The purpose of this study is to analyse the factors that have an impact on technology adoption for e-books utilizing the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Multiple Regression Analysis methods. Findings indicate that perceived usefulness and ease of use are the most significant determinants in using e-books. Of key significance is that Analytic Hierarchy Process results show that consumers make pairwise comparisons, adding environmental concerns to the selection process. Recognizing the importance of all these factors is valuable to e-book developers and marketers in presenting products that meet all consumer choice criteria. The Analytic Hierarchy Process provides researchers with a more thorough decision-making analysis.
AgarwalRPrasadJ (1997) The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences28(3): 557–582.
2.
AharonyN (2014) The effect of personal and situational factors on LIS students’ and professionals’ intentions to use e-books. Library and Information Science Research36(2): 106–113.
3.
AharonyN (2015) Factors affecting the adoption of e-books by information professionals. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science47(2): 131–144.
4.
AhnJLeeDParkJ (2001) Risk-focused e-commerce adoption model: A cross-country study. Working Paper, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota.
5.
Al-AdwanAAl-AdwanASmedleyJ (2013) Exploring students’ acceptance of e-learning using Technology Acceptance Model in Jordanian universities. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT)9(2): 4–18.
6.
Al-SuqriMN (2014) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and faculty acceptance of electronic books: An empirical investigation of Sultan Qaboos University, Oman. Library Review63(4/5): 276–294.
7.
AntilJH (1984) Socially responsible consumers: Profile and implications for public policy. Journal of Macromarketing4(2): 18–39.
8.
AntonCCamareroCRodriguezJ (2013) Usefulness, enjoyment and self-image congruence: The adoption of e-book readers. Psychology and Marketing30(4): 372–384.
9.
AntonACamareroCRodriguezJ (2017) Pleasure in the use of new technologies: The case of e-book readers. Online Information Review41(2): 219–234.
10.
AshcroftL (2011) Ebooks in libraries: An overview of the current situation. Library Management32(6/7): 398–407.
11.
AuYAKauffmanRJ (2003) What do you know? Rational expectations in information technology adoption and investment. Journal of Management Information Systems20: 49–76.
12.
BanduraA (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist37(2): 122–147.
13.
BansalG (2011) E-book usage: Role of environmental consciousness, personality and past usage. Journal of Computer Information Systems52(2): 93–104.
14.
BergstromAHoglundiL (2014) A national survey of early adopters of e-book reading in Sweden. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal19(2).
15.
BrownR (2011) Student acceptance and use of e-reader technology and e-books as an alternative to textbooks. Allied Academies International Conference: Proceedings of the Academy of Educational Leadership (AEL)16(2): 5–9.
16.
BrownR (2012) Preliminary findings from a survey of student acceptance and use of e-textbooks in higher education. Allied Academies International Conference: Proceedings of the Academy of Educational Leadership (AEL)17(2): 1–5.
17.
ChangCYanCTsengJ (2012) Perceived convenience in an extended Technology Acceptance Model: Mobile technology and English learning for college students. Australian Journal of Educational Technology28(5): 809–826.
18.
ChenSYenDCPengS (2018) Assessing the impact of determinants in e-magazines acceptance: An empirical studyComputer Standards and Interfaces57: 49–58.
19.
ChiangHChia-ChenC (2014) Exploring switch intention of users’ reading behaviour: An e-book reader case study. Electronic Library32(4): 434–457.
20.
ChutturMY (2009) Overview of the Technology Acceptance Model: Origins, developments and future directions. Indiana University, USA. Sprous: Working Papers on Information Systems9(37): 1–20.
21.
ClaudiaIAlexandraPIonutMO (2012) The influence of perceived risk on consumers’ intention to buy online: A meta-analysis of empirical results. Information Systems and Operations Management6(1): 162–174.
22.
ConstantinidesE (2004) Influencing the online consumer’s behavior: The Web experience. Internet Research14(2): 111–126.
23.
DavisFD (1985) A Technology Acceptance Model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.
24.
DavisFD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–340.
25.
DavisFDBagozziRPWarshawPR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science35(8): 982–1003.
26.
DoaneDPSewardLE (2011) Applied Statistics in Business and Economics. 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
27.
El-MasriMTarhiniA (2017) Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning systems in Qatar and USA: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2). Educational Technology Research and Development65(3): 743–763.
28.
EngemannKJMillerHE (2015) Risk strategy and attitudinal sensitivityCybernetics and Systems: An International Journal46(3/4): 188–206.
29.
FishbeinMAjzenI (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
30.
GefenDStraubDW (2000) The relative importance of perceived ease of use in IS adoption: A study of e-commerce adoption. Journal of Association for Information Systems1(1): 1–8.
31.
GoepelKD (2016) Business Performance Management (BPMSG) AHP priority calculator. Available at: http://bpmsg.com/academic/ahp_calc.php (accessed 28 December 2018).
32.
GuoYBarnesS (2011) Purchase behavior in virtual worlds: An empirical investigation in second life. Information and Management48(7): 303–312.
33.
HairJFJrBlackWCBabinBJ, et al. (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th edn. Harlow: Pearson.
34.
HanineMBoutkhoumOTikniouineA, et al. (2016) Application of an integrated multi-criteria decision making AHP-TOPSIS methodology for ETL software selection. SpringerPlus5(263): 1–17.
35.
HiraokaC (2009) Technology Acceptance of Connected Services in the Automotive Industry. Wiesbaden: Springer Science and Business Media.
36.
HoHLuMLinP (2013) The diverse perceived qualities and perceived values on APP E-Book and APP E-Magazine. Pakistan Journal of Statistics29(6): 1029–1048.
37.
HsiaoCTangK (2014) Explaining undergraduates’ behavior intention of e-textbook adoption: Empirical assessment of five theoretical models. Library Hi Tech32(1): 139–163.
38.
HsiaoK (2013) Android smartphone adoption and intention to pay for mobile Internet perspectives from software, hardware, design and value. Library Hi Tech31(2): 216–235.
39.
HuangLHsiehY (2012) Consumer electronics acceptance based on innovation attributes and switching costs: The case of e-book readers. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications11(3): 218–228.
40.
HwangC (2014) Consumers’ acceptance of wearable technology: Examining solar-powered clothing. Graduate Thesis, Iowa State University, USA. Available at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/13950/ (accessed 14 October 2019).
41.
IttersumKVRogersWACaparM, et al. (2006) Understanding Technology Acceptance: Phase 1 – Literature Review and Qualitative Model Development. Technical Report HFA-TR-0602. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology of Human Factors and Aging Laboratory.
42.
JinC (2014) Adoption of e-book among college students: The perspective of an integrated TAM. Computers in Human Behavior41: 471–477.
43.
JungJChan-OlmstedSParkB, et al. (2012) Factors affecting e-book reader awareness, interest and intention to use. New Media and Society14(2): 204-224.
44.
Khosrow-PourM (ed.) (2004) Innovations Through Information Technology: 2004 Information Resources Management Association International Conference, New Orleans, LA, 23–26May2004. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
45.
KingWHeJ (2006) A meta-analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model. Information and Management43: 740–755.
46.
KoulSEydgahiA (2017) A systematic review of technology adoption frameworks and their applications. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation12(4): 106–112.
47.
LaiJChangC (2011) User attitudes toward dedicated e-book readers for reading. Online Information Review35(4): 558–580.
48.
LaiJUlhasK (2012) Understanding acceptance of dedicated e-textbook applications for learning: Involving Taiwanese University students. Electronic Library30(3): 321–338.
49.
LalaG (2014) The emergence and development of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Marketing from Information to Decision7(1): 149–160.
50.
LeeS (2013) An integrated adoption model for e-books in a mobile environment: Evidence from South Korea. Telematics and Informatics30(2): 165–176.
51.
LegrisPInghamJColleretteP (2003) Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the Technology Acceptance Model. Information and Management40: 191–204.
52.
LetchumananMTarmiziR (2011) Assessing the intention to use e-book among engineering undergraduates in University Putra Malaysia. Library Hi Tech29(3): 512–528.
53.
LiCLiSChenS (2011) Recent related research in Technology Acceptance Model: A literature review. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research1(9): 124–127.
54.
LinCTzengGChinY, et al. (2010) Recommendation sources on the intention to use e-books in academic digital libraries. The Electronic Library28(6): 844–857.
55.
LiuSLiaoHPengC (2005) Applying the Technology Acceptance Model and Flow Theory to online e-learning. Issues in Information SystemsVI (2): 175–181.
56.
LiuXWeiKK (2003) An empirical study of product differences in consumers’ e-commerce adoption behavior. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications2(3): 229–239.
57.
MadukuDK (2017) Understanding e-book continuance intention: Empirical evidence from e-book users in a developing country. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking20(1): 30–36.
58.
MoffettASarkarS (2006) Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks: A minireview with recommendations. Diversity and Distributions12(2): 125–137.
59.
MulhollandEBatesJ (2014) Use and perceptions of e-books by academic staff in further education. Journal of Academic Librarianship40(5): 492–499.
60.
OlusholaTAbiolaJO (2017) The efficacy of Technology Acceptance Model: A review of applicable theoretical models in information technology researches. Quest Journals: Journal of Research in Business and Management4(1): 2347–3002.
61.
OzS (2011a) Dynamic assessment of coastal vulnerability and adaptation to sea level rise: An integrated spatial-temporal decision making approach. PhD Thesis, Griffith University, Australia.
62.
OzS (2011b) Questionnaire Survey Vulnerability Assessment of Gold Coast Waterfront Properties to Climate Change: A Dynamic Model for Adaptation Policy Analysis. Queensland: School of Engineering of Griffith University, pp. 1–9.
63.
ParkS (2009) An analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in understanding university students’ behavioural intention to use e-learning. Education Technology and Society12(3): 150–162.
64.
PavlouPA (2003) Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce7(3): 101–134.
65.
PhanKDaimT (2011) Exploring Technology Acceptance for mobile services. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management4(2): 339–360.
66.
PoonJKK (2014) Empirical analysis of factors affecting the e-book adoption – Research agenda. Open Journal of Social Sciences2: 51–55.
67.
PorterECDonthuN (2006) Using the Technology Acceptance Model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics. Journal of Business Research59: 999–1007.
68.
RobeyD (1979) User attitudes and management information system use. Academy of Management Journal22 (3): 527–538.
SchultzRLSlevinDP (1975) Implementation and Organizational Validity: An Empirical Investigation in Implementing Operations Research Management Science. New York: American Elsevier, pp. 153–182.
77.
SeetBGohT (2012) Exploring the affordance and acceptance of an e-reader device as a collaborative learning system. The Electronic Library30(4): 516–542.
78.
ShahroodiKKeramatpanahAAminiS, et al. (2012) Application of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique to evaluate and selecting suppliers in an effective supply chain. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review1(8): 1–14.
79.
SmedaAMShiratuddinMFWongKW (2017) Measuring the moderating influence of gender on the acceptance of e-book amongst mathematics and statistics students at universities in Libya. Knowledge Management and E-Learning9(2): 177–199.
80.
SzajnaB (1996) Empirical evaluation of the revised Technology Acceptance Model. Management Science42(1): 85–92.
81.
TabachnickBGFidellLS (2001) Using Multivariate Statistics. 4th edn. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
82.
TengWChengY (2016) Towards an understanding of low consumer acceptance of an e-book reader in Taiwan. International Journal of Mobile Communications (IJMC)14(2): 149–169.
83.
TeoTLeeBChaiS (2008) Understanding pre-service teachers’ computer attitudes: Applying and extending the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Journal of Computer Assisted Learning24(2): 128–143.
84.
TorresRJohnsonVImhondeB (2014) The impact of content type and availability on e-book reader adoption. Journal of Computer Information Systems54(4): 42–51.
85.
TsaiBYenJ (2014) The influence of self-efficacies on readers’ intention to use e-reading devices: An empirical study. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies12(3): 41–61.
86.
VaidyaOSKumarS (2006) Analytic Hierarchy Process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research169: 1–29.
87.
VenkateshV (2002) User acceptance enablers in individual decision making about technology: Toward an integrated model. Decision Sciences33(2): 297–316.
88.
VenkateshVMorrisMDavisG, et al. (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27(3): 425–478.
89.
WilliamsMDSladeELDwivediYK (2014) Consumers’ intentions to use e-readers. Journal of Computer Information Systems54(2): 66–76.
90.
WuJWangS (2005) What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised Technology Acceptance Model. Information and Management42: 719–729.
