Nship between UTAUT determinants (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and

Nship between UTAUT determinants (HIV-1 integrase inhibitor 2 web performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions) and actual use behavior. We asked participants “have you ever used a tablet” which they answered yes or no. In brief, people who reported that they use tablets had significantly higher means for all determinants than people who report that they do not use tablets, see Table 2.Comput Human Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.Magsamen-Conrad et al.PageWe conducted one-way ANOVAs and a MANCOVA to address hypotheses about whether generational differences existed in individuals’ intentions regarding tablet use and adoption. There is some discrepancy among scholars concerning the temporal order of behavior (e.g., actual/current tablet use) and attitudes (e.g., UTAUT variables and intention to use tablets), that is the question of if use creates attitudes or if attitudes are predictive of use. EnzastaurinMedChemExpress LY317615 Though our strategy to try to tease apart this concern statistically, we examined the results of both a series of ANOVAs that do not control for use and a MANCOVA with actual use as a covariate. Our concern with conducting only a MANCOVA was grounded in the knowledge that because of the temporal order assumption of the test, the analysis model would assume that the behavior (tablet use) changes or precedes the attitude (intention to use the tablet), which we feel may contradict the theoretical framework. For performance expectancy, ANOVA results indicated a significant mean difference, F(3, 824)=12.41, p>.001, across the four generations. GenX reported the highest level of performance expectancy (M=3.75, SD=1.05), followed by GenY (M=3.67, SD=1.01), Boomers (M=3.46, SD=1.06), and Builders (M=2.96, SD=1.23). GenX reported a higher level of performance expectancy than GenY. Only Builders were significantly different from all other generational groups. Thus, H1 was supported (see Table 3 for details). For effort expectancy, ANOVA results also indicated a significant mean difference, F(3, 821)=55.75, p>.001, across the four generations. GenY reported the highest level of effort expectancy (M=4.11, SD=.82), followed by GenX (M=3.97, SD=.96), Boomers (M=3.60, SD=1.03), and Builders (M=2.61, SD=1.17), recalling that effort expectancy is coded such that a higher number indicates perceptions that less effort will be required to use a tablet. There were significant differences between all generations except between GenX and GenY. Thus, H2 was supported (see Table 3 for details). For social influence, ANOVA results indicated a significant mean difference, F(3, 822)=5.52, p=.000, across the four generations. GenY reported the highest level of social influence (M=3.41, SD=.85), followed by GenX (M=3.40, SD=.92), Boomers (M=3.30, SD=.83), and Builders (M=3.00, SD=1.05). Builders are different from all the other groups, however, Boomers are different from Builders only. Thus, H3 was supported (see Table 3 for details). For facilitating conditions, ANOVA results also indicated a significant mean difference, F(3, 818)=23.58, p=.000, across the four generations. GenX reported the highest level of facilitating conditions (M=4.00, SD=.80), followed by GenY (M=3.95, SD=.77), Boomers (M=3.70, SD=.83), and Builders (M=3.10, SD=1.12). Generation X and Boomers perceptions were not significantly different, however, GenY was different from older generations including Builders and Boomers. Thus, H4 was supported (see Table 3 for details.Nship between UTAUT determinants (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions) and actual use behavior. We asked participants “have you ever used a tablet” which they answered yes or no. In brief, people who reported that they use tablets had significantly higher means for all determinants than people who report that they do not use tablets, see Table 2.Comput Human Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.Magsamen-Conrad et al.PageWe conducted one-way ANOVAs and a MANCOVA to address hypotheses about whether generational differences existed in individuals’ intentions regarding tablet use and adoption. There is some discrepancy among scholars concerning the temporal order of behavior (e.g., actual/current tablet use) and attitudes (e.g., UTAUT variables and intention to use tablets), that is the question of if use creates attitudes or if attitudes are predictive of use. Though our strategy to try to tease apart this concern statistically, we examined the results of both a series of ANOVAs that do not control for use and a MANCOVA with actual use as a covariate. Our concern with conducting only a MANCOVA was grounded in the knowledge that because of the temporal order assumption of the test, the analysis model would assume that the behavior (tablet use) changes or precedes the attitude (intention to use the tablet), which we feel may contradict the theoretical framework. For performance expectancy, ANOVA results indicated a significant mean difference, F(3, 824)=12.41, p>.001, across the four generations. GenX reported the highest level of performance expectancy (M=3.75, SD=1.05), followed by GenY (M=3.67, SD=1.01), Boomers (M=3.46, SD=1.06), and Builders (M=2.96, SD=1.23). GenX reported a higher level of performance expectancy than GenY. Only Builders were significantly different from all other generational groups. Thus, H1 was supported (see Table 3 for details). For effort expectancy, ANOVA results also indicated a significant mean difference, F(3, 821)=55.75, p>.001, across the four generations. GenY reported the highest level of effort expectancy (M=4.11, SD=.82), followed by GenX (M=3.97, SD=.96), Boomers (M=3.60, SD=1.03), and Builders (M=2.61, SD=1.17), recalling that effort expectancy is coded such that a higher number indicates perceptions that less effort will be required to use a tablet. There were significant differences between all generations except between GenX and GenY. Thus, H2 was supported (see Table 3 for details). For social influence, ANOVA results indicated a significant mean difference, F(3, 822)=5.52, p=.000, across the four generations. GenY reported the highest level of social influence (M=3.41, SD=.85), followed by GenX (M=3.40, SD=.92), Boomers (M=3.30, SD=.83), and Builders (M=3.00, SD=1.05). Builders are different from all the other groups, however, Boomers are different from Builders only. Thus, H3 was supported (see Table 3 for details). For facilitating conditions, ANOVA results also indicated a significant mean difference, F(3, 818)=23.58, p=.000, across the four generations. GenX reported the highest level of facilitating conditions (M=4.00, SD=.80), followed by GenY (M=3.95, SD=.77), Boomers (M=3.70, SD=.83), and Builders (M=3.10, SD=1.12). Generation X and Boomers perceptions were not significantly different, however, GenY was different from older generations including Builders and Boomers. Thus, H4 was supported (see Table 3 for details.

Leave a Reply