Much previous research has established that perceived ease of use is an important factor influencing user acceptance and usage behavior of information technologies. However, very little research has been conducted to understand how that perception forms and changes over time. The current work presents and tests an anchoring and adjustment-based theoretical model of the determinants of system-specific perceived ease of use. The model proposes control (internal and external--conceptualized as computer self-efficacy and facilitating conditions, respectively), intrinsic motivation (conceptualized as computer playfulness), and emotion (conceptualized as computer anxiety) as anchors that determine early perceptions about the ease of use of a new system. With increasing experience, it is expected that system-specific perceived ease of use, while still anchored to the general beliefs regarding computers and computer use, will adjust to reflect objective usability, perceptions of external control specific to the new system environment, and system-specific perceived enjoyment. The proposed model was tested in three different organizations among 246 employees using three measurements taken over a three-month period. The proposed model was strongly supported at all points of measurement, and explained up to 60% of the variance in system-specific perceived ease of use, which is twice as much as our current understanding. Important theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

/pdf/determinants-of-perceived-ease-of-use-integrating-control-10opxseq0g.pdf

Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model

Conservation of Resources (COR) theory predicts that resource loss is the principal ingredient in the stress process. Resource gain, in turn, is depicted as of increasing importance in the context of loss. Because resources are also used to prevent resource loss, at each stage of the stress process people are increasingly vulnerable to negative stress sequelae, that if ongoing result in rapid and impactful loss spirals. COR theory is seen as an alternative to appraisal-based stress theories because it relies more centrally on the objective and culturally construed nature of the environment in determining the stress process, rather than the individual’s personal construel. COR theory has been successfully employed in predicting a range of stress outcomes in organisational settings, health contexts, following traumatic stress, and in the face of everyday stressors. Recent advances in understanding the biological, cognitive, and social bases of stress responding are seen as consistent with the original formulation of COR theory, but call for envisioning of COR theory and the stress process within a more collectivist backdrop than was first posited. The role of both resource losses and gains in predicting positive stress outcomes is also considered. Finally, the limitations and applications of COR theory are discussed.

The Influence of Culture, Community, and the Nested-Self in the Stress Process: Advancing Conservation of Resources Theory

Dual-process and dual-system theories in both cognitive and social psychology have been subjected to a number of recently published criticisms. However, they have been attacked as a category, incorrectly assuming there is a generic version that applies to all. We identify and respond to 5 main lines of argument made by such critics. We agree that some of these arguments have force against some of the theories in the literature but believe them to be overstated. We argue that the dual-processing distinction is supported by much recent evidence in cognitive science. Our preferred theoretical approach is one in which rapid autonomous processes (Type 1) are assumed to yield default responses unless intervened on by distinctive higher order reasoning processes (Type 2). What defines the difference is that Type 2 processing supports hypothetical thinking and load heavily on working memory.

/pdf/dual-process-theories-of-higher-cognition-advancing-the-5k4q1zq7ey.pdf

Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate

Theory: This paper develops and applies an issue ownership theory of voting that emphasizes the role of campaigns in setting the criteria for voters to choose between candidates. It expects candidates to emphasize issues on which they are advantaged and their opponents are less well regarded. It explains the structural factors and party system variables which lead candidates to differentially emphasize issues. It invokes theories of priming and framing to explain the electorate's response. Hypotheses: Issue emphases are specific to candidates; voters support candidates with a party and performance based reputation for greater competence on handling the issues about which the voter is concerned. Aggregate election outcomes and individual votes follow the problem agenda. Method: Content analysis of news reports, open-ended voter reports of important problems, and the vote are analyzed with graphic displays and logistic regression analysis for presidential elections between 1960 and 1992. Results: Candidates do have distinctive patterns of problem emphases in their campaigns; election outcomes do follow the problem concerns of voters; the individual vote is significantly influenced by these problem concerns above and beyond the effects of the standard predictors.

Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study

This paper evaluates various explanations for the profitability of momentum strategies documented in Jegadeesh and Titman ~1993!. The evidence indicates that momentum profits have continued in the 1990s, suggesting that the original results were not a product of data snooping bias. The paper also examines the predictions of recent behavioral models that propose that momentum profits are due to delayed overreactions that are eventually reversed. Our evidence provides support for the behavioral models, but this support should be tempered with caution. Many portfolio managers and stock analysts subscribe to the view that momentum strategies yield significant profits. Jegadeesh and Titman ~1993! examine a variety of momentum strategies and document that strategies that buy stocks with high returns over the previous 3 to 12 months and sell stocks with poor returns over the same time period earn profits of about one percent per month for the following year. 1 Although these results have been well accepted, the source of the profits and the interpretation of the evidence are widely debated. Although some have argued that the results provide strong evidence of “market inefficiency,” others have argued that the returns from these strategies are either compensation for risk, or alternatively, the product of data mining. The criticism that observed empirical regularities arise because of data mining is typically the hardest to address because empirical research in nonexperimental settings is limited by data availability. Fortunately, with

/pdf/profitability-of-momentum-strategies-an-evaluation-of-1ebrpy37gp.pdf

A Tversky

Papers

Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biasis