Table 8.
Full OLS results
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analysis |
− 0.50*** (0.06) |
− 0.49*** (0.07) |
− 0.49*** (0.07) |
− 0.48*** (0.08) |
− 0.48*** (0.08) |
| Selection |
− 0.56*** (0.06) |
− 0.54*** (0.07) |
− 0.54*** (0.07) |
− 0.52*** (0.08) |
− 0.52*** (0.08) |
| Implementation |
− 0.52*** (0.07) |
− 0.53*** (0.07) |
− 0.53*** (0.07) |
− 0.47*** (0.08) |
− 0.47*** (0.08) |
| Age |
− 0.02 (0.02) |
− 0.02 (0.02) |
− 0.02 (0.02) |
− 0.02 (0.02) |
|
| Age # Age |
0.00 (0.00) |
0.00 (0.00) |
0.00 (0.00) |
0.00 (0.00) |
|
| Female |
− 0.08 (0.11) |
− 0.10 (0.09) |
− 0.10 (0.09) |
− 0.10 (0.09) |
|
| Legal profession |
− 0.10 (0.13) |
− 0.13 (0.10) |
− 0.02 (0.13) |
− 0.02 (0.13) |
|
| Court experience |
0.04 (0.10) |
0.02 (0.09) |
0.02 (0.09) |
0.02 (0.09) |
|
| Knowledge in legal tech |
0.21*** (0.07) |
0.21*** (0.07) |
0.21*** (0.07) |
||
| Trust in legal tech |
0.19*** (0.06) |
0.19*** (0.06) |
0.19*** (0.06) |
||
| Legal tech compatibility |
− 0.01 (0.06) |
− 0.01 (0.06) |
− 0.01 (0.06) |
||
| Relative advantage |
0.11* (0.07) |
0.11* (0.07) |
0.11* (0.07) |
||
| Personal innovativeness |
− 0.01 (0.03) |
− 0.01 (0.03) |
− 0.01 (0.03) |
||
| Analysis # Legal profession |
− 0.06 (0.15) |
− 0.06 (0.15) |
|||
| Selection # Legal profession |
− 0.08 (0.13) |
− 0.08 (0.13) |
|||
| Implementation # Legal profession |
− 0.29** (0.15) |
− 0.29** (0.15) |
|||
| Constant |
2.91*** (0.06) |
3.54*** (0.53) |
1.78*** (0.46) |
1.76*** (0.46) |
1.76*** (0.46) |
| R-squared | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.26 |
| Number of observations | 1067 | 984 | 984 | 984 | 984 |
This table presents the full OLS results for the regression specified in Table 2