An extended technology acceptance model for marketing strategies in social media

George Cristian Nistor 1
  • 1 Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, „Alexandru Ioan Cuza“ University of Iasi, Romania

Abstract

Social media is currently an evolving “wave” in online business marketing. Marketers are beginning to drive the use of social media as a component in their marketing strategy and campaigns to reach out to customers and fans. Within the subdisciplines of marketing that may use social media include promotions, marketing intelligence, sentiments research, public relations, marketing communications and product and customer management. This paper will try to find a conceptual model to examine people’s behavior, model based on the the Theory of Reason Action (TRA) and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., Todd, P.A. (1992). Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication. In: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 227 – 247.

  • 2. Agarwal, R., Prasad, J. (1998). A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology. In: Information Systems Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 204 – 215.

  • 3. Alshare, K., Grandon, E., Miller, D. (2004). Antecedents of Computer Technology Usage: Considerations of the Technology Acceptance Model in the Academic Environment. In: Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 164 – 180.

  • 4. Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In: Guetzkow, H. (ed.). Groups, leadership, and men. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.

  • 5. Barnes, S. J., Huff, S. L. (2003). Rising Sun: iMode and The Wireless Internet. In: Communications of the ACM, Vol. 46, No. 11, pp. 78 – 84.

  • 6. Benbasat, I. and Barki, H. (2007). Quo vadis, TAM?. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 211-218.

  • 7. Burton-Jones, A., Hubona, G. S. (2005). Individual Differences and Usage Behavior: Revisiting a Technology Acceptance Model Assumption. In: ACM SIGMIS Database, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 58 – 77.

  • 8. Carsten Röcker (2010), Why Traditional Technology Acceptance Models Won't Work for Future Information Technologies?, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 65 2010

  • 9. Chin, W. W., Todd, P. A. (1995). On the Use, Usefulness, and Ease of Use of Structural Equation Modeling in MIS Research: A Note of Caution. In: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 237 – 246.

  • 10. Constant D., Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119-137.

  • 11. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.

  • 12. Demei, S., Laffey, J., Yimei, L., Xinxin, H.,(2006) Social Influence for Perceived Usefulness and Ease-of-Use of Course Delivery Systems, Journal of Interactive Online Learning Volume 5, Number 3, Winter 2006

  • 13. Eckhardt, A., Laumer, S. and Weitzel, T. (2009). Who influences whom? Analyzing workplace referents' social influence on IT adoption and non-adoption. Journal of Information Technology, 24, 11-24.

  • 14. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

  • 15. Gallivan, M. J. (2001). Adoption, Diffusion, and Infusion of IT: Organizational Adoption and Assimilation of Complex Technological Innovations: Development and Application of a new Framework. In: ACM SIGMIS Database, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 51 – 85.

  • 16. Gefen, D. and Straub, D.W. (1997). Gender differences in the perception and use of email: An extension to the Technology Acceptance Model. MIS Quarterly, 21(4), 389-400.

  • 17. Haythornthwaite, C. and Wellman, B. (1998). Work, friendship, and media use for information exchange in a networked organization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49(12), 1101-1114.

  • 18. Hendrickson, A. R., Massey, P. D., Cronan, T. P. (1993). On the Test-Retest Reliability of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use Scales. In: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 227 – 230.

  • 19. Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., Cavaye, A. L. M. (1997). Personal Computing Acceptance Factors in Small Firms: A Structural Equation Model. In: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 279 – 305.

  • 20. Laumann, E.O., Galaskiewicz, J. and Marsden, P.V. (1978). Community structure as interorganizational linkages. Annual Review of Sociology, 4(1), 455-484.

  • 21. Lee Y., Kozar, K.A. and Larsen, K.R.T. (2003). The technology acceptance model: past, present and future. Communications of the Association of Information Systems, 12(50), 752-780.

  • 22. Legris, P., Ingham, J., Collerette, P. (2003). Why Do People Use Information Technology? A Critical Review of the Technology Acceptance Model. In: Information and Management, Vol. 40, pp. 191 – 204.

  • 23. Lucas, H.C. and Spitler, V.K. (2000). Implementation in a world of workstations and networks. Information and Management, 38(2), 119-128.

  • 24. Ma, Q., Liu, L. (2004). The Technology Acceptance Model: A Meta-Analysis of Empirical Findings. In: Journal of End User Computing, Vol. 16, pp. 59 – 72.

  • 25. Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Sci. 5(4) 333–369.

  • 26. Mao, E., Palvia, P. (2006). Testing an Extended Model of IT Acceptance in the Chinese Cultural Context. In: ACM SIGMIS Database, Vol. 37, No. 2-3, pp. 20 – 32.

  • 27. Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Inform. Systems Res. 2(3) 173–191.

  • 28. Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., Chin, W. W. (2001). Extending the Technology Acceptance Model: The Influence of Perceived User Resources. In: The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 86 – 112.

  • 29. Miller, M., Rainer, R. K., & Corley, J. K. (2003). Predictors of engagement and participation in an on-line Course. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(1).

  • 30. Myers, M.D. and Tan, F.B.M. (2002). Beyond models of national culture in information systems research. Journal of Global Information Management, 10(2), 24-32.

  • 31. Pickering, J.M. and King, J.L. (1995). Hardwiring weak ties: Interorganizational computer-mediated communication, occupational communities, and organizational change. Organization Science, 6(4), 479-488.

  • 32. Riemenschneider, C. K., Harrison, D. A., Mykytyn, P. P. (2003). Understanding IT Adoption Decisions in Small Business: Integrating Current Theories. In: Information & Management, No. 40, pp. 269 – 285.

  • 33. Röcker, C., (2010). Why Traditional Technology Acceptance Models Won't Work for Future Information Technologies? World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 65 2010

  • 34. Rose, J., Fogarty, G., (2006) Determinants of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in the technology acceptance model: SENIOR CONSUMERS’ ADOPTION OF SELF-SERVICE BANKING TECHNOLOGIES, Academy of World Business, Marketing & Management Development Volume 2 No 10, July 2006 Conference Proceedings

  • 35. Segars, A. H., Grover, V. (1993). Re-Examining Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis. In: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 517 – 525.

  • 36. Stephan, K., Haverkamp, S., Mahmood, F., (2010) Social network influences on technology acceptance: A matter of tie strength, centrality and density, 23rd Bled eConference eTrust: Implications for the Individual, Enterprises and Society June 20 - 23, 2010; Bled, Slovenia

  • 37. Subramanian, G. H. (1994). A Replication of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use Measurement. In: Decision Science, Vol. 25, No. 5-6, pp. 863 – 874.

  • 38. Sykes, T.A., Venkatesh, V. and Gosain, S. (2009). Model of acceptance with peer support: A social network perspective to understand individual-level system use. MIS Quarterly, 33(2), 371-393.

  • 39. Szajna, B. (1994). Software Evaluation and Choice: Predictive Validation of the Technology Acceptance Instrument. In: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 319 – 324.

  • 40. Taylor, S., Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models. In: Information Systems Research, Vol. 6, pp. 144 – 176.

  • 41. Venkatesh Viswanath (2010), Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model, Information Systems Research Vol. 11, No. 4, December 2000

  • 42. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model. In: Information Systems Research, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 342 – 365.

  • 43. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.

  • 44. Venkatesh, V., F. D. Davis. 1996. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sci. 27(3) 451–481.

  • 45. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. (2000). Why Don’t Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior. In: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 115 – 139.

  • 46. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: towards a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.

  • 47. Venkatesh, V., Speier, C., (1999). Computer technology training in the workplace: A longitudinal investigation of the effect of the mood. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes 79(1) 1–28.

  • 48. Webster, J., J. J. Martocchio. (1992). Microcomputer playfulness: Development of a measure with workplace implications. MIS Quarterly, 16(2) 201–226

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search