22.12.2012 Views

www.sharexxx.net - free books & magazines

www.sharexxx.net - free books & magazines

www.sharexxx.net - free books & magazines

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

(5) a serious problem<br />

(4) a rather serious problem<br />

(3) a significant problem<br />

(2) a slight problem<br />

(1) not really a problem<br />

Relating Cognitive Problem-Solving Style to User Resistance 193<br />

In the light of the previous discussion, the R-score was assumed to be a valid<br />

measure of user resistance, despite its novelty. Of course it can be argued that the<br />

R-score might change with the nature of the researcher conducting the interview.<br />

It was beyond the scope of this study to investigate such a conjecture, but since it<br />

was sufficient to show resistance in the relative sense only (comparing resistance<br />

between systems investigated by the same person), this criticism was not considered<br />

significant.<br />

The Role of Cognitive Problem-Solving Styles<br />

A submission based on A-I theory, made earlier was that user resistance is<br />

associated with differences in developer-user cognitive problem-solving styles.<br />

This can now be stated as the following hypothesis:<br />

HI: The user’s R-score is positively associated with the absolute analystuser<br />

KAI score difference for a given information system<br />

Further hypotheses were thus formulated for testing. For example, a user<br />

should tend to see an analyst who is more innovative than himself spend surprisingly<br />

little time studying the system requirements. This follows from the tendency of<br />

innovators to not to wed themselves too long to any system, and to seek continued<br />

novelty of activity. Since the user will consider the analyst an “expert” (lacking in the<br />

beginning a frame of reference to consider him anything else), he should also assume<br />

that the analyst has absorbed all the details in this surprisingly short time. The degree<br />

to which a user will see the analyst as more innovative or adaptive than himself is<br />

measurable as the algebraic difference between their KAI scores. Hence the<br />

hypothesis:<br />

H2(a): The analyst-user KAI score difference is positively associated<br />

with the user’s seven- point rating of how quickly the analyst absorbed<br />

(grasped) the system requirements<br />

According to Kirton (1984), innovators tend to pursue a course of action with<br />

more apparent certainty than do adaptors. This leads to the obvious conjecture that<br />

Copyright © 2003, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written<br />

permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!