Consumer adoption of the Uber mobile application: Insights from diffusion of innovation theory and technology acceptance model

ABSTRACT

The sharing economy literature has largely concentrated on the examination of peer-to-peer accommodation platforms such as Airbnb, with little attention paid on other innovations in collaborative consumption. This study investigates consumer adoption of the Uber mobile application through lenses of two theoretical models – Diffusion of Innovation Theory and Technology Acceptance Model. The results suggest that relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, observability, and social influence have a significant influence on both perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, which in turn lead to subsequent consumer attitudes and adoption intentions. This study demonstrates the integration of the two classic adoption theories.

KEYWORDS:

• Sharing economy
• Uber mobile application
• technology acceptance model (TAM)
• diffusion of innovation theory (DIT)

Survey Items

Relative Advantage (RA)

RA1: Compared to requesting a regular taxi, Uber mobile application improves the quality of my task for requesting transportation.

RA2: Compared to requesting a regular taxi, Uber mobile application gives me greater control over my task for requesting transportation.

RA3: Compared to requesting a regular taxi, Uber mobile application makes it more convenient to access transportation.

RA4: Compared to taking a regular taxi, Uber mobile application enables me to make a payment in a more convenient way.

RA5: Uber mobile application saves me money compared to taking a regular taxi (DELETED).

RA6: Compared to taking a regular taxi, Uber mobile application enhances my overall transportation experience.

Compatibility (COMP)

COMP1: Uber mobile application fits well with the way I like to request transportation.

COMP2: Uber mobile application is compatible with my lifestyle.

COMP3: Uber mobile application does not fit with my preferences (reversed coded) (DELETED).

COMP4: Uber mobile application fits with my service needs.

Complexity (CPLEX)

CPLEX1: Uber mobile application requires technical skills.

CPLEX2: Uber mobile application requires a lot of mental effort.

CPLEX3: Uber mobile application can be frustrating.

Observability (OBS)

OBS1: I can see the benefits of using Uber mobile application immediately.

OBS2: I have seen what others can do using their Uber mobile application (DELETED).

Social Influence (SI)

SI1: I have seen others using Uber mobile application.

SI2: In my social group, I see Uber mobile application on many people’s smartphones.

SI3: It is easy for me to observe others using Uber mobile application in my social group.

Perceived Usefulness (PU)

PU1: Using Uber mobile application would enable me to access transportation more quickly.

PU2: Using Uber mobile application makes it easier for me to request transportation.

PU3: I would find Uber mobile application a useful option for getting transportation.

PU4: Using Uber mobile application makes me save time.

PU5: Using Uber mobile application improves my efficiency.

Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)

PEOU1: My interaction with Uber mobile application is clear and understandable.

PEOU2: It is easy for me to get Uber mobile application to do what I want it to do.

PEOU3: Overall, Uber mobile application is easy for me to use.

PEOU4: Learning to use the Uber mobile application is easy for me.

Attitude (ATT)

ATT1: I am positive about requesting transportation through Uber mobile application.

ATT2: Using Uber mobile application for requesting transportation is a good idea.

ATT3: I like the idea of using Uber mobile application for requesting transportation.

ATT4: Using Uber mobile application for requesting transportation is favorable.

Future Usage Intention (FUI)

FUI1: I intend to use Uber mobile application the next time I travel.

FUI2: The next time I travel I am likely to use Uber mobile application.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.