Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,501

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Application of Social Cognitive Theory to Training for Computer Skills

Compeau, Deborah R., Higgins, Christopher A.·1995·Information Systems Research
DOI 10.1287/isre.6.2.118
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

While computer training is widely recognized as an essential contributor to the productive use of computers in organizations, very little research has focused on identifying the processes through which training operates, and the relative effectiveness of different methods for such training. This research examined the training process, and compared a behavior modeling training program, based on Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura [Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psych. Rev. 84(2) 191–215; Bandura, A. 1978. Reflections on self-efficacy. Adv. Behavioral Res. Therapy 1 237–269; Bandura, A. 1982. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Amer. Psychologist 372 122–147; Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.]), to a more traditional, lecture-based program. According to Social Cognitive Theory, watching others performing a behavior, in this case interacting with a computer system, influences the observers' perceptions of their own ability to perform the behavior, or self-efficacy, and the expected outcomes that they perceive, as well as providing strategies for effective performance. The findings provide only partial support for the research model. Self-efficacy exerted a strong influence on performance in both models. In addition, behavior modeling was found to be more effective than the traditional method for training in Lotus 1-2-3, resulting in higher self-efficacy and higher performance. For WordPerfect, however, modeling did not significantly influence performance. This finding was unexpected, and several possible explanations are explored in the discussion. Of particular surprise were the negative relationships found between outcome expectations and performance. Outcome expectations were expected to positively influence performance, but the results indicated a strong negative effect. Measurement limitations are presented as the most plausible explanation for this result, but further research is necessary to provide conclusive explanations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/isre.6.2.118

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A.
Venue
Information Systems Research
Publisher
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
Published
1995-06
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
118-143
ISSN
  • 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5536
DOI
10.1287/isre.6.2.118
OpenAlex
W1994279764
Cited by
1,501
References
6
FWCI
14.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.