The increasing popularity of online learning applications (OLAs) among institutions and individuals is an ongoing trend in information technology. While much of previous technology adoption research has been focused on adoption motivators or enablers, the lack of research on adoption inhibitors is the primary motivation for this study. The main focus is on dispositional resistance to change (RTC) and its role in individual OLA adoption decisions. A theoretical model integrating two fields of research, technology adoption and psychology, was developed to investigate the influence of RTC on key adoption predictors using a sample of 217 university-student OLA users. A combination of cognitive dissonance and self-verification theories was used to explain the mechanism of this influence, which was subsequently tested and verified. Findings indicate that RTC has a significant negative impact on effort expectancy and usage intention, but not on attitude and performance expectancy. This study contributes by theoretically underpinning and empirically validating the impact of RTC on OLA adoption decisions. Furthermore, it illustrates the importance of incorporating RTC into technology adoption studies in general and OLA studies in particular. This research provides the foundation for future work in this severely underexplored area.
AharonyN (2009) Web 2.0 use by librarians. Library & Information Science Research31(1): 29–37.
2.
Bhattacherjee A (2001) Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly25(3): 351–370.
3.
BhattacherjeeAHikmetN (2007) Physicians’ resistance toward healthcare information technology: A theoretical model and empirical test. European Journal of Information Systems16(6): 725–737.
4.
CamilleriMACamilleriAC (2019) The students’ readiness to engage with mobile learning apps. Interactive Technology and Smart Education17(1): 28–38.
5.
CenfetelliRT (2004) Inhibitors and enablers as dual factor concepts in technology usage. Journal of the Association for Information Systems5(11): 16.
6.
CenfetelliRTSchwarzA (2011) Identifying and testing the inhibitors of technology usage intentions. Information Systems Research22(4): 808–823.
7.
ChinWWMarcolinBLNewstedPR (2003) A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research14(2): 189–217.
8.
ClaudyMCGarciaRO’DriscollA (2015) Consumer resistance to innovation—A behavioral reasoning perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science43: 528–544.
9.
CooperJ (2012) Cognitive dissonance theory. In: Van LangPKruglanskiAHigginsE (eds) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications, Vol. 1, 377–397.
10.
DavisFDBagozziRPWarshawPR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science35(8): 982–1003.
11.
FestingerL (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
12.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research18(1): 39–50.
13.
GuptaAAroraN (2017) Understanding determinants and barriers of mobile shopping adoption using behavioral reasoning theory. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services36: 1–7.
14.
HairJFJrHultGTMRingleCM, et al. (2021) A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
15.
HardinAMChangJCJFullerMA (2008) Formative vs. reflective measurement: Comment on Marakas, Johnson, and Clay (2007). Journal of the Association for Information Systems9(9): 3.
16.
HeSJiangSZhuR, et al. (2023) The influence of educational and emotional support on e-learning acceptance: An integration of social support theory and TAM. Education and Information Technologies28(9): 11145–11165.
17.
KaurPDhirARayA, et al. (2020b) Innovation resistance theory perspective on the use of food delivery applications. Journal of Enterprise Information Management34(6): 1746–1768.
18.
KaurPDhirASinghN, et al. (2020a) An innovation resistance theory perspective on mobile payment solutions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services55: 102059.
19.
KimHWKankanhalliA (2009) Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: A status quo bias perspective. MIS quarterly33(3): 567–582.
20.
KockN (2015) Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration11(4): 1–10.
21.
KrossSHargittaiERedmilesEM (2021) Characterizing the online learning landscape: What and how people learn online. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5(CSCW1): 1–19.
22.
LinKM (2011) e-Learning continuance intention: Moderating effects of user e-learning experience. Computers & Education56(2): 515–526.
NgaiEWPoonJKLChanYH (2007) Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education48(2): 250–267.
26.
NovOYeC (2008) Users’ personality and perceived ease of use of digital libraries: The case for resistance to change. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology59(5): 845–851.
27.
NovOYeC (2009) Resistance to change and the adoption of digital libraries: An integrative model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology60(8): 1702–1708.
28.
OregS (2003) Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology88(4): 680.
29.
OregS (2006) Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology15(1): 73–101.
30.
OregSGoldenbergJ (2015) Resistance to innovation: Its sources and manifestations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31.
OregSVakolaMArmenakisA (2011) Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science47(4): 461–524.
32.
ParkSYNamMWChaSB (2012) University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology43(4): 592–605.
33.
PillaiRSivathanuB (2018) An empirical study on the adoption of M-learning apps among IT/ITeS employees. Interactive Technology and Smart Education15(3): 182–204.
34.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJY, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88(5): 879.
35.
RamSShethJN (1989) Consumer resistance to innovations: The marketing problem and its solutions. Journal of Consumer Marketing6(2): 5–14.
RogersEM (2003) Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York, NY: Free Press.
38.
SarstedtMHairJFJrCheahJH, et al. (2019) How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australasian Marketing Journal27(3): 197–211.
StraubDBoudreauMCGefenD (2004) Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems13(1): 24.
41.
ŠumakBHeričkoMPušnikM (2011) A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human Behavior27(6): 2067–2077.
42.
SwannWBJr (2012) Self-verification theory. In: Van LangPKruglanskiAHigginsE (eds) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications, Vol 2, 23–42.
43.
SwannWBJrChang-SchneiderCLarsen McClartyK (2007) Do people's self-views matter? Self-concept and self-esteem in everyday life. American Psychologist62(2): 84.
TalaifarSSwannWB (2020) Self-verification theory. In: Zeigler-HillVShackelfordTK (eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, Cham, 4813–4821.
46.
TanPJB (2013) Applying the UTAUT to understand factors affecting the use of English e-learning websites in Taiwan. Sage Open3(4): 2158244013503837.
47.
ThibodeauRAronsonE (1992) Taking a closer look: Reasserting the role of the self-concept in dissonance theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin18(5): 591–602.
48.
VenkateshVBalaH (2008) Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences39(2): 273–315.
49.
VenkateshVDavisFD (1996) A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences27(3): 451–481.
50.
VenkateshVDavisFD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science46(2): 186–204.
51.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGB, et al. (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly27(3): 425–478.
52.
WestabyJD (2005) Behavioral reasoning theory: Identifying new linkages underlying intentions and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes98(2): 97–120.
