Acceptance and acceptability criteria: a literature review

被引:65
|
作者
Alexandre, Boris [1 ]
Reynaud, Emanuelle [1 ]
Osiurak, Francois [1 ,2 ]
Navarro, Jordan [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Lyon, Lab Etud Mecanismes Cognit EA 3082, Inst Psychol, 5 Ave Pierre Mendes France, F-69676 Bron, France
[2] Inst Univ France, Paris, France
关键词
Tool use; Acceptance; Acceptability; Technology; INFORMATION-SYSTEMS SUCCESS; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE; USER ACCEPTANCE; BEHAVIORAL INTENTION; PERCEIVED EASE; SELF-EFFICACY; SOCIAL-INFLUENCE; EMPIRICAL-TEST; MCLEAN MODEL; USAGE;
D O I
10.1007/s10111-018-0459-1
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
One of the common issues related to tool use is to know why certain tools are chosen, accepted and used by users, while others are rejected. The aim of this paper is to find out if there are criteria related to the tool that can explain this decision. This manuscript proposes a literature review about acceptance and acceptability and presents the different historical approaches that have proposed an explanation to this issue (i.e. ergonomics approach, social approach, productivity-oriented approach, hedonic approach, user-experience approach), together with acceptance criteria listed in the field of psychology, ergonomics or cognitive science. Subsequently, a synthetic view and an interpretation of the evolution of the issue of tool acceptance are proposed, along with a new classification of acceptance and acceptability criteria, which consists in grouping criteria present in the literature in four meta-criteria.
引用
收藏
页码:165 / 177
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Acceptance and acceptability criteria: a literature review
    Boris Alexandre
    Emanuelle Reynaud
    François Osiurak
    Jordan Navarro
    [J]. Cognition, Technology & Work, 2018, 20 : 165 - 177
  • [2] Acceptability and Acceptance of Connected Automated Vehicles: A Literature Review and Focus Groups
    Post, Jorick M. M.
    Veldstra, Janna L.
    Unal, A. Berfu
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS (CHIRA), 2021, : 223 - 231
  • [3] A review of lung transplant donor acceptability criteria
    Orens, JB
    Boehler, A
    de Perrot, M
    Estenne, M
    Glanville, AR
    Keshavjee, S
    Kotloff, R
    Morton, J
    Studer, SM
    Van Raemdonck, D
    Waddel, T
    Snell, GI
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION, 2003, 22 (11): : 1183 - 1200
  • [4] ASSESSMENT OF TREATMENT ACCEPTABILITY - A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
    MILTENBERGER, RG
    [J]. TOPICS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION, 1990, 10 (03) : 24 - 38
  • [5] ACCEPTABILITY OF BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS - A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
    REIMERS, TM
    WACKER, DP
    KOEPPL, G
    [J]. SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, 1987, 16 (02) : 212 - 227
  • [6] Factors of acceptability, acceptance and usage for non-rail autonomous public transport vehicles: A systematic literature review
    Pigeon, Caroline
    Alauzet, Aline
    Paire-Ficout, Laurence
    [J]. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART F-TRAFFIC PSYCHOLOGY AND BEHAVIOUR, 2021, 81 : 251 - 270
  • [7] Factors of acceptability, acceptance and usage for non-rail autonomous public transport vehicles: A systematic literature review
    Pigeon, Caroline
    Alauzet, Aline
    Paire-Ficout, Laurence
    [J]. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2021, 81 : 251 - 270
  • [8] NEW ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR PHYSICAL-REVIEW-LETTERS
    ADAIR, RK
    BASBAS, G
    TRIGG, GL
    WELLS, GL
    [J]. PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, 1981, 47 (20) : 1421 - 1422
  • [9] Acceptance studies in the field of land use-A critical and systematic review to advance the conceptualization of acceptance and acceptability
    Busse, Maria
    Siebert, Rosemarie
    [J]. LAND USE POLICY, 2018, 76 : 235 - 245
  • [10] Acceptance to be the Host of a Resettlement Programme: A Literature Review
    Sridarran, Pournima
    Keraminiyage, Kaushal
    Fernando, Nishara
    [J]. 7TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUILDING RESILIENCE: USING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE TO INFORM POLICY AND PRACTICE IN DISASTER RISK REDUCTION, 2018, 212 : 962 - 969