An Empirical Examination of Individual Traits as Antecedents to Computer Anxiety and Computer Self-Efficacy

Abstract

To better understand how individual differences influence the use of information technoiogy (IT), this study models and tests relationships among dynamic, IT-specific individual differences (i.e.. computer self-efficacy and computer anxiety). stable, situation-specific traits (i.e., personal innovativeness in IT) and stable, broad traits (i.e.. ''Cynthia Beath was the accepting senior editor for this paper. trait anxiety and negative affectivity). When compared to broad traits, the model suggests that situation-specific traits exert a more pervasive influence on IT situation-specific individual differences. Further, the modei suggests that computer anxiety mediates the influence of situationspecific traits (i.e., personal innovativeness) on computer self-efficacy. Results provide support for many of the hypothesized relationships. From a theoretical perspective, the findings help to further our understanding of the nomological network among individual differences that lead to computer self-efficacy. From a practical perspective, the findings may help IT managers design training programs that more effectiveiy increase the computer self-efficacy of users with different dispositional characteristics.

Airline passengers’ continuance intention towards online check-in services: The role of personal innovativeness and subjective knowledge

“…Personal innovativeness is a personality trait that refers to an individual's tendency to willingly embrace change and try new things (Chau & Hui, 1998;Cotte & Wood, 2004;Roehrich, 2004;Thatcher & Perrewe, 2002), which can be further defined at either global trait level, or domain-specific level (Hirunyawipada & Paswan, 2006). Domain specific innovativeness is defined by the virtue of identifiable characteristics and actual acquisition of new information, ideas and products (Hirschman, 1980;Midgley & Dowling, 1978).…”

“…In contrast, this study adopts the definition at global trait level, because the personal innovativeness is a predisposition towards innovation across different products and services (Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991), and this global conception has been widely accepted in psychology to identify the innovative characteristics of individuals (Im, Bayus, & Mason, 2003). As a personality trait, personal innovativeness shapes individuals' perceptions of their capabilities (Thatcher & Perrewe, 2002) to understand and apply complex technical knowledge, and to cope with the uncertainty of new technology (Rogers, 1995). Given its generalized definition, personal innovativeness has also been termed as "innate innovativeness" (Hirschman, 1980), or "innovative predisposition" (Midgley & Dowling, 1978).…”

Technology‐assisted supplemental work: Construct definition and a research framework

“…Personal innovation in information technology (PITT), for example, is a recently identified and relatively untested individual-level characteristic that promises a greater understanding of why some people will more quickly adopt new technologies than others. Prior studies have viewed PITT as a moderator between management's espoused use of technology and user intentions (Leonard-Barton & Deschamps, 1988) or as having a positive relationship with computer self-efficacy and a negative relationship with computer anxiety (Thatcher & Perrewe, 2002). Only recently have studies used PITT as a predictor of technology's infusion into the work domain with promising results (Jones et al, 2002).…”

“…Personal innovativeness in information technology (PITT) is also described as a stable and situation-specific trait that encourages those who rank high in this characteristic to respond in a predictable manner toward focused behaviors such as the use of technological tools in one's work (Thatcher & Perrewe, 2002). These characteristics are essential because much of the research in IT deals with testing the relationships between antecedents and intentions.…”

“…Research linking individual differences to information technology (IT) use experienced a decline in the 1980s, only to enjoy renewed interest in the 1990s and early 2000s (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998;Huber, 1983;Leonard-Barton & Deschamps, 1988;Thatcher & Perrewe, 2002). Following this recent trend, we feel that revisiting the predictive capacity of individual-level characteristics (e.g., job involvement, conscientiousness, career commitment, and personal innovation) holds much promise for explaining which employees will be more likely than others to perform TASW.…”