UTAUT2 — Venkatesh, Thong & Xu (2012)
UTAUT2 extends the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology to consumer settings (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012). It models how a set of beliefs drive a consumer's intention to use, and actual use of, a technology.
What it measures
UTAUT2 predicts consumer acceptance and use of technology through seven belief constructs: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation, price value and habit, plus behavioral intention and use. Age, gender and experience act as moderators.
Each construct is measured as a reflective multi-item factor (typically three to four items), so the model is usually estimated with structural equation modeling. Because it is multidimensional, report reliability and validity per construct, not for the model as a whole.
Scale items
The item wording is under the publisher’s copyright, so we do not reproduce it here. You can find the full items in the original article (see the citation below). In Explonia, signed-in users get this scale complete in the built-in library and can add it to their own study — no need to find the items yourself. For use in your own research; please cite the original source.
How to use and cite it
Cite Venkatesh, Thong & Xu (2012), MIS Quarterly, in your Methods section, and state which constructs you used and any context wording you changed. The item wording is copyright; take it from the original article.
In Explonia (Academic tier) you can build the full multi-construct questionnaire, then run reliability, CFA and CB-SEM or PLS-SEM in one place. To plan your sample, see the SEM sample-size calculator.
Reporting reliability and validity
For each reflective construct report internal consistency (alpha, omega or composite reliability ≥ .70), convergent validity (AVE ≥ .50) and discriminant validity (for example HTMT). Keep at least three items per factor. A model with many constructs needs an adequate sample, so check power before collecting data, and remember that good reliability does not by itself establish that the construct is valid.
Reference table
| Property | Detail |
|---|---|
| Construct | UTAUT2 (7 belief constructs + intention + use) |
| Type | Reflective (each construct); multidimensional model |
| Number of items | Multi-item — typically 3–4 reflective items per construct |
| Response format | 7-point Likert (agree–disagree) |
| Original source | Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. |
| DOI | 10.2307/41410412 |
| Reported reliability | Good reliability per construct (composite reliability generally above .70) in the original validation |
| Domain | Consumer technology acceptance / information systems |
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between UTAUT and UTAUT2?
UTAUT2 (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012) extends the original UTAUT to consumer use by adding hedonic motivation, price value and habit, and it changes some moderators. It is aimed at consumer technology rather than the workplace.
Can I report one reliability figure for the whole model?
No. UTAUT2 is multidimensional, so you report reliability and validity for each reflective construct separately (for example composite reliability and AVE per construct), not a single number for the model.
How to cite this page
If this page helped your research, you can cite it (APA 7):
Szymkowiak, A. (2026). UTAUT2 Scale (Venkatesh, Thong & Xu 2012). Explonia. https://explonia.com/scales/utaut2/
Last updated: July 2026
Run your whole study in one place
Build it, collect it, and get publication-grade analysis with a draft APA paragraph you can edit. Free to start. No credit card.
Start free