efficacy does not have a significant influence on behavioral intention.
H5b Computer anxiety does not have a significant influence on behavioral intention.
H5c Attitude toward using technology does not have a significant influence on behavioral intention.
H6 Behavioral intention does have a significant positive influence on usage.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 364

Appendix E: Evaluation of UTAUT Extensions

Table E1. Evaluation of UTAUT Extensions: Theoretical Advancements in the Parts of the Theory

States &
Source Constructs Associations Category
events
Different types of social
Bourdon & I: same user class with
Enriched attributes: social influences and facilitations
Sandrine N/A enriched and/or new
influences and facilitations. as enriched endogenous
(2009) attributes
antecedents to intention.
New attributes: technology
characteristics, individual Different characteristics as
I: same user class with
Brown et al. characteristics, group new exogenous
N/A enriched and/or new
(2010) characteristics, task antecedents to UTAUT
attributes
characteristics, and situational independent variables.
characteristics.
Trust and innovativeness as
Casey & I: same user class with
New attributes: trust and new exogenous
Wilson-Evered N/A enriched and/or new
innovativeness. antecedents to UTAUT
(2012) attributes
independent variables.
Computer self-efficacy, task
value, and task cost as new
New attributes: computer self- endogenous antecedents to
I: same user class with
Chiu & Wang efficacy, task value, and task intention.
N/A enriched and/or new
(2008) cost as perceived by individual Computer self-efficacy as a
attributes
users. new exogenous antecedent
to UTAUT independent
variables.
Organizational culture as a
New attribute: organizational I: same user class with
Dasgupta & new exogenous antecedent
culture as perceived by N/A enriched and/or new
Gupta (2011) to UTAUT independent
individual users. attributes
variables.
Different types of social
Enriched attribute: social influences as enriched
I: same user class with
Eckhardt et al. influences. endogenous antecedents to
N/A enriched and/or new
(2009) New attribute: user status intention.
attributes
(adopter vs. non-adopter). User status as a new
moderator of main effects.
Team climate for innovation
New attribute: team climate I: same user class with
Liang et al. as a new exogenous
for innovation as perceived by N/A enriched and/or new
(2010) antecedent to UTAUT
individual users. attributes
independent variables.
Perceived threats as a new
New attributes: perceived endogenous antecedent to
I: same user class with
Loose et al. threats (business and privacy intention.
N/A enriched and/or new
(2013) threats) and employer Employer attractiveness as
attributes
attractiveness. a new consequence of
intention.
Charismatic leadership as a
New attribute: charismatic I: same user class with
Neufeld et al. new exogenous antecedent
leadership as perceived by N/A enriched and/or new
(2007) to UTAUT independent
individual users. attributes
variables.
Perceived work
compatibility as a new
New attributes: perceived exogenous antecedent to I: same user class with
Sun et al.
work compatibility and UTAUT independent N/A enriched and/or new
(2009)
individual performance. variables. attributes
Individual performance as a
new outcome of use.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
365 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

Table E1. Evaluation of UTAUT Extensions: Theoretical Advancements in the Parts of the Theory

States &
Source Constructs Associations Category
events
Age, gender, and
experience moderating the
impacts of facilitating
New attribute: behavioral
conditions on behavioral I: same user class with
Venkatesh et expectation.
expectation. N/A enriched and/or new
al. (2008) Enriched attribute: duration,
Experience moderating the attributes
frequency, and intensity of use.
impacts of behavioral
intention and behavioral
expectation on use.
User class expanded: Information security as a
Alaiad & Zhou II: expanded user class with
patients. new endogenous N/A
(2013) new attributes
New attributes: trust. antecedent to intention.
Information security as a
User class expanded: new endogenous
Alshare & consumers. antecedent to intention. II: expanded user class with
N/A
Mousa (2014) New attributes: information Espoused culture values as new attributes
security and espoused culture. new moderators of main
effects.
User class expanded:
Technology readiness as a
Borrero et al. students. II: expanded user class with
new moderator of main N/A
(2014) New attributes: technology new attributes
effects.
readiness.
User class expanded: Trust, self-efficacy, and
Carter & citizens. experience as new II: expanded user class with
Schaupp N/A
New attributes: trust, self- endogenous antecedents to new attributes
(2008)
efficacy, and experience. intention.
User class expanded: Hedonic performance
Lallmahomed consumers. expectancy as a new II: expanded user class with
N/A
et al. (2013) New attributes: hedonic endogenous antecedent to new attributes
performance expectancy. use.

User class expanded: Economic benefit and social

benefit as new endogenous
citizens.
antecedents to use.
Liew et al. New attributes: economic Ethnicity, religion, language, II: expanded user class with
benefit, social benefit, ethnicity, N/A
(2014) employment, income, new attributes
religion, language, education, and marital
employment, income, status as new moderators
education, and marital status. of main effects.
User class expanded:
Lu et al. consumers. Income and location as new II: expanded user class with
N/A
(2009) New attributes: income and moderators of main effects. new attributes
location.
Risk as a new endogenous
User class expanded: antecedent to intention and
Martins et al. II: expanded user class with
consumers. a new exogenous N/A
(2014) new attributes
New attributes: risk. antecedent to performance
expectancy.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 366

Table E1. Evaluation of UTAUT Extensions: Theoretical Advancements in the Parts of the Theory

States &
Source Constructs Associations Category
events
Self-efficacy and anxiety as
User class expanded: new endogenous
consumers. antecedents to intention.
New attributes: adaptive Adaptive service
service components, components, computational
McKenna et computational service service components, II: expanded user class with
N/A
al. (2013) components, collaborative collaborative service new attributes
service components, components, and
networking service networking service
components, self-efficacy, and components as new
anxiety. exogenous antecedents to
independent variables.
User class expanded: Privacy and risk as new
citizens. endogenous antecedents to
McLeod et al. II: expanded user class with
New attributes: privacy, risk, intention. N/A
(2009) new attributes
and expertise (professionals Expertise as a new
vs. novices). moderator of main effects.
User class expanded: citizens Income, education, and
Niehaves &
New attributes: income, migration background as II: expanded user class with
Plattfaut N/A
education, and migration new moderators of main new attributes
(2010)
background. effects.
Financial control, ease of
User class expanded: navigation, and online
consumers. banking usage as new
endogenous antecedents to II: expanded user class with
Saeed (2013) New attributes: financial N/A
control, ease of navigation, intention. new attributes
online banking usage, and Channel preference as a
channel preference. new consequence in
parallel to intention.
User class expanded: Optimism bias and
Schaupp et al. citizens. perceived risk as new II: expanded user class with
N/A
(2010) New attributes: optimism bias endogenous antecedents to new attributes
and perceived risk. intention.
User class expanded: general
Trust in the knowledge base
practitioners.
Shibl et al. and involvement as new II: expanded user class with
New attributes: trust in the N/A
(2013) endogenous antecedents to new attributes
knowledge base and intention.
involvement.
Age, gender, and
User class expanded:
experience moderating the
consumers.
Venkatesh et impacts of hedonic II: expanded user class with
New attributes: hedonic N/A
al. (2012) motivation, habit, and price new attributes
motivation, habit, and price
value on intention and use,
value.
respectively.
User class expanded: user Security, realization of one’s
group (silent users vs. social value, and extrinsic benefit
expectations as new
users). endogenous antecedents to
Wang et al. New attributes: PIIT, II: expanded user class with
intention. N/A
(2014) computer self-efficacy, new attributes
PIIT and computer self-
security, realization of one’s efficacy as new exogenous
value, and extrinsic benefit antecedents to independent
expectations. variables.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
367 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

Table E1. Evaluation of UTAUT Extensions: Theoretical Advancements in the Parts of the Theory

States &
Source Constructs Associations Category
events
User class expanded:
Trust of Internet and trust of
citizens.
Weerakkody intermediaries as new II: expanded user class with
N/A
et al. (2013) New attributes: trust of endogenous antecedents to new attributes
internet and trust of intention.
intermediaries.
Job fit, attitude, self-
User class expanded: small
efficacy, and anxiety as new
business owners.
endogenous antecedents to
Xiong et al. New attributes: job fit, attitude, II: expanded user class with
intention. N/A
(2013) self-efficacy, anxiety, and the new attributes
The development of small
development of small
business as a new
business.
consequence of intention.
New class: location (Saudi
Al-Gahtani et Arabia vs. USA). Culture as a new moderator III: new classes with new
N/A
al. (2007) New attribute: culture of the of main effects. attributes
location.
User class expanded:
consumers.
Im et al. New class: location (Korea vs. Culture as a new moderator III: new classes with new
N/A
(2011) USA). of main effects. attributes
New attribute: culture of the
location.
User class expanded: Trust and flow as new
consumers. endogenous antecedents to
Oh & Yoon III: new classes with new
New class: online information intention; information N/A
(2014) attributes
services. service type as a new
New attributes: trust and flow. moderator of main effects.
OFC as both a new
New class: organizations.
Park et al. endogenous antecedent to III: new classes with new
New attribute: organizational N/A
(2011) use and a new moderator of attributes
facilitating conditions (OFC).
main effects.
User class expanded:
consumers.
New class: IT services. IT service type and user
Thong et al. New attributes: status as new moderators III: new classes with new
N/A
(2011) IT service type (communication of existing interaction attributes
vs. infotainment) and user effects.
status (adoption vs. continued
use).
New class:
Culture as a new moderator
Venkatesh & Location (China vs. USA). III: new classes with new
of existing interaction N/A
Zhang (2010) New attribute: culture of the attributes
effects.
location.
User class expanded:
consumers.
New classes: recommender Trust as a new endogenous
systems and tasks. antecedent to intention.
Wang et al. New attributes: trust, type of Type of recommender III: new classes with new
N/A
(2012) recommender system system and task type as attributes
(collaborative filtering vs. new moderators of main
content-based), and task type effects.
(buying hedonic vs. utilitarian
products).

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 368

Table E1. Evaluation of UTAUT Extensions: Theoretical Advancements in the Parts of the Theory

States &
Source Constructs Associations Category
events
User class expanded:
consumers.
Attitude, anxiety, perceived
A new class: location credibility, and self-efficacy
Yuen et al. (developed vs. developing as new endogenous III: new classes with new
countries). N/A
(2010) antecedents to intention. attributes
New attributes: culture of the Culture as a new moderator
location; attitude, anxiety, of main effects.
perceived credibility, and self-
efficacy of consumers.

Table E2. Evaluation of UTAUT Extensions—Theoretical Advancements in the Theory as a Whole*

Source Importance# Novelty Parsimony^ Level

Omitting UTAUT
associations of higher-order
The importance of robot New changes made to UTAUT:
Alaiad & Zhou moderations.
technology adoption in 1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
(2013) Omitting UTAUT
the healthcare industry. 2) Adding/deleting associations.
associations related to use.
1 new association added.
New changes made to UTAUT: Reducing UTAUT
Al-Gahtani et al. The importance of culture
1) Adding/deleting constructs associations of higher-order Micro
(2007) difference.
2) Adding/deleting associations. moderations.
Omitting UTAUT
associations of higher-order
New changes made to UTAUT:
Alshare & The importance of moderations.
1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
Mousa (2014) espoused culture. Omitting UTAUT
2) Adding/deleting associations.
associations related to use.
6 new associations added.
The importance of social Omitting UTAUT
New changes made to UTAUT:
Borrero et al. networking sites (SNS) in associations of higher-order
1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
(2014) Internet social moderations.
2) Adding/deleting associations.
movements. 5 new associations added.
New changes made to UTAUT: Omitting UTAUT
The importance of
Bourdon & 1) Adding/deleting associations associations of higher-order
knowledge sharing Micro
Sandrine (2009) 2) Defining constructs and moderations.
systems.
associations more precisely. 6 new associations added.
New changes made to UTAUT: Reducing UTAUT
Brown et al. The importance of 1) Adding/deleting constructs associations of higher-order
Micro
(2010) collaboration technology. 2) Adding/deleting associations. moderations.
20 new associations added.
Omitting UTAUT
New changes made to UTAUT: associations of higher-order
The importance of e-
Carter & 1) Adding/deleting constructs moderations.
government (E-file) Micro
Schaupp (2008) 2) Adding/deleting associations. Omitting UTAUT
system for citizens.
associations related to use.
3 new associations added.
Omitting UTAUT
associations of higher-order
The importance of the New changes made to UTAUT:
Casey & Wilson- moderations.
online family mediation 1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
Evered (2012) Omitting UTAUT
system. 2) Adding/deleting associations.
associations related to use.
7 new associations added.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
369 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

Table E2. Evaluation of UTAUT Extensions—Theoretical Advancements in the Theory as a Whole*

Source Importance# Novelty Parsimony^ Level

Omitting UTAUT
associations of higher-order
The importance of web- New changes made to UTAUT:
Chiu & Wang moderations.
based learning system for 1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
(2008) Omitting UTAUT
students. 2) Adding/deleting associations.
associations related to use.
11 new associations added.
Reducing UTAUT
New changes made to UTAUT:
Dasgupta & The importance of associations of higher-order
1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
Gupta (2011) organizational culture. moderations.
2) Adding/deleting associations.
4 new associations added.
The variety of workplace Omitting UTAUT
referents for technologyNew changes made to UTAUT: associations of higher-order
Eckhardt et al. adoption. 1) Adding/deleting associations moderations.
Micro
(2009) 2) Defining constructs and Omitting UTAUT
The importance of human associations more precisely. associations related to use.
resource system. 5 new associations added.

Omitting UTAUT
The importance of culture New changes made to UTAUT:
associations of higher-order
Im et al. (2011) difference in consumer 1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
moderations.
adoption of IT. 2) Adding/deleting associations.
10 new associations added.
The importance of
Omitting UTAUT
predicting different New changes made to UTAUT:
Lallmahomed et associations of higher-order
conceptualizations of use 1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
al. (2013) moderations.
in a hedonic volitional 2) Adding/deleting associations.
5 new associations added.
setting.
Omitting UTAUT
The importance of team associations of higher-order
climate for innovation in New changes made to UTAUT: moderations.
Liang et al.
affecting IT use for the 1) Adding/deleting constructs Omitting UTAUT Micro
(2010)
highly autonomous tasks 2) Adding/deleting associations. associations related to
performed by physicians. intention.
4 new associations added.
Omitting UTAUT
associations of higher-order
The importance of social
New changes made to UTAUT: moderations.
Liew et al. networking sites (SNS) to
1) Adding/deleting constructs Omitting UTAUT Micro
(2014) socio-economic benefits
2) Adding/deleting associations. associations related to use.
in developing countries.
110 new associations
added.
Omitting UTAUT
associations of higher-order
The importance of bring New changes made to UTAUT:
moderations.
Loose (2013) your own device (BYOD) 1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
Omitting UTAUT
to business. 2) Adding/deleting associations.
associations related to use.
2 new associations added.
The importance of New changes made to UTAUT: Omitting UTAUT
Lu et al. (2009) location difference in 1) Adding/deleting constructs associations related to use. Micro
consumer adoption of IT. 2) Adding/deleting associations. 6 new associations added.
Omitting UTAUT
The importance of New changes made to UTAUT:
Martins et al. associations of higher-order
Internet banking to banks 1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
(2014) moderations.
and users. 2) Adding/deleting associations.
4 new associations added.
Omitting UTAUT
The importance of New changes made to UTAUT:
McKenna et al. associations of higher-order
information service 1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
(2013) moderations.
components 2) Adding/deleting associations.
13 new associations added.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 370

Table E2. Evaluation of UTAUT Extensions—Theoretical Advancements in the Theory as a Whole*

Source Importance# Novelty Parsimony^ Level

Omitting UTAUT
associations of higher-order
The importance of e- New changes made to UTAUT:
McLeod et al. moderations.
government (e-tax) for 1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
(2009) Omitting UTAUT
citizens. 2) Adding/deleting associations.
associations related to use.
4 new associations added.
The importance of
charismatic leadership in Omitting UTAUT
New changes made to UTAUT:
Neufeld et al. mitigating the changes associations of higher-order
1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
(2007) and turbulence moderations.
2) Adding/deleting associations.
engendered by enterprise 4 new associations added.
information systems.
The importance of age- Reducing UTAUT
New changes made to UTAUT:
Niehaves & divide to citizens’ associations of higher-order
1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
Plattfaut (2010) acceptance and use of moderations.
2) Adding/deleting associations.
Internet. 12 new associations added.
The importance of trust Omitting UTAUT
New changes made to UTAUT:
Oh & Yoon and flow in explaining the associations of higher-order
1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
(2014) use of different types of moderations.
2) Adding/deleting associations.
information services. 9 new associations added.
Omitting UTAUT
The importance of associations of higher-order
organization-level (here New changes made to UTAUT: moderations.
Park et al.
class-level) facilitating 1) Adding/deleting constructs Omitting UTAUT Meso
(2011)
conditions to individual 2) Adding/deleting associations. associations related to
technology acceptance. intention.
8 new associations added.
Omitting UTAUT
The importance of IS as a associations of higher-order
New changes made to UTAUT:
means of control activities moderations.
Saeed (2013) 1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
in the context of mobile Omitting UTAUT
2) Adding/deleting associations.
banking. associations related to use.
5 new associations added.
Omitting UTAUT
associations of higher-order
The importance of e- New changes made to UTAUT:
Schaupp et al. moderations.
government (e-tax) for 1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
(2010) Omitting UTAUT
citizens. 2) Adding/deleting associations.
associations related to use.
5 new associations added.
Omitting UTAUT
The importance of New changes made to UTAUT:
Shibl et al. associations of higher-order
general practitioners’ 1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
(2013) moderations.
adoption of clinical DSS. 2) Adding/deleting associations.
2 new associations added.
Omitting UTAUT
New changes made to UTAUT:
The importance of the associations of higher-order
Sun et al. (2009) 1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
ERP technology. moderations.
2) Adding/deleting associations.
6 new associations added.
The importance of IT
Reducing UTAUT
service type (i.e., the
associations of higher-order
differences between New changes made to UTAUT:
Thong et al. moderations.
mobile communication 1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
(2011) Omitting UTAUT
services and mobile 2) Adding/deleting associations.
associations related to use.
entertainment services)
5 new associations added.
for consumers.
New changes made to UTAUT: Reducing UTAUT
Venkatesh & The importance of culture
1) Adding/deleting constructs associations of higher-order Micro
Zhang (2010) difference.
2) Adding/deleting associations. moderations.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
371 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

Table E2. Evaluation of UTAUT Extensions—Theoretical Advancements in the Theory as a Whole*

Source Importance# Novelty Parsimony^ Level

Omitting UTAUT
associations related to
New ways to conceive focal
The importance of intention.
phenomenon: technology use.
Venkatesh et al. behavioral expectation in Omitting UTAUT
Micro
(2008) predicting different New changes made to UTAUT: associations related to the
dimensions of use. 1) Adding/deleting constructs impact of facilitating
2) Adding/deleting associations. conditions on use.
17 new associations added.
The importance of habit, Omitting UTAUT
New changes made to UTAUT:
Venkatesh et al. price value, and hedonic associations related to
1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
(2012) motivation in affecting voluntariness.
2) Adding/deleting associations.
consumer use of IT. 20 new associations added.
Omitting UTAUT
associations of higher-order
The importance of the New changes made to UTAUT:
Wang et al. moderations.
type of recommender 1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
(2012) Omitting UTAUT
system and the task type. 2) Adding/deleting associations.
associations related to use.
9 new associations added.
Omitting UTAUT
associations of higher-order
The importance of New changes made to UTAUT:
Wang et al. moderations.
Enterprise 2.0 1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
(2014) Omitting UTAUT
technology. 2) Adding/deleting associations.
associations related to use.
20 new associations added.
The importance of Omitting UTAUT
New changes made to UTAUT:
Weerakkody et intermediaries in associations of higher-order
1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
al. (2013) facilitating e-government moderations.
2) Adding/deleting associations.
adoption and diffusion. 2 new associations added.
Omitting UTAUT
The importance of ICT to associations of higher-order
New changes made to UTAUT:
Xiong et al. small business owners in moderations.
1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
(2013) a developing economy Omitting UTAUT
2) Adding/deleting associations.
(China). associations related to use.
6 new associations added.
Omitting UTAUT
The importance of culture associations of higher-order
New changes made to UTAUT:
Yuen et al. difference and the moderations.
1) Adding/deleting constructs Micro
(2010) importance of Internet Omitting UTAUT
2) Adding/deleting associations.
banking. associations related to use.
12 new associations added.
* Because all the UTAUT extensions are empirical studies, they satisfy the falsifiability criterion.
# Because we focus on the theoretical advancements in UTAUT extensions, we mainly evaluate the importance to research. Also,
because studies are distributed across different years, the numbers of citations may not be an accurate metric of theoretical
importance. Thus, we evaluate the importance to research mainly by the research motivation that the researchers provide.
^ Following Weber (2012), we count the number of associations based on the number of interactions between any two attributes.
Thus, a two-way interaction effect implies three associations in total (i.e., two direct/main effects and one interaction effect).

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 372

Appendix F: Context Dimensions of UTAUT Extensions

Table F1. Context Dimensions of UTAUT Extensions

Source User Technology Task Time Organization Location

Alaiad & Zhou
Patients Healthcare robot Adoption USA
(2013)
Al-Gahtani et Knowledge Desktop Saudi
Major firms
al. (2007) workers applications Arabia
A
Alshare & Mobile payment
convenience Adoption Qatar
Mousa (2014) devices
sample
Undergraduat
Adoption and
Borrero et al. e students (as SNS (social
post-adoptive Spain
(2014) survey networking sites)
use
participants)
Bourdon & Knowledge Two high-tech
Knowledge Knowledge
Sandrine management and consulting France
workers contribution
(2009) system businesses
One business
Collaboration
Idea generation & Six months after unit in a
technology (chat,
Brown et al. Knowledge decision making in training Fortune 500
videoconference, USA
(2010) 9 workers technology design, (adoption, and company in
meeting notes,
coding, testing, etc. initial use) the high-tech
etc.)
sector
Carter &
E-government (e- Filing of income tax
Schaupp Citizens Adoption USA
file system) returns
(2008)
Casey & Online family A family
Staff and Family dispute
Wilson- mediation consultation Australia
managers resolution
Evered (2012) services institution
Web-based
Chiu & Wang Part-time course
Learning A university Taiwan
(2008) students management
system
Dasgupta & A government
Employees Internet India
Gupta (2011) organization
Companies
Eckhardt et al. with 500 to
HR managers CV databases Adoption Germany
(2009) 200,000
employees
Im et al. MP3 player and Korea vs.
Consumers
(2011) Internet banking USA
Lallmahomed Facebook Social networking A large public
Adoption Malaysia
et al. (2013) users sites (Facebook) university
Clinical
Liang et al. Order entry Prescriptions and
Physicians departments China
(2010) system lab orders
in a hospital
Adoption and Klang
Liew et al. Facebook Social networking
post-adoptive Valley in
(2014) users sites (Facebook)
use Malaysia

9
We focus on Study 2 in Brown et al. (2010) as it provided results for the complete research model.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
373 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

Table F1. Context Dimensions of UTAUT Extensions

Source User Technology Task Time Organization Location

University
students with Bring Your Own
Loose et al.
business and Device (BYOD) Adoption Germany
(2013)
engineering services
specialization
Lu et al. Mobile data Urban
Consumers Adoption
(2009) services China
Students and
Martins et al. ex-students Internet banking
Adoption Portugal
(2014) from a services
university
1. Ticket
reservation
2. Preferences and
receiving
automatic
services.
A desktop
3. Developing
simulation of a
presence profile
McKenna et mobile service
Consumers 4. Received local Adoption
al. (2013) named City
information
Wanderer mobile
5. Finding
service
something and
getting directions
6. Finding nearby
attractions,
festivals, and
events.
One
CPAs and professional
McLeod et al.
university Tax software Tax preparation Adoption organization
(2009)
students and one public
university
EIS
implemented in
the past 18 Six midsize to
Managers and Enterprise
Neufeld et al. months large
front-line information Canada
(2007) (adoption, initial manufacturing
employees systems
use, and companies
possibly post-
adoptive use)
Niehaves &
Senior Western
Plattfaut Internet
citizens Societies
(2010)
Seoul and
University
e-learning Internet Gyeonggi
Oh & Yoon students and
service and online Adoption Province
(2014) salaried
gaming in South
workers
Korea
Web-based
Park et al. course
Students Adoption A university
(2011) management
system
Mobile banking
Saeed ( 2013) Consumers Adoption
services
Schaupp et al. E-government Filing of income tax
Citizens Adoption USA
(2010) (e-file system) returns

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 374

Table F1. Context Dimensions of UTAUT Extensions

Source User Technology Task Time Organization Location

Shibl et al. General Clinical decision
Adoption Australia
(2013) practitioners support systems
ERP
implemented
Sun et al. Organizational within 3 years Diverse group
Employees ERP systems China
(2009) tasks in general (adoption, initial of industries
use, and post-
adoptive use)
Mobile data
Adoption and
Thong et al. services: Hong
Consumers post-adoptive
(2011) communication Kong
use
vs. infotainment
Four periods: 1
week, 1 month,
3 months and 6
Venkatesh & USA vs.
Employees months after Business unit
Zhang (2010) China
training
(adoption and
initial use)
Five periods
during and after
the
A web-based
implementation
front-end for
Venkatesh et Employees at within one year A telecomm.
informational and USA
al. (2008) all levels with 3-month firm
transactional
intervals
systems
(adoption, initial
use, and post-
adoptive use)
Mobile Internet
Venkatesh et services (six Post-adoptive Hong
Consumer
al. (2012) different use Kong
applications)
Undergraduat
Online
Wang et al. e students (as A large Midwest
recommendation Online purchase
(2012) experiment university USA
system
subjects)
Knowledge-
intensive
businesses,
including three
companies in
Wang et al. Enterprise 2.0
Employees Adoption the software China
(2014) applications
industry and
four
companies in
the trading
industry
E-government Madinah
Weerakkody service provided city in
Citizens Adoption
et al. (2013) by the traffic Saudi
department Arabia

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
375 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

Table F1. Context Dimensions of UTAUT Extensions

Source User Technology Task Time Organization Location

Zhejiang
Province
Small
Xiong et al. Small and
business ICT Adoption
(2013) businesses Sichuan
owners
Province
in China
Developed
countries
(USA and
Yuen et al. Internet banking Australia)
Consumers Adoption
(2010) service vs.
developing
countries
(Malaysia)
Note: we found no UTAUT extensions that explicitly addressed the roles of the environment class and rationale class, and, thus, we
omit those two columns from the table. We obtained some of the information (e.g., countries) by contacting the authors.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 376

About the Authors

Viswanath Venkatesh is a Distinguished Professor and George and Boyce Billingsley Chair in Information
Systems at the Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas. His research focuses on understanding
the diffusion of technologies in organizations and society. For over two decades, he has worked with several
companies and government agencies, and has rigorously studied real world phenomena. The sponsorship
of his research has been about US$10M. His work has appeared in leading journals in human-computer
interaction, information systems, organizational behavior, psychology, marketing, medical informatics, and
operations management journals. He is one of only two scholars to have published 20 or more papers in MIS
Quarterly (MISQ). From 2005-2014, he was the most productive in terms of publications in the premier
journals in information systems (i.e., Information Systems Research (ISR) and MISQ). He is widely
regarded as one of the most influential scholars in business and economics, with over 50,000 citations and
about 13,000 citations per Google Scholar and Web of Science, respectively. In 2014, he was recognized
by Thompson Reuters as one of only 95 high-impact scholars in business and economics (highlycited.com)
based on publications from 2000 to 2012. In 2008, his MISQ (2003) paper was identified as a current classic
by Science Watch (a Thompson Reuters’ service) and, since 2009, it has been the most influential paper in
one of the four Research Front Maps in business and economics. Since 2012, he serves as a Senior Editor
(SE) at MISQ. From 2008 to 2011, he served as an SE at ISR. MISQ named him “Reviewer of the Year” in
1999.
James Y. L. Thong is a Chair Professor and Head of the Department of ISOM, School of Business and
Management, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He received his PhD in Information
Systems from the National University of Singapore. His research on technology adoption, e-government,
human–computer interaction, computer ethics, and IT in small business has appeared in Information
Systems Research, MIS Quarterly, Journal of Management Information Systems, and Journal of the AIS,
among others. He has served as an associate editor for Information Systems Research and MIS Quarterly.
He received the “2011 Best Associate Editor Award” from Information Systems Research.
Xin Xu is an Associate Professor of the Department of Management & Marketing, Faculty of Business,
Hong Kong Polytechnic University. He received his Ph.D. in information system from the Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology. His current research interests include IT innovation management,
social media analytics, mobile computing, and human-computer interaction. His work has appeared in the
leading academic journals MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, Management Science,
Information Systems Frontiers, and IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. He now serves as
Associate Editor for MIS Quarterly.

Copyright © 2016 by the Association for Information Systems. Permission to make digital or hard copies of
all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not
made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and full citation on
the first page. Copyright for components of this work owned by others than the Association for Information
Systems must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on
servers, or to redistribute to lists requires prior specific permission and/or fee. Request permission to publish
from: AIS Administrative Office, P.O. Box 2712 Atlanta, GA, 30301-2712 Attn: Reprints or via e-mail from
publications@aisnet.org.

Volume 17 Issue 5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121