臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

認知適合理論(cognitive fit theory)在1991年由Vessey提出，它以認知心理學、成本效益等觀點來解釋不同的資訊呈現方式與工作任務之間的配適與否對決策績效之影響。然而認知適合理論背後存在著一些前提，例如所有人的認知適合的情況都是一樣的，即忽略了人的差異。舉例而言，心理學研究明白指出男性與女性在決策上的認知或所偏好的資訊上是有明顯差異(Powell & Johnson, 1995)。因此，本研究認為Vessey(1991) 所提的認知適合理論，在其任務認知、決策過程與決策績效上，均可能受到性別差異的影響，尤其是當任務類型或資訊科技特性本身即偏向於某一性別時。本文藉由文獻上的性別差異來探討其對認知適合程度與績效的關聯，以擴充認知適合理論的解釋能力。在研究設計，本研究採用Dennis and Carte (1998)的複雜多準則任務與地圖式資訊呈現方式，資料分析以二級資料分析方式來對假說作驗證。分析結果證實出針對特定的任務類型、資訊科技或資訊呈現特性等，確實會因決策者的性別差異而有不同的認知適合效果與績效表現。

Understanding the influence of information presentation formats on decision-making effectiveness is an important component of human-computer interaction user interface design (Speier, 2006). Cognitive fit theory(CFT), introduced by Vessey in 1991 as a cognitive view of explaining under what circumstance one information representation outperforms the other in specific problem-solving task and it generally explains the contradictory results in comparison of the effects of tables vs. graphs in prior studies. But, there are some prescribed assumptions on it and they are needed to be examined in order to strengthen the validation of CFT. For instance, the CFT assumes that all decision makers are homogenous; however, the literature shows that males and females took the decision in different ways and preferred different styles of information (Powell & Johnson, 1995).
Since there are few studies of gender in the field of Information System (Gefen & Straub, 1997), this study tries to find out the way of cognitive gender differences affecting the decision outcome and then investigates the effect of gender on the CFT in order to extend the applicability of the CFT. We used two secondary datasets with different scenario of experimental design conducted by the Collaborative lab., CCU (Taiwan) to reexamine the original model of CFT and to test the hypothesis of gender differences on CFT. The statistically significant results showed that gender would affect the effect of cognitive fit on decision outcome. Further discussions are also provided as well.

1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background and Motivation 1
1.2. Objectives and Questions 3
1.3. Contribution 4
1.4. Research Procedures 6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1. Cognitive Fit Theory 7
2.1.1. Introduction to Cognitive Fit Theory 7
2.1.2. The Prior Studies and the Limitation of Cognitive Fit Theory 9
2.2. Gender Differences 13
2.2.1. Introduction to Gender Differences 13
2.2.2. Spatial Ability 14
2.2.3. Mathematics 15
2.2.4. Cognitive Style 16
2.2.5. Self Efficacy 17
2.2.6. The Influence of Gender Differences on Decision and CFT 19
3. METHODOLOGY 23
3.1. Research Model and Hypothesis 23
3.1.1. Research Model 23
3.1.2. Hypothesis 23
3.2. Variables 26
3.3. Data Collection and Description 27
4. DATA ANALYSIS 30
4.1. Data Analysis Method 30
4.2. Study One 31
4.2.1. Experiment Description 31
4.2.2. Results 31
4.3. Study Two 36
4.3.1. Experiment Description 36
4.3.2. Results 36
4.4. Study Three 42
4.4.1. Experiment Description 42
4.4.2. Results 42
5. DISCUSSION 47
6. CONCLUSION 52
6.1. Findings and implications 52
6.2. Limitation of the Study 53
6.3. Recommendations for Future Research 54
APPENDIX A: SYSTEM SNAPSHOOT 62
APPENDIX B: TASK DESCRIPT 65
APPENDIX C: PRIOR STUDIES OF GENDER IN IS JOURNALS 66

English Reference

1. Agarwal, R., Sinha, A. P., & Tanniru, M. (1996a). The role of prior experience and task characteristics in object-oriented modeling: An empirical study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 639-667.
2. Agarwal, R., Sinha, A. P., & Tanniru, M. R. (1996b). Cognitive Fit in Requirements Modeling: A Study of Object and Process Methodologies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32, 137-162.
3. Annett, M. (1992). Spatial ability in subgroups of left- and right- handers. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 493-515.
4. Beckwith, L. & Burnett, M. (2004). Gender: An Important Factor in End-User Programming Environments? In (pp. 107-114).
5. Benbasat, I. & Dexter, A. S. (1979). Value and Events Approaches to Accounting - Experimental Evaluation. Accounting Review, 54, 735-749.
6. Benbasat, I. & Dexter, A. S. (1985). An Experimental Evaluation of Graphical and Color-Enhanced Information Presentation. Management Science, 31, 1348-1364.
7. Bradley, J. H., Paul, R., & Seeman, E. (2006). Analyzing the structure of expert knowledge. Information & Management, 43, 77-91.
8. Chandra, A. & Krovi, R. (1999). Representational congruence and information retrieval: Towards an extended model of cognitive fit. Decision Support Systems, 25, 271-288.
9. Chua, C. E. H., Purao, S., & Storey, V. C. (2006). Developing maintainable software: The READABLE approach. Decision Support Systems, 42, 469-491.
10. Coluccia, E. & Louse, G. (2004). Gender differenes in spatial orientatoin: A review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 329-340.
11. Compeau, D., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23, 145-158.
12. Compeau, D. R. & Higgins, r. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19, 189-211.
13. Dennis, A. R. & Carte, T. A. (1998). Using geographical information systems for decision making: Extending cognitive fit theory to map-based presentations. Information Systems Research, 9, 194-203.
14. Dunn, C. & Grabski, S. (2001). An investigation of localization as an element of cognitive fit in accounting model representations. Decision Sciences, 32, 55-94.
15. Eagly, A. H. (1990). On the advantages of reporting sex comparisions. American Psychologist, 45, 560-562.
16. Eagly, A. H. & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior - Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408-423.
17. Gefen, D. & Straub, D. W. (1997). Gender differences in the perception and use of E-mail: An extension to the technology acceptance model. Mis Quarterly, 21, 389-400.
18. Gentner, D. & Stevens, A. L. (1983). Mental models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Ginger, H. R., Diane, G. P., Judith, A. H., Brenda, C. P., Chrisila, C. P., & Judith, M. I.-G. (2003). Computer-related gender differences. In Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 54-58). Navada, USA: ACM Press.
20. Gonzalez, C. & Kasper, M. G. (1997). Animation in user interfaces designed for decision support systems: The effects of image abstraction, transition, and interactivity on decision quality. Decision Sciences, 28, 793-823.
21. Goodhue, D. L. (1995). Understanding user evaluations of information systems. Management Science, 41, 1827-1844.
22. Goodhue, D. L. & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-Technology Fit and Individual-Performance. Mis Quarterly, 19, 213-236.
23. Gul, F. A. (1984). The Joint and Moderating Role of Personality and Cognitive-Style on Decision-Making. Accounting Review, 59, 264-277.
24. Hair, F. J., Anderson, E. R., Tatham, L. R., & Black, C. W. (1998). Multivarate analysis of variance. In Multivariate Data Analysis (5 ed., pp. 326-386). Prentice-Hall, Inc.
25. Halpern, F. D. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive ability. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26. Ho, J. L. & Rodgers, W. (1993). A review of accounting research on cognitive characteristics. Journal of Accounting Literature, 12, 101.
27. Hong, W. Y., Thong, J. Y. L., & Tam, K. Y. (2004). The effects of information format and shopping task on consumers'' online shopping behavior: A cognitive fit perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21, 149-184.
28. Huang, A. H. & Windsor, J. C. (1998). An empirical assessment of a multimedia executive support system. Information & Management, 33, 251-262.
29. Hung, S. Y. & Liang, T. P. (2001). Effect of computer self-efficacy on the use of executive support systems. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 101, 227-236.
30. Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1989). The Effect of Task Demands and Graphical Format on Information-Processing Strategies. Management Science, 35, 285-303.
31. Khatri, V., Vessey, I., Ramesh, V., Clay, P., & Park, S. J. (2006). Understanding conceptual schemas: Exploring the role of application and IS domain knowledge. Information Systems Research, 17, 81-99.
32. Kim, J., Hahn, J., & Hahn, H. (2000). How do we understand a system with (so) many diagrams? Cognitive integration processes in diagrammatic reasoning. Information Systems Research, 11, 284-303.
33. Kimura, D. (1999). Sex and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
34. Lawton, C. A. & Morrin, K. A. (1999). Gender differences in pointing accuracy in computer simulated 3D mazes. Sex Roles, 40, 73-92.
35. Lee, C. C., Cheng, H. K., & Cheng, H. H. (2005). An empirical study of mobile commerce in insurance industry: Task-technology fit and individual differences. Decision Support Systems, In Press, Corrected Proof.
36. Linn, M. C. & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterisation of gender differences in spatial abilities: a meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479-1498.
37. Mahoney L.S., Roush P.B., & Bandy D. (2003). An investigation of the effects of decisional guidance and cognitive ability on decision-making involving uncertainty data. Information and Organization, 13, 85-110.
38. Mahoney, L. S., Roush, P. B., & Bandy, D. (2003). An investigation of the effects of decisional guidance and cognitive ability on decision-making involving uncertainty data. Information and Organization, 13, 85-110.
39. Mann, R., Watson, H., Cheney, P., & Gallagher, C. (1989). Decision Support System: Putting Theory into Practice. Prentice Hall.
40. McIlroy, D., Bunting, B., Tierney, K., & Gordon, M. (2001). The relation of gender and background experience to self-reported computing anxieties and cognitions. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 21-33.
41. Mennecke, B. E., Crossland, M. D., & Killingsworth, B. L. (2000). Is a map more than a picture? The role of SDSS technology, subject characteristics, and problem complexity on map reading and problem solving. Mis Quarterly, 24, 601-629.
42. Palma-dos-Reis, A. & Zahedi, F. M. (1999). Designing personalized intelligent financial decision support systems. Decision Support Systems, 26, 31-47.
43. Powell, P. L. & Johnson, J. E. V. (1995). Gender and DSS Design - the Research Implications. Decision Support Systems, 14, 27-58.
44. Ramarapu, N. K., Frolick, M. N., Wilkes, R. B., & Wetherbe, J. C. (1997). The emergence of hypertext and problem solving: An experimental investigation of accessing and using information from linear versus nonlinear systems. Decision Sciences, 28, 825-849.
45. Rosen, L. D. & Maguire, P. A. (1990). Myths and realities of computerphobia: a meta-analysis. Anxiety research, 3, 175-191.
46. Rosen, L. D. & Weil, M. M. (1992). Measuring Technophobia. A manual for the administration and scoring of the computer anxiety rating scale, the computer thoughts survey and the general attitude toward computer scale.
47. Schumacher, P. & Morahan-Martin, J. (2001). Gender, Internet and computer attitudes and experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 95-110.
48. Shaft, T. M. & Vessey, I. (2006). The role of cognitive fit in the relationship between software comprehension and modification. Mis Quarterly, 30, 29-55.
49. Slyke, C. V., Comunal, L. C., & Belanger, F. (2002). Gender differences in perceptions of web-based shopping. Communication of ACM, 45, 82-86.
50. Smelcer, J. B. & Carmel, E. (1997). The effectiveness of different representations for managerial problem solving: Comparing tables and maps. Decision Sciences, 28, 391-420.
51. Solso, R. L. (1995). Cognitive psychology. (4 ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
52. Speier, C. (2006). The influence of information presentation formats on complex task decision-making performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 1115-1131.
53. Speier, C. & Morris, M. G. (2003). The influence of query interface design on decision-making performance. Mis Quarterly, 27, 397-423.
54. Speier, C., Valacich, J. S., & Vessey, I. (1999). The influence of task interruption on individual decision making: An information overload perspective. Decision Sciences, 30, 337-360.
55. Speier, C., Vessey, I., & Valacich, J. S. (2003). The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and information presentation on computer-supported decision-making performance. Decision Sciences, 34, 771-797.
56. Spence, J. W. & Tsai, R. J. (1997). On human cognition and the design of information systems. Information & Management, 32, 65-73.
57. Suh, K. S. & Lee, Y. E. (2005). The effects of virtual reality on consumer learning: An empirical investigation. Mis Quarterly, 29, 673-697.
58. Swink, M. & Speier, C. (1999). Presenting geographic information: Effects of data aggregation, dispersion, and users'' spatial orientation. Decision Sciences, 30, 169-195.
59. Todd, P. & Benbasat, I. (1999). Evaluating the impact of DSS, cognitive effort, and incentives on strategy selection. Information Systems Research, 10, 356-374.
60. Tor, B. (1995). Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 147-158.
61. Torkzadeh, G., Chang, J. C.-J., & Demirhan, D. (2006). A contingency model of computer and Internet self-efficacy. Information & Management, 43, 541-550.
62. Umanath, N. S. & Vessey, I. (1994). Multiattribute Data Presentation and Human Judgment - A Cognitive Fit Perspective. Decision Sciences, 25, 795-824.
63. Venkatesh, V. & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don''t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24, 115-139.
64. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., & Ackerman, P. L. (2000). A Longitudinal Field Investigation of Gender Differences in Individual Technology Adoption Decision-Making Processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 33-60.
65. Vessey, I. (1991). Cognitive Fit: A Theory-Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature. Decision Sciences, 22, 219-240.
66. Vessey, I. (1994). The effect of information presentation on decision making: a cost-benefit analysis. Information & management, 27, 103-119.
67. Vessey, I. & Galletta, D. (1991). Cognitive Fit: An Empirical Study of Information Acquisition. Information Systems Research, 2, 63-84.
68. Whitley, B. E. (1996). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes: It depends on what you ask. Computers in Human Behavior, 12, 275-289.