CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 138Learning Styles and Cognitive DifferencesSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesStress and Burnout Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 121 of the 123 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Person-Job Cognitive Style Fit for Software Developers: The Effect on Strain and Performance

CHILTON, MICHAEL A., HARDGRAVE, BILL C., ARMSTRONG, DEBORAH J.·2005·Journal of Management Information Systems
DOI 10.1080/07421222.2005.11045849
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Software developers face a constant barrage of innovations designed to improve the development environment. Yet stress/strain among software developers has been steadily increasing and is at an all-time high, while their productivity is often questioned. Why, if these innovations are meant to improve the environment, are developers more stressed and less productive than they should be? Using a combination of cognitive style and person-environment fit theories as the theoretical lens, this study examines one potential source of stress/strain and productivity impediment among software developers. Specifically, this paper examines the fit between the preferred cognitive style of a software developer and his or her perception of the cognitive style required by the job environment, and the effect of that fit on stress/strain and performance. Data collected from a field study of 123 (object-oriented) software developers suggest that performance decreases and stress increases as this gap between cognitive styles becomes wider. Using surface response methodology, the precise fit relationship is modeled. The interaction of the developer and the environment provides explanatory power above and beyond either of the factors separately, suggesting that studies examining strain and performance of developers should explicitly consider and measure the cognitive style fit between the software developer and the software development environment. In practice, managers can use the results to help recognize misfit, its consequences, and the appropriate interventions (such as training or person/task matching).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07421222.2005.11045849

Cites

121 of 121 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 123 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–132 of 132

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
CHILTON, M. A., HARDGRAVE, B. C., & ARMSTRONG, D. J.
Affiliations
  • Kansas State University (US)
  • University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Management Information Systems
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2005-11
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
193-226
ISSN
  • 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-928X
DOI
10.1080/07421222.2005.11045849
OpenAlex
W2097135276
Cited by
138
References
123
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 8
FWCI
8.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Management Information Systems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Learning Styles and Cognitive Differences
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
Keywords
person-job fit, cognitive style, software developers, occupational stress, employee performance, person-environment fit, object-oriented software development, software development environment, developer productivity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review