Beware of Conceptual Ambiguity, Conceptual Inconsistency and the Correspondence Between Theoretical Concepts and Statistical Testing: An Example from Cognitive Fit Theory

The concept of fit is central to various disciplines, including Information Systems. Yet, fit has been defined inconsistently using phrases that signal different meanings. The lack of a solid foundation for fit has led to conceptual ambiguity, conceptual inconsistency, and a lack of correspondence between the conceptual definition and statistical testing. This paper provides a case using cognitive fit to illustrate how a lack of a solid definition leads to vagueness, inconsistency and misalignment between theory and empirical testing. More specifically, we draw attention to two different types of fit by presenting how the interpretation of fit as a mediator compared to fit as a moderator leads to varied results. The findings from this manuscript stress the importance of overcoming theoretical ambiguity and inconsistency pertaining to fit and ensuring that mathematical representations are not based on convenience but instead translated by underlying theory.