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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency
Bandura, A. (1982) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122 · Cited by 15,975
Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586 · Cited by 2,675
Modeling and attributional effects on children's achievement: A self-efficacy analysis.
Schunk, D. H. (1981) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.73.1.93 · Cited by 781
Determinants of success for computer usage in small business
DeLone, W. H. (1988) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/248803 · Cited by 703
Learned helplessness through modeling: The role of perceived similarity in competence.
Brown, I., & Inouye, D. K. (1978) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.8.900 · Cited by 343
Cited by
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x · Cited by 8,159
Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249688 · Cited by 6,553
Self-citationVenkatesh, V. (2000) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872 · Cited by 6,664
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018 · Cited by 6,479
Metadata
- Authors
- Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A.
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 1995-06
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 118-143
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- 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.