Researchers in change studies have been interested in the causes of change, and some scholars have paid more attention to the effect of previous change on further change. Existing studies have shown that previous change of a given type increases the probability of further similar change. This view, called the momentum hypothesis, has been dominant in prior studies. Based on the research on organizational routines, this view emphasizes that previous change allows organizations to create change routines and that the routinization of a given type of change increases organizational inertia and leads to similar subsequent change. However, a recent study challenged this view and provided an alternative hypothesis that the prior change of a given type decreases the likelihood of further similar change, known as deceleration. This recent study pointed out that the scholars of the momentum hypothesis tend to ignore the fact that previous change improves change routines. Based on behavioral theory, the study argued that by using refined change routines, organizations are likely to satisfy their outcome and reduce the need for further change. In summary, previous research on change studies has provided two contradictory hypotheses; however, there is little research to resolve this contradiction. Thus, the aim of this study is to examine existing studies critically and to reconcile this contradiction.