,, (, 2010). (, 2007).,,, DMB, ,, (, 2010)., LG., (, 2010) (, ,, ) 3, 10, (, 2009).,,. (, 2010)., (, 2010). 11

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download ",, (, 2010). (, 2007).,,, DMB, ,, (, 2010)., LG., (, 2010) (, ,, ) 3, 10, (, 2009).,,. (, 2010)., (, 2010). 11"

유리 전
6 years ago
Views:

1 20 6( 64) pp A Study on the Effect of Easiness to Use the Food Service Related Application of Smart Phone on Intentions of Use : Focused on the Mediation Effect of Familarity and Usefulness Kim, Gi-JinByun, Gwang-InYang, Jung-Mee The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of the easiness to use food service related application of smart phone on familarity and usefulness, that of familarity on usefulness and intention of use, and that of usefulness on intention of use. Also, it tried to identify the mediation effect of familarity between usefulness and easiness to use, and that of familarity and usefulness between easiness to use and intention of use. A survey was conducted on those who had an experience of using the food service related application in their smart phone, and who lived in Seoul/Gyeonggi, Daegu/Gyeongbuk, and Busan/Gyeongnam area. Total 266 questionnaires were used for final analysis. As a result, it was found that practicability, communication, and easiness to choose menu which were the lower level of easiness to use food service related application had a significant effect on familarity, and that convenience to use food service shops and easiness to choose menu on usefulness. Also, it was shown that familarity had a significant impact on usefulness and intention of use, and usefulness on intention of use. In addition, it was found that familarity and usefulness had a significant mediation effect between intention of use and easiness to use. s : Smart Phone, Food Service Related Application, Easiness to Use, Familiarity, Usefulness, Use Intention of Use (, 2009). IT

2 ,, (, 2010). (, 2007).,,, DMB, ,, (, 2010)., LG., (, 2010) (, ,, ) 3, 10, (, 2009).,,. (, 2010)., (, 2010). 11, e- 30% 41.,,,, (, ).,., (, 2010)., (, 2008).,.,,,,.,,,,..,.,,

3 (, ).,,,,. (, )., (, ).,,,,,, (, ).,...,.,.,.,.,.,. (Smart Phone) (personal digital assistant: PDA). (application), PC, -.,.,. Laudon & Laudon(2006) PDA. IBM 1992 COMDEX Simon, 1993 Bell South.,,,,,,,. 2007, (, 2009)., 3, 10 (, 2009)..,. (2010) PC

4 PC,. (, 2009)., (, )., (, 2010),, (, 2010)., (, 2010).,, (, 2010).,,,, (, 2008).,,,,. (, )., (, 2010)., (2010) RFID(Radio Frequency Identification). RFID RFID PDA RFID., (2006) Mobile POS. PC POS Mobile POS,,,,,.,,,.,.,..

5 (ease of use),,, (Davis, 1989). Davis(1989),., Gefen, Karahanna & Straub(2003), Lederer, Maupin, Sena & Zhuang(1998), (2009),., (2009), (2010). Davis(1989) TAM (easy to learn), (understandable), (become skilful), (easy to use), (controllable), (flexible), (1998) (self-efficacy), (perceived usableness), (accessibility), (complexity), (effort), (ease of use).. (2009) TAM,,,, 5.., (familiarity).,. Alba & Hutchinson(1987).,,,,.. Mowen(1995),,, Cordell(1997)., Rao & Monroe(1988)

6 , Johnson & Russo(1984). Fridgen(1987) Mackay & Fesenmaier(1997). ' ' ' '.,.. Davis(1989) (perceived usefulness). (perceived ease of use) 2.. Rogers(1995). Davis(1989) TAM (work more quickly), (job performance), (productivity), (quality), (makes job easier), (useful)., (1998) (outcome judgment), (outcome belief), (performance), (effectiveness), (motivational force), /(quality/accuracy), (perceived importance), / (information quality/value).,., Igbaria, Gumaraes & Davis(1996), Parthasarathy & Bhattrcherjee(1998), Gefen et al.(2003),., (2009),. (2010).. 1,..

7 , (Engel & Blackwell, 1982). Ajzen & Fishbein(1980) (TRA: Theory of Reasoned Action).. TRA. TRA,. TRA Davis(1986) (TAM: Technology Acceptance Model)., (perceived usefulness) (perceived ease of use). Davis(1986) TRA,. Rao & Monroe(1998), Johnson & Russo(1984), Igbaria, et al.(1996), Parthasarathy & Bhattrcherjee(1998), Gefen et al.(2003), (2009), (2010). Davis(1989), Gefen et al.(2003).. (Davis, 1989; Lederer et al., 1998;, 1989; Gefen et al., 2003;, 2009;, 2009;, 2010), (Johnson & Russo, 1984; Alba & Hutchinson, 1987; Fridgen, 1987; Rao & Monroe,

8 1988; Mowen, 1995; Mackay & Fesenmaier, 1997; Cordell, 1997), (Davis, 1989; Rogers, 1995; Igbaria et al., 1996;, 1998; Parthasarathy & Bhattrcherjee, 1998; Gefen et al., 2003;, 2009;, 2010) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Engel & Blackwell, 1982; Davis, 1986) < 1>.,,.,. Gefen(2003),.., Alba & Hutchinson(1987),..,,., Rao & Monroe(1988) Johnson & Russo(1984). (2010),.71. Gefen et al.(2003), (2009), (2009), (2006), (2005), (2010), (+ ). 2. (+ ).., Baker, Grewal & Parasuraman(1994),.,. Alba & Hutchinson(1987).. (2010) (+ ). Rao & Monroe(1998), Johnson & Russo(1984),

9 Igbaria, et al.(1996), Parthasarathy & Bhattrcherjee(1998), Gefen et al.(2003), (2009), (2010).. 4. (+ ). 5. (+ ). Davis(1989),,. Davis(1989),. Gefen et al.(2003). (2010). (2011).136,.113., Legris, Ingham & Collerette(2003) TAM.,. Rao & Monroe(1988),, Johnson & Russo(1984)., (Rao & Monroe, 1998; Johnson & Russo, 1984) Gefen(2003) Alba & Hutchinson(1987)

10 , (brain storming), 24, 5., Alba & Hutchinson(1987), Mowen(1995), Cordell(1997) 5., Davis(1989), Rogers(1995) 5., Ajzen & Fishbein(1980), Davis(1986) 5.,,,,, (pilot test) (,, ) 30 (brain storming) ,,. 1,. 1, , SPSS 19.0 AMOS , < 1>. 53.4%, 68.1%, %. / 50.8%, 46.4%,

11 50.8% %, %, %. (24 ). Varimax, (eigenvalue) 1.0. Cronbach's. < 2>. s11.40, 23.. s13, s14, s15, s12, s22, s10, s21 7,.850. s8, s7, s9, s6, s5 5,.812. s2, s4, s3, s1 4,.891. s17, s16, s18, s19, s20 5,.830. s23, s24 2,.665, Nunnally(1978) Cronbach's (acceptable)(cronbach's >.60),

12 .. < 3> , (+).,,.

AMOS 18.0. < 4> =10.467, df=5, p=.063, /df=2.093, GFI=.

13 AMOS < 4> =10.467, df=5, p=.063, /df=2.093, GFI=.990, AGFI=.931, NFI=.988, CFI=.933, RMR=.028, RMSEA=.064. H1.,,..,. H1. H2

14 .,. H2.,

15 . H3, H4, H5.,,. (Sobel test). < 3> z-test. < 7>.. Baron & Kenny(1986),. (Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Sobel, 1982). z-value = a*b/sqrt(b2*sa2 + a2*sb2) H6.,,.,. H7. H6,,,. H6 H7 Baron & Kenny(1986) 1. H8..,,,.,,.

16 (brain storming), (s11. ), 23,,,, 5..., (factor).,,,,,,,,,.,.,,.,,. 24,, (WI-FI).,.,.,,.,..

17 ,. (,,,, )..,,,,,,,..,,.,.,,..,,.,.

21 A Study on the Effect of Easiness to Use the Food Service Related Application of Smart Phone on Intentions of Use : Focused on the Mediation Effect of Familarity and Usefulness Kim, Gi-JinByun, Gwang-InYang, Jung-Mee,,.,,.,, 266.,,,.,,.. :,,,,,

<30365FB0E6C1A4C0CD2C20C0CCB1B9C3B62C20B0ADBAB4B1E22E687770>

<30365FB0E6C1A4C0CD2C20C0CCB1B9C3B62C20B0ADBAB4B1E22E687770> 부동산학연구 제18집 제3호, 2012. 9, pp. 89~108 Journal of the Korea Real Estate Analysts Association Vol.18, No.3, 2012. 9, pp. 89~108 모바일 부동산 정보서비스의 특성이 만족도와 재사용 의도에 미치는 영향* Effect of Characteristics of Mobile