Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 75–84

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Discovering determinants of users perception of mobile device

functionality fit
Arash Negahban a,⇑, Chih-Hung Chung b
a
College of Business, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311160, Denton, TX 76203, USA
b
College of Information, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311068, Denton, TX 76203, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In recent years, there has been an explosive growth in the use of mobile devices. The ubiquitous and mul-
Available online 18 March 2014 tifunctional nature of these devices with internet connectivity and personalization features make them a
unique context to investigate what factors shape mobile users perception of their mobile device function-
Keywords: ality fit with their needs. In order to answer this question, we proposed a research model in which we
Perceived mobile device-functionality fit introduced multifunctional use and perceived device-functionality fit as two new constructs. The results
Multifunctional use of our study show that a significant portion of individuals’ perceived device-functionality fit can be
Multifunctionality
explained by their perceived enjoyment, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and symbolic value
Mobile device
Smartphones
of the device. In terms of the theoretical contribution, our research suggests revamping the concept of
device-functionality fit when it comes to mobile devices by accounting for both hedonic and utilitarian
aspects of mobile devices. In terms of practical implications, our study highlights the importance of
the social image that mobile devices create in the society for their users as well as the importance of
look-and-feel aspects of mobile devices in shaping users perception of fit between functionalities of their
mobile devices and their needs.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Today, mobile phone is an essential device in our daily lives. The
propagation of mobile devices along with omnipresent internet ac-
cess has significantly changed our lives by changing the essence of
mobile phones from simple voice and messaging devices to highly
flexible and multifunctional devices that can be used almost any-
time and anywhere for a wide range of purposes, ranging from
fully utilitarian to fully hedonic. Mobile technology has dramati-
cally changed not only the way many businesses worked, but also
the way we live and communicate with each other. It has reshaped
our social habits, behaviors and our relationships with others. It
has brought new needs to our lives that we never had before.
Mobile devices, such as smartphones, support for internet con-
nectivity, GPS, digital camera, and multimedia has nurtured the
proliferation of myriad mobile applications that combine these ser-
vices to enrich the functionalities of these devices. It is no longer
easy to list all the functionalities that a mobile device provides. It
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: College of Business, University of North Texas,
1155 Union Circle #311160, Denton, TX 76203-5017, USA. Tel.: +1 (940) 594 1822.
E-mail addresses: arash.negahban@unt.edu (A. Negahban), chih-hungchung@
my.unt.edu (C.-H. Chung).
seems that the scope of functionalities that mobile devices provide
these days is ever growing.
The ubiquitous and multifunctional essence of these devices
along with their personalization features allows mobile users to
add different applications to their mobile devices and customize
them based on preferences as well as use them to address their he-
donic or utilitarian needs. This makes the context of ubiquitous
computing and mobile technology a unique area of study for aca-
demics and a boundless opportunity for the practitioners.
Previous studies have shown two broad emerging factors affect
acceptance of mobile phones: Interface characteristics and net-
work capabilities (Sarker & Wells, 2003). However, in this study,
we investigate how the concept of fit between users’ requirements
and device functionalities can be applied into the context of mobile
devices and how their unique characteristics can affect user’s per-
ception of their mobile device-functionality fit.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. After this
introduction, we will provide a brief overview of the relevant liter-
ature and develop our research model for mobile device function-
ality fit. We will then discuss our research methodology, results,
key findings and contributions, followed by limitations, directions
for future research, and conclusion.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.020
0747-5632/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
76 A. Negahban, C.-H. Chung / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 75–84
2. Theoretical background
In this section, we present an overview of the widely used the-
ories that have been applied within the context of adoption and
use of mobile technology in order to build a foundation for our re-
search model and introduce the concepts of perceived mobile device
functionality fit and multifunctional use.
2.1. Adoption and use of information technology
Technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) has been
widely used to explain users’ acceptance and use of mobile tech-
nology (Kim & Garrison, 2009; Kim, Park, & Morrison, 2008;
Negahban, 2012; Oi, Li, Li, & Shu, 2009; Son, Park, Kim, & Chou,
2012) and various mobile services including mobile internet
(Chong, Darmawan, Ooi, & Lin, 2010; Chong, Zhang, Lai, & Nie,
2012; Kuo & Yen, 2009; Lee, Noh, & Kim, 2012; López-Nicolás,
Molina-Castillo, & Bouwman, 2008), mobile games (Liu & Li,
2011), financial mobile services (Chen, 2008; Hsu, Wang, & Lin,
2011; Jaradat & Twaissi, 2010; Kim, Mirusmonov, & Lee, 2010;
Liu, Wang, & Wang, 2011; Luarn & Lin, 2005; Teo, Tan, Cheah,
Ooi, & Yew, 2012), mobile health-care services (Lin, 2011), mobile
TV (Jung, Perez-Mira, & Wiley-Patton, 2009), and mobile text alert
systems (Lee, Chung, & Kim, 2013). TAM posits that perceived use-
fulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) are the determinants
of behavioral intention to use (BI). Perceived usefulness is defined
as ‘‘the degree to which a person believes that using a particular
system would enhance his or her job performance’’ (Davis, 1989,
p. 320). Perceived ease of use is defined as ‘‘the degree to which a
person believes that using a particular system would be free of ef-
fort’’ (Davis, 1989, p. 320). Despite its widely use, TAM has some
limitations in explaining acceptance and use of mobile technology
(López-Nicolás et al., 2008); which were later on addressed by
other complementary theories.
The united theory of acceptance and use of technology
(UTAUT) developed by Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis
(2003) was used to evaluate the probability of success for new
technology overviews. Moreover, in order to design interven-
tions for users that may be less inclined to adopt and use new
systems, it also supports them to understand the drivers of
acceptance. UTAUT incorporated TAM, Theory of planned behav-
ior (TPB), innovation diffusion theory (IDT), motivation model,
social cognitive theory to develop a unified theory for technol-
ogy acceptance. In addition, it tested independent variables,
such as, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influ-
ence, facilitating conditions, to use of technology, controlling for
gender, age, experience, and voluntariness of use. UTAUT also
accounts for internal and external motivations. However,
although the UTAUT provides a more detailed model for accep-
tance and use of technology, it was still has certain limitations.
Therefore, Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu (2012) developed UTAUT2
and added hedonic motivation, price value, and habit to explain
the model of acceptance and use of technology. UTAUT2 pro-
vides an integrated model of acceptance and use of technology,
which improves TAM. UTAUT and UTAU2 provide a more de-
tailed conceptions about the relationships between external,
internal motivations, and acceptance and use of mobile technol-
ogy. These two models hold that social influence (symbolic va-
lue) influences perceived usefulness. They have been used in
previous research to investigate acceptance of various mobile
services such as online mobile games (Chen & Kuan, 2012), mo-
bile banking (Tan, Chong, Loh, & Lin, 2010), and other mobile
services (Han, Mustonen, Seppanen, & Kallio, 2006; Rao Hill &
Troshani, 2010).
2.2. Hedonic aspects of information systems
Information systems (IS) can have both hedonic and utilitarian
purposes. Utilitarian information systems aim to provide instru-
mental value to users while hedonic information systems aim to
provide self-fulfilling value to users (Heijden, 2004; Sun & ZhanG,
2006). However, the utilitarian-hedonic aspects of systems are
task-dependent. This can blur the boundary between hedonic
and utilitarian aspects, especially for mixed systems that can be
used for either purposes (Sun & ZhanG, 2006). For example, inter-
net can be used both for finding a job (utilitarian use) and for
watching movies (hedonic use).
Previous studies have found that perceived enjoyment is a dom-
inant predictor for hedonic aspects of information systems and
perceived usefulness is strong predictor for utilitarian aspects of
IS (Heijden, 2004). Perceived enjoyment is defined as the quality
that using technology is perceived to be enjoyable by its own,
regardless of performance expectations (Davis, Bagozzi, & War-
shaw, 1992).
Perceived enjoyment and perceived usefulness are important
factors that influence users’ acceptance and use of technology
(Hong & Tam, 2006; Lee & Chang, 2011; Liao, Tsou, & Huang,
2007; Thong, Hong, & Tam, 2006). Attitudinal beliefs, including
perceive usability, perceive ease of use, and perceived enjoyment
also significantly affect user’s hedonic attitude (Hong, Thong,
Moon, & Tam, 2008). Enjoyment is also identified as a value driver
of hedonic digital artifacts (Turel, Serenko, & Bontis, 2010).
2.3. Device multifunctionality
Today, mobile devices are no longer a mere communication de-
vice for voice calling and text messaging, but they also provide var-
ious functionalities and services to their users such as multimedia,
games, digital camera, mobile internet, navigation and GPS (global
positioning system), video communication, music players (Dunlop
& Brewster, 2002; Jin & Ji, 2010). By converging a large variety of
functionalities, these devices are now transformed into multiplex
multifunctional devices that address different needs of its users
(Jin & Ji, 2010).
Multifunctionality, as a key characteristic of mobile devices, has
not formally pinpointed in IS literature. It is commonly associated
with mobile hardware (Hoehle & Scornavacca, 2008) and the chal-
lenges it creates for Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) designers
(Dunlop & Brewster, 2002). Some researchers compare mobile de-
vices to ‘‘Swiss Army Knife’’ and discuss that trying to cram as
much functionalities as possible into a single device may impair
efficiency and effectiveness of those functionalities provided by
mobile device (Satyanarayanan, 2005), thus reducing its perceived
usefulness.
The effect of multifunctional use of mobile devices on individ-
ual’s device usage behavior has been studied in previous research.
In a study, Lin, Chan, and Xu (2012), tested multifunctionality
within the context of smartphones by combining hedonic aspects
of use and theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) – which
is a widely used theory for predicting adoption of a single function-
ality – to understand how it may impact adoption of multifunc-
tional devices (Lin et al., 2012). They found that TPB and pleasure
together can explain more than 50% of the variance in intention
to use while the effect of pleasure varied from function to function.
In another study, Hong and Tam (2006) found that adoption deci-
sion determinants for multipurpose information appliance are dif-
ferent from those of the utilitarian systems and are dependent on
the context of use and the nature of the target technology. They de-
fined multipurpose information appliances ‘‘as IT artifacts that (1)
have a one-to-one binding with the user, (2) offer ubiquitous services
 A. Negahban, C.-H. Chung / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 75–84
and access, and (3) provide a suite of utilitarian and hedonic func-
tions’’ (Hong & Tam, 2006, p. 162). They discussed that the ubiqui-
tous and hedonic nature of multipurpose mobile devices sets them
apart from other technologies in work settings.
Previous research views multifunctionality of a device based on
its hardware/software features and potential uses rather than the
degree of its user’s multifunctional use. In other words, previous
studies mostly approached the concept of multifunctionality from
a device vantage point (which we name as device-perspective of
multifunctionality) rather than from the user’s viewpoint (which
we name as user-perspective of multifunctionality).
To date, we are unaware of any study that measures multifunc-
tionality based on user’s usage behavior and the degree to which
users use various functionalities of their mobile device. To the ex-
tent of our knowledge there are also no studies that explore the ef-
fect of user’s multifunctional use of the device on device’s
functionality fit with the user’s needs. In this study, we distinguish
between the two views of multifuntionality (device-perspective
and user-perspective) and address multifunctionality from user’s
perspective.
2.4. Functionality fit
Theory of task–technology fit (TTF) (Goodhue & Thompson,
1995) focuses on the fit between a task’s/user’s needs and a specific
technology/functionality. TTF argues that users adopt a technology
based on the fit between their task requirements and technology
characteristics and how it can improve their performance (Gebauer
& Ginsburg, 2009; Goodhue, 1995; Goodhue & Thompson, 1995).
TTF has been widely used along with other technology adoption
models such as TAM and UTAUT to explain user’s adoption of a
technology (Dishaw & Strong, 1999; Yen, Wu, Cheng, & Huang,
2010; Zhou, Lu, & Wang, 2010). By combining attitudes toward
use and the fit between user’s needs and a technology’s functional-
ities through TAM and TTF respectively, we can provide a better
explanation for technology adoption (Dishaw & Strong, 1999).
Previous research within the context of wireless technology
adoption has shown that the fit between characteristics of task
and technology along with perceived usefulness and perceived
ease of use are direct determinants of user’s adoption of wireless
technology in organizations (Yen et al., 2010). TTF has also been
used in previous studies to explain the adoption of internet ser-
vices (Shang, Chen, & Chen, 2007), location-based systems (LBS)
(Junglas et al., 2008), mobile insurance (Lee, Lee, & Kim, 2007),
Knowledge management systems (KMS) (Lin and Huang (2008)),
mobile banking (Zhou et al., 2010).
User’s characteristics can also affect the task technology fit (Lee
et al., 2007). Therefore, the adoption of a technology is the product
of both task’s and technology’s characteristics which consequently
influence user’s performance and actual utilization (Zhou et al.,
2010). This implies that a rich task technology fit will encourage
user’s adoption of a technology while a poor task technology fit
will negatively influence users’ intention to adopt a technology
(Lee et al., 2007; Lin & Huang, 2008; Zhou et al., 2010). However,
TTF falls short when it comes to operationalization of ‘‘fit’’ concept
(Gebauer & Ginsburg, 2009). In an effort to operationalize the con-
cept of ‘‘fit’’ within the context of mobile technology, Gebauer and
Ginsburg (2009) identified five factors of fit for mobile IS (i.e. sup-
port for voice communication, support for mobile office, support
for knowledge work, productivity support and versatility, wireless
features and stability). However, these factors are more associated
with utilitarian use of the device and account neither for hedonic
use (enjoyment) nor for multifunctional use of the device.
This is the first study within the context of mobile devices that
delves into the user’s and device functionalities’ fit by accounting
77
for hedonic aspect of mobile device use (perceived enjoyment) as
well as multifunctional use of the device based on user’s usage
behavior (user-perspective of multifunctionality) rather than mo-
bile device’s hardware/software characteristics (device-perspec-
tive of multifunctionality).
3. Research model and hypotheses
As discussed in the literature review section, hedonic aspect of
IS is an important factor in user’s acceptance and use of the tech-
nology (Heijden, 2004). These findings propose that providing a
fun and enjoyable environment can favorably increase users’ per-
ceptions toward adoption of a technology (Davis et al., 1992; Venk-
atesh, 1999) and encourages the usage of innovative technologies,
especially for mobile technology and services. The users who have
experienced enjoyment from utilizing a technology demonstrate
positive attitudes toward using that technology (Davis et al.,
1992). Previous research has also found that perceived enjoyment
is a positive determinant of perceived usefulness (Liaw, 2002; Liaw
& Huang, 2003; Norman, 2002) and perceived ease of use (Sun &
ZhanG, 2006; Venkatesh, 2000).
We should note that sometimes the boundary between utilitar-
ian and hedonic systems is not very clear. This is particularly true
for mixed systems, which can be used for both hedonic and utili-
tarian purposes (Sun & ZhanG, 2006). Multifunctional mobile de-
vices are an instance of mixed systems that can be used for both
hedonic and utilitarian purposes. The enjoyment associated with
using mobile devices can affect the perceived ease of use and per-
ceive usefulness of these devices. We also believe that the hedonic
aspects of mobile device can create a perception of fit between
user’s hedonic needs and their device’s functionality. Therefore,
we posit that:
H1a. Perceived Enjoyment positively influences Perceived Ease of
Use.
H1b. Perceived Enjoyment positively influences Perceived
Usefulness.
H1c. Perceived Enjoyment positively influences Perceived Func-
tionality Fit of mobile device.
TAM and UTAUT models have been widely used to explain and
discuss users’ acceptance and use of various technologies. These
models propose that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use are important determinants of adoption and use of a technol-
ogy (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Verkasalo, López-Nicolás, Molina-
Castillo, & Bouwman, 2010). Previous studies have found that that
functionality fit is also a determinant of perceived usefulness and
ease of use (Dishaw & Strong, 1999; Larsen, Sørebø, & Sørebø,
2009). In our study, we argue that this is not a unidirectional rela-
tionship. Perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness can also
influence users perception of device functionality fit with their
needs.
We build our argument upon the process of imbrication that
Leonardi (2011) discusses in his proposed framework of socio-
technical adaptations for flexible technologies and routines. He ar-
gues that individuals construct a perception of a technology that
either constrains or affords their ability to complete their routines
and achieve their goals. When individuals perceive a higher degree
of affordance in a technology that helps them complete their rou-
tines, they may even change their behavior in order to imbricate
the technology into their routines (Leonardi, 2011).
Multifunctional mobile devices (such as Smartphones) are flex-
ible technologies that enable the users to personalize the device
78 A. Negahban, C.-H. Chung / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 75–84
functionalities based on their needs. Mobile users are no longer lim-
ited to the functions that the device manufacturers build into the
device. There are a huge number of mobile applications (‘‘mobile
apps’’) available to the users that enable them to add various func-
tions to their mobile devices and customize them to achieve their
goals. This turns mobile devices into multifunctional devices with
flexible functionalities that users tailor based on their require-
ments. If the users find their mobile devices useful, they tend to
imbricate them into their tasks and routines. As the mobile device
integrates into the users routines, users tend to perceive a higher
degree of fit between the functionalities of device and their needs.
Users may even change the way they performed certain routines
because they perceive a higher degree of affordance in the mobile
device, which in turn leads to a higher degree of perceived fit be-
tween their mobile device functionalities and their needs. For in-
stance, a user that used to note down his shopping list on paper
and refer to the list on paper while doing grocery shopping, may
now save the list in his mobile device and use the mobile device in-
stead of the list on paper. As the user imbricates the mobile device
into various routines, he finds that the device more aligned with his
needs. Thus, he perceives a higher degree of fit between his mobile
device functionalities and his needs. We hypothesize that:
H2. Perceived Ease of Use positively influences Perceived Func-
tionality Fit of mobile device.
H3. Perceived Usefulness positively influences Perceived Function-
ality Fit of mobile device.
Multifunctional mobile devices help people manage daily activ-
ities covering work, communication, and entertainment. Multi-
functionality factor has a significant relationship with intention
to use of mobile technology (Lin et al., 2012). Multifunctionality
factor played an important role to explain people how to evaluate
and adopt a product (Sääksjärvi & Samiee, 2010). In other words, a
multifunctional mobile device would facilitate the acceptance and
use of mobile technology.
Contextual factors are important predictors of adoption and use
of mobile technology (Liu & Li, 2011). These factors can be associ-
ated with location, situational and social contexts. Different func-
tions may be preferred by users in different contexts, for instance
users tend to play mobile games in situations in which they are
bored, have nothing else to do, or want to kill time (Liu & Li,
2011). Multifunctional devices can to be used in more situations
Fig. 1. Research model.
and contexts compared to single function devices. As a result, they
may fit better with users’ needs in a larger variety of contexts. We
believe exploring the multifunctionality factor could help us devel-
op a comprehensive mobile device-functionality fit model. Thus,
we hypothesize that:
H4. Multifunctional Use positively influences Perceived Function-
ality Fit of mobile device.
Mobile devices allow people maintain their access to various
services as well as keep being connected to other people while on
the move. Nowadays, symbolic value has become a vital factor for
adoption and use of new mobile devices. For instance, iPhone fans
may purchase and use iPhone not necessarily because of its utilitar-
ian functionalities but also because of the descriptive norms and the
social image that owning an iPhone creates. According to the study
of Pagani (2004), personalization is an important perceived benefit
of mobile services. Interactions among informal social groups influ-
ence user’s opinions, decisions, and behavior (López-Nicolás et al.,
2008). People adopted mobile technologies and services for either
functional or nonfunctional reasons (Pedersen, 2005). Mobile tech-
nology has been regarded as a symbol of social value and being up-
to-date, which can subsequently urge users adopt and use a mobile
device. Viewing symbolic value as a feature of mobile device allows
us to posit that the alignment between the perceived image created
by the device and the image the users intend to build for themselves
in the society can influence the degree of users’ perceived function-
ality fit of the device. Thus, we posit that:
H5. Symbolic Value positively influences Perceived Functionality
Fit of mobile device.
Our proposed research model is shown in Fig. 1.
4. Methodology
In order to validate our research model, we developed a survey
instrument. Survey method has been widely used in previous re-
search to measure user’s intention to use, continuance of use,
and satisfaction, as well as service and system quality within infor-
mation systems discipline. The focus of our study is to identify fac-
tors associated with user’s perceived device functionality fit. We
used student samples, which are widely used by previous studies
to investigate factors associated with adoption and use of mobile
devices (Liao et al., 2007; Negahban, 2012; Phan & Daim, 2011).
 A. Negahban, C.-H. Chung / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 75–84
4.1. Measurement
We adapted the items for perceived enjoyment, perceived ease
of use, perceived usefulness, and symbolic value from prior re-
search and modified them to fit the context mobile of our study
in order to increase the reliability and validity of our survey instru-
ment. We developed the items for perceived device functionality
fit construct. To measure multifunctional use of the device, we
asked the respondents to answer the frequency that they use cer-
tain features of their Smartphone as a mobile device. We listed 16
functionalities provided by Smartphones which were: voice call-
ing, video calling, text messaging, instant messaging, checking
(receiving) emails, sending emails, web browsing, playing music,
watching video, playing games, checking social network sites, post-
ing on social network sites, reading electronic documents, creating/
editing electronic documents, online shopping, using specialized
software applications. For each of the functionalities, respondents
answered how often they use that certain functionality ranging
from Never to every time. The degree of multifunctional use of
the device was then calculated based on the number of functional-
ities that the respondents used frequently or more (scored greater
than or equal to 5) and the mean of all the scores for various func-
tionalities. All the survey items were measured using 7-point Likert
scale. A copy of the survey instrument is included in Appendix A.
4.2. Data collection
Data were collected over a five-month period using an online
survey. The respondents were undergraduate and graduate stu-
dents in a southern university of the United States. The survey link
was sent to about 600 students out of which 430 responses were
collected (71% response rate). After discarding 85 invalid/incom-
plete responses and 9 outliers, 336 responses were used for data
analysis. In terms of gender, 45% of respondents were male and
55% were female. The respondents’ age ranged from 18 to 65 while
about 80% of respondents were between 20 and 26 years old.
5. Data analysis and results
We used Partial Least Squares (PLS) to test our research model
using Smart-PLS software. PLS is a preferred method for multi-item
constructs and small sample sizes (Chin, 1998; Hulland, 1999). In
this section, we test our model in a two-step process. First, we as-
sess the measurement model (Outer model) in order to examine
validity and reliability of our measurement instrument. Second,
we evaluate the structural model (Inner model) estimates in order
to test the significance of our hypotheses and the predictive power
of our model.
5.1. Measurement model
We analyzed the reliability, validity, correlations, and factor
loadings to assess our measurement model. We dropped out one
of the items associated with perceived ease of use because of its
low loading as well as high cross loading with another construct.
Table 1
AVE’s and reliabilities.
AVE Composite reliability R-square Cronbach’s alpha
MFU 1 1 0 1
PDFF 0.78 0.93 0.57 0.91
PEOU 0.75 0.90 0.30 0.84
ENJ 0.80 0.94 0.00 0.92
PU 0.68 0.90 0.28 0.84
SV 0.78 0.95 0.00 0.93
79
The results of our analysis showed that the composite reliabilities
of all constructs were above 0.89, the Cronbach’s alpha for all con-
structs were greater than 0.83, and they all loaded highly under
their respective construct with more than 0.75, which are indicat-
ing the reliability of our multi-item constructs (Hair, Ringle, &
Sarstedt, 2011).
The AVE’s (Average Variance Extracted) for all constructs were
than 0.75. This is an evidence for convergent validity (Hair et al.,
2011). Checking Fornell–Larcker criterion for our study, AVE’s for
all constructs were greater than the square of their associated cor-
relations, which satisfies the requirements for discriminant valid-
ity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The result of confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) also shows that all the items have the highest load-
ing under their respective construct (see Table 2).
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics, AVE’s, correlations,
Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and square root of AVE’s
(bolded) for each of the constructs.
5.2. Structural model
In order to address common methods variance (CMV), we used
Harman’s one-factor test, which is one of the most widely used
techniques to verify whether common (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The basic assumption of this technique is
that if a substantial amount of common method variance is pres-
ent, the non-rotated factor analysis solution will result in one gen-
eral factor that accounts for the majority of covariance among
measures (Podsakoff et al., 2003). After conducting Harman’s sin-
gle-factor test for our study a single dimension accounted for
0.37 total of variance explained which indicates that common
method bias is not problematic in our study.
Checking for multicollinearity, we computed VIF’s (Variance
Inflation Factor) for different constructs in our model and we found
that all the VIF’s were less than 3, which suggests that multicollin-
earity is not a major issue in our study (Hair et al., 2011).
The result of the path analysis with a bootstrap sample number
of 5000 shows that all of our hypotheses, except H4, are supported
at 0.05 confidence interval. Fig. 2 summarizes the results of path
analysis for our proposed model. The R-Square for perceived useful-
ness and perceived ease of use constructs were 28% and 30% respec-
tively, which shows that perceived enjoyment can explain about
one-third of variance in these constructs. This also confirms that
hedonic and utilitarian aspects of these devices affect each other.
The resulted R-Square for perceived device functionality fit as the
dependent construct was 0.57, which indicates that perceived
enjoyment, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and symbolic
value of mobile device can explain 57% of variance in perceived de-
vice functionality fit of the mobile device.
6. Discussion
Our paper contributes to the IS literature by introducing the
concept of perceived device-functionality fit. We intended to iden-
tify factors associated with individual’s perception of the extent to
which their mobile device meets their needs and requirements.
MFU PDFF PEOU ENJ PU SV
1
0.22 0.88
0.19 0.69 0.87
0.25 0.56 0.55 0.90
0.22 0.59 0.53 0.53 0.83
0.21 0.20 0.05 0.30 0.21 0.88
80 A. Negahban, C.-H. Chung / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 75–84

Table 2
PLS loadings.

Construct Items Mean Std. dev ENJ PDFF PEOU PU SV MFU

Perceived enjoyment ENJ1 5.79 1.11 0.88 0.43 0.42 0.43 0.31 0.21
ENJ2 6.14 0.94 0.93 0.53 0.54 0.48 0.24 0.25
ENJ3 5.68 1.15 0.89 0.51 0.49 0.48 0.26 0.23
ENJ4 6.18 0.89 0.89 0.52 0.51 0.50 0.26 0.19
Perceived device functionality fit PDFF1 6.24 0.92 0.49 0.89 0.62 0.54 0.25 0.26
PDFF2 6.02 1.13 0.41 0.87 0.56 0.44 0.13 0.15
PDFF3 6.24 0.92 0.54 0.86 0.64 0.60 0.11 0.19
PDFF4 6.13 1.04 0.52 0.90 0.61 0.49 0.21 0.18
Perceived ease of use PEOU1 6.28 0.95 0.49 0.64 0.92 0.44 0.05 0.17
PEOU3 5.92 1.20 0.34 0.43 0.75 0.37 0.01 0.14
PEOU4 6.25 0.83 0.57 0.68 0.93 0.54 0.07 0.18
Perceived usefulness PU1 6.00 1.10 0.49 0.49 0.43 0.85 0.23 0.22
PU2 5.73 1.39 0.35 0.40 0.29 0.76 0.15 0.15
PU3 6.53 0.71 0.45 0.51 0.50 0.82 0.16 0.17
PU4 6.25 0.91 0.44 0.54 0.48 0.87 0.15 0.18
Symbolic value SV1 4.84 1.61 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.21 0.83 0.18
SV2 4.83 1.65 0.32 0.17 0.06 0.19 0.89 0.18
SV3 4.30 1.60 0.20 0.15 0.01 0.20 0.89 0.15
SV4 4.23 1.58 0.22 0.17 0.04 0.18 0.90 0.22
SV5 4.37 1.64 0.25 0.16 0.00 0.14 0.89 0.19
Multifunctional use MFU 9.08 3.75 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.22 0.21 1.00

Fig. 2. Path analysis results.

The result of our study shows that about 60% of the variance in
individuals’ perceived device-functionality fit can be explained by
four factors: perceived enjoyment, perceived ease of use, perceived
usefulness, and symbolic value of the device. Among the four fac-
tors, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness are the most
significant and according to their coefficients, the effect of a spe-
cific degree of change in individuals’ perceived ease of use on indi-
viduals’ perceived device-functionality fit is twofold that of
perceived usefulness. One justification for this may be due to the
fact that if individual’s cannot easily use their mobile device, they
will not be able to benefit from many functionalities that their mo-
bile device provides them with, and this includes those features
that address part of their expectations and needs. Thus, low de-
grees of perceived ease of use can significantly decrease the fit be-
tween the device functionalities and the user’s requirements.
Perceived enjoyment is a significant predictor of perceived ease
of use and perceived usefulness, explaining about 30% of variance
in each of these constructs. This confirms the results of previous re-
search and suggests that perceived enjoyment is affecting users’
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in the context of
multifunctional mobile devices. It also confirms that for mixed sys-
tems (i.e. systems that can be used for both hedonic and utilitarian
purposes), the boundary between utilitarian and hedonic use are
blurry and the hedonic and utilitarian aspects affect each other.
Perceived enjoyment and symbolic value are also significant
predictors of perceived device-functionality fit with less signifi-
cance compared to perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness.
The effect of a single unit change in individuals’ perceived enjoy-
ment on their perceived device-functionality fit is slightly more
than half of that of perceived usefulness and slightly less than
twice of that of symbolic value. This implies that when it comes
to individual’s perception of the fit between functionalities of the
device and their needs, perceived ease of use is the most important
factor for the device to fit the user’s needs. This may be because
mobile devices are not purely used for utilitarian purposes. On
one hand, the mobility aspect of mobile devices along with their
versatility in terms of its functionalities allows users to use these
devices for hedonic purposes. As the result of our study implies,
part of the fit between the user’s needs and the device’s function-
alities is associated with the perceived enjoyment. On the other
hand, the ubiquitous nature of the mobile devices can also shape
part of individual’s image among their peers or the people around
 A. Negahban, C.-H. Chung / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 75–84
them. As a result, individuals may perceive mobile devices as a
constituent of their social status and try to use a device that is
aligned with the social image they expect from themselves. This
forms part of their expectations and needs from their mobile de-
vice. The results of our study also confirm this by showing that
symbolic value of the device is an antecedent of individuals’ per-
ceived device-functionality fit.
Our study has several implications for both practitioners and
researchers. In terms of the theoretical contribution, our research
introduces the concept of perceived device-functionality fit for mo-
bile devices by accounting for both hedonic and utilitarian aspects
of these devices. Previous studies mainly focused on the concept of
task and technology from the utilitarian perspective. However, mo-
bile devices combine both utilitarian and hedonic aspects in one
device. We also suggested that the multifunctionality of mobile de-
vices is not just an artifact of their hardware and software support.
That is why we introduced the concept of multifunctional use by
measuring usage patterns of different mobile device functionalities
by their users. We suggested that these patterns vary from person
to person which can create different levels of multifunctional use
of mobile device per every single user.
In terms of practical implications, our study shows that in order
to manufacture mobile devices that fit best with the users require-
ments, mobile device manufacturers should not only focus on
enhancing the hardware and software specifications of their mo-
bile devices. Our study shows that ease of use, enjoyment, and
symbolic value of the device are key factors that affect users’ per-
ceptions of the degree to which the device addresses their needs.
Mobile phone manufacturers need to pay special attention to the
look-and-feel aspects of their productions such as the user inter-
face of their mobile devices, as well as the image their brand con-
veys to their product users. This confirms the recent trends in
Smartphone market, which shows that although Smartphones pro-
duced by companies such as HTC and Samsung have higher hard-
ware and software configurations compared to iPhone by Apple
company, but still iPhone enjoys a larger growth in sales. The rea-
son may be because iPhone has established a higher symbolic va-
lue in the society and many people perceive it as a symbol of
social status as well as it is providing a friendlier and an easier-
to-use user interface to its users.
7. Limitations and future research
In this section, we discuss the limitations we that may impact
the results of our study and what the research questions future re-
search can address to provide a more comprehensive understand-
ing of perceived device functionality fit.
The first limitation of our research concerns with the generaliz-
ability of our findings. Our samples were limited to undergraduate
and graduate students, mainly aged between 20 and 26. Although
student samples have widely been used previous research, the ex-
tents to which they represent the general public have always been
a question. We can argue that the young generation may have lower
resistance toward adopting new technologies. They are also more
confident and efficient in using the various features mobile devices
provided. Thus, they may perceive a higher level of ease of use and
enjoyment using their mobile devices. Moreover, their perception
of symbolic value may not only be limited to their image and
how important they look if using the mobile device. The youth
may also consider the extent to which using the device is a hip or
trendy among their peers. These may slightly skew the results of
our study. Future study can investigate how age and generational
differences may affect individual’s perception of ease of use, enjoy-
ment, symbolic value and multifunctionality of mobile devices.
81
The second limitation of this study is associated with the oper-
ationalization of mobile device. In our study, we focused on Smart-
phones as multifunctional mobile devices. However, there are
other multifunctional mobile devices such as tablets and notebook
computers. We need to study if there are significant differences be-
tween these devices in terms of the degree their functionalities fit
individual’s needs.
Finally, many features in mobile devices are dependent on
internet access as well as the quality of service provided by mobile
service carriers. Whether the user has mobile internet service
available and the quality of that service can affect users’ perceived
usefulness of their mobile device, which based on the results of our
study, is the most significant predictor for individual’s perceived
device functionality fit. Future research can study the impact of
mobile carrier’s service quality on the perceived usefulness of mo-
bile devices.
We also believe that we need to investigate how individual’s
multifunctional use of mobile device can influence the fit between
device functionality and user’s requirements. We believe that as
devices become more mobile and versatile as well as more person-
alizable in terms of allowing users to add various mobile applica-
tions to their mobile devices, the better they fit with the users’
expectations and needs. However, future research needs to develop
valid and reliable scales for measuring multifunctional use of mo-
bile (or even non-mobile) devices and test its impact of users’ de-
vice-functionality fit.
Previous research have found technology-fit to be a significant
predictor of technology adoption and use (Dishaw & Strong,
1999; Larsen et al., 2009; Lin, 2012). In our study, we focused on
the antecedents of users’ perception of fit between their needs
and functionalities of their mobile devices. Future research can
investigate the mediating effect of perceived functionality fit and
user’s adoption and use of mobile devices.
8. Conclusion
In recent years, there has been a sharp increase in the use of mo-
bile devices. The ubiquitous and multifunctional nature of these de-
vices provides their users with versatile functionalities, omnipresent
internet connectivity, and personalization features. This raises the
question that what factors shape mobile users perception of their
mobile device functionality fit with their needs. In order to answer
this question, we proposed a research model incorporating four con-
structs from technology adoption and use literature (perceived
enjoyment, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and sym-
bolic value) and introducing multifunctional use and perceived de-
vice-functionality fit as two new constructs in our model. The
degree of multifunctional use of mobile device measures user’s fre-
quency of use of various functionalities of his/her mobile device.
The perceived device-functionality fit measures the degree to which
functionalities of mobile device fits with user’s needs.
The results of our study shows that more than half of the vari-
ance in individuals’ perceived device-functionality fit can be ex-
plained by their perceived enjoyment, perceived ease of use,
perceived usefulness, and symbolic value of the device. This has
several implications for both practitioners and researchers. In
terms of the theoretical contribution, our research introduces the
need to revamp the concept of device-functionality fit when it
comes to mobile devices by accounting for both hedonic and util-
itarian aspects. In terms of practical implications, our study high-
lights the importance of brand equity for mobile device
manufacturers and the image their productions create in the soci-
ety as well as the importance of look-and-feel aspects mobile de-
vices in shaping users perception of fit between functionalities
provided by their mobile device with their needs.
82 A. Negahban, C.-H. Chung / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 75–84

Appendix A. Survey items

We asked the respondents to answer the following questions for their Smartphones.

Construct and its anchors Items

Perceived Enjoyment (ENJ) (Strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat ENJ1. Using the device makes me feel good
disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly ENJ2. Using the device is enjoyable
agree) ENJ3. Using the device gives me a lot of joy
ENJ4. I enjoy using the device

Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) (Strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat PEOU1. The device is easy to use
disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly PEOU2. Using the device is frustrating. (DROPPED)
agree) PEOU3. Using the device does not require a lot of
effort
PEOU4. It is easy for me to use this device

Perceived Usefulness (PU) (Strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat PU1. Using the device enhances my
disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly effectiveness
agree) PU2. Using the device enhances my
productivity
PU3. I find the device useful in my daily life
PU4. The device helps me accomplish things
that I want

Symbolic Value (SV) (Strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, SV1. Using the device enhances my image
neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree) SV2. Using the device is a sign of status
SV3. Using the device makes me look more
important
SV4. People who use the device have a high
profile
SV5. Using the device gives me a high profile
among my peers

Perceived Device-Functionally Fit (PDFF) (Strongly disagree, disagree, PDFF1. The functionality of the device meets my
somewhat disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, needs
agree, strongly agree) PDFF2. The device has all the functionality that I
find necessary
PDFF3. The functionality of the device is adequate
for accomplishing my everyday tasks
PDFF4. I am satisfied with the functionality of the
device

Multifunctional Use (MFU) (Never, rarely, occasionally, sometimes, How often do you use your Smartphone for ____?
frequently, often, every time) Voice calling Playing games
Video calling Checking social network sites
Text Posting on social network sites
messaging
Instant Reading electronic documents
messaging
Checking/ Creating/ editing electronic documents
receiving
emails
Sending Online shopping
emails
Web Using specialized software for
browsing programming, statistics, graphics design,
etc.
Playing music
Watching
video
 A. Negahban, C.-H. Chung / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 75–84 83

Do you own a Smartphone? r Yes s No. Junglas, I., Abraham, C., & Watson, R. T. (2008). Task-technology fit for mobile
locatable information systems. Decision Support Systems, 45(4), 1046–1057.
Do you regularly use a Smartphone? r Yes s No.
Kim, S., & Garrison, G. (2009). Investigating mobile wireless technology adoption:
Gender: r Female s Male. An extension of the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Frontiers,
Age: r 18–23 s 24–29 t 30–35 u 36–41 v 42–47 w More 11(3), 323–333.
than 48. Kim, C., Mirusmonov, M., & Lee, I. (2010). An empirical examination of factors
influencing the intention to use mobile payment. Computers in Human Behavior,
Education: 26(3), 310–322.
r Undergraduate student Kim, D.-Y., Park, J., & Morrison, A. M. (2008). A model of traveller acceptance of
s Masters student mobile technology. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10(5), 393–407.
Kuo, Y.-F., & Yen, S.-N. (2009). Towards an understanding of the behavioral
t PhD student
intention to use 3G mobile value-added services. Computers in Human Behavior,
u Certificate/non-degree program student 25(1), 103–110.
v Other Larsen, T. J., Sørebø, A. M., & Sørebø, Ø. (2009). The role of task–technology fit as
users’ motivation to continue information system use. Computers in Human
How long have you been using a Smartphone? Behavior, 25(3), 778–784.
r More than 6 years s 3–6 years t 1–3 years u Less than Lee, H., & Chang, E. (2011). Consumer attitudes toward online mass customization:
1 year v Never before. An application of extended technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 16(2), 171–200.
Lee, D., Chung, J. Y., & Kim, H. (2013). Text me when it becomes dangerous:
References Exploring the determinants of college students’ adoption of mobile-based text
alerts short message service. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 563–569.
Lee, K. S., Lee, H. S., & Kim, S. Y. (2007). Factors influencing the adoption behavior of
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human
mobile banking. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 12(2), 1–9.
decision processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Lee, S., Noh, M., & Kim, B. G. (2012). An integrated adoption model for mobile
Chen, L. Da. (2008). A model of consumer acceptance of mobile payment.
services. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 10(4), 405–426.
International Journal of Mobile Communications, 6(1), 32.
Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies:
Chen, L. S., & Kuan, C. J. (2012). Customer acceptance of playing online game on
Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies.
mobile phones. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 10(6), 598–616.
MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–168.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation
Liao, C.-H., Tsou, C.-W., & Huang, M.-F. (2007). Factors influencing the usage of 3G
modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.). Modern Methods for Business Research (Vol.
mobile services in Taiwan. Online Information Review, 31(6), 759–774.
295, pp. 295–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Liaw, S.-S. (2002). Understanding user perceptions of World-wide web
Chong, A. Y.-L., Darmawan, N., Ooi, K.-B., & Lin, B. (2010). Adoption of 3G services
environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(2), 137–148.
among Malaysian consumers: An empirical analysis. International Journal of
Liaw, S.-S., & Huang, H.-M. (2003). An investigation of user attitudes toward search
Mobile Communications, 8(2), 129–149.
engines as an information retrieval tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(6),
Chong, X., Zhang, J., Lai, K., & Nie, L. (2012). An empirical analysis of mobile internet
751–765.
acceptance from a value-based view. International Journal of Mobile
Lin, S.-P. (2011). Determinants of adoption of mobile healthcare service.
Communications, 10(5), 536–557.
International Journal of Mobile Communications, 9(3), 298–315.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
Lin, W.-S. (2012). Perceived fit and satisfaction on web learning performance: IS
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
continuance intention and task–technology fit perspectives. International
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation
Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 70(7), 498–507.
to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14),
Lin, J., Chan, H. C., & Xu, L. (2012). A tale of four functions in a multifunctional
1111–1132.
device: Extending implementation intention theory. IEEE Transactions on
Dishaw, M. T., & Strong, D. M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model
Professional Communication, 55(1), 36–54.
with task–technology fit constructs. Information & Management, 36(1), 9–21.
Lin, T. C., & Huang, C. C. (2008). Understanding knowledge management system
Dunlop, M. D., & Brewster, S. A. (2002). The challenges of mobile devices for human
usage antecedents: An integration of social cognitive theory and task
computer interaction (editorial for special edition). Personal and Ubiquitous
technology fit. Information & Management, 45(6), 410–417.
Computing, 6(4), 235–236.
Liu, Yong, & Li, H. (2011). Exploring the impact of use context on mobile hedonic
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
services adoption: An empirical study on mobile gaming in China. Computers in
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
Human Behavior, 27(2), 890–898.
18(1), 39–50.
Liu, Yuan, Wang, S., & Wang, X. (2011). A usability-centred perspective on intention
Gebauer, J., & Ginsburg, M. (2009). Exploring the black box of task–technology fit.
to use mobile payment. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 9(6),
Communications of the ACM, 52(1), 130–135.
541–562.
Goodhue, D. L. (1995). Understanding user evaluations of information systems.
López-Nicolás, C., Molina-Castillo, F. J., & Bouwman, H. (2008). An assessment of
Management Science, 41(12), 1827–1844.
advanced mobile services acceptance: Contributions from TAM and diffusion
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task–technology fit and individual
theory models. Information & Management, 45(6), 359–364.
performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236.
Luarn, P., & Lin, H.-H. (2005). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. The
to use mobile banking. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 873–891.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.
Negahban, A. (2012). Factors affecting individual’s intention to purchase
Han, S., Mustonen, P., Seppanen, M., & Kallio, M. (2006). Physicians’ acceptance of
smartphones from technology adoption and technology dependence
mobile communication technology: An exploratory study. International Journal
perspectives. Americas Conference on Information Systems. Seattle, WA.
of Mobile Communications, 4(2), 210–230.
Norman, D. (2002). Emotion & design: Attractive things work better. Interactions,
Heijden, H. Van der (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS
9(4), 36–42.
Quarterly, 28(4), 695–704.
Oi, J., Li, L., Li, Y., & Shu, H. (2009). An extension of technology acceptance model:
Hoehle, H., & Scornavacca, E. (2008). Unveiling experts perceptions towards the
Analysis of the adoption of mobile data services in China. Systems Research &
characteristics and value propositions of mobile information systems. In 7th
Behavioral Science, 26(3), 391–407.
International Conference on Mobile Business (pp. 334–343).
Pagani, M. (2004). Determinants of adoption of third generation mobile multimedia
Hong, S.-J., & Tam, K. Y. (2006). Understanding the adoption of multipurpose
services. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 46–59.
information appliances: The case of mobile data services. Information Systems
Pedersen, P. (2005). Adoption of mobile Internet services: An exploratory study of
Research, 17(2), 162–179.
mobile commerce early adopters. Journal of Organizational Computing and
Hong, S.-J., Thong, J. Y. L., Moon, J.-Y., & Tam, K.-Y. (2008). Understanding the
Electronic Commerce, 15(3), 37–41.
behavior of mobile data services consumers. Information Systems Frontiers,
Phan, K., & Daim, T. (2011). Exploring technology acceptance for mobile services.
10(4), 431–445.
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 4(2), 339–360.
Hsu, C.-L., Wang, C.-F., & Lin, J. C.-C. (2011). Investigating customer adoption
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
behaviours in mobile financial services. International Journal of Mobile
method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
Communications, 9(5), 477–494.
recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management
Rao Hill, S., & Troshani, I. (2010). Factors influencing the adoption of personalisation
research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2),
mobile services: Empirical evidence from young Australians. International
195–204.
Journal of Mobile Communications, 8(2), 150–168.
Jaradat, M. R., & Twaissi, N. M. (2010). Assessing the introduction of mobile banking
Sääksjärvi, M., & Samiee, S. (2010). Assessing multifunctional innovation adoption
in Jordan using technology acceptance model. International Journal of Interactive
via an integrative model. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(5),
Mobile Technologies iJIM, 4(1), 14–21.
717–735.
Jin, B. S., & Ji, Y. G. (2010). Usability risk level evaluation for physical user interface
Sarker, S., & Wells, J. D. (2003). Understanding mobile handheld device use and
of mobile phone. Computers in Industry, 61(4), 350–363.
adoption. Communications of the ACM, 46(12), 35–40.
Jung, Y., Perez-Mira, B., & Wiley-Patton, S. (2009). Consumer adoption of mobile TV:
Satyanarayanan, M. (2005). Swiss army knife or wallet?. Pervasive Computing, IEEE
Examining psychological flow and media content. Computers in Human
(pp. 2-3).
Behavior, 25(1), 123–129.
84 A. Negahban, C.-H. Chung / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 75–84
Shang, R.-A., Chen, Y.-C., & Chen, C.-M. (2007). Why people blog? An empirical
investigations of the task technology fit model. Pacific-Asia Conference on
Information Systems. Auckland, New Zealand.
Son, H., Park, Y., Kim, C., & Chou, J.-S. (2012). Toward an understanding of
construction professionals’ acceptance of mobile computing devices in South
Korea: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Automation in
Construction, 28, 82–90.
Sun, H., & ZhanG, P. (2006). Causal relationships between perceived enjoyment and
perceived ease of use: An alternative approach. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 7(9), 618–644.
Tan, K. S., Chong, S. C., Loh, P. L., & Lin, B. (2010). An evaluation of e-banking and m-
banking adoption factors and preference in Malaysia: A case study. International
Journal of Mobile Communications, 8(5), 507–527.
Teo, A., Tan, G. W., Cheah, C., Ooi, K., & Yew, K. (2012). Can the demographic and
subjective norms influence the adoption of mobile banking? International
Journal of Mobile Communications, 10(6), 578–597.
Thong, J., Hong, S., & Tam, K. (2006). The effects of post-adoption beliefs on the
expectation–confirmation model for information technology continuance.
International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 64(9), 799–810.
Turel, O., Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2010). User acceptance of hedonic digital
artifacts: A theory of consumption values perspective. Information &
Management, 47(1), 53–59.
Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of favorable user perceptions: Exploring the role of
intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 239–260.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control,
intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model.
Information Systems Research, 1997, 342–365.
Venkatesh, Viswanath, Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance
of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3),
425–478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of
information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
Verkasalo, H., López-Nicolás, C., Molina-Castillo, F. J., & Bouwman, H. (2010).
Analysis of users and non-users of smartphone applications. Telematics and
Informatics, 27(3), 242–255.
Yen, D. C., Wu, C.-S., Cheng, F.-F., & Huang, Y.-W. (2010). Determinants of users’
intention to adopt wireless technology: An empirical study by integrating TTF
with TAM. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 906–915.
Zhou, T., Lu, Y., & Wang, B. (2010). Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain
mobile banking user adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4),
760–767.