The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) it’s a [information systems] theory that models how users come to accept and use a technology. The model suggests that when users are presented with a new software package, a number of factors influence their decision about how and when to use it, in particular:

or Perceived utility (PU)

“The degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would improve their job performance.”

By Fred Davis

or Perceived ease of use (EOU)

“The degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be effortless.”

By Fred Davis

The technology acceptance model it is one of the most influential extensions of Ajzen and Fishbein’s theory of reasoned action (TRA) in the literature. It was developed by Fred Davis and Richard Bagozzi. TAM it replaces many of TRA’s attitude measures with the two measures of technology acceptance, ease of use and utility. TRA and TAM, which have strong behavioral elements, assume that when someone intends to act, they will be free to act without limitation. In the real world there will be many limitations, such as limited capacity, time constraints, environmental or organizational constraints, or unconscious habits that will limit freedom of action.

Theory of Reasoned action

TRA posits that individual behavior is driven by behavioral intentions where the behavioral intentions are a function of an individual’s attitude toward the behavior and the subjective norms surrounding the performance of the behavior.

Attitude towards behavior is defined as the individual’s positive or negative feelings about performing a behavior. It is determined through an evaluation of one’s beliefs regarding the consequences that arise from a behavior and an evaluation of the appropriateness of these consequences. Formally, general attitude can be evaluated as the sum of the individual consequence x desirability evaluations for all expected consequences of the behavior.

Subjective norm it is defined as an individual’s perception of whether the people important to the individual think that the behavior should be performed. The contribution of the opinion of any given referent is weighted by the motivation that an individual has to fulfill the wishes of that referent. Therefore, the general subjective norm can be expressed as the sum of the evaluations of perception x individual motivation for all relevant referents.

Algebraically TRA can be represented as B ≈ BI = w1AB + w2SN where B is behaviour, BI is behavioral intention, AB is attitude toward behavior, SN is subjective normand w1 and w2 are weights that represent the importance of each term.

The model has some limitations, including a significant risk of confusion between attitudes and norms, as attitudes can often be reformulated as norms and vice versa. A second limitation is the assumption that when someone intends to act, they will be free to act without limitation. In practice, restrictions such as limited capacity, time, environmental or organizational limits, and unconscious habits will limit the freedom to act. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) tries to solve this limitation.

Theory of planned behavior

TPB posits that individual behavior is driven by behavioral intentions where behavioral intentions are a function of an individual’s attitude toward the behavior, the subjective norms surrounding the performance of the behavior, and the individual’s perception of the ease with which it can be done. perform the behavior (control behavior).

Behavior control It is defined as the perception that one has of the difficulty of carrying out a behavior. TPB considers that the control that people have over their behavior is on a continuum from behaviors that are easily performed to those that require effort, resources, etc.

Although Ajzen has suggested that the link between behavior and control of behavior described in the model should be between behavior and control of actual behavior rather than control of perceived behavior, the difficulty of evaluating actual control has led to the use of the control perceived as a proxy.

Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology

Tea UTAUT is intended to explain the user’s intentions to use an IS and subsequent use behavior. The theory holds that four key constructs (performance expectation, effort expectation, social influence, and enabling conditions) are direct determinants of use intention and behavior. Gender, age, experience, and willingness to use are postulated to mediate the impact of the four key constructs on intention and behavior to use. The theory was developed through a review and consolidation of the constructs of eight models that previous research had used to explain the behavior of IS use (theory of reasoned action, model of acceptance of technology and motivational model, theory of planned behavior, a Combined Theory of Planned Behavior / Technology Acceptance Model, PC Utilization Model, Innovation Diffusion Theory, and Social Cognitive Theory). Subsequent validation of UTAUT in a longitudinal study found that it accounts for 70% of the variance in intention to use.


Recent development of information technology applications targeting highly specialized individual professionals, such as physicians and lawyers, has proliferated substantially. Given the rapid growth of these innovative technology applications that target individual professionals, it is important to examine the extent to which existing theories can explain or predict their acceptance of the technology. In this sense, the current study represents a conceptual replica of a previous model comparison by reexamining the predominant theoretical models in a healthcare setting that involves different users and technologies. Specifically, this study empirically tests the applicability of three theoretical models: the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), and a decomposed TPB model that is potentially suitable for the target professional context. Our research focus is to what extent each model can explain the acceptance of telemedicine technology by physicians.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *