2007/04/01 by Richard P. Bagozzi · 3 citations
Decision Sciences · Psychology · #Technology Adoption and User Behaviour #Behavioral Health and Interventions #Cultural Differences and Values #Action (physics) #Core (optical fiber) #Mechanism (biology) #Theory of reasoned action #Psychology #Social psychology #Technology acceptance model #Paradigm shift #Ethical decision #Grounded theory #Foundation (evidence) #Computer science #Knowledge management #Management science #Epistemology #Sociology #Usability #Qualitative research #Social science #Political science #Human–computer interaction #Law
paper · doi:10.17705/1jais.00122
openalex publication_date 2007/04/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/05
This article presents a critique of a number of shortcomings with the technology acceptance model (TAM) and points to specific remedies in each case. In addition, I present a model for the purposes of providing a foundation for a paradigm shift. The model consists first of a decision making core (goal desire → goal intention → action desire → action intention) that is grounded in basic decision making variables/processes of a universal nature. The decision core also contains a mechanism for self-regulation that moderates the effects of desires on intentions. Second, added to the decision making core are a number of causes and effects of decisions and self-regulatory reasoning, with the aim of introducing potential contingent, contextual nuances for understanding decision making. Many of the causal variables here are contained within TAM or its extensions; also considered are new variables grounded in emotional, group/social/cultural, and goal-directed behavior research.