Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 304

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Discrepancy Model of End-User Computing Involvement

Doll, William J., Torkzadeh, Gholamreza·1989·Management Science

Abstract

Within the context of traditional data processing, the MIS literature has devoted considerable attention to the relationship between user involvement and MIS success: unfortunately, this research has produced conflicting results. After reviewing these results, Ives and Olson provide a framework for research on user involvement. Although their framework uses cognitive and motivational psychological mechanisms to explain the linkage between user involvement and MIS success, the contingency variables they identify do not pertain to individual differences between users. Thus, the framework has limitations that reduce its usefulness for explaining conflicting research findings, and its applicability to the end-user computing environment. End-user computing is an emerging phenomenon characterized by substantial differences between individuals in skill and motivation. The unique aspects of this dynamic end-user environment are identified here and an end-user involvement construct is described. Next, after reviewing the participative decision making literature, a model of end-user involvement based upon Alutto and Belasco's discrepancy concept of participation is presented. Focusing on individual differences, this model hypothesizes a contingency relationship between perceived involvement, desired involvement, and end-user satisfaction. Three intervening psychological mechanisms described by Locke and Schweiger (value attainment as well as cognitive and motivational) are used to provide a theoretical rationale for the linkage between involvement and end-user satisfaction. The model is empirically examined using a sample of 618 respondents from 44 firms. The results tend to support the contingency hypotheses. The usefulness of this model for reconciling conflicting research findings in the user involvement literature is discussed, and suggestions for further research are described.

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/mnsc.35.10.1151

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 304

Metadata

Authors
Doll, W. J., & Torkzadeh, G.
Venue
Management Science
Published
1989-10
Volume
35
Issue
10
Pages
1151-1171
ISSN
  • 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5501
OpenAlex
W1990531271
Cited by
304
References
1
FWCI
27.98
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Discrepancy Model of End-User Computing Involvement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.35.10.1151
The paper
Doll, W. J., & Torkzadeh, G. (1989). A Discrepancy Model of End-User Computing Involvement. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.10.1151

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.