Post-adoption switching between technology substitutes: The case of web browsers

Chen Ye, DongBack Seo, Kevin C. Desouza, Sridhar R. Papagari Sangareddy, Sanjeev Jha

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

18 Scopus citations


In this study, we examine factors that influence users' post-adoption switching between technology products that are near perfect substitutes. The recent introduction of Mozilla Firefox Web browser provided an ideal empirical setting for this study. Drawing upon literature on post-adoption user behavior, consumer behavior, and online consumer research, we proposed a research model and validated it using cross-sectional field data collected from 306 users on their decisions to switch from Microsoft Internet Explorer to Mozilla Firefox. Findings suggest that user satisfaction and breadth of use of the incumbent product are negatively associated with switching behavior, and perceived ease of use, relative advantage, and perceived security of the substitute product are positively associated with switching behavior. This study contributes to both research and practice by advancing our understanding of users' post-adoption behavior in general and their switching behavior on Web-related technology products in specific.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationICIS 2006 Proceedings - Twenty Seventh International Conference on Information Systems
Number of pages18
StatePublished - 2006
Externally publishedYes
Event27th International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2006 - Milwaukee, WI, United States
Duration: Dec 10 2006Dec 13 2006


Other27th International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2006
Country/TerritoryUnited States
CityMilwaukee, WI


  • Post-adoption behavior
  • Technology substitution
  • User switching
  • Web browsers

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Information Systems


Dive into the research topics of 'Post-adoption switching between technology substitutes: The case of web browsers'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this