Individual Differences and Conceptual Modeling Task Performance: Examining the Effects of Cognitive Style, Self-efficacy, and Application Domain Knowledge

  • Manpreet K. Dhillon
  • Subhasish Dasgupta
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 81)


In information systems development, conceptual modeling, which includes both data modeling and process modeling, is the most effective technique for depicting and sharing an understanding of the functional capabilities and limitations of the product/ system/ service design. The quality of conceptual models depends on a number of factors. This research focused on attributes of the modeler and specifically examined how an individual’s cognitive style, task self-efficacy, and knowledge of application domain impact the quality of two types of conceptual models: data models and process models. Results of the research revealed that an individual’s cognitive style may relate to conceptual model quality. In addition, the research showed that self-efficacy may be a determinant of model quality. Application domain knowledge did not appear to play a role in quality of models produced by the participants in this study.


individual differences conceptual modeling modeling performance 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Allison, C.W., Hayes, J.: The Cognitive Style Index: A Measure of Intuition-Analysis for Organizational Research. Journal of Management Studies 33(1), 119–135 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandura, A.: Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1986)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bolloju, N., Leung, F.S.K.: Assisting Novice Analysts in Developing Quality Conceptual Models. Communications of the ACM 49(7), 108–112 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Compeau, D.R., Higgins, C.A.: A social cognitive theory perspective on individual reactions to computing technology. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Information Systems, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Compeau, D.R., Higgins, C.A.: Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Information Systems Research 6, 118–143 (1995a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Compeau, D.R., Higgins, C.A.: Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly 19, 189–211 (1995b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Franco, L., Meadows, M.: Exploring new directions for research in problem structurin methods: on the role of cognitive style. Journal of the Operational Research Society 58, 1621–1629 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gardner, W.L., Martinko, M.J.: Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to Study Managers: A Literature Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management 22(1), 45–83 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garfield, M.J., Taylor, N.J., et al.: Research Report: Modifying Paradigms - Individual Differences, Creativity, Techniques, and Exposure to Ideas in Group Idea Generation. Information Systems Research 12(3), 322–333 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: A Framework for Empirical Evaluation of Conceptual Modeling Techniques. Requirements Engineering 9, 248–260 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gerard, G.J.: The REA Pattern, Knowledge Structures, and Conceptual Modeling Performance. Journal of Information Systems 19(2), 57–77 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hambrick, D.Z., Engle, R.W.: Effects of Domain Knowledge, Working Memory Capacity, and Age on Cognitive Performance: An Investigation of the Knowledge-Is-Power Hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology 44, 339–387 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Isaksen, S.G., Lauer, K.J., et al.: An Examination of the Relationship Between Personality Type and Cognitive Style. Creativity Research Journal 15(4), 343–354 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jahng, J., Jain, H., et al.: Personality Traits and effectiveness of presentation of product information in e-business systems. European Journal of Information Systems 11, 181–195 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones, W.P.: Computer Use and Cognitive Style. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 26(4), 514–523 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jordan, D., Whalen, G., Bell, B., McKeown, K., Feiner, S.: An evaluation of automatically generated briefings of patient status. In: Medinfo. 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khatri, V., Vessey, I., et al.: Comprehension of conceptual schemas: Exploring the role of application and IS domain knowledge. Information Systems Research 17(1), 81–99 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirton, M.: Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology 61, 622–629 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kovar, S.E., Ott, R.L., et al.: Personality preferences of accounting students: a longitudinal case study. Journal of Accounting Education 21, 75–94 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee, C., Bobko, P.: Self-efficacy; Moods-Psychology; Goal-Psychology; Psychology-Methodology. Journal of Applied Psychology 79, 364–369 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leung, F., Bolloju, N.: Analyzing the Quality of Domain Models Developed by Novice Systems Analysts. In: Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jourdan, L.F., Bagwell, J.J., et al.: Motivational Orientation, Self-Regulated Learning Strategies and Students’ Choice of Teaching Model. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 8(1), 59–71 (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McElroy, J.C., Hendrickson, A.R., et al.: Dispositional Factor in Internet Use: Personality Versus Cognitive Style. MIS Quarterly 31(4), 809–820 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marakas, G.M., Yi, M.Y., Johnson, R.: The multilevel and multifaceted character of computer self-efficacy: Toward a clarification of the construct and an integrative framework for research. Information Systems Research 9(2), 126–163 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mason, R.O., Mitroff, I.I.: Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions: Theory, cases, and techniques. Wiley, New York (1981)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moody, M.: Best Friends. Riverhead Books (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lindland, O., Sindre, G., Solvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software 11(2), 42–49 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pajares, F., Graham, L.: Self-Efficacy, Motivation Constructs, and Mathematics Performance of Entering Middle School Students. Contemporary Educational Psychology 24, 124–139 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rozell, E.J., Gardner, W.L.: Cognitive, motivation, and affective processes associated with computer-related performance: a path-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 16, 199–222 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ryan, S., Bordoloi, B., et al.: Acquiring Conceptual Data Modeling Skills: The Effect of Cooperative Learning and Self -Efficacy on Learning Outcomes. The Database for Advances in Information Systems 43(4), 9–24 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shaft, T.M., Vessey, I.: The Role of Cognitive Fit in the Relationship Between Software Comprehension and Modification. MIS Quarterly 30(1), 29–55 (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Simsion, G.: Data Modeling Theory and Practice. Technics Publications, LLC, Bradley Beach (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tiwana, A., McLean, E.R.: Expertise Integration and Creativity in Information Systems Development. Journal of Management Information Systems 22(1), 13–43 (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Topi, H., Ramesh, V.: Human Factors Research on Data Modeling: A Review of Prior Research, An Extended Framework and Future Research Directions. Journal of Database Management 13(2), 3–19 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vera-Munoz, S.C., William, J., Kinney, R., et al.: The Effects of Domain Experience and Task Presentation Format on Accountants’ Information Relevance Assurance. The Accounting Review 76(3), 405–429 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vessey, I.: The Effect of the Application Domain in IS Problem Solving: A Theoretical Analysis (2002)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling - A Research Agenda. Information Systems Research 13(4), 363–376 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wheeler, P.R., Hunton, J.E., et al.: Accounting Information Systems Research Opportunities Using Personality Type Theory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicatoe. Journal of Information Systems 18(1), 1–19 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manpreet K. Dhillon
    • 1
  • Subhasish Dasgupta
    • 1
  1. 1.George Washington UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations