Information technology (IT) acceptance research has yielded many competing models, each with different sets of acceptance determinants. In this paper, we (1) review user acceptance literature and discuss eight prominent models, (2) empirically compare the eight models and their extensions, (3) formulate a unified model that integrates elements across the eight models, and (4) empirically validate the unified model. The eight models reviewed are the theory of reasoned action, the technology acceptance model, the motivational model, the theory of planned behavior, a model combining the technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior, the model of PC utilization, the innovation diffusion theory, and the social cognitive theory. Using data from four organizations over a six-month period with three points of measurement, the eight models explained between 17 percent and 53 percent of the variance in user intentions to use information technology. Next, a unified model, called the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), was formulated, with four core determinants of intention and usage, and up to four moderators of key relationships. UTAUT was then tested using the original data and found to outperform the eight individual models (adjusted R 2 of 69 percent). UTAUT was then confirmed with data from two new organizations with similar

Most organizational demography research has been theoretically grounded in either the similarity-attraction paradigm or social categorization theory (Williams & O'Reilly, 1998). While useful, some of this research has uncovered inconsistent or contradictory findings. We suggest that these inconsistent results may arise from assumptions that members of different demographic categories will react symmetrically to variations in work group demography. But, because of historical differences in their status and the experience of being in the numerical majority or minority at work, men and women, for example, are likely to react differently to being members of differently composed groups. Using data from a field study of a large clothing manufacturer and retailer we found that men and women most wanted to remain in groups that were dominated by males. Men and women were also more normatively committed to groups dominated by their own sex, but were both more instrumentally committed to male-dominated groups. Thus, women may face a form of rational ambivalence; they are most comfortable in groups in which their sex dominates numerically, but are likely to trade off the comfort of working with similar others for the prospect of greater career advancement associated with being

We examined the extent to which members of different demographic categories will react symmetrically to variations in work group demography. Using data from a field study of a large clothing manufacturer and retailer we found that men and women’s preferences and attitudes about their work group differed depending on its sex composition. Both men and women wanted to remain in, and were instrumentally committed to, groups dominated by males but were normatively committed to groups dominated by their own sex.

Although it is commonly believed that women are kinder and more cooperative than men, there is conflicting evidence for this assertion. Current theories of sex differences in social behavior suggest that it may be useful to examine in what situations men and women are likely to differ in cooperation. Here, we derive predictions from both sociocultural and evolutionary perspectives on context-specific sex differences in cooperation, and we conduct a unique meta-analytic study of 272 effect sizes—sampled across 50 years of research—on social dilemmas to examine several potential moderators. The overall average effect size is not statistically different from zero (d � –0.05), suggesting that men and women do not differ in their overall amounts of cooperation. However, the association between sex and