Construct · 6 names · 8 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · six names, one construct Nearest construct by meaningbehavioral intentioncompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to use behavior is behavioral intention.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The dependent variable of the unified model: what intention and facilitating conditions are there to predict. Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis measured it in 2003 as duration of use taken from system logs, so that the eight models they pooled could be compared against a behaviour rather than a self-report. UTAUT2 in 2012 switched to self-reported frequency across a list of mobile applications and added habit as a direct predictor. The name is neutral on purpose; it says nothing about what kind of use, how much, or for how long, and every other name on this map has been folded into it.[1][2]
The extent to which a person uses a personal computer, measured by Thompson, Higgins, and Howell in 1991 as three self-reports: minutes per day, frequency, and the number of software packages used. The model comes from Triandis rather than Fishbein and Ajzen, and it predicted use directly from job-fit, complexity, social factors, and long-term consequences, without an intention step. Utilization is the only name on this map that built breadth of use into the measure from the start; UTAUT kept the predictors and dropped the breadth.[3]
The decision to make full use of an innovation as the best course of action available, in Rogers's words, and the fifth stage of an innovation-decision process that runs from knowledge through persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. Adoption is a threshold rather than a quantity, and Rogers's real dependent variable is the rate of adoption across a social system, which produces the S-curve. When information systems researchers write "adoption" they usually mean a first use or a yes-or-no purchase, which is a different unit from the usage-duration that UTAUT logs.[4]
A user's decision to keep using an information system after having accepted it. Bhattacherjee argued in 2001 that acceptance models explain the first use and nothing after it, and borrowed expectation-confirmation theory from consumer research: confirmation of expectations drives satisfaction, satisfaction and post-use usefulness drive continuance intention. The paper measured continuance intention, not continuance, with three items on an online banking sample. Continuance is use behaviour with a time index, which is exactly what UTAUT's dependent variable lacks.[5]
One of six dimensions of information systems success, sitting between quality and impact. DeLone and McLean's 1992 review counted the ways researchers had already measured it: frequency, duration, number of functions used, voluntariness, and whether the system was used at all. Their 2003 update kept use, added intention to use as an alternative for mandatory settings, and insisted that use must be interpreted through its nature, extent, quality, and appropriateness rather than counted. Use here is a link in a chain to net benefits, not an endpoint, which is why the same measure means success in this model and the mere dependent variable in UTAUT.[6][7]
An individual user's employment of one or more features of a system to perform a task, in Burton-Jones and Straub's 2006 definition. Their point was that usage has three elements (user, system, task) and a measure can be lean (only the system, as in duration) or rich (all three, as in cognitive absorption while using specific features for a specific job). They showed that richer measures predicted task performance better than duration did. This is the only tradition on the map that treats the choice of usage measure as a theoretical decision rather than a matter of convenience.[8]
Next
Combine items across the use behavior scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct