Yes / ‘Habit’ was the most important theoretical addition into UTAUT2 to challenge the role of behavioural intention as a lone predictor of technology use. However, systematic review and meta-analysis of Price value the other UTAUT2 additional construct revealed major inconsistency of the model with just 41% UTAUT2 based studies including the construct in their research. Thus, the aim of this research is to understand the appropriateness of ‘habit’ construct usage among UTAUT2 based empirical studies and their reason for omission or inclusion. The findings from 66 empirical studies revealed only 23 studies a meagre (35%) utilised ‘habit’ construct and the remaining massive 43 studies (65%) excluded the construct from their research model. The major reason for studies not including “habit” construct was they were examining users of new technology at early stage of adoption where sufficient time hasn’t elapsed for users to form habit. Moreover this study caution the use of experience as an alternative for habit. Since experience can be gained under mandatory settings which is not sufficient enough to form habit that occurs more naturally under voluntary settings. This study also provided number of recommendations for theory and practice based on the findings.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BRADFORD/oai:bradscholars.brad.ac.uk:10454/18059 |
| Date | 25 September 2020 |
| Creators | Tamilmani, Kuttimani, Rana, Nripendra P., Dwivedi, Y.K. |
| Source Sets | Bradford Scholars |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Conference paper, Accepted manuscript |
| Rights | © 2019 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing. Reproduced in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. The final authenticated publication is available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04315-5_19 |
Page generated in 0.0015 seconds