A Personal Resource for Technology Interaction: Development and Validation of the Affinity for Technology Interaction (ATI) Scale

References

• Attig, C., & Franke, T. (2017). I track, therefore I walk – Exploring the motivational costs of wearing activity trackers in actual users. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Attig, C., Wessel, D., & Franke, T. (2017). Assessing personality differences in human–technology interaction: An overview of key self-report scales to predict successful interaction. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), HCI International 2017 – posters’ extended abstracts, part I, CCIS 713 (pp. 19–29). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58750-9_3
   Google Scholar
• Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Understanding user responses to information technology: A coping model of user adaptation. MIS Quarterly, 29, 493–524. doi:10.2307/25148693
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beier, G. (1999). Kontrollüberzeugungen im Umgang mit Technik [Control beliefs in dealing with technology]. Report Psychologie, 9, 684–693.
   Google Scholar
• Beißert, H., Köhler, M., Rempel, M., & Beierlein, C. (2015). Kurzskala Need for Cognition NFC-K [Short scale need for cognition NFC-K]. Zusammenstellung Sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen. doi:10.6102/zis230
   Google Scholar
• Bless, H., Wänke, M., Bohner, G., Fellhauer, R. F., & Schwarz, N. (1994). Need for cognition: A scale measuring engagement and happiness in cognitive tasks. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 25, 147–154.
   Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cairns, P. (2013). A commentary on short questionnaires for assessing usability. Interacting with Computers, 25, 312–316. doi:10.1093/iwc/iwt019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carver, C. S. (2006). Approach, avoidance, and the self-regulation of affect and action. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 105–110. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9044-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). On the structure of behavioral self-regulation. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 41–84). London, UK: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50032-9
   Google Scholar
• Chen, S., Westman, M., & Eden, D. (2009). Impact of enhanced resources on anticipatory stress and adjustment to new information technology: A field-experimental test of conservation of resources theory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 219–230. doi:10.1037/a0015282
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claxton, R. P., & McIntyre, R. P. (1994). Empirical relationships between need for cognition and cognitive style: Implications for consumer psychology. Psychological Reports, 74, 723–732. doi:10.2466/pr0.1994.74.3.723
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coffin, R. J., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1999). Motivational influences on computer-related affective states. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 549–569. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(99)00036-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, A. R., Stotland, E., & Wolfe, D. M. (1955). An experimental investigation of need for cognition. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 291–294. doi:10.1037/h0042761
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, B. A., & Waugh, G. W. (1989). Assessing computer anxiety. Psychological Reports, 65, 735–738. doi:10.2466/pr0.1989.65.3.735
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cripps, B. (2017). Psychometric testing: Critical perspectives. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (1993). Stress reactions to computer-interactive tasks as a function of task structure and individual differences. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 5, 1–22. doi:10.1080/10447319309526053
   Google Scholar
• Ebelhäuser, J. (2015). Exploring the associations between geekism, utilitarianism and the active user paradox ( Bachelor’s thesis). University of Twente, Twente, Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Elias, S. M., & Loomis, R. J. (2002). Utilizing need for cognition and perceived self-efficacy to predict academic performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 1687–1702. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02770.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804–818. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.804
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2010). Approach and avoidance temperament as basic dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 78, 865–906. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00636.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleischhauer, M., Enge, S., Brocke, B., Ullrich, J., Strobel, A., & Strobel, A. (2010). Same or different? Clarifying the relationship of need for cognition to personality and intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 82–96. doi:10.1177/0146167209351886
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 271–340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freudenthaler, H. H., Spinath, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2008). Predicting school achievement in boys and girls. European Journal of Personality, 22, 231–245. doi:10.1002/per.678
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furnham, A., & Thorne, J. D. (2013). Need for cognition – Its dimensionality and personality and intelligence correlates. Journal of Individual Differences, 34, 230–240. doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hacker, W. (2003). Action regulation theory: A practical tool for the design of modern work processes? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 105–130. doi:10.1080/13594320344000075
   Google Scholar
• Hawk, S. R. (1989). Locus of control and computer attitude: The effect of user involvement. Computers in Human Behavior, 5, 199–206. doi:10.1016/0747-5632(89)90014-9
   Google Scholar
• Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191–205. doi:10.1177/1094428104263675
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, S., & Soyez, K. (2010). A cognitive model to predict domain-specific consumer innovativeness. Journal of Business Research, 63, 778–785. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.06.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrica, 30, 179–195. doi:10.1007/BF02289447
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karp, A. (2017). Untersuchung von Zusammenhängen zwischen Nutzungsmotivationen und Interaktionen mit Fitnessarmbändern [Examining relationships between usage motives and interactions with fitness trackers] ( Bachelor’s thesis). Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Karrer, K., Glaser, C., Clemens, C., & Bruder, C. (2009). Technikaffinität erfassen – Der Fragebogen TA-EG [Measuring affinity to technology – The questionnaire TA-EG]. In A. Lichtenstein, C. Stößel, & C. Clemens (Eds.), Der Mensch im Mittelpunkt technischer Systeme. 8. Berliner Werkstatt Mensch-Maschine-Systeme 7. bis 9. Oktober 2009 (pp. 196–201). Düsseldorf, Germany: VDI.
   Google Scholar
• Keil, J. (2015). Exploring individual differences in the tendency to fall for the active user paradox ( Bachelor’s thesis). University of Twente, Twente, Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Keller, U., Strobel, A., Martin, R., & Preckel, F. (2017). Domain-specificity of need for cognition among high school students. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 1–10. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000437
   Google Scholar
• Keller, U., Strobel, A., Wollschläger, R., Greiff, S., Martin, R., Vainikainen, M., & Preckel, F. (2016). A need for cognition scale for children and adolescents. Structural analysis and measurement invariance. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 1–13. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000370
   Google Scholar
• Kortum, P., & Owald, F. L. (2017). The impact of personality on the subjective assessment of usability. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 34, 177–186. doi:10.1080/10447318.2017.1336317
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehenbauer-Baum, M., & Fohringer, M. (2015). Towards classification criteria for internet gaming disorder: Debunking differences between addiction and high engagement in a German sample of World of Warcraft players. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 345–351. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology: Concepts and methods. American Journal of Sociology, 44, 868–896. doi:10.1086/218177
   Google Scholar
• Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2013). FACTOR 9.2: A comprehensive program for fitting exploratory and semiconfirmatory factor analysis and IRT models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37, 497–498. doi:10.1177/0146621613487794
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1–23. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maurer, M. M., & Simonson, M. R. (1993). The reduction of computer anxiety. Journal of Research in Computing and Education, 26, 205–219. doi:10.1080/08886504.1993.10782087
   Google Scholar
• McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moosbrugger, H., & Kelava, A. (2012). Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion [Test theory and questionnaire construction]. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Nair, K. U., & Ramnarayan, S. (2000). Individual differences in need for cognition and complex problem solving. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 305–328. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1999.2274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, C. D., & Skinner, H. A. (2006). eHealth literacy: Essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8(2), e9. doi:10.2196/jmir.8.2.e9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pieritz, S. (2017). Die Wirkung positiver vs. negativer Feedbackdarstellungen im Kontext von Gamification [The effect of positive vs. negative feedback presentations in the context of gamification] ( Bachelor’s thesis). Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Potosky, D., & Bobko, P. (2001). A model for predicting computer experience from attitude towards computers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15, 391–404. doi:10.1023/A:1007866532318
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poynton, T. A. (2005). Computer literacy across the lifespan: A review with implications for educators. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 861–872. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rammstedt, B., & Beierlein, C. (2014). Can’t we make it any shorter? The limits of personality assessment and ways to overcome them. Journal of Individual Differences, 35, 212–220. doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rammstedt, B., & John, O. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richter, T., Naumann, J., & Horz, H. (2010). A revised version of the computer literacy inventory (INCOBI-R). Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 24, 23–37. doi:10.1024/1010-0652/a000002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson, I. T. (1985). Human information-processing strategies and style. Behavior & Information Technology, 4, 19–29. doi:10.1080/01449298508901784
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadowski, C. J., & Cogburn, H. E. (1997). Need for cognition in the Big Five factor structure. The Journal of Psychology, 131, 307–312. doi:10.1080/00223989709603517
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaarschmidt, M., Ivens, S., Homscheid, D., & Bilo, P. (2015). Crowdsourcing for survey research: Where Amazon mechanical Turks deviates from conventional survey methods (Report No. 1/2015). Koblenz, Germany: Universität Koblenz-Landau.
   Google Scholar
• Schmettow, M., & Drees, M. (2014). What drives the geeks? Linking computer enthusiasm to achievement goals. In Proceedings of HCI 2014, Southport, UK (pp. 234–239). doi:10.14236/ewic/hci2014.29
   Google Scholar
• Schmettow, M., Noordzij, M. L., & Mundt, M. (2013). An implicit test of UX: Individuals differ in what they associate with computers. In CHI ‘13 2013 ACM SIGCHI on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France, April 27–May 2 (pp. 2039–2048). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2468356.2468722
   Google Scholar
• Schwarze, D. (2017). Framing-effect and eco-driving: The impact on driving behaviour through different portrayals of eco-indicators ( Bachelor’s thesis). Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Shneiderman, B. (2000). Universal usability. Communications of the ACM, 43(5), 84–91. doi:10.1145/332833.332843
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sicilia, M., Ruiz, S., & Munuera, J. L. (2005). Effects of interactivity in a web site: The moderating effect of need for cognition. Journal of Advertising, 34, 31–44. doi:10.1080/00913367.2005.10639202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, B. N., Kerr, N. A., Markus, M. J., & Stasson, M. F. (2001). Individual differences in social loafing: Need for cognition as a motivator in collective performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 150–158. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.5.2.150
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sojka, J. Z., & Deeter-Schmelz, D. R. (2008). Need for cognition and affective orientation as predictors of sales performance: An investigation of main and interaction effects. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22, 179–190. doi:10.1007/s10869-008-9069-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 61, 335–340. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1988.tb00470.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stöhr, W. (2015). Exploring people’s resistance to the active user paradox including personality traits ( Bachelor’s thesis). University of Twente, Twente, Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16, 209–220. doi:10.1037/a0023353
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). The episodic process of learning by using. International Journal of Technology Management, 11, 790–798. doi:10.1504/IJTM.1996.025468
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, L.-F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychological Review, 17, 1–53. doi:10.1007/s10648-005-1635-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, L.-F., Sternberg, R. J., & Rayner, S. (2012). Handbook of Intellectual Styles. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar