Models and Theories in Human-Computer Interaction/TAM proponent of perceived intention but not behavioral intention

As per the TAM’s model, user’s intention towards the adaption of a technology is channeled by the following two attributes: perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEU). Also, the model provides a base that would allow prediction of the use of future technologies. The IS community do find that the TAM to be a powerful model but the application benefits are minimized by limitations.

TAM’s limitations:

Perceived utility and perceived ease of an application may not necessarily determine the adoption of new technologies by a user. According to Straub (1995), perceived use can influence morale, disposition and ultimately performance but the relationship is not as straightforward as the basic TAM model implies. The influence (social influences and cognitive instrumental process) can skew the perceived intention of use. Hence, PU and PEU are not reliable indicators as to the behavioral intention of usage. Behavioral intention can change the actual usage of a technology. For example, a user is interested in the process of adopting a running app (smartphone) as a fitness regimen. The app meets user’s perceived utility and perceived ease of use by providing enhanced user-interface with advanced features. While, PU and PEU forces perceived intention – it is actually the user’s behavioral intention (the motivation or aspiration to run) that may decided the actual intention. Hence, it can be determined that perceived utility and perceived ease of use may not fully explain behavioral intentions towards the use of a technology.

Sources:

V. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis, F.D. Davis, User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view, MIS Quart., 27 (3) (2003), pp. 425–478 Straub, D., Limayem, M., and Karahanna-Evaristo, E. Measuring system usage – implications for IS theory testing, Management Sci- ence 41(8), (1995) 1328–1342.