{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032663316582914576, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02512562814070352, 'mean_word_length': 5.083969465648855, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reconsidering the role of attitude in the TAM: An answer to Teo (2009) and Nistor and Heymann (2010), and Lopez-Bonilla and Lopez-Bonilla (2011)

Introduction Several models have been developed to explain and predict the technology acceptance. Over the years, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) has been widely accepted as a robust, powerful and parsimonious model capable of explaining user’s technology acceptance in a variety of contexts. The model developed by Davis (1989) aims at explaining how users perceive and use technology. Since its development, the TAM has been used as a research framework in many studies under different contexts. Although TAM has been widely used, Dishaw and Strong (1999) recommended that the TAM be studied further to obtain more insights into its validity.