ATTRIBUTION THEORY APPLIED
TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
or
How Attribution Theory can be applied to Rehumanize the
Information Age
By Sheila Sherlock Chinn
Due: December 9, 2002
CIS 703, Dr Bill Remus
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS RESEARCH
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF ATTRIBUTION THEORY
Table A: Kelley’s contributions to Attribution Theory: further discrimination
between Internal and External Attribution
Table B: Weiner’s Causal Dimensions of Attribution broken down by SelfAttribution
REGRESSION EQUATION
RESEARCH QUESTION
PROPOSED HYPOTHESIS
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
TREATMENT
VALIDATED MEASURES
Attributional Style Questionnaire
Causal Dimension Survey
Computer Operator Aptitude
Computer Related Anxiety
DESIGN
RANDOMIZATION IN DESIGN
EXPECTED FINDINGS
RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS
LIMITATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH
CONCLUSION
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Attribution Theory Timeline
APPENDIX B: Other Important Names / Contributions to Attribution Theory
APPENDIX C: Attribution Theory and the Experimental IT Model
APPENDIX D: Prerecorded video instructions
APPENDIX E: Task Description
APPENDIX F: Experimental Design
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
The premise of this document is to describe a theoretically grounded experimental
research project in the emerging field of Communication and Information Science. The
research undertaken is a result of applying the well-validated psychological theory of
Attribution to Information Technology (IT). This document begins with the importance of
this research, and then provides and extensive overview of attribution theory as it relates
to the field of social psychology. In the theoretical background section, Attribution
Theory is explained and elucidated. Following this, the experimental design section
explicates the research question, regression equation, hypothesis, design including
treatment explanation and elucidation) , process and anticipated analysis and results.
Finally, anticipated findings and research contributions round out this report.
Theory driven research allows us to predict, describe and express causal relationships.
Good theoretical experiments consist of a substantive hypothesis, validated
measurement instruments, empirical and expert arguments and conceptual and
operational definitions for variables. The expected performance motivates the statistical
hypothesis (Ho). Operational definitions should include scales, physical measurements
and / or self-reports; however instruments should always be validated. Construct validity
and content validity must be equivocally designed and maintained. This experiment
applying Attribution Theory to a specific area of Information Technology use has been
fastidiously designed to meet these criteria.
Attribution is “an individuals understanding of (the) causal structure of the world;(and) it
is an important determinant of interaction with that world.”1 Attribution Theory has been
defined as “How the social perceiver uses information to arrive at causal explanations for
events.” 2 And Attributional Theories are “specific causal attribution processes that
people employ in a particular life domain. There are six different traditions at the core of
Attribution Theory: Heider’s naïve psychology, Jones & Davis’ correspondent inference,
Kelley’s Covariation principle and causal schemas, Schacter’s emotional identity, Bem’s
self-perception and Weine's achievement motivation.” 3
1
SOURCE: http://blue.csbs.albany.edu:8000/730/lect4.html
SOURCE: http://blue.csbs.albany.edu:8000/730/lect4.html
3
SOURCE: http://blue.csbs.albany.edu:8000/730/lect4.html
2
Attribution theory focuses on the way that individuals explain behavior) others and their
own). The study of Attribution is important for psychological and personal reasons.
Psychologically, an observers thoughts, feelings, behaviors and attitudes towards
another person (actor) depends on what the observer thinks is the cause of the actors
behavior. From a personal standpoint, attribution theory can help to inform us of the
reasons behind an actor’s action, thus allowing us to surmise of a “true reason” given the
actors “reality”.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS RESEARCH
The research design suggested is formative, and before being implemented would be
refined to a granularity sufficient to provide scientific formalism and objective data. This
research is extremely important; Attribution theory (while partially integrated into Human
Computer Interface (HCI) studies) has never been formally applied to information
technology. Human-computer interaction is defined as “a discipline concerned with the
design, evaluation and implementation of interactive computing systems for human use
and with the study of major phenomena surrounding them”.4 Attribution theory focuses
on the “human” and views the technology as a tool, whose use is beneficial or
damaging, depending upon the human interface.
Attribution theory and the new positive psychologies [culminating in the theories of
Martin Seligman (Authentic happiness and learned optimism) and William Glasser
(Choice theory and Reality Theory)] are contributing to a paradigm shift consistent with
individual actualization and self-realization. HCI focuses on the computer and how to
best design it for human use. Attribution theory applied to IT focuses on the human, and
why they use or fail to use computers. While computing technologies remain ubiquitous,
the combined theories emerging from HCI, Agent theory and Social Actor theories serve
to remind us that the human factor in computing is indeed important. It is the human
actor, not the technology, that determines whether real business productivity gains or
looses are realized.
4
http://sigchi.org/cdg/cdg2.html#2_1.
The scientific-rational viewpoint, which emerged from Enlightenment schools of thought,
has abandoned some fundamental aspects of humanity. “The discovery of labor power
– and its subsequent elaboration in political economy, medicine, physiology, psychology
and politics – was emblematic of a society that idealized the endless productivity of
nature… Work was universalized to include the expenditures of energy…the
Promethean power of industry (cosmic, technical and human) could be encompassed in
a single productivist metaphysic in which the concept of energy. united with matter,
…(transcendental materialism)… was a totaling framework that subordinated all social
activities to production.”5 As the industrial age becomes the information age6, individuals
further propagate the myth of limited resources, survival of the fittest and the individual
as a machine, or a poor equivalent. Until humanity once again can grasp and appreciate
humanities advantages over machines; when society stops venerating massproductions’ endlessly similar units and begin to appreciate diversity and actual
ingenuity, then people can view machines and computers as tools. At this point,
humanity will once again come into it’s own, as the key element within the world, and the
determining factor of all things. IT tools are neither inherently good nor bad, but are
enablers, which allow us to propagate whatever we choose. Attribution theory is key,
because it allows us to focus on the critical factor – the individual and group verses the
machine (information technology).
Psychology as a science began in the nineteenth century, with the competing schools of
structuralism7 and functionalism8. As both schools of thought faded, functionalism left a
practical orientation that fostered the development of applied psychology and
behaviorism9. Gestalt10 psychology contributed to the emergence of two contemporary
psychological perspectives: humanism and cognitive psychology. Freud, Jung and Adler
5
Rabinbach, 1990.
Castells, 2000.
7
An early school in psychology concerned with the anatomy or structure of conscious processing;
attributed to Wilhelm Wundt.
8
The school of psychology concerned with the fundamental utilities of consciousness. It was out
of this school of psychology that applied psychology developed; attributed to William James.
9
Behaviorism is an approach to the study of behavior that assumes it must be possible, in
principle, to secure a full, lawful explanation of behavior, including verbal behavior in humans, in
terms of present and past behavioral, physiological, and environmental variables, in ways that do
not require mention of the mental; attributed to B.F. Skinner.
10
The school of psychology concerned with studying unitary function, such as perceiving,
learning, and thinking. The term "gestalt" is most accurately translated as "form" or
"configuration."
6
contributed the unconscious. Humanism is a theoretical orientation that emphasizes the
unique qualities of humans, especially their freedom and potential for growth. Cognitive
Psychology is the study of the mind - how it works. It focuses on mental process that
operate on a stimuli, that contributes as whether or not a response is made, when, and
what it is. Attribution Theory is steeped in cognitive psychology.
In early 1965, Marty Seligman, while studying the relationship between fear and
learning, accidentally discovered an unexpected phenomenon while doing experiments
on dogs using Pavlovian (classical conditioning). He discovered that a conditioned dog
learned inescapability, and when later presented with an escapable condition was
unable to enact escape. The theory of learned helplessness started a scientific
revolution resulting in the displacement of behaviorism by cognitive psychology. What
you are thinking determines your behavior (not only the visible rewards or punishments).
The theory of learned helplessness was then extended to human behavior, providing a
model for explaining depression, a state characterized by a lack of affect and feeling.
Depressed people became that way because they learned to be helpless; they learned
that whatever they did, their actions were futile. During the course of their lives,
depressed people apparently learned that they have no control. Learned helplessness
explained a lot of things, but then researchers began to find exceptions, of people who
did not get depressed, even after many bad life experiences. Seligman discovered that a
depressed person thought about the bad event in more pessimistic ways than a
nondepressed person did. Seligman called this thinking, "explanatory style," borrowing
ideas from attribution theory.
In today’s ubiquitous computing age, scientists can benefit from applying the principles
of cognitive psychology, and for our purposes Attribution Theory, to industry. There has
been a vast amount of disparate research (of varying degrees of soundness) on the
“Productivity Paradox”. MISQ has devoted many issues to this, and the leading
researcher Eric Brynjolfsson at MIT Sloan School of Management concludes that the
lack of comprehensive models of the internal organizations of firms is a core deficiency
in being able to determine if the productivity paradox exists. HCI does not provide such
comprehensive analysis of organizational issues and social psychology. HCI’s
fundamental flaw is an inordinate focus on the machine and a totalizing view of the
human user (while scientists all know that humans are diverse, dynamic and chameleon
like creatures).
Human behavior often seems mysterious and unpredictable, until the place where the
actions occur is considered. Social Psychology is the branch of psychology
concentrating on any and all aspects of human behavior that involve persons and their
relationships to other persons, groups, social institutions and to society as a whole. As
Lewin's formula, B = ƒ (P, E), maintains, behavior is a function of both the person (P)
and the environment (E): the physical characteristics of the place the individual
occupies. The person- environment relationship shapes all manner of action, and many
disciplines, including environmental psychology, ethnology, human ecology,
demography, and ecological psychology, examine the relationship between individuals
and the environment Bell, Fisher, Baum, & Green, 1990; Darley & Gilbert, 1985; Stokols
& Altman, 1987; Sundstrom, Bell, Busby, & Asmus, 1996).
Social Cognition (circa 1970) has a few basic assumptions: (1) that cognitive process
general across types of stimuli and (2) that experience is codified and stored in orderly
fashion (schemata, knowledge structures, frames or stereotypes). Bias exists because it
allows humans to process routine data more efficiently; here individuals base present
decisions on past occurrences. This schemata works well in static or slowly changing
situations, however it is neither necessarily efficient nor effective in dynamic
environments.
In 1986, Lewicki uncovered that humans ascribe personality attributes based upon
physical attributes. Social Psychology has developed numerous cognitive theories to
explain why people act the way they do. Most of them have added to the attribution
theory development including Heider's Balance Theory and naïve psychology, Leon
Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance, Attributional discounting/augmenting, Fundamental
Attribution Error, Seligman’s Theory of Learned Helplessness, Covariation Principle and
the Logical Model of Expectation and Attribution.
Attribution theory shows us that people do not follow rational rules for the processing of
informational behavior. Additionally, cognitive psychology illustrates that our cognitions
are inherently biased. Memory research during 1970s and 80s documented memory
errors through the tendency to make incoming information consistent with our schemata,
because homo sapiens have limited cognitive resources so they compress and abstract
incoming data. Additionally, Tversky & Kahneman (1974) found that in an
informationally rich world, people adopt simplified strategies (heuristics) for information
processing: many of which produce inherent individualized biases and inaccuracies.
Furthermore, the availability heuristic models and the commonality with which we are
more likely to see those things for which we can find readily available examples (in
memory or publicly) but underestimate those less salient in memory. For example, a
leading cause of death in the United States is automobile accidents, however almost
every adult drives every day without giving it a second thought, while the risk of death
from terrorist attack seems potentially large after 9/11.
Thus, social psychology, especially theories from social cognition are valuable for
internal organizational research. Attribution theory can be used to partially explain the
productivity paradox, to describe why some systems fail while others are successful and
through better understanding enable us to build better systems. While HCI addresses
these issues, this research will focus on a more human-centric approach.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF ATTRIBUTION THEORY
Attribution theory, originally based in psychology, has been applied to a diverse array of
social sciences. Attribution theory in its most common form attempts to describe
individual (and groups) causal explanations for events (Martiniko, M.J in The Blackwell
Dictionary of Organizational Behavior, N. Nicholson (Ed.), London: Blackwell
Publishers.) Attribution theory stems from the work on: dyadic relationships of Fritz
Heider (1958), dispositional ascriptions of Edward Jones (1972), relationship dyadics of
Keith Davis, personal interdependence and inferential processes by Harold Kelley
(1967) and individual differences in casual perceptions by Julian Rotter (1966).
Attribution theory is an extension of expectancy Theory and is a theory of perception and
motivation. A basic assumption of Attribution Theory is that performance attributions
shape future achievement related behaviors. Appendix a represents an Attribution
Theory time line, which summarizes the major theories and developments described
herein.
Attribution theory attempts to describe how we explain (to others) and ourselves the
causes of things that happen to us. The classical example is Miller, Brickman and Bolen
(1975); in a study, two classrooms of children were given candy before lunch and the
amount of candy wrappers on the floor was counted. In class A, positive attribution
theory was utilized, the teacher, principal and or other figures of prestige and authority
said several times “My what a neat classroom this is, the students must be very neat and
clean”. The control classroom did not receive any comments. Candy was handed out
again a week later, in classroom A there was a significant decrease in the amount of
candy wrappers on the floor: Why? Attribution theory leads us to the assumption that the
students had internalized the attribution that they were neat and therefore threw their
wrappers in the basket. People generate attributions (explanations) for events to predict
and control future events and the attribution that a person makes influences their future
behavior. The Miller et al studies had three treatment groups: attribution, persuasion
and control; however the only statistical difference found was in the attribution group.
Additional studies on external attributions using 3-5 year olds and magic markers had
similar results (Lepper, Greene and Nisbett, 1975).
Many noteworthy individuals have contributed to attribution theory. Aristotle argued that
people seek for meaning in the world. Hume (1739) contended that assuming there are
causes for everything that happens is an inherent part of observing the world, because it
makes the world more meaningful. We have always sought meaning in life Attribution
theory is one way of ascribing meaning. We observe, assume a cause and thus
attribute meaning. Thus, attribution is a three step process: (1) perception of the action
(we ask why did this happen), (2) judgment of the intention (we imbue meaning), and (3)
attribution of disposition (which effects our future actions).
The foremost attribution theory expert, Weiner (1985, 1986, 1993) has established that
perceptions of individual responsibility are influenced by variables such as freedom of
choice, personal controllability, intentionality, foresight and the ability to follow societal
norms, rules, and laws (distinguish right from wrong as determined by the society and
governing bodies). English Common law justice systems are based on these premises
of volitional control, intent, envisioned outcome and controllability (i.e. if a criminal act is
intentional, premediditated or an act of passion, insanity or accident). These factors
affect the justice system ruling. Allocation of responsibility, controllability and
intentionality are not particularly clear-cut, and individuals are many times victims of
conjunctural history11, self-delusionary and or intentionally malicious. Perceptions of
responsibility are not always directly related to “reality”.
From a reality standpoint, the scientific rational-objective viewpoint attempts to describe
things as they really are; without the human associations and interpretations, yet this
objective viewpoint is hard if not impossible to attain. Group perceptions are complicated
by groupthink, mob mentality and a need to ascribe blame and apportion punishment.
As soon as we attach emotions, feelings, thoughts, associations, and other human
frailties, we change the reality into our perception. Our perception is no longer reflective
of the objective reality. To complicate matters, because everyone has their own
perceptions, which they view as reality, objective reality ceases to exist (or at least to
matter). Einstein's early theory of time and space, Special Relativity, proposed that
distance and time are not absolute. The ticking rate of a clock depends on the motion of
the observer of that clock; likewise for the length of a "yard stick." “Reality” is also
relative, what is perceived by individuals and groups becomes the “reality”.
Reality is the actuality of things, what is really happening, without interpretation;
Perception is the interpretation of experience. Perceptions can be the cause of
misunderstandings, because everyone’s perceptions of a single event may be different
and yet we believe they are the same. It is a common human failing to believe that
others have the same view as we do; then we base our reality on that misperception and
this creates predicaments. Realizing that everyone has different perceptions, and that
perception of reality is subjective and to a large extent independent of actuality, would
decrease conflicts. Attribution theory, by focusing on analyzing individual and group
perceptions, while neither judging nor negating the perceptions, can help us to better
understand the world around us.
Heider began his seminal Attribution theory work in 1958. He studied how the “common”
man attributes causality, and argued that in order to have a complete picture of
individuals functioning we need to understand their “naïve psychology” which is
11
The post-modern concept of time is a circular, ever returning time, and history is viewed as
conjunctural not linear. We thus imbue interest in the past not to include it in historical linear
process but to regain it to the present. (Castells, 1999).
motivated by (1) the individuals need to form a coherent understanding of the world and
(2) the individuals need to control the environment. A major theme of Heider's Naive
psychology is casual attributions, which state that:
1. Explaining one set of relationships allow us to generalize to a basic
behavioral principle
2. Belief that we will uncover new causal relationships
3. Seek to maintain an orderly perception of the world.
In 1967, Harold Kelley discretized the Internal-External locus of control by defining three
constructs consensus information, behavior consistency and behavior distinctiveness.
Within the eight possible configurations of these constructs, three become relevant to
the distinction between internal and external causality (see Table A). Given that an
individual has had particular past experiences and personality based upon genetic and
environmental factors, each individual is somewhat unique in attribution, though (as with
all scientific disciplines) certain defining categories can be established.
Table A: Kelley’s contributions to Attribution Theory: further discrimination between
Internal and External Attribution
HIGH
HIGH
Internal
External
Consensus Information
Low
High
Behavior consistency
Low
High
Behavior distinctiveness
High
High
Dispositional attributions
Kelley’s forms of Information
The basis of Attribution theory is that individual responsibility is influenced by the
variables of (1) free choice, (2) personal controllability, (3) intentionality, (4) foresight and
(5) the ability to tell right from wrong. Attribution theory is concerned with individual’s
casual explanations for events: how people explain their successes and failures and
those of others. Heider’s basic premise that people have an innate need to understand
and control (explain) their environment allows us to surmise that individual beliefs about
causation influence expectations and their subsequent behavior. Attribution theory
evaluates the perceived causes of events and the consequences of those perceptions.
It is normally divided into self and other attribution theories. In 1987, Brewin et al
derived the non-mutually exclusive functions of attributions as (1) casual analysis, (2)
labeling or description, (3) moral evaluation and (4) self-presentation. In 1983, Lord and
Smith explicated three categories of attributions: (1) identification of the cause of and
event, (2) identification of the response for an event and (3) reference to personal
qualities.
In general, Attribution theorists agree on the four self-attributions for achievement and
that they have three different casual dimensions (as identified and classified by Weiner,
1971). The self-attributions are ability, effort, task difficulty and luck. The causal
dimensions which act upon the self-attributions are (1) locus of causality (whether we
attribute causality to internal or external forces), (2) stability / instability and (3) globality
vs. specificity12. The three dimensions of causality define the critical issue of
controllability; whether an individual perceives that the causes are within or outside of
their control. The relationship between the attributions and dimensions are identified in
the Table B below.
Table B: Weiner’s Causal Dimensions of Attribution broken down by Self-Attribution
Self attributions for
Casual dimensions
achievement
Locus of causality
Stability
Controllability
Ability
Internal
Stable
Low
Effort
Internal
Unstable
High
Task difficulty
External
Stable
Low
Chance/luck
External
Unstable
Low
Thus, according to Weiner (1980) a high achiever will approach rather than avoid tasks
related to succeeding, because he13 believes that success is due to high ability and
12
These categories from which The CDS scale are derived are based on Rotter’s (1954)
definitions of measures of event attribution: Locus of causality (Internal/External), Stability
(Stable/Unstable) and Controllability (High/Low).
13
Throughout this report, we assume the masculine when discussing an individual to avoid the
repetitious and verbose use of he/she. No negative insinuations are intended.
effort and failure is caused by bad luck or other external forces. Thus, for the high
achiever, failure doesn't hurt his self-esteem; yet success builds his pride and
confidence. High achievers persist when the work gets hard rather than giving up,
because failure is assumed to be caused by a lack of effort, which he can change by
trying harder. Additionally, they select challenges of moderate difficulty, because the
feedback from those tasks tells him more about how well he is doing, rather than very
difficult or very easy tasks, which tell little about ability or effectiveness. The high
achiever will also work with a lot of energy because he believes that the results are
determined by how hard he tries.
For the low achiever, attributions and performance are exactly opposite. The low
achiever will avoid success-related chores, because of doubts regarding ability and/or
because he assumes success is related to luck or other uncontrollable factors. When
successful, the low achiever does not find success as rewarding because he does not
feel responsible. Therefore success doesn't increase the low achievers pride or
confidence. The low achiever tends to quit when having difficulty because he believes
that failure is caused by a lack of ability, which he can't do anything about. Low
achievers tend to choose very easy or very hard tasks to work on because the results
will not tell anything about performance. Moreover, they work with little drive or
enthusiasm because the outcome isn't thought to be related to effort.
Other possible performance attributions indicated are: mood, health, strategy, fatigue,
controllability, universality vs. specificity and intentionality. Attributions are measured by
(1) casual explanations ((actual attributions made by the individual) or casual
dimensions (structure underlying the attributions) or (2) attributional style. Research
shows that we have an Attitudinal style, constant over time. Events also have attitudinal
differences created by differences in time and space.
The most commonly utilized measure of Attributions, causal explanations or causal
dimensions is derived from Weiner’s 5 underlying causal dimensions of self-attribution:
1.
Internal/external locus14 (which is empirically well-supported and has
been substantially validated)
2.
Stability or change in cause over time (which is empirically wellsupported)
3.
Controllability
4.
Global/specific (which has been shown to have face validity), and
5.
Intentionality or difference between effort and strategy/ability.
The Causal Dimension Scale (CDS) measures attribution as a function of the underlying
causal dimension. Causal dimensions are task specific and are what success/failure is
attributed to. Causal explanations or reasoning is most appropriately assessed by
evaluating casual dimensions (which are believed to influence expectancies). There is
some variability of scales measuring causal explanation. While most of the scales force
a single cause, in reality individuals perceive multiple causes. The CDS scale allows for
multiple causes. The dimensions for assessment are likely to change depending upon
the domain of interest. The validated test for causal dimensions evaluates the causal
dimensions of self-attribution for achievement using the Causal Dimension Scale (CDS)
(Russell, 1982; McAuley, et al, 1992).
Attribution as a style is individual specific, consistent over the long term (much like a
personality trait) and commonly measured by the Attribution Style Questionnaire (ASQ).
Attributional style is a construct derived from reformulated theory of learned
helplessness. Individual differences refer to systematic ways in which people explain
their own successes and failures. Individual differences in Attributional style may be
motivational, performance and / or affective reactions to various life experiences.
Individuals who attribute failure to internal, stable and global factors are more prone to
depression and depression-prone individuals are more likely to attribute success to
external, unstable and global factors. Therefore, Attribution style is debilitating as that it
permits integration of bad but not good outcomes into the structure of beliefs about the
self. There is evidence of Attribution style construct validity, as the relationship between
attributions and depression as hypothesized in the reformulated learned helplessness
model. Sweeny’s (1986) meta-analysis concluded that Attribution style has convergent
14
Rotter termed this “locus of control” in his social learning theory (1954), however since Weiner
added “controllability, the term was changed to Internal/external locus to avoid confusion.
and discriminant validity, though it is not totally cross-situationally consistent for
predictive validity. Henry, et al (1996) provides direct empirical evidence of the potential
impact of attributional style on computer related performance using the Attributional
Style Questionnaire (ASQ).15
REGRESSION EQUATION
It is expected that individual attributions towards information technology will directly
correlate to future IT use success and / or failure. The experimental variables will be as
follows. The independent variable of treatment (having a functional vs. dysfunctional
PC) will effect the dependent variable of Information technology Attribution (as measured
by the Causal dimension scale). Additionally, Covariates of attitude style (as measured
by the ASQ), computer operator ability (COA) and computer related anxiety (CRA) will
be tested for as direct (primary) and secondary confounding effects16. Thus, the
regression equation is:
CDS = a 0 + a 1 T + a 2 ASQ + a 3 ASQ*T + a 4 CRA + a 5 CRA*T + a 6 COA + a 7
COA*T
In addition, the experiment will statistically control for computer operator ability and
attributional style (which is consistent over short periods) so the resultant equation is:
CDS = a 0 + a 1 T + a 3 ASQ*T + a 4 CRA + a 5 CRA*T + a 7 COA*T
In summary, the experiment expects an individuals attributions to be a function of a
specific IT event.
RESEARCH QUESTION: PROPOSED HYPOTHESIS
This experiment proposes that individual attributions towards information technology
directly correlate to future success / failure. Specifically, it proposes to evaluate the
causal dimensions of self-attribution for achievement using the Causal Dimension Scale
15
16
Developed by Peterson et al, 1982.
We ignore tertiary and quartiary confounding effects.
(CDS) (Russell, 1982; McAuley, et al, 1992). And the potential impact of attributional
style on computer related performance using the Attributional Style Questionnaire
(ASQ). The hypotheses are as follows:
H0: Computer attributions (as measured by causal dimension
style) are NOT significantly different in the two treatments
(normal vs. dysfunctional PC) and the treatment does NOT
interact with attribution style, computer anxiety and computer
ability.
HA: Computer attributions (as measured by causal dimension
style) are significantly different in the two treatments (normal
vs. dysfunctional PC) and the treatment interacts with
attribution style, computer anxiety and computer ability.
Each individual has a certain level of computer expertise and a set attribution style
(because attribution style has long term stability and is not directly effected by individual
events), as well as, some level of computer anxiety (which may or may not be effected
by the treatment). The Attribution and IT Model is seen in Appendix B.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Subjects are junior level Business majors (MBA students) enrolled in an required MIS
course. They should all have adequate knowledge of Excel and some financial
background (at least FIN 101). The experiment will require at least 60 students to prove
significance (if it exists). On the first day of class students will be told that they have a
special assignment in which they will participate and be taped. After the experiment has
concluded voluntary consent forms will be required; students who do not wish to sign the
consent form will not be included in the study.
All students will be asked to complete the measures attributional style, computer
operator aptitude and computer related anxiety several weeks before the experiment (in
order to avoid sensitization) as well as demographic information. Because we are pretesting, there may be significant difference, however we attempt to avoid sensitization by
leaving a few weeks between the pretest and the experiment. It is possible that
individuals may do naturally better due to maturation, however since our pretestexperiment interval is only 2-3 weeks, it is not expected that this will occur. It is difficult
to generalize from a pretested to a non-pretested group because of the effects of time
dependence (maturation), regression (increases) and history and or memory.
Several weeks into the course, students will be randomly assigned to either the control
or treatment group. The experimental environment consists of multiple small rooms with
a single equivalent PC and a TV/VCR combination. Students will enter a room where
they will watch prerecorded video instructions. See Appendix C for Pre-recorded video
instructions and Appendix D for Task Description
During a pilot test the task will be tested. A subject group similar yet distinct from the
experimental group will be run through the instructions, task and experiment in order to
check for errors or problems. The pilot test will determine the task length and depth, as
well as the variation between treatment (functional vs. dysfunctional).
The students will be handled individually and students will be randomized. Normal PC
treatment will be given on Day 1 of the experiment and Dysfunctional PC treatment will
be provided on Day 2 (in order to prevent contamination). Additional contamination
measures are that students will be sequestered and paid for a full day. Furthermore,
once the student has completed the task he will not be returned to the sample
population. If students who participate in Day 1 experiment speak with students who will
participate in Day 2 of the experiment, because Day 1 is all functional PCs, the Day 2
students will not be sensitized to dysfunctional PC. The Experimenter will have a live
video feed into each room, and the main room will be setup with one monitor for each
room, so that all participants will be monitored and taped (for possible adhoc qualitative
analysis) from the “control center”.
TREATMENT
The experimental environment consists of multiple small rooms with a single equivalent
PC and a TV/VCR combination. Each PC will be autonomous (not connected to a
network, Internet, printer or other peripheral device) and devoid of games, screen
savers, extra programs or other distracting features. The PCs will be equivalent in
speed, memory, screen appearance and processing power. Each room is likewise
similar and unimpressive, painted an unimpressive institutional color and lacking
windows, pictures or other personal paraphernalia. Each room contains a simple desk
structure on which the PC sits, a chair and a table with a combination TV/VCR. The
TV/VCR is arranged to only run the prerecorded instructions. Room temperature is
normal, and subjects are made as comfortable as possible within a testing environment.
After students exit the test room, they will be asked to sign a consent form. Those who
do not wish to sign the consent form will not be included in the study. The students who
sign the release form are then required to complete the postests. These pencil and
paper tests require approximately 40 minutes, and are outlined in the “Validated
Measures” section of this document. The experimental Design is outlined in Appendix F.
While computers are beneficial to individuals and society, frequently, users encounter
frustrating experiences when using computers. This study will measure, through
approximately 60 subjects, the attribution of frustrating experiences as explained by
attributional style and causal dimensions. Data shows that the most-cited causes of
frustrating computer experiences are error messages, application crashing, long
response times, and hard-to-find features. (Ceaparu, I., Lazar, J., Bessiere, K.,
Robinson, J., and Shneiderman, B. May 2002) Determining Causes and Severity of EndUser Frustration17)
For this experiment the treatment will be a dysfunctional PC where dysfunctionality is
defined as experimenter manipulated glitches including but not limited to nonresponsiveness, application crashing, going to the wrong applications, long response
times and
hard-to-find features. These dysfunctionalities will take the experience of
a computer programmer to create functionality. The control group will experience
“normal” PC (that is a properly functioning PC). While the dysfunctionality may seem
unethical to subject the subjects to, ether exists a vast amount of IT organizational
literature, which argues that these very failures are normal within the average work
environment. In addition, all subjects will be debriefed after, and it will be explained to
17
HCIL-2002-11 , CS-TR-4371 , UMIACS-TR-2002-51
them that some of the PCs were dysfunctional, and that there performance in no way
reflected upon the PC performance.
VALIDATED MEASURES
In a scientific experiment, it is necessary to use validated instruments. Several
techniques are available including the modification (substitutions due to changes in
domain of interest and or population, addition of more questions.18 Processes are not
always a two variable model, they may be multivariate. Additionally, when discretizing a
continuous variable, the experiment looses information and the estimate is not as good
of a measurement. One looses variance going from continuous to discrete categories.
There are many types of experimental variables including intervening variables,
intermediary variables, moderating variables and mediating variables. For a full
explanation see Kerlinger and Lee, 1992.
The types of research are theory driven and problem driven. Theory driven research
adds knowledge to a specific field, allows generalizability and the manipulation of
causality; problem driven research researches applied phenomena, such as in a survey
(field research). Problem driven research has many problems including the loss of
control, difficulty in replication and manipulation, inability to prove causality, nongeneralizablity and inability to control extraneous variables. Theory driven research
either reapplies theory, augments existing Theory or establishes a conflicting theory
resolution (Kuhn). In all research constructs are defined and operationalied. The
applicability of theory is argued, the instruments are constructed and empirically
validated, modified from validated instruments and/or modified in operationalization.
The experiment uses 4 well-validated scales:
1.
The Attributional Style Questionnaire ASQ) which measures the potential
impact of attributional style on computer related performance (Peterson,
et al, 1982).
2.
The Causal Dimension Scale which measures the causal dimensions of
self-attribution for achievement (Russell, 1982; McAuley, et al, 1992)
18
The “M” factor establish causality through lab experiment with control
3.
The Computer Operator Aptitude (COA) Battery which measures 3 skills
related to operator performance on Computers, and
4.
The Computer Related Anxiety Scale (CRA) developed by Marcoulides in
1989.
THE ASQ SCALE
ASQ explains an individual’s attritibutional style. There are systematic ways of
explaining successes and failures based on the four recognized categories for selfattributions for achievement: ability, effort, task difficulty and luck. Additionally,
individuals are subject to their past experiences and the interpretations (attributions) of
these experiences. Individual differences refer to systematic ways in which people
explain their own successes and failures. There may be motivational, performance and /
or affective reactions to various life experiences.
Attributional style is a construct derived from reformulated theory of learned
helplessness. Attributional style is characterized by locus of causality, stability and
controllability; where locus of causality is internal or external; events are viewed as
stable or unstable over time; and are said to have a low or high level of individual
controllability. Individuals who attribute failure to internal, stable and global factors are
more prone to depression and depression-prone individuals are more likely to attribute
success to external, unstable and global factors. There is some evidence of Attribution
style construct validity. Sweeny’s (1986) meta-analysis concluded that Attribution style
has convergent and discriminant validity, though it is not totally cross-situationally
consistent for predictive validity. Henry, et al (1996) provides direct empirical evidence
of the potential impact of attributional style on computer related performance using the
Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ) (developed by Peterson et al, 1982.) There is
evidence of Attribution style (ASQ) construct validity, convergent validity, discriminant
validity and cross-situationally consistency for predictive validity.
THE CDS SCALE
According to models of Weiner (1986), Abrahmsom (1978) and Martiniko and Gardner
(1982) causal dimensions, rather than specific attributional explanations influence
expectancies. For example, it is not my belief in my lack of ability as much as it is in my
focus on the stability and my inability to change this lacking. In addition, while
Attributional style tends to lock an individual into a certain way of thinking (I.e.
pessimistic), causal dimensions provide for variability in environments and differing
situations. Validated test for causal dimensions evaluate the causal dimensions of selfattribution for achievement. Thus, there exist a variety of scales, most of which force a
single cause, while in reality individuals perceive multiple causes. The dimensions for
assessment change depending upon the domain of interest. Causal reasoning is most
appropriately assessed by evaluating causal dimensions (which are believed to influence
expectancies). The validated test for causal dimensions evaluates the causal
dimensions of self-attribution for achievement using the Causal Dimension Scale (CDS)
(Russell, 1982; McAuley, et al, 1992). This test has been applied in numerous studies
and shows construct and content validity across domains.
THE COA BATTERY
To measure Computer Operator Aptitude (i.e. ability), this experiment will use the well
validated Computer Operator Aptitude Battery (COAB). The three subtasks measured:
sequence recognition, format checking and logical thinking, relate to the task
requirements of simple financial analyses using Excel spread sheet. The COAB has a
discriminant reliability of r=0.94 and 0.91 and an internal consistency of r=0.95.
Developed by A.J Halloway in 1974, it has been extensively tested.
Our experimental task is well tailored to the instrument. In addition, we may perform
other computer related performance exams within the pretesting period to more
accurately ascertain individual subject’s knowledge of computers and computer skills.
Lastly, a scale created by Murphy et al (1989) has been used to measure computer selfefficacy (CSE). The thirty-two item CSE questionnaire appraises the extent to which
subjects believe they are successful in their encounters with computers. This test
maintains a coefficient alpha of 0.96.
THE CRA SCALE
Feelings of anxiety toward computers and computer use, is common, affecting 30 to
40% of the population (Tseng, Tiplady, Macleod, Wright, 1997). It has been reported that
one third of all college students experience some type of technophobe (DeLoughry,
1993). While IT researchers dispute the depth of this phobia, they content that it is
genuine aversion toward computers and computer use. Rosen and Weil (1987) believe
that students with this phobia may have done well using card catalogs in the library or
blackboards in the classrooms. Yet, with technology moving into these libraries and
classroom, and computers ubiquitous, technophobes are struggling (DeLoughry, 1993).
Computer anxiety levels have been found to be better predictors of success in using
computers that is extent of prior computer experience (Marcoulides, 1988), but computer
anxiety scores are not related to amounts of computer experience (Rosen, Sears & Weil,
1987; Marcoulides). Computer experience appears to effect attitudes about computers,
rather than computer anxiety (Gressard & Loyd, 1986, Igbaria & Chakrabarti, 1990).
Again we must agree that it is paramount to change negative attitudes in order to reduce
anxiety. The Computer Related Anxiety (CRA) scale developed by Marcoulides (1989)
features 20 items that reflect features of computer anxiety. It has been successfully
used to measure computer anxiety and has a reliability coefficient of 0.91.
DESIGN
The design is a standard pre-test post-test control group randomized experiment.
Without a control group, an experiment is forced to measure relative to them (having no
baseline) and is subject to maturation and test sensitivity. Regression effects occur
when the results move towards the mean due to measurement error. Potential
regression for error not a problem unless F=Vb/Ve (inc) shows significant difference in
ratio. For a full discussion, refer to Kerlinger. Partition regression problems contribute
to the experimenter effect (Hawthorne effect), attribution (mortality) and instrumentation
error (non-equivalency). Treatment interactions include confounding threats to internal
validity. To overcome these effects, the experimenter attempts to establish equivalence
by matching demographics (age, gender) and other possible contaminating variables.
Only variables measured are equivalent.
Non-quasi-experimental research (such as the experiment explicated within this
document) is much more scientifically valid. These research experiments include a
control group and randomization. While most things are ephemeral, it is hard to
establish long-term effects; as such longitudinal studies also more subject to
experimenter bias (sustainability). The proposed Attribution Experiment in Information
Technology is non-longitudinal, thus avoids this pitfall.
The population size of 60 allows for two treatments groups of 30 each, which should
prove valid to establish whether there is a statistical significance or not at the accepted
0.05 level. The experiment can be replicated, thus establishing internal validity
(replicatability of results within the same population). If the experiment is non-replicable
than it is a scientific artifact, perhaps due to experiment error, bias or confounding
factors. External validity (the ability to generalize to other populations) is not inherent
within this research, and additional populations would have to be tested in order to
achieve sound externally valid results.
RANDOMIZATION IN DESIGN
Because every experimenter wants the two groups (control and treatment) to be
homogeneous with respect to the groups, randomization is necessary within scientific
design. Randomization controls for uncontrollable variance (within group variance), and
equalizes for variables that might effect the dependent variable. External validity means
that an experiment is replicatable (internal) and generalizable. A random sample of
substantial size allows results to be generalized to a given population. Randomization
takes care of the confounding effects of history, demographic differences, motivations
and pre-existing conditions. Randomization does not necessarily control for group
attitudes, group dynamics, group norms, subgroups, and individual relationships. It is
much more scientifically valid to randomize on the basis of individuals; this allows
generalization to populations of individuals. Generally an experimenter can generalize
from individuals to groups, but not the reverse.
EXPECTED FINDINGS OF THIS EXPERIMENT
The dysfunctional PC effects the way individuals perceive the IT event, once we control
for computer ability, computer anxiety and attributional style (which is relatively stable
over long periods of time). It is expected that the experiment will evidence that
attribution theory, with control for the confounding factors of computer anxiety, computer
expertise and attribution style is applicable to IT.
RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS OF THIS EXPERIMENT
The application of Attribution Theory to Information technology in general, and
ubiquitous business PC functionalities in particular is extremely important. A decade
ago, computers were the realms of the “technogeeks”. Today, computers are ubiquitous
in society, manufacturing, service sectors, medicine, law and general everyday life.
Most individuals have accepted and use electronic banking including purchases of
everyday items at grocery stores, drug stores, supermarkets and specialty retailers.
Most workplaces have instituted widespread use of Personal computers for all
personnel, from administrative individuals to the CEOs and CFOs. Students, at
increasingly younger ages, are being required to use computers for word processing,
spreadsheet analysis and research.
Those of us who are early adopters, those who are enamored of technology and those
who have the physical and intellectual means to adopt technologies are at an
advantage. Twenty-percent of the world’s population controls over eight-five percent of
it’s resources. It is estimated that 3 billion people live on less than $2 a day19.
Technophobia is real. The digital divide is real. Everyday, in organizations and
institutions around the world, individuals are faced with these issues. The attributions
that they make towards technology will affect future rates of adoption and use. While
HCI addresses usability, Attribution theory adds a human dimension. Attribution theory
tells scientists that not all individuals like and accept technology, regardless of how well
it has been designed and implemented. Computer anxiety and negative computer
attributions will in part determine the success or failure of the systems of today and
tomorrow. Attribution theory allows scientists a venue to evaluate why some systems
fail and others succeed, and may allow a partial explanation of the productivity paradox.
Within our workplaces, as we expect individual workers to adopt, accept and appreciate
technology, we must understand that individual attributions towards technology will
reflect upon future adoption and utilization.
LIMITATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH
Because this is a single experiment within a confined environment and population, there
is little generalizability to larger samples and different populations. As discussed earlier
in this document, gender, culture and other variables may influence IT Attribution. While
the experiment is designed to allow some post hoc analyses (gender, culture, qualitative
analysis and possible age), further large-scale studies in different countries and of
different populations (students vs. teachers vs. workers vs. managers vs. homemakers,
etc.) are required.
CONCLUSION
The suggested research applies the well-validated psychological theory of Attribution to
Information Technology (IT), and, as theory driven research, allows us to predict,
describe and express causal relationships. Attribution theory focuses on the way that
individuals explain behavior. Attribution Theory applied to IT is extremely important as
that it focuses on the “human” and views the technology as a tool, whose use is
beneficial or damaging, depending upon the human interface.
Attribution theory and the new positive psychologies contribute to a paradigm shift
towards individual actualization and self-realization. Attribution theory applied to IT
focuses on the human, and why they use or fail to use computers. While computing
technologies remain ubiquitous, the combined theories emerging from HCI, Agent theory
and Social Actor theories serve to remind us that the human factor in computing is
indeed important. Attribution theory is key, because it allows us to focus on the critical
factor – the individual and group verses the machine (information technology).
In today’s ubiquitous computing age, scientists can benefit from applying the principles
of Attribution Theory, to industry. This theory illustrates that people do not follow rational
19
World Health Organization, www.who.org, 2002.
rules for the processing of informational behavior and that our cognitions are inherently
biased.
The experiment utilizes a dysfunctional PC and effects are measured against individual
attributions (perceptions) of the IT event. Control is exercised for computer ability,
computer anxiety and attributional style. The expected experimental result is that
attribution theory, with control for the confounding factors of computer anxiety, computer
expertise and attribution style, is applicable to IT. The application of Attribution Theory
to Information technology in general, and ubiquitous business PC functionalities in
particular is extremely important. A decade ago, computers were the realms of the rich
and powerful. Today, computers are ubiquitous in all areas of society and everyday life.
Workplaces have instituted widespread use of Personal computers for all personnel and
students are required to use computers daily.
Yet, everyday, in organizations and institutions around the world, individuals are faced
with negative IT attributions. The attributions that they make towards technology affect
future rates of adoption and use. Attribution theory tells scientists that not all individuals
like and accept technology, regardless of how well it has been designed and
implemented. Computer anxiety and negative computer attributions will in part
determine the success or failure of the systems of today and tomorrow. Attribution
theory allows scientists a venue to evaluate why some systems fail and others succeed,
and may allow a partial explanation of the productivity paradox.
APPENDIX A
Attribution Theory Timeline
Jones & Davis Theory
of Correspondent
Inference:
People infer based upon
C I s (attribute behaviors
underlying dispositions.
AND
Leon Festinger’s
Cognitive Dissonance
~ 1958 1965
Fritz Heider’s
Naïve Psychology:
People’s beliefs
influence their
behavior, individuals
intuitively construct
causal theories of
human behavior
Harold Kelley
combines
information
consensus,
consistency &
distinctiveness to
explain Internal and
external attributions
AND Bem, Self
perception Theory
1966
1967
Social Learning
Theory of Julian
Rotter, which
integrated
learning theory
with personality
theory: individual
differences in
causal
perceptions
Abrason, et al
developed ASQ from
Seligman’s reformulated
learned helplessness
model.
1) Locus of causality: I-E
2) Stability of causal
explanation (CE)
3) Globality of CE
1972
1978
Jones & Nisbett
dispositional
ascriptions. Bias to
downplay information
about the situational
causes of behavior:
others behavior as
less situational
determined, ours as
more so. Gilbert
(1989)
Hilton & Slugoski:
Abnormal Conditions
Model: Consensus
information effects
primarily internal
attributions,
distinctiveness info
plays a major role in
situation attributions &
consistency affects
attributions to
circumstance
1979 1981
Weiner’s
Attributional
Theory of
achievement
(I-E locus,
stability,
controllability,
globality &
intentionality)
1986
Norman
Anderson:
judgments are
weighted avgs of
information.
Skowronski &
Carlston (89)
perceived
disgnsoticity &
negative amplitude
APPENDIX B: Other Important Names / Contributions to Attribution Theory
IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTORS
•
Kelley’s Model of Attribution (I) (1967)
•
People use logical thought processes to attribute causes of behavior.
•
Identifies three important factors of attribution: consistency (stability of behavior over time), distinctiveness (uniqueness of
behavior to situation) and consensus (stability of individual response too similar / same situations).
•
Kelley’s Model of Attribution (II)
•
Individuals take into account all three factors of attribution when making judgements of others.
•
People pay less attention to consensus information than consistency and distinctiveness.
•
When people observe someone’s behavior on ONLY ONE occasion, then:
•
Discounting principle applies: They don’t make a dispositional attribution when the situation requires a particular
behavior.
•
Augmenting principle: They make a dispositional attribution when the behavior does not match the situation.
•
When distinctiveness and consensus are LOW, attributions tend to be INTERNAL.
•
When distinctiveness and consensus are HIGH, attributions tend to be EXTERNAL.
•
Schneider (1973): implicit personality theory.
•
Nisbett & Wilson (1977): the halo effect (positive characteristics go with positive attributions).
•
Anderson (1981) weighing information.
•
Anderson (1981): Information Integration Model: weighing information in order to make attributions.
•
Skowronski & Carlston (1989): negative information weighs more than positive.
•
Gilbert (1989): perceivers identify behavior and then assume disposition.
OTHER THEORIES
•
Fundamental Attribution Bias (a.k.a. Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE)): individuals tend to over attribute behavior to
dispositional causes and under attribute it to situational causes. In other words, perceivers tend to underestimate the impact of a
situation on people’s behaviors and attribute behaviors to personal causes.
•
Cognitive Motivations such as the Actor observer effect and sequential operations effect.
•
Motivational Reasons such as The Just World Hypothesis, Ethnocentrism and Gender Bias.
•
Actor-observer bias: People tend to attribute our own behavior to external factors, and other people’s behavior to internal factors.
Also, the tendency for observers to make attributions based upon personality for an actors behaviors and to make circumstantial
explanations for their own behaviors.
•
•
•
Attributions differ based upon social desirability of action.
•
Individuals attribute MORE dispositional or internal attributions for their OWN socially desirable behaviors.
•
Individuals attribute MORE situational or external attributions for their OWN socially undesirable behaviors.
Actor and observer have different perspectives (attributions) on behavior, which lead to different explanations.
•
Actors focus more on situation.
•
Observers focus more on individual (dispositions).
Sequential Operations Theory (Gilbert): Dispositional attributions are made automatically and then (perhaps) corrected for
(cognitively).
•
Correspondent Inference Theory: Is behavior expected, voluntary and repeated?
•
Salience: We tend to notice the most obvious features of a situation, people rather than environment.
•
Locality of reference principle: Temporal locality of reference and physical locality of reference take precedence over others.
•
Covariation Principle: When two things occur together, we tend to assume a causal link between them; and we may overlook
other variables (direct or indirect).
•
False consensus: People see their own behavior as typical, and feel that others will agree with them.
•
Reinforcing consensus: Individuals tend to interact with people similar to themselves (those who hold similar views) therefore
beliefs tend to be “justified” by those around them.
•
•
Motivation: Attributions are affected by other factors such as:
•
Whether an individual likes or dislikes a person or group.
•
Stereotypes.
•
Mood.
•
Perceived attractiveness.
•
Relationships.
“Just-World” Theory (Melvin Lerner): Individuals believe in a “just and fair” world. This leads to a belief in “justice” (i.e. people get
what they deserve).
•
•
Individuals believe that “bad things happen to bad people and good things happen to good people.”
•
Tendency to blame victims for their plight.
•
Victim blaming is an example of FAE (attribution of negative life situations with internal factors).
•
Victim blaming may reduce our own fears (i.e. because we are “good” no such negative consequences will befall us).
Perceptual Assimilation Theory (Trope): Individuals have expectations about how others should behave in certain situations and
those expectations influence what people perceive.
•
Self/Other bias: Human beings are inclined to regard others behavior as more stable and predictable than their own.
INTERCULTURAL ASPECTS
•
Intercultural Results are varied in results.
•
Miller found that Hindu people were more likely than Americans to make external attributions.
•
Chinese students were found to make attributions similar to American students.
•
Thomas & Nikora found that ethnocentrism20 within New Zealand groups (Pakeha and Maori) teenagers.
GENDER ASPECTS
•
It is suggested by several studies that women have accepted or internalized their “inferiority”
•
•
Women tend to deny the extent to which they are discriminated against (even when discrimination is obvious)
•
Women that admit discrimination, tend to ascribe it to other women and not themselves.
•
Women tend to devalue their own worth (attribute positive factors more to luck/chance than ability and effort).
•
Women have higher rates of depression and suicide.
Gender stereotypes are important in making attributions.
•
Women’s nurturing behavior is often attributed to biology (internal attribution).
•
However, nurturing is partially learned, and women may be socialized to be more nurturing (external attribution).
•
Female “sensitivity and ability to openly express emotions is also attributed to internal attribution (biology and hormones)
while it also has an external / socialization factor.
•
20
Male violence is attributed to internal factors, while it to may be a socialization issue.
The tendency of members of a cultural group to evaluate in-group members more positively than outgroup members. There is a tendency to
internally attribute bad outgroup and good in-group behavior and to externally attribute good outgroup and bad in-group behavior.
APPENDIX C
Attribution and Experimental IT Model
Attribution Style (ASQ)
Ability
Effort
Task Difficulty
Luck
Event
Computer Expertise
(COA)
Attribution,
(as measured by
CDS)
Treatment
Computer
Anxiety (CRA)
Locus of causality
Controllability
Stability
APPENDIX D
Prerecorded video instructions
One copy, multiple tapes, each student views exactly same instructions. Bland,
instructorly individual reads following script from teleprompter:
“Hello. You have been chosen to participate in an experiment regarding financial
analyses. You have 25 minutes to complete the task. You may or may not have enough
time to complete the task, however it is extremely important that you follow these
instructions.”
(Typed on Screen and read by voice)
“Do NOT start until you are told to do so.
“Once you begin, you must not exit the room for any reason, or ask for any help from the
experimenter.”
“STOP when you are told to do so.”
(Individual reappears)
“You will find that the computer is turned on and is a Normal Windows Operating system
with Excel on the desktop. You are expected to know how to use excel; for simple tasks
and have been pretested to this effect. You will find a sheet of paper with task
instructions on the left side of the PC. Sit down at the PC now, and turn the paper over
when you hear the word “Start”.”
(Few minutes, screen shows “Sit down and Wait)
“START”
(Elapsed time 25 minutes)
“STOP”
Thank you for your participation, please immediately exit the test room, where you will
be given further instructions by the experimenter.”
APPENDIX E
TASK DESCRIPTION
A normal financial analysis using the fx Financial Functions will be used. Mean item to
completion: 17.5 minutes, allowed time for completion 25 minutes
Detailed description of task to be performed, down to what button to push, along with
screen shots will be provided.
In initial pretesting of task phase, several Excel financial analyses will be tested on
totally functional PCs. The task with most completions within the allotted time of 17.5
minutes plus or minus two sigma will be used. This task will be detailed and then a
second group will be used to test the direction for clarity, completeness, logic and flow.
The last pretest that will be done is a random sample using half functional and half
dysfunctional PCs. In this way, the dysfunctionalities of the PCs will be tested and user
reactions and perceptions will be recorded.
APPENDIX F
Experimental Design
Pretests:
ASQ, CRA, COAB
Treatment
~
X
Postests:
CDS, ASQ, CRA,COAB
Ya1
(Normal PC)
R
X
(Dysfunctional PC)
Ya2
REFERENCES
Abramson, L. , Seligman, M and Teasdale J. (1978). “Learned Helplessness in
humans: Critique and Reformulation.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87:4974.
Adler, S. (1980). “Self-esteem and causal attributions for job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 65:327-332.
Alloy, L. Peterson, Abrahmson, L. and Seligman M. (1984) “Attributional Style
and the generality of learned helplessness.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 46(3):681-687.
Anderson, C, Jennings, D and Arnoult, L. (1988). “Validity and utility of the
attributional style construct at a moderate level of specificity.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55(6):979-990.
Anderson, C. (1983). “The causal structure of situations: The generation of
plausible causal attributions as a function of type of event situation.” Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 55(4):876-888.
Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications [Second
Edition]. New York: Freeman.
Antaki, and Brewin, C (eds). (1982) Attributions and Psychological Change, New
York: Academic Press.
Baron, L. (May 1993). “Narcissism, interpersonal adjustment, and coping in
children of holocaust survivors.” The Journal of Psychology, 127(3), 257-270.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Bem, D. (1972). “Self-perception theory.” In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology, (Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press.
Blashoff, J. A. & Snow, R. (1971). Pygmalion reconsidered. Worthington, OH:
Charles A. Jones.
Booth-Butterfield, S., et al. (1994). “Simultaneous versus exclusive processing of
persuasion arguments and cues.” Communication Quarterly, 42, 21-45.
Boruchovitch, E. (1993, August). “Causal attributions for health and illness: A
cross-cultural contribution.” Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
Boutsen, F. R. (1991). “Single-parent college students' attributions toward
academic success.” Psychology in the Schools, 28(4), 360-64.
Bozionelos, N. (1997) “Cognitive Spontaneity as a Correlate of Computer Anxiety
Towards Computer Use.” Psychological Reports, 80:395-402.
Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1971). “The abstraction of linguistic ideas.”
Cognitive Psychology, 2, 331-350.
Brewin, L.R. and Anataki, C. (1987) Journal of Social And Clinical Psychology,
5(1): 79-98
Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (2000). The Social Life of Information. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Brown, S.E. & Vician, C. "An Examination of the Relationship Between Computer
Anxiety, Communication Apprehension and Student Experiences With Electronic
Mail”, 11 November 1997.
Buros: 12th Mental Measurements Yearbook, 1998.
Buros: Tests in Print V, 1998.
Castells, Manuel. (2000). The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture:
The Network Society Vol. 1, The Power of Identity Vol. 2, The End of Millennium
Vol. 3. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Castells, Manuel. (1999). The Informational City. Cambridge Ma: Blackwell.
Castells, Manuel. (2001). The Internet Galaxy. New York: Oxford Press.
Cattell, R. B., & Dreger, R. M. (Eds.). (1978). Handbook of modern personality
theory. New York: Wiley.
Cattell, R. B., & Horn, J. L. “A check on the theory of fluid and crystallized
intelligence with description of new subtest designs.” Journal of Educational
Measurement, 15, 139-164.
Cattell, R. B., & Schuerger, J. M. (1978). Personality theory in action: Handbook
for the Objective-Analytic Test Kit. Champaign, Illinois: IPAT.
Chaiken, S. (1987). “The heuristic model of persuasion.” In M. Zanna, J. Olson, &
C. Herman (Eds.) Social influence: The Ontario symposium, Volume 5 (pp. 3-40).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. (1989). “Heuristic and systematic
information processing within and beyond the persuasion context.” In J. Uleman
& J. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought, (pp.212-252). New York: Guilford.
Cialdini, R. (1980). Influence: Science and practice, (2nd Ed.). Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman, & Company.
Cofer, C. N. (1976). The structure of human memory. San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman.
Cooper, J. & Fazio, R.(1984). “A new look at dissonance.” In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 17, (pp. 229-266). New York:
Academic Press.
Cotton, J. (1985). “Cognitive dissonance in selective exposure.” In D. Zillmann &
J. Bryant (Eds.), Selective exposure to communication, (pp. 11-33). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Covington, M. V., & Beery, R. G. (1976). Self-worth and school learning. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Deloughry, T.J. (1993) “Two Researchers Say Technophobia May Afflict Millions
of Students", The Chronicle of Higher Education (28 April) :A25-A26.
Desprels-Frayssee, A. (September, 1993). “Referential set presentation effects
on complementation by 6 year olds.” Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154(3) 339346.
Down, A.C., & Lyons, P. (1991). “Natural observations of the links between
attractiveness and initial legal judgements.” Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 17, 541-547.
Dreyfus, H. L. (1979). What computers can't do: The limits of artificial intelligence
[Revised Edition]. New York: Harper and Row, Harper Colophon.
Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1984). “Putting computers in their proper place:
Analysis versus intuition in the classroom.” Teachers College Record, 85(4), 578601.
Ebbinghaus, H. (1964). (New York: Teachers College, 1913). Memory [Reprint]
(H. A. Ruger & C. E. Bussenius, Trans.). New York: Dover.
Ellul, J. (1990). The technological bluff. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Fajou, S. "Computer Anxiety", Computer Anxiety, 28 October, 1997.
Fazio, R., (1990). “Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The
MODE model as an integrative framework.” In M. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, vol 23, (pp. 75-109). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Fiedler, K. (1995). “Actor-observer bias in close relationships: The role of selfknowledge and self-related language.” Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21(5), 525-38.
Forester, John. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Fullen, C., & Mills, B. D. (1995, July). “Attribution theory in sport: Problems and
solutions.” ERIC microfiche.
Garson, B. (1988). The electronic sweatshop: How computers are transforming
the office of the future into the factory of the past. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Glass, C.R., & Knight, L.A. (1988) “Cognitive Factors in Computer Anxiety,
Cognitive Therapy and Research.” 12:351-365.
Glasser, William (1989). Choice Theory: A New Psychology of Personal
Freedom. New York: Harper.
Glasser, William (1999). Reality Theory: A New Approach to Psychiatry. New
York: Harper.
Gos, M.W. "Computer Anxiety and Computer Experience: A New Look at an Old
Relationship.” The Clearinghouse, May-June 1996 69(5) :271-277.
Graham, S. And Folkes, V.S. (eds.) (1990). Attribution Theory: Applications to
Achievement, Mental Health and Interpersonal Conflict, Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Gredler, Margaret E. Learning and Instruction: Theory into Practice, 2nd edition.
(New York, N.Y.; Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992).
Gressard, C.P. & Loyd, B.H. “The Nature and Correlates of Computer Anxiety in
College Students.” Journal of Human Behavior and Learning, 3:28-33.
Hakstian, A. R., & Cattell, R. B. (1978). “An examination of interdomain
relationships among some ability and personality traits.” Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 38, 275-290.
Hakstian, A. R., & Cattell, R. B. (1978). “Higher stratum ability structures on a
basis of twenty primary abilities.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 657669.
Harris, J. & Grandgenett, N. "Writing Apprehension, Computer Anxiety and
Telecomputing: a pilot study", 29 September 1997.
Heider, F. (1958) The Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships, New York:
Wiley.
Hinsz, V., & Tomhave, J. (1991). “Smile and (half) the world smiles with you,
frown and you frown alone.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 586592.
Hoge, R.D. & Renzulli, J.S. (1994). “Exploring the link between giftedness and
self-concept.” Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 449-465.
Howard, G.S. & Smith, R.D. “Computer Anxiety in Management: Myth or
Reality?” Communications of the ACM 29:611-615.
Igbaria, M. & Chakrabarti, A. “Computer Anxiety and Attitudes Towards
Microcomputer Use, Behavior and Information Technology.” 9:229-241.
Jaspars, J, Finchman, F.D. and Hewstone, M (eds). (1983) Attribution Theory
and Research: Conceptual, Developmental and Social Dimensions. New York:
Academic Press.
Jones, E. E. and Davis, K. E. (1965). "From Acts to Dispositions: The Attribution
Process in Person Perception." In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, vol. 2, Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Jones, E.E. and Nisbett, R.E.. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent
perceptions of the causes of behavior in Attribution: Perceiving the causes of
Behavior.
Jones,E.E., et al (eds) (1971). Attribution: Percieving the causes of Behavior.
Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). “Attribution in social psychology.” Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation, 15, 192-238.
Kelley, H. H. “The processes of causal attribution.” American Psychologist,
73(28): 107-128.
Kerlinger, F and Lee, H. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research, 4th Edition.
United States: Wadsworth.
Kintsch, W. (1976).”Memory for prose.” In C. N. Cofer (Ed.), The structure of
human memory. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Lash, S. Szerwzynski, B and Wynne, B (eds). (2000). Risk, Environment and
Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London: Sage.
Lepper, M., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. “Undermining children's intrinsic interest
with extrinsic reward: A test of the "overjustification" hypothesis.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.
Lewis, F. M. and Daltroy, L. H. (1990). "How Causal Explanations Influence
Health Behavior: Attribution Theory." In Glanz, K., Lewis, F.M. and Rimer, B.K.
(eds.) Health Education and Health Behavior: Theory , Research and Practice.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc.
Lindsay, P. H., & Norman, D. A. (1977). Human information processing: An
introduction to psychology. New York: Academic Press.
Loyd, B.H. & Gressard, C.P. (1984) “The Effects of Sex, Age and Computer
Experience on Computer Attitudes”, AEDS Journal 40:67-77.
Magnusson, J., & Perry, R. P. (1992). “Academic help-seeking in the university
setting: The effects of motivational set, attributional style, and help source
characteristics.” Research in Higher Education, 33(2), 227-45.
Maltby, J. (December 1996). “Attribution style and projection.” Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 157(4), 505-507.
Margolis, Howard. (1993). Paradigms and Barriers: How Habits of Mind Govern
Scientific Beliefs. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Marcoulides, G.A. “The Relationship between Computer Anxiety & Computer
Achievement”, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1980(4):151-158.
Martiniko, Mark J (ed), Attribution Theory: An Organizational Perspective, St
Lucie Press, 1995.
Mayer, R. E. (1987). Educational Psychology: A cognitive approach. Boston:
Little, Brown.
McClure, J. (April 1993). “Discounting attributions and multiple determinants.”
The Journal of General Psychology, 120(2), 99-123.
McGuire, W. (1964). “Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary
approaches.” In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 1, pp.191-229). New York: Academic Press.
McKibben, B. (1992). The age of missing information. New York: Random
House.
Miller, R., Brickman, P., & Bolen, D. (1975). “Attribution versus persuasion as a
means of modifying behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31,
430-441.
Necessary, J.R. & Parish, T.H. "The Relationship between Computer Usage and
Computer-Related Attitudes and Behaviors, Education, Spring 1996, v116 n3:
384-387.
Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts.
Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). Communication and persuasion: The central
and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer-Verlag: New York.
Pfau, M., & Burgoon, M. (1986). “Inoculation in political campaign
communication.” Human Communication Research, 15, 99-111.
Pfau, M., Kenski, H., Nitz, M., & Sorenson, J. (1990). “Efficacy of inoculation
strategies in promoting resistance to political attack messages: Application to
direct mail.” Communication Monographs, 57, 25-43.
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence (M. Piercy & D. E. Berlyne,
Trans.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1973). Memory and intelligence. New York: Basic
Books.
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New
York: Knopf.
Prochaska, J. & DiClemente, C. (1983). “Stages and processes of self-change in
smoking: Toward an integrative model of change.” Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 51, 390-395.
Prochaska, J. (1994). “Strong and weak principles for progressing from
precontemplation to action on the basis of twelve problem behaviors.” Health
Psychology, 13, 47-51.
Rabinbach, Anson, (1990). The Human Motor, Berkeley: University of CA Press.
Rifkin, Jeremy. (2000). The Age of Access: The new culture of hypercapitalism.
New York: Penguin Putnam.
Rosen, L.D., Sears, D.C. & Weil, M.M. (1987) “Computerphobia, Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments and Computers,” 19:167-179.
Ross, M. and Fletcher, G. J. O. (1985). "Attribution and Social Perception." In G.
Lindsey & E. Aronson (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 2, 73-114.
Roszak, T. (1986). The cult of information: The folklore of computers and the true
art of thinking. New York: Pantheon Books.
Rothman, A., Salovey, P., Turvey, C., & Fishkin, S. (1993). “Attributions of
responsibility and persuasion: Increasing mammography utilization among
women over 40 with an internally oriented message.” Health Psychology, 12, 3947.
Schank, R. C. (1984). The cognitive computer: On language, learning, and
artificial intelligence. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Scott, C. (June 1997). “Gender and attribution of control over health and physical
size.” Journal of Social Psychology, (137) 387-389.
Segalowitz, S. J. (1983). Two sides of the brain: Brain lateralization explored.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Seligman, M (1991). Learned Optimism. New York: Alfred A Knopf.
Seligman, M (2002). Authentic Happiness. New York: Simon & Schuster Audio.
Sherif, M., Sherif, K., & Nebergall, R. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The
social judgment-involvement approach. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Sherman, S., & Gorkin, L. (1980). “Attitude bolstering when behavior is
inconsistent with central attitudes.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
16, 388-403.
Shneiderman, Ben. (2002). Leonardo’s Laptop: Human Needs and the New
Computing Technologies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Simonson, M.R., Maaurer, M., Montag-Torard, M., & Whitaker, M. (1987)
“Development of a Standardized Test of Computer Literacy and a Computer
Anxiety Index,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3:231-247.
Smith, F. (1988). Insult to intelligence: The bureaucratic invasion of our
classrooms. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Snyder, M. (1982). “When believing means doing: Creating links between
attitudes and behavior.” In M. Zanna, E. Higgins, & C. Herman (Eds.)
Consistency in Social Behavior: The Ontario Symposium, vol 2 (pp. 105-130).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Speier, C., Morris, M.G., Briggs, G.M. "Attitudes Toward Computers: The Impact
of Performance", 11 November 1997.
Tseng, H.M., Tiplady, B., Macleod, H., Wright, P. "Computer Anxiety and the
Assessment of Mood and Cognitive Function" , 24 November 1997.
Urdan, T.C. & Maehr, M.L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and
achievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65(3),
213-243.
Wallace, S. R. & Thompson, T. E. (1995, October). “Preservice teachers'
changing attributions for elementary students success of failure.” Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-West Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.
Weiner B. (1986). An Attribution Theory of Motivation and Emotion. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Weiner, B. (1994). “Integrating social and personal theories of achievement
striving.” Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 557-573.
Weiner, B. (Ed.). (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory.
Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Weiner, B., Frieze, I , Kukla, A., Reed, L, Rest, S. and Rosenblum, R.M. (1971).
Perceiving the causes of success and Failure in Attribution: Perceiving the
Causes of Behavior.
Weizenbaum, J. (1984, June). Another view from MIT. Byte, 9(6), 225.
Wessells, M., G. (1990). Computer, self, and society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Wiener, N. (1950). The human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Witkowski, T. (April 1997). “Performance level in situations of helplessness,
threat, and group affiliation: egotistic mechanisms in helplessness deficits.” The
Journal of Social Psychology, 137(2), 229-235.
Wong-On-Wing, Bernard, "User Involvement in Systems Development: An
Attributional Approach" Journal of Information Systems, Spring 1988, pp.3-14.
Yan, W., & Gaier, E. L. (1994). Causal attributions for college success and
failure: An Asian-American comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
25(1), 146-58.
Zelen, S.L. (ed). (1991). New Model: New Extensions of Attribution Theory. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power.
New York: Basic Books.
Zuboff, S and Maxmin, J. (2002). The Support Economy: Why Corporations are
Failing Individuals and the Next Episode of Capitalism. New York: Penguin
Putnam.
WEBSITES, accessed Sept – December 2002.
www.afirstlook.com/archive/ attribut.cfm?source=archther
www.hsc.usf.edu/~kmbrown/Attribution_Theory_Overview.htm
www.unite.ukans.edu/explorer/explorer-db/ html/783751634-447DED81.html
www.hbg.psu.edu/faculty/jxr11/glass1sp.html
www.alpha1.fmarion.edu/mjord/socpsylectures/attrsocpsy.
www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/ cshtml/perception/percep5.
www.as.wvu.edu/~sbb/comm221/chapters/attrib.htm
www.awc.cc.az.us/psy/dgershaw/lol/Attribution.html
www.blue.csbs.albany.edu:8000/730/lect4.html
www.blue.csbs.albany.edu:8000/730/lect4.html
www.cba.uri.edu/Scholl/WebTexts/Notes/Attribution.html
www.chiron.valdosta.edu/mawhatley/767/attribut.htm
www.chadwick.jlmc.iastate.edu/theory/attrib.html
www.cognet.mit.edu/MITECS/Articles/
www.ericps.crc.uiuc.edu/naeyctec/current/0002.html
www.katz.pitt.edu/wpsd/2002-09.pdf
www.mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap4/chap4k.htm
www.myschoolonline.com/page/ 0,1871,999-126152-1-58860,00.html
www.newalbany.tech.purdue.edu/ ols/Courses/252/Chapter03.ppt
www.personal.umich.edu/~barbra/attribution.htm
www.psych.ucsb.edu/~swinth/teach/social/lecture5.rtf
www.psych.ufl.edu/~karney/attribut.html
www.psychclassics.yorku.ca/index.htm
www.psychology.waikato.ac.nz/LectureNotes/102/102OHP.pdf
www.indiana.edu/~lrs/lrs95/cmcdonald95.html
www.psynts.dur.ac.uk/notes/Year1/ developmental/soc/SOC2.html
www.ship.edu/~ambart/Psy_220/attributionol.htm
www.staffs.ac.uk/schools/sciences/psychology/
coursematerials/selves/atthenot.html
www.bc.edu/centers/ccc/Media/2002_mbawinner.
www.sigchi.org/cdg/cdg2.html#2_1.
www.unite.ukans.edu/explorer/explorer-db/ rsrc/783751634-447DED81.2.PDF
www.webref.org/psychology/g.htm
www.who.org, World Health Organization.