Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 641

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reconceptualizing Compatibility Beliefs in Technology Acceptance Research1

Karahanna, Elena, Agarwal, Ritu, Angst, Corey M.·2006·MIS Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/25148754
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Theoretical and empirical research in technology acceptance, while acknowledging the importance of individual beliefs about the compatibility of a technology, has produced equivocal results. This study focuses on further conceptual development of this important belief in technology acceptance. Unlike much prior research that has focused on only a limited aspect of compatibility, we provide a more comprehensive conceptual definition that disaggregates the content of compatibility into four distinct and separable constructs: compatibility with preferred work style, compatibility with existing work practices, compatibility with prior experience, and compatibility with values. We suggest that the form of the multidimensional compatibility construct is best modeled as a multivariate structural model. Based on their conceptual definitions, we develop operational measures for the four compatibility variables. We assess the nomological validity of our conceptualization by situating it within the technology acceptance model. In contrast to prior research, which has regarded beliefs of compatibility as an independent antecedent of technology acceptance outcomes, we posit causal linkages not only among the four compatibility beliefs, but also between compatibility beliefs and usefulness, and ease of use. We test our theoretical model with a field sample of 278 users of a customer relationship management system in the context of a large bank. Scale validation indicates that the operational measures of compatibility developed in this study have acceptable psychometric properties, which support the existence of four distinct constructs. Results largely support the theorized relationships.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/25148754

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 15 references

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Adams, 1992, Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication, MIS Quarterly, 16, 227, 10.2307/249577 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Agarwal, 1999, Are Individual Differences Germane to the Acceptance of New Information Technologies?, Decision Sciences, 30, 361, 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb01614.x · DOI · Paper page
  3. Ajzen, 1980, Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior
  4. Becker, 1993, Profiles of Commitment: An Empirical Test, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 177, 10.1002/job.4030140207 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bolton, W. T. The Perception and Potential Adoption of Channel 2000: Implications for Diffusion Theory and Videotext Technology, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1981.
  6. Brancheau, 1990, The Adoption of Spreadsheet Software: Testing Innovation Diffusion Theory in the Context of End-User Computing, Information Systems Research, 1, 115, 10.1287/isre.1.2.115 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Chin, 1998, Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling, MIS Quarterly, 22, vii
  8. Chin, 1989, The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling, 295
  9. Chin, 1995, Adoption Intention in GSS: Relative Importance of Beliefs, Data Base, 26, 42, 10.1145/217278.217285 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Cho, 2001, Critical Factors for Assimilation of Object-Orientated Programming Languages, Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 125
  11. Davis, 1989, User Acceptance of Computer Technology, Management Science, 35, 982, 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Ettlie, 1979, The Adoption Time Period for Some Transportation Innovations, Management Science, 25, 429, 10.1287/mnsc.25.5.429 · DOI
  13. Feather, 1994, Human Values and Their Relation to Justice, Journal of Social Issues, 50, 129, 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01201.x · DOI
  14. Feather, 1992, Values, Valences, Expectations, and Action, Journal of Social Issues, 48, 109, 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb00887.x · DOI · Paper page
  15. Fishbein, 1975, Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research
  16. Fornell, 1982, Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory, Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440, 10.1177/002224378201900406 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Grube, 1994, Inducing Change in Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors: Belief Systems Theory and the Method of Value Self-Confrontation, Journal of Social Issues, 50, 153, 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01202.x · DOI
  18. Hardgrave, 2003, Investigating Determinants of Software Developers’ Intentions to Follow Methodologies, Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 123, 10.1080/07421222.2003.11045751 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Harrington, 1999, Telecommuting: A Test of Trust, Competing Values, and Relative Advantage, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42, 223, 10.1109/47.807960 · DOI
  20. Hirschman, 1980, Innovativeness, Novelty Seeking, and Consumer Creativity, The Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 283, 10.1086/208816 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Hoffer, 1992, The Diffusion of Database Machines, Data Base, 23, 13, 10.1145/141342.141352 · DOI
  22. Holak, 1990, Purchase Intentions and the Dimensions of Innovation: An Exploratory Model, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 59, 10.1111/1540-5885.710059 · DOI
  23. Hurt, The Systematic Measurement of the Perceived Characteristics of Information Technologies 1: Microcomputers as Innovations, 10.1080/01463378909385541 · DOI
  24. Johns, 1998, Aggregation of Aggravation? The Relative Merits of a Nroad Withdrawal Construct, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 453, 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199809)19:5<453::AID-JOB2899>3.0.CO;2-9 · DOI
  25. Jöreskog, 1993, Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language
  26. Karahanna, 1999, Information Technology Adoption Across Time: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Pre-Adoption and Post-Adoption Beliefs, MIS Quarterly, 23, 183, 10.2307/249751 · DOI
  27. Kohlberg, 1981, Essays on Moral Development, I: The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice
  28. Kwon, 1987, Unifying the Fragmented Models of Information Systems Implementation, 88
  29. Law, 1998, Toward a Taxonomy of Multidimensional Constructs, Academy of Management Review, 23, 741, 10.2307/259060 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Licker, 1986, A Value-Added Model of Electronic Mail Utilization
  31. Lohmoller, 1989, Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares, 10.1007/978-3-642-52512-4 · DOI
  32. McGeoch, 1952, The Psychology of Human Learning
  33. Moore, G. C. An Examination of the Implementation of Information Technology by End-Users: A Diffusion of Innovations Perspective, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia, 1989.
  34. Moore, 1996, Integrating Diffusion of Innovations and Theory of Reasoned Action Models to Predict Utilization of Information Technology by End-Users, 132, 10.1007/978-0-387-34982-4_10 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Narvarez, 1995, The Four Components of Acting Morally, 385
  36. Ostlund, L. E. Product Perceptions and Predispositional Factors as Determinants of Innovative Behavior, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University, 1969.
  37. Parthasarathy, 1998, Understanding Post-Adoption Behavior in the Context of Online Services, Information Systems Research, 9, 362, 10.1287/isre.9.4.362 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Ramiller, 1994, Perceived Compatibility of Information Technology Innovations Among Secondary Adopters: Toward a Reassessment, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 11, 1, 10.1016/0923-4748(94)90022-1 · DOI
  39. Rogers, 1962, Diffusion of Innovations
  40. Rogers, 1983, Diffusion of Innovations
  41. Rogers, 1995, Diffusion of Innovations
  42. Rokeach, 1960, The Open and Closed Mind: Investigations into the Nature of Belief Systems and Personality Systems
  43. Straub, 1995, Measuring System Usage: Implications for IS Theory Testing, Management Science, 41, 1328, 10.1287/mnsc.41.8.1328 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Tornatzky, 1982, Innovation Characteristics and Innovation Adoption-Implementation: A Meta-Analysis of Findings, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29, 28, 10.1109/TEM.1982.6447463 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Vallerand, 1997, Toward a Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation, 271
  46. Venkatesh, 2000, A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies, Management Science, 46, 186, 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Weems, 2003, Characteristics of Respondents Who Respond Differently to Positively and Negatively Worded Items on Rating Scales, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 587, 10.1080/0260293032000130234 · DOI
  48. Werts, 1974, Intraclass Reliability Estimates: Testing Structural Assumptions, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 25, 10.1177/001316447403400104 · DOI

Cited by

See all 641

Metadata

Authors
Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R., & Angst, C. M.
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2006-12-01
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
781-804
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
DOI
10.2307/25148754
OpenAlex
W3151380728
Cited by
641
References
15
FWCI
44.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reconceptualizing Compatibility Beliefs in Technology Acceptance Research1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/25148754
The paper
Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R., & Angst, C. M. (2006). Reconceptualizing Compatibility Beliefs in Technology Acceptance Research1. MIS Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148754

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.