Study of Usage Behavior on Applying LINE for Fire Safety Works through UTAUT Model

Nowadays, LINE is one of the widely used communication software in Taiwan and fire protection work is also deeply affected through applying LINE. In this study, the Integrated Technology Acceptance Model (UTAUT) is applied to explore the behavior usage of LINE in assistance of fire safety works. A q...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inIOP conference series. Earth and environmental science Vol. 527; no. 1; pp. 12015 - 12022
Main Authors Chen, Y C, Hu, W J
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Bristol IOP Publishing 01.07.2020
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Nowadays, LINE is one of the widely used communication software in Taiwan and fire protection work is also deeply affected through applying LINE. In this study, the Integrated Technology Acceptance Model (UTAUT) is applied to explore the behavior usage of LINE in assistance of fire safety works. A questionnaire survey is designed to explore the three aspects that affect the "behavioral intension", such as "performance expectation", "effort expectation" and "social influence"; and whether "usage behavior" is subject to "behavioral intension" and "facilitating conditions". Moderator variables such as gender, age, experience and voluntary interference with each aspect are also explored. Through the statistical analysis, it is concluded that LINE's assistance to fire safety works is definitely positive. "Performance expectation", "effort expectation" and "social influence" can affect "behavioral intention" to be very significant; "behavioral intension" and "facilitating conditions" can also affect "usage behavior". Among the different moderator variables: gender has no significant difference to each aspect. Age, working seniority and LINE experience have very or extreme significant differences on each aspect. Work unit and grades only have significant differences on some aspect. Voluntary has significant difference only in "social influence."
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:1755-1307
1755-1315
DOI:10.1088/1755-1315/527/1/012015