4.7 Article

The impact of perceived ease of use on Internet service adoption: The moderating effects of temporal distance and perceived risk

期刊

COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 42-50

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.07.003

关键词

Internet consumer behavior; Perceived case of use; Perceived risk; Temporal distance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Perceived ease of use is found to affect consumer's intention toward using an Internet-based service. However, to protect online transaction security, more security verification mechanisms are established which in turn increase the complexity and difficulty of using online services. This study proposed that the importance of perceived ease of use is depending on short- vs. long-term transaction expectation, product type, and whether security concern information is presented. In certain situations buyers or sellers of an Internet service may tolerate the inconvenience of using the Intemet-based service. A 2 (verification requirement) x 2 (network externality) x 2 (short vs. long term) between-subject design was conducted on sellers of an auction site and a 2 (verification requirement) x 2 (product type) x 2 (with vs. without security concern information) between-subject design was conducted on buyers of an auction site. The results of two studies suggest that perceived ease of use increases the intention toward using online service when sellers expect that the Internet service usage is only for a short-term transaction or when buyers have no access of the security concern information on the website. In contrast, sellers prefer using an online service which requires a relatively high verification requirement when the purpose of using Internet service is for long-term transaction or when buyers have access of security concern information. The results also showed that perceived network externality positively affect sellers' intention toward using an auction website. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据