Upadana or a condition of attachment in Buddhism has been widely acknowledged among Buddhists as the root cause of suffering because it underlies human intention and action toward a perceived phenomenon. This article investigates whether the condition of attachment in Buddhism could contribute as an external variable in the Technology Acceptance Model. Participants were 498 students from a university in Southern Thailand. They responded to a 21-item self-report questionnaire on the six variables (perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude toward use, intention to use, attachment, and actual usage) of a proposed Dhammic Technology Acceptance Model. Results using structural equation modeling revealed that the Dhammic Technology Acceptance Model has a good model fit and that attachment has direct and indirect effects on the actual use of Facebook among students. Implications for theory and further research are discussed.
AgarwalR. (2000) Individual acceptance of information technologies. In: ZmudR. W. (ed.) Framing the domains of IT management: Projecting the future through the past, Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Educational Resources, pp. 85–104.
2.
AinsworthM. D.BleharM. C.WatersE.WallS. (1978) Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation, New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3.
AndersonJ. C.GerbingD. W. (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin103: 411–423.
4.
BenbasatI.BarkiH. (2007) Quo vadis, TAM?Journal of the Association for Information Systems8: 211–218.
5.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
6.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 2: Separation. New York: Basic Books.
7.
BraceI. (2008) Questionnaire design: How to plan, structure and write survey material for effective market research, Philadelphia: Kogan Page.
8.
BradburnN. M.SudmanS.WansinkB. (2004) Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design for market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires, New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
9.
BrethertonI. (1992) The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Development Psychology28(7): 759–775.
10.
BrislinR. W.LonnerW. J.ThorndikeR. M. (1973) Cross cultural research methods, New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
CheungC. M. K.ChiuP. Y.LeeM. K. O. (2011) Online social networks: Why do students use Facebook?Computers in Human Behavior27: 1337–1343.
13.
CohenJ. (1992) A power primer. Psychological Bulletin112: 155–159.
14.
DavisF. D. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–340.
15.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R. (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science35(8): 982–1003.
16.
DhammanandaK. S. (2000) Why Buddhism, Kuala Lumpur: Buddhist Missionary Society Malaysia.
17.
DishawM. T.StrongD. M. (1999) Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information & Management36(1): 9–21.
18.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An Introduction to theory and research, Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.
19.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research48: 39–50.
GillhamB. (2000) Developing a questionnaire (real world research), London, England: Continuum.
22.
HairJ. F.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (2010) Multivariate data analysis, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
23.
HoelterD. R. (1983) The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods and Research11: 325–344.
24.
HoxJ. (1998) An introduction to structural equation modeling. Family Science Review11: 354–373.
25.
HoyleR. H. (2011) Structural equation modeling for social and personality psychology, New York, NY: Guilford Press.
26.
HoyleR. H. (2012) Introduction and overview. In: HoyleR. H. (ed.) Handbook of structural equation modeling, New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 3–16.
27.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling6(1): 1–55.
28.
HumphreysC. (1997) A popular dictionary of Buddhism, London, England: The Buddhist Society.
29.
JarupunpholP.ThomborsonC. (2013) The Dhammic framework for understanding the cause of system project failures from Buddhist insights. Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics and Cognitive Computing, ICCI*CC 2013, July 16–18, Fordham University, New York: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 387–396.
30.
KeownD. (2004) A dictionary of Buddhism, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
31.
KlineR. B. (2011) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 3rd ed. London, England: Guilford Press.
32.
Limayem, M, Hirt, S. G., & Chin, W. G. (2001, June). Intention does not always matter: The contingency role of habit on IT usage behavior. Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2001) (pp. 274–286). Bled, Slovenia: Association for Information Systems.
33.
Liu, B., & Karahanna, E. (2007). Emotional attachment to its brand and technology acceptance. Proceedings of the 2007 Southern Association for Information Systems Conference, SAIS 2007. Paper 2. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/sais2007/2.
34.
Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D. F. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model for social influence: Theoretical bases and empirical validation. Proceedings of the 32th ICSS.
35.
MardiaK. V. (1970) Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika57: 519–530.
36.
McKenzie, J. (2001). How teachers learn technology best. From now on. The Educational Technology Journal, 10(6). Retrieved from http://www.fno.org/mar01/howlearn.html.
37.
MoonJ. W.KimY. G. (2001) Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Information and Management38(4): 217–230.
38.
ParkJ. (2010) Differences among university students and faculties in social networking site perception and use. Electronic Library28(3): 417–431.
39.
ParkC. W.MacInnisD. J.PriesterJ.EisingerichA. B.IacobucciD. (2010) Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing74: 1–17.
40.
Rawstorne, P., Jayasuriya, R., & Caputi, P. (1998, December). An integrative model of information systems use in mandatory environments. Proceedings of International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 325–330). Brisbane, Australia: Association for Information Systems.
41.
RaykovT.MarcoulidesG. A. (2008) An introduction to applied multivariate analysis, New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
42.
ReadW.RobertsonN.McQuilkenL. (2011) A novel romance: The technology acceptance model with emotional attachment. Australasian Marketing Journal19: 223–229.
43.
RogersE. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York, NY: Free Press.
44.
SchumackerR. E.LomaxR. G. (2010) A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling, New York, NY: Routledge.
45.
SwansonE. B. (1988) Information system implementation: Bridging the gap between design and utilization, Homewood, IL: Irwin.
46.
TeoT. (2009a) The impact of subjective norm and facilitating conditions on pre-service teachers’ attitude towards computer use: A structural equation modeling of an extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Journal of Educational Computing Research40(1): 89–109.
47.
TeoT. (2009b) Is there an attitude problem? Re-considering the role of attitude in the TAM. British Journal of Educational Technology40(6): 1139–1141.
48.
TeoT. (2010) Using structural equation modeling (SEM) in educational technology research: Issues and guidelines. British Journal of Educational Technology41(6): E117–E119.
49.
TeoT. (2011) Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education57: 2432–2440.
50.
TeoT. (2012) Examining the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: An integration of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Interactive Learning Environments20(1): 3–18.
51.
TeoT. (2013) An initial development and validation of a Digital Natives Assessment Scale (DNAS). Computers and Education67: 51–57.
52.
TeoT.FanX. (2013) Coefficient Alpha and beyond: Issues and alternatives for educational research. The Asia-Pacific Education Research22(2): 209–213.
53.
TeoT.UrsavasO. F.BahcekapiliE. (2012) An assessment of pre-service teachers’ technology acceptance in Turkey: A structural equation modeling approach. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher21(1): 191–202.
54.
TeoT.van SchaikP. (2012) Understanding the intention to use technology by pre-service teachers: An empirical test of competing theoretical models. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction28: 1–11.
55.
ThomsonM.MacInnisD. J.ParkC. W. (2005) The ties that bind: Measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology15(1): 77–91.
56.
TurnerM.KitchenhamB.BreretonP.ChartersS.BudgenD. (2010) Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology52(5): 463–479.
57.
VenkateshV.DavisF. D. (2000) A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field. Management Science46(2): 186–204.
58.
WangW.ButlerJ. E. (2007) Effects of adoption determinants in voluntary contexts on IS mandated usage. Journal of Information Science and Technology3(3): 5–23.
59.
WhyteW. F.BraunR. R. (1968) On language and culture. In: BeckerH. S.GeerB.RiesmanD.WeissR. (eds) Institutions and the person (pp. 119--138). Papers presented to Everett C. Hughes, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
60.
WongK. T.TeoT.RussoS. (2013) Interactive whiteboard acceptance: Applicability of the UTAUT Model among student teachers. The Asia Pacific Education Researcher22(1): 1–10.
