Personality as a moderator of monitoring acceptance

Computers in Human Behavior

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 479-493

  Zweig, David ^a   Webster, Jane ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Fairness; Monitoring; Personality; Privacy

Indexed keywords

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; MONITORING; SOCIAL ASPECTS;

AWARENESS MONITORING SYSTEM;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION;

EID: 0037411058     PISSN: 07475632     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00075-4     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Abowd G.D., Mynatt E.D. Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 7:2000;29-58.
2. Aiello J.R., Kolb K.J. Electronic performance monitoring and social context. impact on productivity and stress Journal of Applied Psychology. 80(3):1995;339-353.
3. Aiken L.S., West S.G. Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. 1991;Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
4. Alge, B. J. (1999, August). The role of fairness and privacy in electronic performance monitoring and control systems: some preliminary findings. Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.
5. Alge, B. J., & Ballinger, G. (2001, April). Electronic workplace surveillance: the effects of advanced notice and task discretion on perceptions of privacy and procedural justice. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
6. Ambrose M.L., Alder G.S. Designing, implementing, and utilizing computerized performance monitoring. enhancing organizational justice Ferris G.R. Research in personnel and human resource management. Vol. 18:2000;187-219 JAI Press, Greenwich CT.
7. Ambrose M.L., Kulik C.T. The effect of information format and performance pattern on performance appraisal judgements in a computerized performance monitoring context. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 24(9):1994;801-823.
8. Arbuckle J.L., Wothke W. AMOS 4.0 user's guide. 1999;SPSS, Chicago, IL.
9. Barrick M.R., Mount M.K. The big five personality dimensions and job performance. a meta-analysis Personnel Psychology. 44:1991;1-26.
10. Chalykoff J., Kochan T.A. Computer-aided monitoring. Its influence on job satisfaction and turnover Personnel Psychology. 42(4):1989;807-834.
11. Clark L.A., Watson D. General affective dispositions in physical and psychological health. Snyder C.R., Forsyth D.R. Handbook of social and clinical psychology. 1991;241-245 Pergamon, New York.
12. Davis F.D., Bagozzi R.P., Warshaw P. User acceptance of computer technology. Management Science. 35:1989;982-1003.
13. Douthitt, E. A., & Aiello, J.R. (2000, April). The impact of computer monitoring and negative affectivity on task performance and satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual Academy of Management Meetings, Toronto, Canada.
14. Eddy E.R., Stone D.L., Stone-Romero E.F. The effects of information management on reactions to human resource information systems. an integration of privacy and procedural justice perspectives Personnel Psychology. 52:1999;335-358.
15. Erickson T., Kellogg W.A. Social translucence. an approach to designing systems to support social processes ACM Tansactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 7:2000;59-83.
16. Erickson T., Halverson C., Kellogg W.A., Laff M., Wolf T. Social transluscence. designing social infrastructures that make collective activity available Communications of the ACM. 45(4):2002;40-44.
17. Fishbein M., Azjen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. 1975;Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
18. Funder D.C. Personality. In S.T. Fiske, D.L. Schacter, C. Zahn-Waxler (Eds.). Annual Review of Psychology. 52:2001;197-221.
19. Goldberg L.R. The social psychology of personality. Psychological Inquiry. 3:1990;89-94.
20. Goldberg L.R. The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment. 4:1992;26-42.
21. Grant R.A., Higgins C.A. The impact of computerized performance monitoring on service work. testing a causal model Information Systems Research. 2:1991;116-142.
22. Greenberg S., Kuzuoka H. Using digital but physical surrogates to mediate awareness, communication and privacy in media spaces. Personal Technologies. 4(1):2000;182-198.
23. Hair J.F., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L., Black W.C. Multivariate data analysis. 4th ed:1995;Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
24. Hogan R., Hogan J., Roberts B.W. Personality measurement and employment decisions. questions and answers American Psychologist. 51:1996;469-477.
25. Larson J.R., Callahan C. Performance monitoring. how it affects work productivity Journal of Applied Psychology. 75(5):1990;530-538.
26. Lee A., Girgensohn A. Design, experiences and user preferences for a web-based awareness tool. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 56(7):2002;75-107.
27. Lee, A., Schlueter, K., & Girgensohn, A. (1997). Sensing activity in video images. In CHI '97 extended abstracts (pp. 319-320). ACM Press.
28. Leventhal G.S. What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. Gergen K.J., Greenberg M.S., Willis R.H. Social exchange: advances in theory and research. 1980;Plenum Press, New York, NY.
29. Liechti O., Sumi Y. Editorial. awareness and the WWW International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 56(7):2002;1-5.
30. Maruyama G., McGarvey B. Evaluating causal models. an application of maximum-likelihood analysis of structural equations Psychological Bulletin. 87:1980;505-512.
31. McCrae R.R., Costa P.T. A five-factor theory of personality. Pervin L.A., Johns O.P. Handbook of personality: theory and research. 1999;Guildford Press, New York, NY.
32. McKnight H., Webster J. Collaborative insight or privacy invasion? Trust climate as a lens for understanding acceptance of awareness systems. Cooper C., Cartwright S., Earley C. The international handbook of organizational culture and climate. 2001;533-555 John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England.
33. Racicot B.M., Williams K.J. Perceived invasiveness and fairness of drug-testing procedures for current employees. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 23:1993;1879-1891.
34. Robie C., Ryan A.M. Effects of nonlinearity and heteroscedasticity on the validity of conscientiousness in predicting overall job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 7(3):1999;157-169.
35. Smith D.R., Snell W.E. Goldberg's bipolar measure of the big-five personality dimensions. reliability and validity European Journal of Personality. 10:1996;283-299.
36. Stanton J.M. Reactions to employee performance monitoring. framework, review and research directions Human Performance. 13:2000;85-113.
37. Stanton J.M., Barnes-Farrell J.L. Effects of electronic performance monitoring on personal control. Journal of Applied Psychology. 81(6):1996;738-745.
38. Stone E.F., Stone D.L. Privacy in organizations: theoretical issues, research findings, and protection mechanisms. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. 8:1990;349-411.
39. Webster J. Desktop videoconferencing. experiences of complete users, wary users and non-users MIS Quarterly. 22:1998;257-286.
40. Weiss R.J., Craiger J.P. Ubiquitous computing. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist. 39(4):2002;44-52.
41. Zweig D.I., Webster J. Where is the line between benign and invasive? An examination of psychological barriers to the acceptance of awareness monitoring systems. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 23(5):2002;605-633.