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
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.
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
Management Information Systems: Appreciation and Involvement
Swanson, E. B. (1974) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.21.2.178 · Cited by 529
Cited by
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
Explaining the Role of User Participation in Information System Use
Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.40.4.440 · Cited by 1,540
Survey research methodology in management information systems: an assessment
Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. (1993) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.1993.11518001 · Cited by 1,288
Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C. L., & Stich, J. (2019) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12169 · Cited by 1,085
Crossing to the dark side: examining creators, outcomes, and inhibitors of technostress
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Ragu-Nathan, B. S. (2011) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/1995376.1995403 · Cited by 608
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
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.