Theoretical Frameworks

The current evolution of technology is tremendous, while the lower price allows more people,

regardless of their economic background, to possess technology. Nevertheless, despite these

advantages, the problems of underutilized technology remain (Kukafka et al., 2003). Such

scenario has guided several theories and models to place their effort to explain and

comprehend the influence of several factors on technology usage among the community

(Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Davis 1989; Bagozzi, 2007; Venkatesh et al., 2003) and

commonly these theories and models are looking on the importance to investigate the

influence of behavioural factors on technology usage. Venkatesh et al. (2012) noted that too

much focus on technology development while neglecting the behavioural factors associated

with individual technology usage has contributed to technology usage failure. On the other

hand, Kukafka et al. (2003) accentuated an in-depth understanding of how humans and

technology are related as one of the ways to explain people's reluctance to use technology.

The common behavioural science principle is that a theoretically guided approach can affect

the factors associated with technology usage, which eventually gears the discussions on

several theories relevant to the present study.

Theory of Reasoned Actions (TRA)

The Theory of Reasoned Actions (TRA) is based on a social psychology setting. TRA was

proposed by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) and has grabbed particular attention in consumer

behaviour as it has been proven effective in detecting changes in consumer behaviour when

using an innovation. TRA has three main variables: attitude towards behavior, subjective

norms, and behavioural intention (Figure 2-1). Attitude toward the behaviour can be

understood as an individual's liking or dislike of accomplishing certain behaviours. Attitude

can be rooted in one’s belief in the resulted in effects and benefits of performing such
behaviour. Subjective norm refers to the influence of people in one's social environment on

behavioural intention.

In contrast, behavioural intention, on the other hand, can be understood as a function of

attitudes toward a behaviour and subjective norms toward that behaviour, which can impinge

the actual behaviour. TRA stresses that both attitude and subjective norms influence

individual behaviour. At the same time, the same model also emphasizes the ability of

behavioural intention to act as the mediating variable in this relationship. Within the scope of

this model, several deficiencies have been detected, such as confusion between attitude and

subjective norms, as attitude is often viewed as norms and vice versa. In addition, the claim

that someone is free to act without limitation is not true, as the intention to act can be

influenced by factors such as technical ability, time, environmental or organizational limits,

and unconscious habits.

Figure 2-1: Theory of Reasoned Actions

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

impingement power of behavioural factors on technology usage and has been proven

effective in explaining the usage of technology among the community. TAM is a model that

explains how individuals will accept and use technology and was developed by Davis (1989)

and Bagozzi et al. (1992). The idea of TRA hugely influences TAM. Within the scope of

TAM, two variables, namely perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, are the two

impingement factors on an individual’s technology usage to mediate the relationship between

these two variables and actual system use (Figure 2-2). Perceived usefulness can be

understood as the degree to which a person believes using technology will produce several

benefits, which in turn help to enhance his job productivity, while perceived ease of use can

be understood as a situation where people believe that using technology is free of effort.

Furthermore, TAM has looked at the ability of perceived ease of use to influence perceived

usefulness, which means people who consider the technology is easy to use will also consider

the same technology to be useful. Unlike TRA, attitude is not included in TAM (Venkatesh

et al., 2003). Through several past studies, TAM has proven its reliability and validity in

explaining technology usage among the community (Chuttur, 2009; Shahrabi et al., 2013).

TAM has a similar deficiency to TRA, as the model stresses that the individual's intention

will lead that individual to perform the intended actions without any limitation – which is not

true. Agarwal and Prasad (1999) have claimed that the absence of a moderating factor in

TAM has reduced its predictive ability and limits its explanatory power. Furthermore, TAM

is critiqued on dubious heuristic value, inadequate explanatory and predictive power,

triviality, and lack of practical value (Bagozzi, 2007). Several efforts have been made to

improve TAM. However, three general efforts recognized by scholars are recognizing factors
from previous models and theories, identifying alternative or additional belief factors, and

recognizing antecedents and moderators of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use

(Wixom and Todd, 2005).

Figure 2-2: Technology Acceptance Model

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

Although TAM has been proven to be effective in describing the usage of technology among

the community, some critiques of the model, such as questionable heuristic value, limited

explanatory and predictive power, triviality, and lack of any practical value, have driven

several efforts by scholars to modify and develop new models for community technology

usage which is fit with the change of time (Kahenya et al., 2014; Chuttur, 2009; Hu et al.,

2003; Venkatesh et al., 2003; Luarn and Lin, 2004 and Lee and Brown 2007). Among the

established and developed technology usage model is the Unified Theory of Acceptance and

Use of Technology (UTAUT) by Venkatesh et al. (2003)

Technology (UTAUT) idea. The model attempts to understand the use of an information

system and the behavioural factors that might influence information system usage. Initially,

UTAUT was tested for the study related to the technology usage among the employees in an

organization and then was used to understand technology usage among various community

groups (Venkatesh et al., 2003). The UTAUT has four main factors: performance expectancy,

effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating condition. Within this model, behavioural

intention has been placed as the mediating factor in the relationship between behavioural and

information system usage. In contrast, three demographic variables, namely gender, age, and

experience, and one behavioural factor, namely voluntariness of use, have been placed as the

moderating factors on the relationship between the behavioural factors and behavioural

intention (Figure 2-3).

Venkatesh et al. (2003) developed the UTAUT ideas after they had gone through eight

previous models on information system usage behaviour namely TRA, TAM, theory of

planned behaviour (TPB), combined of TAM and TPB, model of personal computer use

diffusion of innovations theory, and social cognitive theory. Subsequent validation by

Venkatesh et al. (2003) of UTAUT in a longitudinal study found it contributed to 70% of the

variance in behavioural intention and about 50% in actual use.

The UTAUT model has several weaknesses. First, UTAUT consists of too many factors in

predicting technology usage. Bagozzi (2007) claimed although the model is a ‘very well

understood and thoughtful presentation,” he further claimed that since UTAUT is a

combination of eight models of technology usage, to come out with a model with 41

independent variables for predicting intentions and at least eight independent variables for
predicting behavior,” is making things too complicated and is driving this model of

technology adoption “a stage of chaos.” Second, based on the clarifications of van Raaij and

Schepers (2008), who looked into the issue of less parsimonious UTAUT compared to other

technology usage models such as the Technology Acceptance Model and TAM2. This occurs

as the high R2 is only gained with four moderating variables.

Figure 2-3: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

Table 2-1 demonstrates the selected theories and models that construct the theoretical

frameworks for the study, namely TRA, TAM, and UTAUT. Furthermore, the variables

studied in each theory/model are also stated.

Table 2-1: Theoretical Frameworks of the Study

Model Variables
 Theory of Reasoned Actions (TRA) Behavioral intention

Attitude

Subjective norms

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Perceived usefulness

Perceived ease of use

Behavioural intention

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Performance expectancy

Technology (UTAUT) Effort expectancy

Social influence

Facilitating condition

Behavioural intention

Research Conceptual Framework

The theoretical frameworks have guided the present study to develop its research framework.

Several modifications have been made to the original model of UTAUT to ensure the current

model fits within the SSFM setting. Firstly, the model is based on UTAUT behavioural

factors as the independent variables: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social

influence, and facilitating condition. However, after an exhaustive review of the literature, the

present study has concluded that two behavioural factors, namely learning culture and

compatibility, have been consistently used in the previous studies to understand technology

usage among the community (Palis, 2006; Bremen, 2007; Bhattacherjee and Premkumar,

2004; Dixon, 2009; Shiro, 2010; Rogers, 2003; Karahanna et al., 2006; Hu et al., 2003;

D’Silva et al., 2010). Hence, the model includes these two factors as additional independent

variables. For the present study, the facilitating condition has been excluded. Venkatesh et al.
(2003) claimed that many aspects of facilitating conditions, such as training and support

provided, are consistently and freely offered within an organization and fairly invariant

across users. Comparatively, within the scope of the fisheries industry in Malaysia, a different

scenario can be seen where facilitation in the environment that is available to SSFM is

inadequate and different across types of GPS, satellite signal received, availability workshop

to repair broken GPS, training and courses, officers available and agencies available (Abu

Samah et al., 2020). Therefore, the researchers have decided to exclude this variable. The

present study maintains behavioural intention as the mediating factor. However, in line with

the comments made by van Raaij and Schepers (2008), the study has reduced the number of

UTAUT moderating factors from four to just two moderating factors. The maintained

moderating factors are age and experience. As no rules oblige the fishermen to use

technology, the voluntariness of use has been excluded (Abu Samah et al., 2021), and due to

the imbalance in proportion between male fishermen and female fishermen, gender was also

excluded from the present model (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2020) (Figure 2-4).

Moderating factors
Age
Experience

Independent Variables
Compatibility
Social influence
Effort expectancy
Learning culture Dependent variable
Performance expectancy Mediating factor
GPS usage among
Behavioural intention
SSFM

Figure 2-4: Research Conceptual Framework.