ISSN: 2222-6990
Open access
Purpose: This paper re-examines the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in the digital technology era. It posits that the rapid emergence of intelligent and immersive systems, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT), has challenged the original rational and individualistic assumptions of the TAM. The study aims to clarify why revisiting TAM is necessary today and to propose an updated framework that reflects the social, emotional, and institutional dynamics of digital transformation. Design/methodology/approach: Adopting a theoretical review approach, this study synthesizes three decades of TAM-related literature, integrating key extensions such as TAM2, TAM3, and UTAUT with insights from the Theory of Planned Behavior and Trust Theory. Findings: The review reveals that while TAM remains a robust model, it must evolve to address digital-era factors such as trust, transparency, digital identity, and ethical governance. Technology acceptance is no longer purely cognitive but relational, affective, and socially embedded. Research limitations/implications: This study is conceptual and calls for empirical validation of the proposed digital-era TAM framework through longitudinal and multi-level research designs. Practical implications: The findings guide organizations and policymakers to promote responsible digital transformation by building trust, fostering digital readiness, and embedding ethical governance in technology adoption strategies. Originality/value: This study advances TAM by reframing it as a dynamic, socio-technical, and ethically grounded model, offering new theoretical and practical insights into human–technology interaction in the digital age.
Afroogh, S., Akbari, A., Malone, E., Kargar, M., & Alambeigi, H. (2024). Trust in AI: progress, challenges, and future directions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-30.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision sciences, 30(2), 361-391.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychological bulletin, 82(2), 261.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the association for information systems, 8(4), 3.
Benbasat, I., & Barki, H. (2007). Quo vadis TAM? Journal of the association for information systems, 8(4), 7.
Cascio, W. F., & Montealegre, R. (2016). How technology is changing work and organizations. Annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior, 3(1), 349-375.
Cheong, B. C. (2024). Transparency and accountability in AI systems: safeguarding wellbeing in the age of algorithmic decision-making. Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 6, 1421273.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M., & Williams, M. D. (2019). Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model. Information systems frontiers, 21(3), 719-734.
Escobar-Rodríguez, T., & Carvajal-Trujillo, E. (2014). Online purchasing tickets for low cost carriers: An application of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model. Tourism management, 43, 70-88.
Felzmann, H., Villaronga, E. F., Lutz, C., & Tamò-Larrieux, A. (2019). Transparency you can trust: Transparency requirements for artificial intelligence between legal norms and contextual concerns. Big Data & Society, 6(1), 2053951719860542.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS quarterly, 51-90.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2004). Consumer trust in B2C e-Commerce and the importance of social presence: experiments in e-Products and e-Services. Omega, 32(6), 407-424.
Goodhue, D. L. (2007). Comment on Benbasat and Barki’s" Quo Vadis TAM" article. Journal of the association for information systems, 8(4), 15.
Im, I., Hong, S., & Kang, M. S. (2011). An international comparison of technology adoption: Testing the UTAUT model. Information & management, 48(1), 1-8.
Kim, M. J., Lee, C.-K., & Jung, T. (2020). Exploring consumer behavior in virtual reality tourism using an extended stimulus-organism-response model. Journal of travel research, 59(1), 69-89.
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & management, 43(6), 740-755.
Lai, P. C. (2017). The literature review of technology adoption models and theories for the novelty technology. JISTEM-Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 14(1), 21-38.
Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90-103.
Marbach, J., Lages, C. R., & Nunan, D. (2016). Who are you and what do you value? Investigating the role of personality traits and customer-perceived value in online customer engagement. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5-6), 502-525.
Maruping, L. M., Bala, H., Venkatesh, V., & Brown, S. A. (2017). Going beyond intention: Integrating behavioral expectation into the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(3), 623-637.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.
Mikalsen, M., & Monteiro, E. (2021). Acting with inherently uncertain data: Practices of data-centric knowing. Journal of the association for information systems, 22(6), 1715-1735.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision sciences, 39(2), 273-315.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS quarterly, 157-178.
Vrontis, D., Makrides, A., Christofi, M., & Thrassou, A. (2021). Social media influencer marketing: A systematic review, integrative framework and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), 617-644.
Waizenegger, L., McKenna, B., Cai, W., & Bendz, T. (2020). An affordance perspective of team collaboration and enforced working from home during COVID-19. European journal of information systems, 29(4), 429-442.
Wang, B., Schlagwein, D., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., & Cahalane, M. C. (2020). Beyond the factory paradigm: Digital nomadism and the digital future (s) of knowledge work post-COVID-19. Journal of the association for information systems, 21(6), 10.
Wiese, S. A., Lehmann, J., & Beckmann, M. (2024). Organizational culture and the usage of Industry 4.0 technologies: Evidence from Swiss businesses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12752.
Zerilli, J., Bhatt, U., & Weller, A. (2022). How transparency modulates trust in artificial intelligence. Patterns, 3(4).
Lian, M., Chelliah, S., & Guo, Z. (2026). Revisiting the Technology Acceptance Model in the Digital Technology Era: A Theoretical Review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 16(3), 1235–1254.
Copyright: © 2026 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode