Information & Management 51 (2014) 240–248

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Information & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/im

Why do users switch to a disruptive technology? An empirical study

based on expectation-disconfirmation theory
Liu Fan a,b, Yung-Ho Suh a,*
a
School of Management, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
b
College of Economics and Management, Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: A general technology switching model (TSM) is proposed to explain why IT users switch from an
Received 7 May 2011 incumbent technology to a disruptive one. Seven research hypotheses derived from this model are
Received in revised form 16 December 2013 validated using a field survey of feature phone users in Korea. The results indicate that users’ switching
Accepted 31 December 2013
intention is determined by their expectations regarding the disruptive technology and dissatisfaction
Available online 8 January 2014
with the incumbent technology. User dissatisfaction is influenced by disconfirmation of previously held
beliefs regarding ones incumbent technology and ones expectations for the disruptive technology.
Keywords:
Switching cost is revealed not significant in the decision to acquire a disruptive technology.
Technology switching model
ß 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Expectation-disconfirmation theory
Switching cost
Survey research
Structural equation modeling

1. Introduction behavior from an incumbent technology to a disruptive one

Today technology innovation is viewed an increasingly
incremental element in driving productivity and competitive-
ness for business units. In the face of technology innovation,
every producer tries to come out with differentiating products,
attempts to enter the initial market, and intends to seize market
share by the most advanced innovation of whatever product he
offers [39,53]. A technology and resulting business innovation
comes along to radically change the business landscape and
environment. These innovations are loosely called ‘‘disruptive’’
[19]. A disruptive innovation is a new product that introduces a
different set of performance attributes relative to what already
exists, and this set of attributes is initially attractive to an
emerging customer segment [1,18,26]. From a previous summary
on disruptive innovativeness [18,16,15,49,22,54], Danneels [22]
defined disruptive technology as a technology that changes the
bases of competition by changing the performance metrics along
which firms compete. It seems that disruptive technologies tend
be associated with the replacement of incumbents by entrants.
Although disruptive technologies initially underperform estab-
lished ones in serving the mainstream market, they eventually
displace the established technologies. Thus, users’ switching
* Corresponding author at: 1 Hoegi-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-701,
Republic of Korea. Tel.: +82 2 961 0780; fax: +82 2 961 0515.
E-mail address: suhy@khu.ac.kr (Y.-H. Suh).
will eventually bring the entrant firms that supported the
disruptive technology to displace incumbent firms that sup-
ported the prior technology. This is why it is important to study
users’ switching behavior from an incumbent technology to a
disruptive one.
Disruptive technology is regarded a specific type of technologi-
cal change, which operates through a specific mechanism, and has
specific consequences. However, it has been pointed out that the
specific measures to define a disruptive technology need to be
further refined. Even so, the term of ‘technology innovation’ is
estimated to be a major issue for telecommunication industries,
where companies regularly come up with new products and
technologies. A smartphone is selected as a disruptive technology
in this market comparing to a feature phone. A smartphone is a
converged device for mobile computing and communication,
which allows users to install and use the applications on their own,
based on their needs and interests [50]. IPhone, Blackberry,
Samsung Galaxy, etc. are most famous smartphones on market
these days. In Korea, following the introduction of the iPhone to the
Korean market in late 2009, different cell-phone brands and
telecommunication companies promoted various smartphones. By
July, 2011, smartphone users in Korea increased to 15,000,000,
which is 30 percent of the total population. In such a shifting point
of paradigm, where users of the current technology is considering
whether to continuously be a loyal customer or to be an adopter of
a disruptive technology, it is necessary to find out their choice
making determinants during the period of paradigm shifting.

0378-7206/$ – see front matter ß 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.12.004
 L. Fan, Y.-H. Suh / Information & Management 51 (2014) 240–248
Technology switching is not entirely an alien concept in IS
research. It has been examined variously as a post-adoption
behavior, where users consider changing to another service
provider or product after they evaluate the experience of using
the service or product. The post-adoption behavior in IS research
examines IS continuance usage by employing the expectation-
disconfirmation theory (EDT). Developed from EDT, the post
adoption model of IS posits that IS users’ continuance decisions are
made following an initial adoption phase, influenced by the initial
use, and can potentially lead to an ex post reversal of the initial
decision, that is, to the discontinuance of the IS [9]. However,
changing from an incumbent technology to a disruptive one is not
simply a post-adoption behavior in literature, who explains
continuance behavior by including unique post-adoption variables
considering an IS. The switching behavior from an incumbent
technology to a disruptive one aims to employ both pre-acceptance
and post-adoption variables considering different technologies.
Consequently, this paper aims to explain the switching
phenomenon in the context of a disruptive technology field.
Specifically, this paper intends to (1) generate a model to explain
why users switch to a disruptive technology; (2) explore the
factors influencing users’ intention to switch to a disruptive
technology; and (3) explain the role of switching cost in the
context of IT switching. The proposed model is based on EDT,
which is further refined using auxiliary theories and empirical
findings from prior IS use research [9]. In order to do so, this paper
studies users’ switching behavior from a feature phone to a
smartphone in the Korean telecommunication market. Structural
equation modeling (SEM) is used to confirm the validity and
analyze the causal relationship of the suggested model.
2. Literature review
2.1. Customer switching behavior
While customer retention has been a focus of research, recently,
the loss of customers has been recognized as a primary concern for
at least three reasons [40]. First, for market share and revenues,
both the number of new adoptions and number of discontinuers at
any period are regarded significant [43]. Second, evidence shows
that negative interpersonal influence by service discontinuers is
generally more persuasive than is positive interpersonal influence
from continuing customers. In addition to triggering further
discontinuance by other subscribers, potential new adopters might
be influenced against subscribing (e.g., [4,36,35,38]), despite
positive influence from other sources [42]. Third, it is more
expensive to acquire new customers than to retain existing
customers because of the search costs associated with identifying
new customers, start-up costs involved in setting up new accounts,
and time spent by customer service and technical support
personnel in initiating new customers to the service.
Regarding the importance of discontinuance behavior, research
has started to focus on customer switching behavior. Users’
behavior of IT switching in this paper is defined as the behavior of
replacing an incumbent IT with a disruptive one. In contrast to a
large body of research on IT usage, few studies have focused on IT
switching [12]. Literature in MIS refines itself by targeting at
technology acceptance and continuous usage. Technology accep-
tance model (TAM) [23] and Post adoption model of IS usage (PAM)
[9] are most widely adopted theories that support for large
volumes of research in related fields. TAM reveals a user’s decision
when facing a new technology on whether to accept it or not. It
focuses on initial acceptance of a technology, although later been
applied in both acceptance and continuance contexts. TAM only
adopts pre-acceptance variables such as perceived usefulness,
perceived ease of use and intention to use. One of the biggest
241
legacies of TAM is its inability to provide a reasonable explanation
of acceptance–discontinuance anomaly based on a common set of
pre-acceptance variables. Based on TAM, PAM is suggested to
explain users’ IS continuance usage. It includes unique post-
acceptance variables, such as satisfaction, and confirmation. By
employing such post-acceptance variables, PAM is able to explain
users’ post-adoption behavior, such as continuous or discontinu-
ous usage of an IT. However, both models suggest the adoption or
continuance usage of a defined technology. The real situation is
that users will consider changing to a new technology after the
performance evaluation of the current one he is using. That is why
the switching behavior from an incumbent technology to a
disruptive one should be taken into consideration, because it
suggests evaluating the post-acceptance variable of confirmation
on an incumbent IT and pre-acceptance variable of expectation on
a disruptive technology at the same time.
Customers’ switching behavior has been studied in marketing
literature which analyzes brand or service switching
[3,33,7,34,29]. Rather than developing a general model of switch-
ing behavior, antecedents of switching behavior in the context of
service switching were identified. Table 1 lists relative research.
Summarizing the previous literature, (1) switching behavior is
observed in service industries, with most service providers offering
the same or similar services. (2) While many of the studies explore
the antecedents of switching intention, a large portion of them
emphasize the significant role of switching cost in forming or
constraining customers switching intention. (3) Switching inten-
tion seems to explore a new field of customer relationship,
claiming that satisfaction–loyalty relationship may be broken
down with the mediating effect of other variables. Though several
studies have been conducted on switching behavior in marketing,
few have addressed users’ switching behavior in ITs. Adapted
from switching literature in marketing, this paper aims to develop
a general model for explaining users’ switching intention to a
disruptive IT.
2.2. Expectation-(dis)confirmation theory (EDT)
Customers’ IT switching behavior is viewed as a rational post-
adoption behavior following customers’ experience with IT usage.
Post-adoption behavior is an important area of IS research because
it is considered a significant indicator for IS success and use.
Studies of post-adoption behavior mainly fall into two streams,
either on the IS continued usage or its discontinuance. Theoreti-
cally, both streams are based on EDT, a theory widely used in
the consumer behavior literature to study consumer satisfaction,
post-purchase behavior, and related factors.
EDT posits that expectations, coupled with perceived perfor-
mance, lead to post-purchase satisfaction. This effect is mediated
through positive or negative disconfirmation between expecta-
tions and performance. The four main constructs in the model are:
expectations, performance, disconfirmation, and satisfaction. If a
product outperforms expectations (positive disconfirmation),
post-purchase satisfaction will result. If a product falls short of
expectations (negative disconfirmation), the consumer is likely to
be dissatisfied [37]. Though EDT has been widely used to study
consumer satisfaction, post-purchase behavior, and service mar-
keting in general [37,2,21,41,48,55], it has been pointed out that
EDT has several limitations. For one thing, conceptualization of
expectation differs across EDT studies. Some studies define
expectation in terms of pre-consumption beliefs while others
define it as beliefs weighed with an evaluation of outcomes in an
expectancy theoretic sense. For another, EDT ignores potential
changes in consumers’ expectation following their consumption
experience and the impact of these changes on subsequent
cognitive processes [10]. Therefore, when adapting EDT to explain
242 L. Fan, Y.-H. Suh / Information & Management 51 (2014) 240–248

Table 1
Antecedents of switching intention proposed in various research.

Year Researchers Antecedents Dependent Variable Domain

1995 Keaveney Pricing; Inconvenience; Service switching behavior Service industry

Core service failure;
Service encounter failures;
Response to service failure;
Competition;
Ethical problems;
Involuntary switching

1999 Bansal and Taylor Satisfaction; Switching intentions Mortage servcie

Attitude toward switching;
Subjective norms;
Perceived switching costs

2006 Hu and Huang Procedural switching costs; Intention to switch Mobile telecommunication services
Relational switching costs

2006 Kim et al. Availability of attractive alternatives; Intention to switch email service Email service
Customer satisfaction with email service;
Switching costs

2007 Antón et al. Satisfaction; Switching intention Automobile insurance industry

Deficiencies in outcome quality;
Deficiencies in interaction quality;
Deficiencies in physical environment quality;
Low perceived commitment;
Price unfairness;
Anger incident

2012 Bhattacherjee et al. Relative advantage; IT switching intention Web browser

Personal innovativeness;
Satisfaction with prior IT

users’ switching behavior, we propose that expectation as a pre-
consumption belief which forms before a consumer buy the
disruptive technology. In addition, we suggest that the constructs
in original EDT should be extended to view at different phases of
IT usage.
3. Technology switching model
While consumer research found that EDT plays a significant
role in explaining customers’ post-adoption behavior, we believe
that it is difficult to apply EDT directly to the switching behavior
to a disruptive IT. The constructs of expectation and perceived
performance from EDT are based on the perception of the same
product. Confirmation is the perception resulting from the
evaluation of the experience of using that product. The switching
behavior from an incumbent technology to a disruptive one
considers the time period when users weigh the benefits and
losses among different technologies and make a choice decision.
Therefore, it is more likely that the expectations and perfor-
mance arise from perceptions of different ITs in the context of
technology switching model (TSM). Furthermore, evaluation of
the disruptive technology results from a pre-consumption
expectation before usage, which leads to a final comparison to
performance evaluation of the incumbent IT. Fig. 1 explains the
phenomena in detail. The original construct of expectation and
perceived performance in EDT, although evaluated from different
time series, is tested on one specified IT. The IT switching model
we are suggesting aims to focus the performance on the
incumbent IT, thus forming a disconfirmation of the incumbent
IT through the gap between its expectation and performance
evaluation. The IT switching intention would then be expected to
stem from the expectation regarding the disruptive IT, because of

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework on differences between EDT and ISM.

 L. Fan, Y.-H. Suh / Information & Management 51 (2014) 240–248
Fig. 2. Research model.
rapid innovation, customers have higher expectations regarding
new technologies.
Fig. 2 depicts a Technology switching model (TSM) that this
study proposes for examination of users’ switching behavior to a
disruptive IT. As shown in Fig. 2, different from the original EDT
model, the major theme of this model aims to explain users’ IT
switching behavior by testing their expectation and performance
evaluation between different ITs.
The hypothesis discussed below is logically adapted from EDT.
The original disconfirmation–satisfaction relationship is retained
only by viewing satisfaction as the reverse side of dissatisfaction,
which would cause the direct influence on the behavioral intention
to switch. Dissatisfaction is regarded as an affect, which has been
theorized and validated in TAM-based research as a significant
antecedent of intention concerning IS usage (e.g., [24,32,47]).
These studies indirectly support the dissatisfaction–discontinu-
ance relationship. This leads to our first hypothesis:
H1. Dissatisfaction on the incumbent IT will have a positive effect
on the intention to switch to a disruptive IT.
EDT posits that customer satisfaction is jointly determined by
expectation of the IS and the confirmation of the evaluation of
the performance after actual usage. Disconfirmation refers to the
extent to which users’ pre-usage expectation is contravened
during actual usage experience [11]. Disconfirmation can be
divided into two categories. One is the case where performance
exceeds expectation. In this case, customers feel satisfied
because they feel the products successfully meet their needs
and achieve their expectation. On the other hand, performance
may be perceived lower than expectation, which in turn brings on
dissatisfaction. Customers perceive that the product fails to
achieve the expected benefits of the IS usage. Disconfirmation
discussed in this paper refers to the case where perceived
performance lags expectation. Hence:
H2. Disconfirmation of the incumbent IT will have a positive effect
on dissatisfaction on the incumbent IT.
Expectation is pointed out as an additional determinant of
satisfaction in EDT, because expectation provides the baseline or
reference level for customers to form evaluative judgments about
the focal product or services [10]. The construct of expectation in
original EDT considers customers’ expectation of a product or
service before its usage, and compares it with the post-usage
performance to form a confirmation. However, expectation in this
243
research is defined as the expectation of a disruptive IT. Previous EDT
theorizes that a lower baseline level of expectation tends to enhance
one’s satisfaction, while high expectation easily leads to dissatisfac-
tion. Considering expectation for the case of a disruptive IT, we
propose that a high baseline level of expectation of the disruptive IT
will enhance one’s dissatisfaction with the incumbent IT. This is
because users will anticipate a higher benefit from the disruptive IT,
and feel the incumbent IT failed to meet their needs. Meanwhile,
once a customer forms a high expectation of a disruptive IT, he/she
will be willing to try using it. Thus, this influences them to switch
from the incumbent IT to a disruptive one. Hence:
H3. Expectation on a disruptive IT will have a positive effect on
dissatisfaction of the incumbent IT.
H4. Expectation on a disruptive IT will have a positive effect on
intention to switch to a disruptive IT.
Switching cost, which is highly subjective and even emotional
and difficult to assess [51], has been abstractly viewed in the
literature as the ‘‘difficulty’’ or ‘‘disutility’’ involved in changing
over or switching (to a new product/service/system) [25].
Burnham et al. [14] developed a switching cost typology that
identifies three types of switching costs, and examined the
antecedents and consequences of switching costs. The three types
of switching cost are suggested as (1) procedural switching cost,
primarily involving the loss of time and effort; (2) financial
switching costs, involving the loss of financially quantifiable
resources; and (3) relational switching costs, involving psycholog-
ical or emotional discomfort due to the loss of identity and the
breaking of bonds. Adapted from the research in Burnham et al.
[14], this paper separates switching cost into two types, procedural
switching cost and financial switching cost. Relational switching
cost, because it usually arises when users switch to different
service providers, is excluded from our research. In the case of
mobile phone market in Korea, when users switch to a disruptive
IT, they may maintain their relationship with their current service
provider, thus, avoiding the relational switching cost.
A number of marketing studies have explored the notion of
switching costs in consumer decision making and most of them
examined its role in affecting customers’ switching intention
[51,28,30]. Shapiro and Varian [44] pointed out that consumers
will evaluate the benefit gained after the switching behavior to see
whether the switching cost is worthwhile or not. It is believed that
consumers will not switch if they perceive that the cost they incur
is greater than the benefit that they will gain [31]. Bansal and
244 L. Fan, Y.-H. Suh / Information & Management 51 (2014) 240–248
Taylor [7] regarded switching cost as an aspect influencing
consumers’ attitudes toward switching behavior. Since switching
cost will be perceived as bringing difficulties to the process of
switching, consumers will have a weak switching intention. Hu and
Hwang [29] reviewed the typology of switching cost in literature,
and summarized the type of switching cost in Taiwanese mobile
phone industry as procedural switching cost, financial switching
cost and relational switching cost. They also test the relationship
between these three types of switching cost and switching intention.
Based on the causal relationship between switching cost and
switching intention, we propose that:
H5a. Financial switching cost will have a negative effect on inten-
tion to switch to a disruptive IT.
H5b. Procedural switching cost will have a negative effect on
intention to switch to a disruptive IT.
Since the direct effect of switching cost on switching intention
has been studied extensively, this research investigates the
interaction effect of switching cost on the dissatisfaction-switch-
ing intention and expectation–switching intention relationship.
As previously stated, consumers dissatisfied with the incum-
bent IT will be likely to switch to a disruptive IT. However,
considering the switching cost, consumers will weigh the benefit of
switching, and sometimes give up the switching intention. This is
because cost spent in switching may outweigh the benefit
customers expect from the new IT.
IT switching is regarded as an inherently risky behavior, whose
outcomes are often unknown. Thus, consumers who are cost
sensitive and are afraid of taking risks may not be open to switching
to a disruptive IT even if they are slightly dissatisfied with the
incumbent technology. Hence, switching cost can be expected to
weaken the positive effect of Dissatisfaction on the incumbent IT on
IT switching intention. This lead to the following hypotheses:
H6a. Financial switching cost will have a negative moderating
effect on dissatisfaction on the incumbent IT—intention to switch
to a disruptive IT relationship.
H6b. Procedural switching cost will have a negative moderating
effect on dissatisfaction on the incumbent IT—intention to switch
to a disruptive IT relationship.
Between the expectation–intention relationship, switching cost
is also expected to have a moderating effect. Consumers with high
expectations toward a disruptive IT will be more willing to switch
from the incumbent IT. However, considering the actual cost of the
disruptive IT, one may choose to stay with the current IT. Hence,
switching cost may likely weaken the positive effect of expectation
on the disruptive IT on IT switching intention.
H7a. Financial switching cost will have a negative moderating
effect on expectation on a disruptive IT—intention to switch to a
disruptive IT relationship.
H7b. Procedural switching cost will have a negative moderating
effect on expectation on a disruptive IT—intention to switch to a
disruptive IT relationship.
4. Research method
4.1. Measurements
Multi-item measures for each construct were created through
the following process. First, a draft of the questionnaire was
prepared by reviewing the literature [34,29,10,11]. All of the items
were translated into Korean and slightly modified to suit the
context of mobile phones. The scale of items was measured on a
seven point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) through
neutral (4) to strongly agree (7). Second, we conducted field
interviews with academicians and graduate students on the syntax
and structure of the questionnaire and made modifications
accordingly. Respondents were asked to assess the terminology,
clarity of instructions and response format. Improved by literature
review and field interviews, 22 items for 6 variables were finally
selected. Disconfirmation of incumbent IT is measured by three
items (DCF1-3), which examine users’ perception of the congru-
ence between expectation on a feature phone and its actual
performance. Expectation of disruptive IT by three items (EXP 1–3).
These items identify users’ anticipation of a smartphone.
Dissatisfaction of incumbent IT by four items (DIS 1–4), which
capture users’ affect with (feelings about) a feature phone.
Intention to switch to disruptive IT by three items (INT 1–3),
identifying users’ intention to switch to a smartphone. Financial
switching cost by five items (FCST 1–5). These items examine the
cost involving the loss of financially quantifiable resources, and
Procedural switching cost by four items (PCST 1–4), examining the
cost involving the loss of time and effort. All items used are
reflective.
4.2. Data collection
To test the model, a questionnaire survey was employed. The
survey instrument was sent to undergraduate students, graduate
students, and MBA students in two universities in Seoul, Korea.
Data were gathered from a quota sample of 266 respondents of
feature phone users. They were first asked whether they are using a
feature phone or not; if they replied in the affirmative, they were
asked to participate in the survey. The questionnaire requested the
respondents to think back to the past experience of their feature
phone usage and answer the questions accordingly. For each
question, respondents were asked to circle the response which best
described their degree of agreement. After eliminating 19 useless
data, 247 questionnaires were analyzed. Respondents’ ages ranged
from 20s to 50s, and the majority of respondents had undergradu-
ate degree. Students were 39.3 percent of the total respondents,
while 48.1 percent were employees. Most of the respondents
earned less than 2,000,000 KRW (1800 USD) per month and 31.6
percent of the respondents spent between 60,000 KRW (55 USD) to
80,000 KRW (75 USD) on telecommunication fees.
5. Results
5.1. Measurement Model
We conducted unconstrained confirmatory factor analysis by
using AMOS 7.0 to evaluate convergent validity for six constructs.
The purpose of convergent validity is to ensure unidimensionality
of the multiple-item constructs and to eliminate unreliable items
[13]. Items should load at least 0.70 on their respective
hypothesized component and all loadings need to be significant
(p < 0.05) [6,46]. On the basis of the above criteria, FCST3 and
FCST5 were eliminated. For each item that examined, the value of
standardized factor loading of the item to its respective construct
was significant (p < 0.05), and all loadings ranged from 0.733 to
0.977, as shown in Appendix A.
Reliability for all items of a construct should be evaluated
jointly by investigating composite reliability (CR) and the average
variance extracted (AVE). For a construct to possess good
reliability, CR should be at least 0.70 and the AVE should be at
least 0.5 [5,8,27,45]. As shown in Appendix A, CR and AVE of all
 L. Fan, Y.-H. Suh / Information & Management 51 (2014) 240–248 245

Table 2 indicated that the chi-square of the structural model at 265.451

Correlations and square roots of average variance extracted.
with d.f. of 158, the ratio of chi-square to d.f. at 1.680, GFI at 0.906,
CONF EXP DIS SWCH FCST SCST AGFI at 0.875, NFI at 0.934, CFI at 0.972, RMR at 0.074 and RMSEA at
CONF 0.831 0.053 were acceptable.
EXP 0.035 0.857 For the moderating effects of financial switching cost and
DIS 0.510 0.140 0.850 procedure switching cost, this research follows a hierarchical
SWCH 0.116 0.596 0.278 0.860 process in which the main effects model and the interaction model
FCST 0.193 0.147 0.208 0.055 0.740
with the interaction construct are compared [17]. For estimating
SCST 0.082 0.057 0.154 0.145 0.228 0.776
the moderator effects size, this research compare the squared
multiple correlation (R-squared) for the interaction model with for
constructs in the final model were acceptable. The fit statistics for the main effects model [20]. The effect size is estimated by
the model were good. The chi-square of the model was 259.085 computing Cohen’s f2 following the guidelines of Chin et al. [17].
with d.f. of 155, the ratio of chi-square to d.f. was 1.672, GFI, 0.908, The difference between the squared multiple correlations is used
AGFI, 0.875, NFI, 0.936, CFI, 0.973, and RMSEA, 0.052 were to assess the overall effect size f2 where 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 have
acceptable (Appendix A). been suggested as small, moderate, and large effects respectively
Finally, we tested the discriminant validity to determine if the [17,20]. Medium and high effects indicate that the resulting path
constructs differ from each other [56,13]. Discriminant validity coefficients are meaningful and important.
was tested by comparing the inter-construct correlations with
their respective variance extracted measure. Table 2 shows the ½R2 ðextended modelÞ  R2 ðinitiative modelÞ
2
inter-construct correlations (below the diagonal) and the square f ¼
½1  R2 ðinitiative modelÞ
roots of the average variance extracted (on the diagonal) of the
constructs. A squared correlations between two constructs were The results of structural model analysis are reported in Table 3
less than the variance extracted measures of both constructs. These and Fig. 3. The results of the main effects model showed that
results indicate that the discriminant validity of the model disconfirmation of incumbent IT and expectation of disruptive IT
constructs was satisfactory. were significant in determining dissatisfaction on incumbent IT,
and dissatisfaction on incumbent IT and expectation of disruptive
5.2. Structural model IT were significant in determining intention to switch to disruptive
IT, i.e., H1–H4 were supported. However, financial switching cost
After the measurement model was found to be satisfactory, the and procedure switching cost were not significant in determining
structural model was evaluated. It was well converged. The results intention to switch to disruptive IT; H5a and H5b were not

Table 3
The results of main and interaction model.

Path Main model Interaction of expectation Interaction of satisfaction

Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P

Disconfirmation ! Dissatisfaction 0.508 0.000 0.509 0.000 0.508 0.000 0.508 0.000 0.508 0.000
Expectation ! Dissatisfaction 0.122 0.044 0.122 0.044 0.122 0.044 0.121 0.046 0.123 0.043
Dissatisfaction ! Switching 0.169 0.002 0.181 0.001 0.177 0.001 0.170 0.002 0.169 0.002
Expectation ! Switching 0.583 0.000 0.586 0.000 0.577 0.000 0.583 0.000 0.591 0.000
Financial cost ! Switching 0.092 0.115 0.075 0.202 0.094 0.104 0.092 0.118 0.103 0.081
Procedural cost ! Switching 0.066 0.240 0.071 0.201 0.059 0.285 0.066 0.239 0.069 0.216
EXP_FCST ! Switching 0.097 0.069
EXP_SCST ! Switching 0.111 0.062
DIS_FCST ! Switching 0.003 0.950
DIS_SCST ! Switching 0.090 0.091
R2 0.405 0.414 0.418 0.404 0.413
F2 0.015 0.022 -0.002 0.014

Fig. 3. Results of structural equation model.

246 L. Fan, Y.-H. Suh / Information & Management 51 (2014) 240–248
supported. In summary, 4 out of 6 hypotheses proposed in the
main model were supported.
The results of the interaction model showed that financial
switching cost and procedural switching cost were not showing
significant moderating effect either on dissatisfaction–intention to
switch relationship as well as expectation–intention to switch
relationship. Thus, H6a–H7b were rejected.
6. Discussion
Based on EDT, this paper aims to investigate why users
switch to a disruptive IT. The results generally support previous
EDT related research [7,34,10,11]. The model expresses a
theoretical rationale that the basic intention to switch to a
disruptive IT is jointly influenced by users’ dissatisfaction of the
incumbent IT and the high expectation of the disruptive IT.
Inconsistent with previous research which found switching
costs being the primary antecedents of switching intention
[34,29,14], this paper finds switching cost neither as a direct
antecedent nor a moderator in the decision to acquire a
disruptive technology.
The empirical findings of the main effects model indicate that
the key determinants of dissatisfaction on incumbent IT are
disconfirmation of incumbent IT (b = 0.508) and expectation of
disruptive IT (b = 0.122). Disconfirmation of incumbent IT has
strong positive effects on dissatisfaction on incumbent IT, while
expectation of disruptive IT has less positive effects. The
empirical findings confirmed the hypotheses concerning the
basic relationship adapted from EDT, indicating that users’
disconfirmation regarding the incumbent IT will strongly
influence his affect toward the IT [10]. At the same time, once
the user looks forward to a disruptive IT or gains a higher
expectation of the disruptive IT, he will become dissatisfied with
the current IT. This suggests the disconfirmation of incumbent IT
is more influential on the users’ dissatisfaction than the
expectation of disruptive IT. This indicates that the users’
satisfaction is determined by their actual experience with incum-
bent IT. Once an individual started using an IT, he would measure the
tradeoff between its advantages and disadvantages, and conclude
with a comprehensive evaluation of his satisfaction.
The key determinants of intention to switch to disruptive IT are
expectation of disruptive IT (b = 0.583) and dissatisfaction with
incumbent IT (b = 0.169). This implies that for respondents, the
higher expectation of the disruptive IT is more influential than
their dissatisfaction with their current IT in their decision to
switch. This provides an important implication for IT practice.
Ignoring users’ dissatisfaction of the incumbent IT may not cause
users to switch to a disruptive IT. Focusing on arousing users’
expectations for the disruptive IT may be the most effective way to
induce switching. In the promotion phase, companies should
increase consumer expectations for the disruptive IT. Even when
customers are satisfied with the incumbent IT, once their
expectations of the disruptive IT are stimulated, they may be
willing to switch to it.
The results show that the main effects of financial switching
cost and procedural switching cost were not directly significant.
This result is inconsistent with most switching cost related
research [7,29] where switching cost was revealed a salient
antecedent explaining users’ switching intention. This implies
that the switching cost is not a significant barrier for consideration
in the context of disruptive technology. This is because most of the
companies and marketers usually prepare for large promotion
campaigns when a disruptive technology comes to the market,
particularly in the launching phase. Especially in the case of Korea
telecommunication market, competitors are providing diverse
programs, such as payment by installments, where a customer can
divide the payment for 24 months. In this way, customers may not
severely perceive the large effect brought by the switching cost.
The empirical findings of the interaction model show that both
financial switching cost and procedural switching cost were not
significant moderators in the dissatisfaction–switching intention
and expectation–switching intention relationship, indicating a
general inability of switching cost to weaken the association
between expectation and switching intention, as well as dissatis-
faction and switching intention. This is consistent with previous
literature, where switching cost reveals no significant moderating
effect [34].
7. Conclusion
The goal of this study was to investigate why customers switch
from the incumbent IT to a disruptive one. To do so, we identified
salient determinants of customers’ intention to switch to a
disruptive IT, and analyzed the role of switching cost in moderating
the causal relations between constructs. Toward that goal, EDT was
adapted and modified to investigate user behavior during the
period when customers were choosing between their incumbent IT
and a disruptive one. Data collected from a field survey of feature
phone users provided empirical support for the proposed model.
The results indicate that while dissatisfaction continues to
influence customers’ switching intention, customer expectation
of the disruptive IT has a relatively stronger effect on the
dependent variable. Customers’ dissatisfaction, in turn, is deter-
mined primarily by users’ disconfirmation of the current IT, and
secondarily by expectation of the new IT. Further, switching cost
has no significant direct or indirect influence on users’ switching
intention.
Noteworthy contributions of the study include drawing
attention to the substantive differences between switching
behavior to a disruptive IT and switching service providers,
distinguishing constructs in original EDT considering different
phases of usage, and theorizing and validating a general model of
IT switching behavior. As is stated in Bhattacherjee et al. [12],
switching between similar products is viewed as an instance of
adopting an incremental innovation, while it is in contrast to
radical innovation adoption of a brand new IT. Thus, the
understanding and exploration of IT switching can provide
insight into the dynamics of innovation adoption. Practically,
technology switching model proposed in this study provides
guidelines for firms in the face of technology innovation. As this
study aims to explain users’ switching behavior from an
incumbent technology to a disruptive one, such users’ switching
behavior will eventually change the business landscape between
business competitors in the long run. Thus, the model proposed
offers suggestions to firms in different positions in dealing with
technology innovation.
This study also suffers from several limitations. First, as there is
no clear metrics for defining a disruptive technology, it is necessary
clarify its measurement in the future. Systematic review of
literature on disruptive innovativeness is needed and a measure-
ment of disruptive technology may be expected. Second, since the
target technology selected in this research is smartphone; it may
be difficult for us to generalize the model across a wide set of
technologies. We believe, however, that the switching behavior
from a general hand phone to a smartphone is not exceptional in
that it embodies a trend where users shift toward more convergent
and disruptive technologies. Third, except for the affect belief
adapted from EDT, the only external variable examined in this
research was switching cost. Switching cost is chosen because it is
widely considered to be the most salient belief related to customer
switching behavior. Considering the distinctive features of our
technology in the development of social network services,
 L. Fan, Y.-H. Suh / Information & Management 51 (2014) 240–248 247

future work might investigate social and psychological factors and continuously use the technology is an open question for future
(e.g., perceived personal innovativeness, etc.) to explain users work.
behavior in greater detail. Lastly, the cross-sectional research here
allows us to explain users’ switching behavior from a current IT to a Acknowledgement
disruptive one. However, a longitudinal research on whether the
smartphone adopters are satisfied after their switching behavior This work was supported by a grant from the Kyung Hee
University in 2010 (KHU-20100618).

Appendix A

Factor Items Wording FL CR AVE

Disconfirmation Compared with my initial expectations, the ability of the current feature phone seems:
(incumbent IT) DCF1 To improve my performance was (much better than 0.733 0.869 0.691
expected. . .much worse than expected)
DCF2 To enhance my effectiveness was (much better than 0.892
expected. . .much worse than expected)
DCF3 To be useful for my communication was (much better 0.906
than expected. . .much worse than expected)

Expectation EXP1 Using a smart phone will help me to improve my 0.882 0.892 0.734
(disruptive IT) performance
EXP2 Using a smart phone will help me to enhance my 0.940
effectiveness
EXP3 Using a smart phone will help me to communicate better 0.888

Dissatisfaction How do you feel about your overall experience of using the current feature phone:
(incumbent IT) DIS1 Very Satisfied/Very Dissatisfied 0.811 0.912 0.722
DIS2 Very Pleased/Very Displeased 0.851
DIS3 Very contented/Very frustrated 0.906
DIS4 Absolutely delighted/Absolutely terrible 0.852

Intention to INT1 I am considering switching from my current feature 0.918 0.895 0.739
switch phone
INT2 The chance of my switching to a Smartphone is high 0.977
INT3 I intend to switch to a Smartphone 0.938

Financial FCST1 The rate plan or monthly fees of using a smart phone may 0.857 0.819 0.602
switching cost be more costly than those at present
FCST2 Switching to a smart phone will entail some expenses, 0.835
such as setup fees or a deposit
FCST4 Switching to a smart phone may entail certain hidden 0.770
costs or expenses

Procedural PCST1 It would take a lot of mental effort to familiarize myself 0.810 0.828 0.547
switching cost with a Smartphone’s services and functions after
switching
PCST2 I would have to expend a lot of mental effort to learn 0.895
about the services and functions offered by a smart phone
PCST3 It would take a lot of time to familiarize myself with a 0.846
Smartphone’s services and functions after switching
PCST4 I would have to expend a lot of time to learn about the 0.821
services and functions offered by a smart phone

[10] A. Bhattacherjee, An empirical analysis of the antecedents of electronic commerce

References
[1] R. Adner, When are technologies disruptive? A demand-based view of the
emergence of competition Strategic Management Journal 23 (8), 2002, pp.
667–688.
[2] E.W. Anderson, M.W. Sullivan, The antecedents and consequences of customer
satisfaction for firms, Marketing Science 12 (2), 1993, pp. 125–143.
[3] C. Antón, C. Camarero, M. Carrero, The mediating effect of satisfaction on con-
sumers’ switching intention, Psychology and Marketing 24 (6), 2007, pp. 511–
538.
[4] J. Arndt, Role of product related conversations in the diffusion of a new product,
Journal of Marketing Research 4, 1967, pp. 291–295.
[5] R.P. Bagozzi, ACR fellow speech, Advances in Consumer Research 21, 1994, pp. 8–11.
[6] R.P. Bagozzi, P. Richard, Y. Yi, On the evaluation of structural equation models,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1), 1998, pp. 74–94.
[7] H.S. Bansal, S.F. Taylor, The service provider switching model (SPSM): a model of
consumer switching behavior in the services industry, Journal of Service Research
2, 1999, pp. 200–218.
[8] H. Baumgartner, C. Homburg, Applications of structural equation modeling in
marketing and consumer research: a review, International Journal of Research in
Marketing 13 (2), 1996, pp. 139–161.
[9] A. Bhattacherjee, Understanding information systems continuance: an expecta-
tion-confirmation model, MIS Quarterly 25 (3), 2001, pp. 351–370.
service continuance, Decision Support Systems 32, 2001, pp. 201–214.
[11] A. Bhattacherjee, G. Premkumar, Understanding changes in belief and attitude
toward information technology usage, MIS Quarterly 28 (2), 2004, pp. 229–254.
[12] A. Bhattacherjee, M. Limayem, C.M.K. Cheung, User switching of information
technology: a theoretical synthesis and empirical test, Information & Manage-
ment 2012.
[13] K.A. Bollen, Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley, New York, 1989.
[14] T.A. Burnham, J.K. Frels, V. Mahajan, Consumer switching costs: a typology,
antecedents, and consequences, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
31 (2), 2003, pp. 109–126.
[15] C.D. Charitou, C.C. Markides, Responses to disruptive strategic innovation, MIT
Sloan Management Review 44 (2), 2003, pp. 55–63.
[16] H. Chesbrough, Assembling the elephant: a review of empirical studies on the
impact of technical change upon incumbent firms, in: R.A. Burgelman, H. Ches-
brough (Eds.), Comparative Studies of Technological Evolution, Elsevier, Oxford,
UK, 2001, pp. 1–36.
[17] W.W. Chin, B.L. Marcolin, P.R. Newsted, 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 Research 14 (2), 2003, pp. 189–217.
[18] C.M. Christensen, The Innovator’s Dilemma. When New Technologies Cause Great
Firms to Fail, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1997.
[19] C.M. Christensen, M.E. Raynor, The Innovator’s Solution. Creating and Sustaining
Successful Growth, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 2003.
248 L. Fan, Y.-H. Suh / Information & Management 51 (2014) 240–248
[20] A. Bhattacherjee, M. Limayem, C.M.K. Cheung, User switching of information
technology: a theoretical synthesis and empirical test, Information & Manage-
ment 49 (7–8), 2012, pp. 327–333.
[21] P.A. Dabolkar, C.D. Shepard, D.I. Thorpe, A comprehensive framework for service
quality: an investigation of critical conceptual and measurement issues through a
longitudinal study, Journal of Retailing 76 (2), 2000, pp. 139–173.
[22] E. Danneels, Disruptive technology reconsidered: a critique and research agenda,
Journal of Product Innovation Management 21 (4), 2004, pp. 246–258.
[23] F.D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology, MIS Quarterly 13 (3), 1989, pp. 319–340.
[24] F.D. Davis, R.P. Bagozzi, P.R. Warshaw, User acceptance of computer technology: a
comparison of two theoretical models, Management Science 35 (8), 1989, pp.
982–1003.
[25] R.J. Gilbert, Mobility barriers and the value of incumbency, in: R. Schmalensee, R.
Willig (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, 1st ed., North Holland,
Amsterdam, 1989.
[26] V. Govindarajan, P.K. Kopalle, E. Danneels, The effects of mainstream and emerg-
ing customer orientations on radical and disruptive innovations, Journal of
Product Innovation Management 28 (1), 2011, pp. 121–132.
[27] J.J. Hair, J. Anderson, J. Norman, W. Black, Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1995.
[28] J.B. Heide, A.M. Weiss, Vendor consideration and switching behavior for buyers in
high-technology markets, Journal of Marketing 59 (July), 1995, pp. 30–43.
[29] W.L. Hu, I.S. Hwang, Measuring the effects of consumer switching costs on
switching intention in Taiwan mobile telecommunication services, Journal of
American Academy of Business Cambridge 9 (1), 2006, pp. 75–85.
[30] B.B. Jackson, Winning and Keeping Industrial Customers, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA, 1985.
[31] M.A. Jones, D.L. Mothersgaugh, S.E. Beatty, Switching barriers and repurchase
intentions in services, Journal of Retailing 76 (2), 2000, pp. 259–274.
[32] E. Karahanna, D.W. Straub, N.L. Chervany, Information technology adoption
across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption
beliefs, MIS Quarterly 23 (2), 1999, pp. 183–213.
[33] S.M. Keaveney, Customer switching behavior in service industries: an exploratory
study, Journal of Marketing 59 (2), 1995, pp. 71–82.
[34] G.M. Kim, B.S. Shin, H.G. Lee, A study of factors that affect user intentions toward
email service switching, Information & Management 43 (7), 2006, pp. 884–893.
[35] V. Mahajan, E. Muller, R.A. Kerin, Introduction strategies for new products with
positive and negative word of mouth, Management Science 30 (12), 1984, pp.
1389–1404.
[36] R.W. Mizerski, An Attribution explanation of the disproportionate influence
of unfavorable information, Journal of Consumer Research 9 (3), 1982, pp. 301–
310.
[37] R.L. Oliver, A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions, Journal of Marketing Research 17 (4), 1980, pp. 460–469.
[38] R.L. Oliver, Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Kill,
New York, 1997.
[39] J.H. Pae, J.S. Hyun, Technology advancement strategy on patronage decisions:
the role of switching costs in high-technology markets, Omega 34 (1), 2006, pp.
19–27.
[40] M. Parthasarathy, A. Bhattacherjee, Understanding post-adoption behavior in the
context of online services, Information Systems Research 9 (4), 1998, pp. 362–
379.
[41] P.G. Patterson, L.W. Johnson, R.A. Spreng, Modeling the determinants of customer
satisfaction for business-to-business professional services, Journal of the Acade-
my of Marketing Science 25 (1), 1997, pp. 4–17.
[42] F.F. Reichheld, J. Sasser, W. Earl, Zero defections: quality comes to services,
Harvard Business Review 68 (September–October), 1990, pp. 105–111.
[43] R.T. Rust, A.J. Zahorik, Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market
share, Journal of Retailing 69 (2), 1993, pp. 193–215.
[44] C. Shapiro, H.R. Varian, Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network
Economy, 1999.
[45] J.-B.E.M. Steenkamp, H.C.M. van Trijp, The use of LISREL in validating marketing
constructs, International Journal of Research in Marketing 8 (4), 1991, pp. 283–
299.
[46] H. Sujan, B.A. Weitz, N. Kumar, Learning, orientation, working smart, and effective
selling, Journal of Marketing 58 (3), 1994, pp. 39–52.
[47] S. Taylor, P.A. Todd, Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience, MIS Quarterly
19 (4), 1995, pp. 561–570.
[48] D.K. Tse, P.C. Wilton, Models of consumer satisfaction: an extension, Journal of
Marketing Research 25 (May), 1988, pp. 204–212.
[49] M.L. Tushman, P. Anderson, Technological discontinuities and organizational
environments, Administrative Science Quarterly 31 (3), 1986, pp. 439–465.
[50] H. Verkasalo, C. López-Nicolás, F.J. Monila-Castillo, H. Bouwman, Analysis of users
and non-users of smartphone applications, Telematics and Informatics 27, 2010,
pp. 242–255.
[51] A.M. Weiss, E. Anderson, Converting from independent to employee salesforces:
the role of perceived switching costs, Journal Marketing Research 29 (1), 1992, pp.
101–115.
[53] M. Zeelenberg, R. Pieters, Beyond valence in customer dissatisfaction: a review
and new findings on behavioral responses to regret and disappointment in failed
services, Journal of Business Research 57 (4), 2004, pp. 445–455.
[54] S. Scherreik, When a Guru Manages Money, Business Week 128, 2000, p. 130.
[55] R.L. Oliver, Cognitive, Affective, and Attribute Bases of the Satisfaction Response,
Journal of Consumer Research 20 (December), 418-430.
[56] W.W. Chin, A. Gopal, W.D. Salisbury, Advancing the Theory of Adaptive Structura-
tion: The Development of a Scale to Measure Faithfulness of Appropriation,
Information Systems Research 8 (4), 1997, pp. 342–367.
Liu Fan is a lecturer of College of Economics and
Management, Shandong University of Science and
Technology in China. She holds a master and a PhD
in MIS from the School of Management, Kyung Hee
University in South Korea. Her current research
interests include IT usage, consumer behavior, and
quality management. She has several articles published
or forthcoming in journals such as Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, Journal of Electronic
Commerce Research, Asian Journal of Quality, Service
Science, International Journal of e-Education, e-Busi-
ness, e-Management and e-Learning, and etc.
Yung-Ho Suh is a professor and the former Dean of
School of Management in Kyung Hee University, South
Korea. He received his BBA from Seoul National
University, MS in industrial engineering from Korea
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology and PhD
in MIS from Syracuse University, USA. He once worked
as an assistant professor in University of Wisconsin-Eau
Clair, USA. He had been the chairperson of Asian
Network for Quality (ANQ) from 2007 to 2008. He has
been conducting research and practices in the field of
quality management, electronic commerce and man-
agement information systems. His research work has
been published in journals such as Expert Systems with
Applications, Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, Journal of Computer Information System,
Business Process Management Journal, Journal of
Accounting and Business Research, International Jour-
nal of Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance, and
Management, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, and etc.