Culture, Demography and Individuals' Technology Acceptance Behaviour

397 Pages·2011·3.39 MB·English

CCuullttuurree,, DDeemmooggrraapphhyy aanndd IInnddiivviidduuaallss’’ TTeecchhnnoollooggyy AAcccceeppttaannccee
BBeehhaavviioouurr:: AA PPLLSS BBaasseedd SSttrruuccttuurraall EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff aann EExxtteennddeedd
MMooddeell ooff TTeecchhnnoollooggyy AAcccceeppttaannccee iinn SSoouutthh--AAssiiaann CCoouunnttrryy CCoonntteexxtt

AA tthheessiiss ssuubbmmiitttteedd iinn ffuullffiillmmeenntt ooff tthhee rreeqquuiirreemmeenntt ffoorr tthhee ddeeggrreeee ooff
DDooccttoorr ooff PPhhiilloossoopphhyy

BByy

MMuuhhaammmmaadd SShhaarriiff AAbbbbaassii
BBCCSS ((HHoonnss)) CCoommppuutteerr SScciieenncceess

IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn SSyysstteemmss EEvvaalluuaattiioonn aanndd iinntteeggrraattiioonn ggrroouupp ((IISSEEiinngg))

BBrruunneell BBuussiinneessss SScchhooooll,,
BBrruunneell UUnniivveerrssiittyy,, LLoonnddoonn

JJuunnee,, 22001111
Abstract

The models that predict the factors of individuals’ acceptance behaviour are predominantly
based on a technology acceptance model (TAM) or the TAM’s conceptualisation.
Although the TAM has a parsimonious structure and good explanatory power across the
time, population and context, it is still criticised by a number of researchers. Categorically,
it is criticised due to: inherent ‘cultural bias’ that limits its generalisability across cultures
(national to organisational level); its underlying conceptualisation of predicting acceptance
behaviour solely based on an ‘individual-based reactions’ that limits its applicability over
the group’s effect (normative and social influence); and finally, due to its presupposition to
examine the effect of ‘external variables’ through the only mediation effect of beliefs’
perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) that limits its ability to be
extended beyond its boundaries by adding further factors directly or indirectly affecting
intention behaviour (BI).
To overcome mentioned limitations, an extended technology acceptance model to suit a
developing country context is presented. The model attempted to delineate the direct
relationship between behavioural beliefs, normative and control beliefs, management
support beliefs, and task-specific beliefs towards acceptance intention and usage. In
addition, the model examined the overlooked moderating impact of demographic and
situational variables (age, gender, organisational type, academic position, educational
level, experience usage and voluntariness) and cultural dimensions (masculinity-
femininity, individualism-collectivism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance) on
indirect relations predicting acceptance behaviour.
This study used a quantitative methodology to investigate the correlational paths. Using a
cross-sectional survey method, data was collected from 504 academics working in 25
public and private higher educational institutions in Pakistan. Overall response rate was
53.9% (i.e. 504 out of 935). After data-screening, the final model was tested with 380
subjects. Hypothetical relationships were examined using structural equation modelling
(SEM) based on the partial least squares (PLS) at the first stage, and with analysis of
moment structures (AMOS) at the second stage. The indirect exploratory effect of the
moderators was examined using multi-group analysis (MGA) method.
The study findings indicate that the extended model achieved an acceptable fit with the
data and most of the hypothetical paths were significant. Specifically, in the direct
ii
relationships, out of 20 paths representing 12 hypotheses, 11 were supported leaving 9 as
unsupported. The highest variance explained by the independent variables towards
dependent variables was quite similar in PU and BI (R2=26% in both using PLS; R2=34%
in BI and 33% in PU using AMOS). The highest significant path was perception of
usefulness, followed by academic tasks and resource facilitations towards intention; and
perception of ease of use, subjective norms, and institute support towards perception of
usefulness.
The findings of moderating factors i.e., demographics revealed that subjects younger in
age, female in gender and bachelor degree in education were influenced by the perception
of ease of use, and normative beliefs; control beliefs were influenced by the organisation
being private; management support at institute level was more influential in private
organisations with mandatory settings; and the effect of perception of usefulness and
normative beliefs was decreased with the increased experience. From the cultural
perspective, the highly sensitive path was between normative beliefs and the perception of
usefulness, so that the effect was stronger for subjects who were feminine in nature,
collectivist in society, and high on power distance. Demographic factor academic-position
and cultural dimension uncertainty avoidance did not produce any moderation effect.
Finally, based on the findings, limitations and implications for theory and practices are
devised.

iii
Dedication

This research which is accomplished with the only Grace of Al-Mighty Allah (swt), His
(swt) Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) and Family of Prophet (P.B.U.H) is dedicated to my
parents, my grandmother, my three beloved brothers, three loving sisters, and a beautiful
wife. Without their encouragement and support I would not be able to achieve anything
today. Also, I dedicate my work to my dearly departed two uncles, two cousins and two
friends whom I sadly lost during my Ph.D. studies. May Allah (swt) rest their soul in
heaven (Amin).

iv
Acknowledgements

First I thank to Allah swt giving me insight where and when I needed, and giving me
chance to finish what I started way back in the winter January 2007.
My special thanks to my supervisor, Professor Zahir Irani, without whom I would not have
been to complete this mammoth task. His valuable guidance, motivational support, and
encouragement were invaluable to me. Specifically, in last few months of PhD, where I
would have impetus to finish the study, I doubt without Prof. Irani support it would be not
possible to me to complete PhD in mean time. I feel fortunate and proud to be one of his
students and work under his auspicious supervision. I also like to thank my second
supervisor Professor Amir Sharif, who timely read my work with interest and discussed
feedback critically on all the aspects of my thesis.
I would like to thank my family for sticking by me in the days and nights that it took to
finish this work. I remember your prayers every day; I feel your love in expectations that
the work will one day be concluded. Specifically, my mother, grandmother and sister’s
prayers, my father and brother’s anxiety about my PhD completion, and my wife’s love
and encouragement at the time when I thought I wouldn’t be able to make it, are
unforgettable assets for me. You never gave up on me and Inshallah I will never give up
for you all.
I would also like to thanks to the all PhD students, friends and staff member at Brunel
Business School and, particularly friends: Fida Chandio, Jamshed Halepota, Adel Flici, Dr.
Yousra Assad, Matilda Chen, Dr. Raed, Dr. Selcuk, Abdullah Al-Ghamdi, Pantea Foroudi,
and school admin: Emma Sigsworth and Joanna Barry. My acknowledgement remains
incomplete without mentioning names of my housemates: Aslam Shani and his brothers,
Shahzad Memon, Ashique Jhatiyal, Karimullah, Gohar Saleem, Yasir Gill, and friends at
university and around: Adi Misbah Qureshi, Dr. Nafi-al-Hussani, Dr. Sarwar Shah, Sir
Hyder Nizamani, Sir Fattah Soomro, Sain Ghulam Hussain Shah, and friends from Gulf
country region. I remember some of friends’ questions: “Haven’t you finished it yet? How
much longer do you have to go?” thanks friends, truly great friends to have! Thank you all.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge my gratitude to The University of Sindh Jamshoro for
its sponsorship. My thanks go to my participants who were very keen to help me in
collecting the data and dedicated their time for the completion of this work.

v
Author’s Declaration
I, Muhammad Sharif Abbasi, declare that the ideas, research work, analyses and
conclusions reported in my PhD thesis Culture, Demography and Individuals’ Technology
Acceptance Behaviour: A PLS Based Structural Evaluation of an Extended Model of
Technology Acceptance in South-Asian Country Context are entirely my effort, except
where otherwise acknowledged. Also, I certify that this thesis contains no material that has
been submitted previously, in whole or in part, for the award of any other academic degree
or diploma. Except where otherwise indicated, this thesis is my own work.
Publications associated with this thesis
1. Abbasi, M. S. (2009), Acceptance of Information Technology in Under-Developing
Countries: Empirical Evidence of Internet Usage within the Academics of Pakistan
Higher Education Commission (HEC) System, Brunel Business School Annual
Symposium, Brunel University, 23-24 March.
2. Abbasi, M. S. (2010), Determinants of Social and Institutional Beliefs about
Internet Acceptance within Developing Country’s Context: A Structural Evaluation
of Higher Education System in Pakistan, Brunel Business School Annual
Symposium, Brunel University (Best Overall Paper).
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/329/bbs%20documents/phd%20doctoral%20symposium%
2010/sharifabbasi.pdf
3. Abbasi, M. S., Irani, Z. & Chandio, F.H. (2010), Determinants of social and
institutional beliefs about internet acceptance within developing country’s context:
A structural evaluation of higher education systems in Pakistan", (Revised version
of Brunel Business School Symposium), Proceedings of the European and
Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 12-13 April
2010 (Best Overall Paper). http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/4304
4. Abbasi, M. S., Chandio F. H., Soomro A. F, Shah, F. (2011), Social influence,
voluntariness, experience and the internet acceptance: An extension of technology
acceptance model within a south-Asian country context, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 24 Iss: 1, pp.30 - 52.
5. Abbasi, M. S., Irani, Z., (2011), The Role of Gender Differences, Culture and Social
Influence in Technology Acceptance Behaviour, Management Sciences (under
review).
6. Abbasi, M. S., Irani, Z., (2011), Culture and individual’s acceptance behaviour: A
PLS based multi-group evaluation of Masculinity-Femininity and Uncertainty-
Avoidance, European Journal of Information Systems (paper submitted).
7. Abbasi, M. S., Irani, Z., (2011), Culture and individual’s acceptance behaviour: A
PLS based multi-group evaluation of Power Distance and Individualism-
Collectivism, Information and Management (paper submitted).
vi
Chapter 1 Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. ii
Dedication ..........................................................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. v
Author’s Declaration ..........................................................................................................................vi
Publications associated with this thesis .............................................................................................vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. xiii
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................xiv
List of Appendix ..........................................................................................................................xiv
Chapter 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 16
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 16
1.1. Precursors and rationales of the research .......................................................................... 16
1.2. Aim of the research ........................................................................................................... 20
1.3. Objectives of the research ................................................................................................. 22
1.4. Research methodology ...................................................................................................... 23
1.5. Context of the study .......................................................................................................... 24
1.6. Organisation of the thesis .................................................................................................. 25
Chapter 2 ........................................................................................................................................... 28
Multitude theories of technology acceptance models and national culture ...................................... 28
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 28
2.1. Theories and models of technology acceptance behaviour: A historical perspective ....... 29
2.2. Diffusion of Innovation theory ......................................................................................... 30
2.3. Social Cognitive Theory ................................................................................................... 36
2.4. Theory of Reasoned Action .............................................................................................. 40
2.5. Theory of Planned Behaviour ........................................................................................... 44
2.6. Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour ..................................................................... 46
2.7. Technology Acceptance Model ........................................................................................ 49
2.8. Revised Technology Acceptance Model 2 ........................................................................ 55
2.9. Augmented version of the TAM ....................................................................................... 58
2.10. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology ................................................ 59
2.11. Comparison of models in the literature ......................................................................... 63
2.11.1. TAM vs. TPB ............................................................................................................ 64
2.11.2. TPB vs. DTPB .......................................................................................................... 67
2.11.3. TAM vs. TPB vs. DTPB ........................................................................................... 68
2.11.4. TPB vs. DTPB vs. TRA ............................................................................................ 70
2.11.5. TAM vs. TPB vs. TRA ............................................................................................. 71
vii
2.11.6. TAM2 vs. UTAUT and other models ....................................................................... 73
2.12. Cultural issues and IT acceptance ................................................................................. 84
2.12.1. Defining culture ........................................................................................................ 84
2.12.2. Layers of culture ....................................................................................................... 85
2.13. Cultural dimensions and Hofstede’s model .................................................................. 87
2.13.1. Power Distance ......................................................................................................... 89
2.13.2. Individualism and Collectivism ................................................................................ 90
2.13.3. PD vs. IC ................................................................................................................... 91
2.13.4. Masculinity\Femininity ............................................................................................. 91
2.13.5. MAS vs. IC, PD, Gender and Age ............................................................................ 92
2.13.6. Uncertainty Avoidance ............................................................................................. 93
2.13.7. UA vs. MAS .............................................................................................................. 94
2.13.8. Long-Term and Short-Term Orientation ................................................................... 94
2.14. Critiques of Hofstede’s cultural theory ......................................................................... 94
2.15. Hofstede’s cultural theory and IT acceptance ............................................................... 96
2.16. Modification and adoption of Hofstede’s dimensions in the present study .................. 99
2.17. Context of the study .................................................................................................... 100
2.17.1. Country profile ........................................................................................................ 101
2.17.2. Social and cultural characteristics of Pakistan ........................................................ 102
2.17.3. Internet usage in Pakistan and lower penetration rate ............................................. 103
2.17.4. Government IT policies and the higher educational system ................................... 106
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 109
Chapter 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 111
Conceptual framework .................................................................................................................... 111
3.1 Theoretical background....................................................................................................... 111
3.2 Direct relationships ............................................................................................................. 115
3.2.1. Behavioural beliefs ................................................................................................. 115
3.2.2. Normative beliefs .................................................................................................... 116
3.2.3. Control beliefs ......................................................................................................... 118
3.2.4. Task characteristics ................................................................................................. 121
3.2.5. Behavioural intention towards behaviour usage ..................................................... 123
3.2.6. Management support: institutional-level and governmental-level .......................... 123
3.3 Moderating impact .............................................................................................................. 125
3.4 Moderators: demographic variables .................................................................................... 126
3.4.1. Age .......................................................................................................................... 126
3.4.2. Gender and Masculinity-Femininity ....................................................................... 128
viii
3.5 Moderators: educational level, academic position and organisational type ........................ 133
3.5.1. Organisational type ................................................................................................. 133
3.5.2. Academic position................................................................................................... 135
3.5.3. Educational level ..................................................................................................... 136
3.6 Moderators: Situational variables ....................................................................................... 137
3.6.1. Experience usage..................................................................................................... 137
3.6.2. Voluntariness .......................................................................................................... 138
3.7 Moderators: cultural variables ............................................................................................ 140
3.7.1. Masculinity-Femininity ........................................................................................... 140
3.7.2. Individualism-Collectivism ..................................................................................... 141
3.7.3. Power Distance ....................................................................................................... 143
3.7.4. Uncertainty Avoidance ........................................................................................... 144
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 147
Chapter 4 ......................................................................................................................................... 148
Research methodology .................................................................................................................... 148
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 148
4.1. Understanding epistemological and ontological considerations ..................................... 148
4.1.1. Selection of positivism research approach .............................................................. 151
4.2. Research strategy: quantitative and qualitative ............................................................... 152
4.3. Selection of survey research strategy .............................................................................. 154
4.3.1. Review of methods previously applied in information system research ................. 154
4.3.2. Rationales for selecting surveys as the preferred research approach ...................... 156
4.4. Research design .............................................................................................................. 157
4.4.1. Decisions to finalise research design ...................................................................... 159
4.4.2. Purpose of the study: Hypothesis testing ................................................................ 159
4.4.3. Type of investigation: Correlational study .............................................................. 159
4.4.4. Extent of researcher interference with study: minimal extent ................................. 160
4.4.5. Study settings: Non-contrived ................................................................................. 160
4.4.6. Unit of analysis: Individuals ................................................................................... 160
4.4.7. Time horizon: Cross-sectional ................................................................................ 161
4.5. Population and sampling ................................................................................................. 161
4.5.1. Choice of sample ..................................................................................................... 162
4.5.2. Target population .................................................................................................... 162
4.5.3. Sampling frame ....................................................................................................... 163
4.5.4. Sample unit ............................................................................................................. 165
4.5.5. Sample size ............................................................................................................. 166
ix
4.6. Instrument development .................................................................................................. 169
4.6.1. Questionnaire content development and operational items..................................... 170
4.7. Scale used ........................................................................................................................ 179
4.8. Data collection procedure ............................................................................................... 179
4.9. Pilot study ....................................................................................................................... 181
4.10. Data analysis process .................................................................................................. 181
4.11. Ethical considerations ................................................................................................. 185
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 186
Chapter 5 ......................................................................................................................................... 187
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 187
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 187
5.1. Pilot Study ....................................................................................................................... 188
5.2. Main Survey Study ......................................................................................................... 191
5.2.1. Missing Data and Treatment ................................................................................... 191
5.2.2. Outliers Examination .............................................................................................. 193
5.2.3. Normality, Homoscedasticity and Non-Response Bias of data .............................. 195
5.2.3.1. Normality ............................................................................................................ 195
5.2.3.2. Homoscedasticity ................................................................................................ 199
5.2.3.3. Multicollinearity.................................................................................................. 200
5.2.3.4. Non- Response Biasness ..................................................................................... 203
5.3. Demographic details of the Respondents ........................................................................ 204
5.3.1. Background Information ......................................................................................... 204
5.3.2. Background of Internet usage experience ............................................................... 206
5.3.3. Impact of reforms initiated by Higher Education Commission of Pakistan............ 207
5.4. Reliability and Validity of the Instrument ...................................................................... 208
5.5. Factor Analysis ............................................................................................................... 211
5.5.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) ........................................................................ 212
5.5.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of Cultural Dimensions .................................. 221
5.6. Structural Evaluation of the Model ................................................................................. 224
5.6.1. Basic concepts of Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) ....................................... 224
5.6.1.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 224
5.6.1.2. Types of models in SEM ..................................................................................... 224
5.6.1.3. Practical consideration for SEM ......................................................................... 225
5.6.2. Rational for selecting SEM with PLS approach compared to CBSEM approach ... 226
5.6.3. Basic Model Evaluation .......................................................................................... 227
5.6.3.1. Step-one: Measurement Model Results .............................................................. 228
x