Sport Management Studies

Applying Technology Acceptance Model in Using Sports Team Applications

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 university of kurdistan

2 University of Kurdistan

Abstract
Smartphones allow users to install many applications and use them as needed. The sports teams quickly adopted the technology of sports apps and prepared it to give fans of their teams. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to use the technology acceptance model in using sports team applications. The statistical population of the study was all physical education students of different levels of Kurdistan University (N=n=320). The standard questionnaire (consumer innovativeness, eas of use, perceived usefulness, perceived enjoenment, perceived trust, intention to use and sport team apps use) was used with a total of 27 questions in a 5-point Likert scale. For evaluating the formal validity (experts' opinions), content validity of the carcass model (0.85) and reliability of Cronbach's alpha, were used. The structural equation model was used to analyze the data. The findings show that the beliefs (easy to use 0.31, perceived usefulness 0.88, perceived enjoenment 0.95, perceived trust 0.89) have direct effect. Also easy to use, perceived usefulness, perceived enjoinment and trust, respectively, 57.21, 0.12 and 0.32, have a direct impact on the decision to use sports team apps. In general, it can be said that invention custom has the most significant effect on the actual use of users of sports team apps. Therefore, it's best for sports app directors to use realistic sports apps.

Keywords

Main Subjects

  1. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9(9), 204-215.
  2. Atkinson, M., & Kydd, C. (1997). Individual characteristics associated with World Wide Web use: an empirical study of playfulness and motivation. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 28(2), 53-62.
  3. Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F., & Urban, G. L. (2005). Are the drivers and role of online trust the same for all web sites and consumers? A large-scale exploratory empirical study. Journal of Marketing, 4, 133-152.
  4. Belanger, F., Hiller, J., & Smith, W. (2002). Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: The role of privacy, security, and site attributes. Journal of Strategic Information Systems,11, 245-270.
  5. Burke, R. R. (2002). Technology and customer interface: What consumers want in physical and virtual store. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4), 411-432.
  6. Byun, H., Chiu, W., & Bae, J. S. (2018). Exploring the adoption of sports brand apps: An application of the modified technology acceptance model. International Journal of Asian Business and Information Management (IJABIM), 9(1), 52-65.
  7. Chao, C., Reid, M., & Mavondo, F. T. (2012). Consumer innovativeness influence on really new product adoption. Australasian Marketing Journal, 20(3), 211-217.
  8. Chesney, T. (2006). An acceptance model for useful and fun information systems. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 2(2), 225-235.
  9. Citrin, A. V., Sprott, D. E., Silverman, S. N., & Stem, D. E. (2000). Adoption of Internet shopping: The role of consumer innovativeness. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 100, 294-300.
  10. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
  11. Dodds, W., Monroe, K., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307-319.
  12. Eastlick, M. A., Lotz, S. L., & Warrington, P. (2006). Understanding online B-to-C relationships: An integrated model of privacy concerns, trust and commitment. Journal of Business Research, 59(8), 877-886.
  13. Flanagin, A., & Metzger, M. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary media environment. Human Communication Research, 27(1), 153-181.
  14. Foxall, G. R., & Bhate, S. (1992) Cognitive style and personal involvement as explicators of innovative purchasing of "Healthy" food brands. European Journal of Marketing, 27, 5-16.
  15. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly 27(1), 51-90.
  16. Goldsmith, R. E., & Foxall, G. R. (2003). The measurement of Innovativeness. In L. V. Shavinina (Eds.), The International handbook on innovation (pp. 321–330). Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
  17. Goldsmith, R. E., Freiden, J. B., & Eastman, J. K. (1995). The generality/specificity issue in consumer innovativeness research. Technovation, 15, 601-612.
  18. Ha, I., Yoon, Y., & Choi, M. (2007). Determinants of adoption of mobile games under mobile broadband wireless access environment. Information and Management, 44(3), 276-286.
  19. Ha, J. P., Kang, S. J., & Ha, J. (2015). A conceptual framework for the adoption of smartphones in a sports context. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 16(3), 2-19.
  20. Hung, S. Y., Ku, C. Y., & Chang, C. M. (2003). Critical factors of WAP services adoption: An empirical study. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 2(1), 46–60.
  21. Hur, Y., Ko, Y. J., & Claussen, C. (2011). Acceptance of sport-related websites: A conceptual model. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 12(3), 209-224.
  22. Hur, Y., Ko, Y. J., & Claussen, C. (2012). Determinants of using sports web portals: An empirical examination of the sport website acceptance model. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 13(3), 169-188.
  23. Ibrahim, H. (2013). Technology acceptance model: Extension to sport consumption. Annals of DAAAM & Proceedings, 24(1), 1534-1540.
  24. Im, S., Bayus, B. L., & Mason C. H. (2003). An empirical study of innate consumer innovativeness, personal characteristics, and new-product adoption behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31, 61-73.

 

  1. Im, S., Mason, C. H., & Houston, M. B. (2007). Does innate consumer innovativeness related to new product/service adoption behavior? The intervening role of social learning via vicarious innovativeness. Journal of Academy Marketing Science, 35, 63-75.
  2. Jung, J., Chan-Olmsted, S. M., & Kim, Y. (2013). From access to utilization: Factors affecting smartphone application use and its impacts on social and human capital acquisition in South Korea. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 90(4), 715-735.
  3. Kang, S. J., Ha, J. P., & Hambrick, M. E. (2015). A mixed-method approach to exploring the motives of sport-related mobile applications among college students. Journal of Sport Management, 29(3), 272-290.
  4. Kim, W., Benedetto, A. C., & Hunt, J. M. (2012). Consumer innovativeness and consideration set as antecedents of the consumer decision process for highly globalized new products: A three-country empirical study. Journal of Global Scholars and Marketing Science, 22(1), 1-23.
  5. Kim, Y., Kim, S., & Rogol, E. (2017). The effects of consumer innovativeness on sport team applications acceptance and usage. Journal of Sport Management, 31(3), 241-255.
  6. Kline, P. (2014). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.
  7. Ko, E., Sung, H., & Yoon, H. (2008). The effect of attributes of innovation and perceived risk on product attitudes and intention to adopt smart wear. Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science, 18(2), 1-23.
  8. Koufaris, M., & Hampton-Soa, W. (2004). The development of initial trust in an online company by new customers. Information & Management, 41(3), 377-397.
  9. Lassar, W. M., Manolis, C., & Lassar, S. S. (2005). The relationship between consumer innovativeness, personal characteristics, and online banking adoption. Journal of Bank Marketing, 23, 176-199.
  10. Lee, H., Kim, T., & Choi, J. (2012). The effect of Facebook users’ arousal and valence onintention to go to the festival: Applying an extension of the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 819-827.
  11. Lee, Y. H., Hsieh, Y. C., & Hsu, C. N. (2011). Adding innovation diffusion theory to the technology acceptance model: Supporting employees' intentions to use e-learning systems. Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 124–137.
  12. Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Colerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 40, 191-204.
  13. Lin, C. A., & Jeffres, L. W. (1998). Factors influencing the adoption of multimedia cable technology. Journal and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(2), 341–352.
  14. Lu, J., Yao, J. E., & Yua, C. S. (2005). Personal innovativeness, social influences and adoption of wireless Internet services via mobile technology. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 245–268.
  15. Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The concept and its measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 229-242.
  16. Mohammadi, S., & Isanejad, O. (2018). Presentation of the extended technology acceptance model in sports organizations. Annals of Applied Sport Science, 6(1), 75-86.
  17. Mohammadi, S., & Abyar, A. (2019). Providing sport website quality modeling with E-Loyalty in physical education students: mediating role of E-satisfaction and flow theory. Sport Management Studies, (11(55, 209-230. (in Persian).
  18. Mohammadi, S., & Ghaedi, A. (2020). Presentation of effective factors on the decisions to use smartphones in the field of exercise: applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory. Sport Management Studies, (12(60, 17-40. (in Persian).
  19. Moon, J., & Kim, Y. (2001) Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Information & Management, 38, 217-230.
  20. Nayebi, F., Desharnis, J., & Abran, A. (May, 2012). The state-of-the-art mobile application usability evaluation. Paper presented at the Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering.
  21. Porter, C. E., & Donthu, N. (2006). Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics. Journal of Business Research, 59, 999-1007.
  22. Roach, G. (2009). Consumer perceptions of mobile phone marketing: A direct marketing innovation. Direct Marketing: An International Journal, 3(2), 124-138.
  23. J. (2006). Moving beyond adoption: Exploring the determinants of student intention to use technology. Marketing Education Review, 16(2), 79–88.
  24. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th). New York, NY: The Free Press.
  25. Rose, J., & Fogarty, G. (2006). Determinants of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in the Technology Acceptance Model: Senior consumers’ adoption of self-service banking technologies. Academy of World Business, Marketing & Management Development, 2(10), 122-129.
  26. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
  27. Van der Heijden, H. (2003). Factors influencing the usage of websites: The case of a generic portal in The Netherlands. Information & Management, 40(6), 541-549.
  28. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
  29. Yang, K. C. (2005). Exploring factors affecting the adoption of mobile commerce in Singapore. Telematics and Informatics, 22(3), 257–277.
  30. Zhang, D., & Adipat, B. (2005). Challenges, methodologies, and issues in the usability testing of mobile applications. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 18(3), 293-308.
Sport Management Studies
Volume 14, Issue 72 - Serial Number 72
May and June 2022
Pages 239-266

  • Receive Date 09 June 2019
  • Revise Date 05 September 2019
  • Accept Date 23 September 2019

Home

Publication Ethics

Submit Manuscript

News

Journal Metrics

Contact Us