The influence of specific computer experienceson computer self-efficacy beliefs

Bassam Hasan*

Department of IMES, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606, USA

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated that computer experience has a positive impact oncomputer self-efficacy. However, little or no research has investigated the unique influence of

specific types of computer experiences or knowledge on computer self-efficacy beliefs. Thisstudy examines the influence of eight types of computer experiences on computer self-efficacy.The results indicate that experience with computer programming and graphics applicationshave strong and significant effects on computer self-efficacy beliefs, whereas experience with

spreadsheet and database applications demonstrated weak effects. The results offer usefulinsights into designing training courses and educational programs to enhance computer self-efficacy beliefs.

# 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Computer self-efficacy; General computer experience; Specific computer experience

1. Introduction

Recent advances in software and interface design have resulted in the developmentof user-friendly and easy-to-use computer applications. However, despite the sig-nificant improvements in system interface and design, some people remain resistantto computers and continue to avoid using them (Keil, Beranek, & Konsynski, 1995).Therefore, it is important to understand what affects individuals’ willingness andability to interact with computers.

Among the various individual factors examined in past research, computer self-efficacy (CSE) has been identified as a key determinant of computer-related abilityand use of computers. Derived from the general concept of self-efficacy (Bandura,1986), CSE refers to an individual’s perceptions about his or her ability to use a

Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 443–450

www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

0747-5632/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PI I : S0747-5632(02 )00079 -1

* Fax: +1-419-530-2290.

E-mail address: bhasan@utnet.utoledo.edu (B. Hasan).

computer to perform a computing task successfully (Compeau & Higgins, 1995).Moreover, Marakas, Yi, and Johnson (1998) suggest that CSE affects not only aperson’s perceptions of his or her ability to perform a computing task but also his orher intentions toward future use of computers.

One important aspect of CSE relates to one’s interest and willingness to use andinteract with computers. Torkzadeh and Dwyer (1994) found a positive relationshipbetween users’ confidence in their computing skills and usage of information sys-tems. Likewise, individuals with high CSE beliefs exhibited less resistance to tech-nological change and greater acceptance of new information technologies than thosewith lower CSE beliefs (Ellen, Bearden, & Sharma, 1991). Furthermore, studentswith higher CSE beliefs demonstrated greater desire to enroll in computing coursesthan those with lower CSE beliefs (Zhang & Espinoza, 1998).

Another aspect of CSE pertains to computer training and acquiring new comput-ing skills. Prior research has demonstrated that computer self-efficacy is positivelycorrelated with learning performance and ability to acquire new computing skills. Inexamining learning performance in software training, Gist, Schwoerer, and Rosen(1989) found that self-efficacy beliefs were positively correlated with higher learningperformance. Similarly, Potosky (2002) found a positive relationship between CSEand training performance in a database-programming course. In educational set-tings, perceptions of CSE were positively correlated with performance in IS intro-ductory courses (Karsten & Roth, 1998).

2. Computer experience and computer self-efficacy

In the past few years, several studies have examined factors affecting CSE beliefs(Busch, 1995; Harrison & Rainer, 1992; Marakas et al., 1998; Potosky, 2002).Among the various variables that were examined as antecedents to CSE beliefs,computer experience has been consistently reported to have positive relationshipwith CSE beliefs (Potosky, 2002). This relationship is consistent with Bandura’s(1986) social cognitive theory (SCT) contention that prior experience represents themost accurate and reliable source of self-efficacy information toward similar tasks.

Despite the theoretical basis that suggests that individuals with more computerexperience will demonstrate higher levels of CSE beliefs than those with less experi-ence, empirical results have been mixed and inconclusive. While several studiesfound significant and positive relationship between computer experience and CSE(Harrison & Rainer, 1992; Hill, Smith, & Mann, 1987; Igbaria & Iivari, 1995;Potosky, 2002), other studies reported partial or conflicting results. For example,Karsten and Roth (1998) examined the relationship between computer experience,computer self-efficacy, and performance in IS courses. The results of their studyindicated that computer experience had no significant impact on CSE beliefs.

The empirical inconsistencies reported in previous research may be attributed tothe narrow conceptualization of computer experience. In most studies, computerexperience was regarded as a single-component construct reflecting the number ofyears of computer use or the amount of general computer experience. However,

444 B. Hasan / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 443–450

more recent studies suggest that computer experience represents a multi-dimensionalconstruct that comprises various experiences with computer applications and soft-ware tools and that specific computer experiences offer more accurate and reliablepredictors of IS behaviors than the general single-dimensional computer experienceconstruct (Bozionelos, 2001; Hoxmeier, Nie, & Purvis, 2000).

In prior research, specific types of computer experiences (e.g. experiences withdatabase, spreadsheet, word processing applications) have been examined as deter-minants of attitudes toward computers (Koohang, 1989), computer anxiety (Leso &Peck, 1992), and performance in computer training (Szajna & Mackay, 1995). How-ever, research examining the impact of different types of computer experiences on CSEbeliefs has been limited. In the context of studying gender differences in CSE beliefs,Busch (1995) investigated the influence of experience with computer programming,computer games, word processing, and spreadsheet applications on computer anxietyand task-specific self-efficacy beliefs toward Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect applications.The results showed that experience with word processing applications was the mostinfluential predictor of self-efficacy beliefs with regard to WordPerfect and computerprogramming had the strongest effects on self-efficacy beliefs toward Lotus 1-2-3.

Given the relevance of CSE to IS acceptance, performance, and learning, it isimportant to gain further insights into this important construct and improve ourunderstating of its antecedents (Marakas et al., 1998). Undoubtedly, identifying thetypes of computer experiences or skills that have stronger impact on CSE beliefsoffers useful implications for IS practitioners and educators and provides valuableinsights into designing effective computer training programs to enhance CSEbeliefs.

Therefore, the objectives of this study include: (1) re-examining the relationshipbetween computer experience and CSE, and (2) assessing the unique influence of eighttypes of computer experiences on CSE beliefs. The computer experiences examined inthis study include experiences with: word processing, spreadsheets, databases, operatingsystems, computer graphics, games, telecommunications, and programming languages.

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants

Participants in the present study were 151 part-time and non-traditional studentsenrolled in multiple sections of a computer information system course at a four-yearpublic institution. The age distribution of the participants was: 45% under 25;25.5% between 25 and 30; 9.9% between 31 and 35; 9.9% between 36 and 40%; and14.6% over 40. Females represented 59.6% (n=90) and males represented 40.4%(n=61) of the participants. Seventy percent (n=106) of participants were full-timeemployees and the remaining 30% of the participants (n=45) held part-time jobs.During a regular class session, participants completed a survey questionnaire relat-ing to their demographic characteristics, experience with several software packages,operating systems, programming languages, and CSE beliefs.

B. Hasan / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 443–450 445

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Dependent variableComputer self-efficacy beliefs were used as the dependent variable in this study.

Nine items adapted from Compeau and Higgins (1995) were used to assess partici-pants’ CSE beliefs. Items on this scale assessed participants’ confidence in theircomputing skills to perform a computing task using unfamiliar software. Theresponses were recorded on 10-point interval that ranged from 1 (not at all confident)to 10 (totally confident). A sample statement from this scale is: ‘‘I could use a soft-ware if I had used a similar software before’’. In the present study, the internalconsistency reliability of this scale was 0.92.

3.2.2. Independent variablesBased on the suggestions of Bozionelos (2001) and Smith et al. (1999), specific

types of computer experiences were used as independent variables. Therefore,experience with a number of software packages, operating systems, and program-ming languages were measured and used as independent variables to predict CSEbeliefs. The software packages were: word processing, spreadsheets, databases,computer graphics, computer games, and telecommunications. Consistent with pre-vious studies (e.g., Igbaria & Iivari, 1995), experience in each of the eight softwaretechnologies was measured by asking participants to indicate their level of experi-ence particular technology. Responses were recorded on a 10-point interval rangingfrom 1 (no experience) to 10 (very experienced).

4. Results

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among theindependent variables and CSE. Subjects reported the highest levels of computer

Table 1

Means, standard deviations, and correlations

Variable

Mean S.D. Correlation

with CSE

1. Computer self-efficacy (CSE)

58.27 18.45 –

2. Word processing experience

6.61 3.14 0.50

3. Spreadsheet experience

4.19 3.23 0.47

4. Database experience

2.89 2.61 0.34

5. Operating systems experience

5.68 3.35 0.51

6. Graphics experience

3.08 2.84 0.49

7. Games experience

6.22 3.52 0.45

8. Telecommunications experience

4.20 3.43 0.45

9. Programming experience

1.78 1.60 0.38

All correlations are significant at 0.001

446 B. Hasan / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 443–450

experience in word processing applications (M=6.61, S.D.=3.14) and computergames (M=6.22, S.D.=3.52). Conversely, the lowest levels of computer experiencewere reported in computer programming (M=1.78, S.D.=1.62). Correlation coef-ficients among the independent variables ranged from 0.30 to 0.57 (P<0.001).Additionally, as can be seen in Table 1, all independent variables had positive andsignificant correlation with CSE beliefs.

In addition, multiple regression analysis was used to evaluate and compare theunique influence of the eight types of computer experiences on CSE beliefs. Theresults of the regression analysis are presented in Table 2. As Table 2 illustrates,experience with programming languages (Beta=0.18, P=0.01) and graphics appli-cations (Beta=0.20, P=0.03) had the strongest significant impact on CSE beliefs.However, experience with the other common computer applications (i.e. word pro-cessing and spreadsheet application) had low and insignificant effects. The eighttypes of computer experiences explained about forty two percent of the variance inCSE beliefs (R2=0.42, P<0.001).

5. Discussion and conclusions

The purpose of this study was to examine the unique impact of specific types ofcomputer experiences on CSE beliefs. The computer experiences examined in thepresent study were related to: word processing, spreadsheets, databases, operatingsystems, graphics, computer games, telecommunications, and programming languages.Consistent with previous research, the results provide support for the relationshipbetween computer experience and CSE. The combination of these eight types ofexperiences explained about 42% percent of the variance in CSE beliefs.

An important finding in this study is that experiences with programming andcomputer graphics applications have the strongest effects of CSE beliefs. From atheoretical perspective, this finding provides support for Bandura’s (1986) proposi-tion that prior experience, especially with respect to difficult and unfamiliar tasks,represents the most significant determinant of self-efficacy beliefs.

Table 2

Results of regression analysis of CSE beliefs

Independent variable

� t P

1. Word processing experience

0.17 1.73 0.08

2. Spreadsheets experience

0.06 0.11 0.99

3. Databases experience

0.01 0.19 0.85

4. Operating systems experience

0.18 1.07 0.28

5. Computer graphics experience

0.20 2.12 0.03

6. Computer games experience

0.12 1.45 0.15

7. Telecommunications experience

0.08 0.92 0.35

8. Programming languages experience

0.18 2.56 0.01

R2=0.42, P<0.001

B. Hasan / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 443–450 447

From a practical standpoint, the results demonstrated which types of computerexperience are more effective in determining and influencing CSE beliefs. Knowingwhich types of computer experiences have stronger effects on CSE beliefs is usefulfor designing effective training courses and educational programs to enhance per-ceptions of CSE. Therefore, in conjunction with Busch’s (1995, p. 155) statement‘‘we need to find a way for changing the perceived self-efficacy expectations amongthe students’’, a possible way to do that is to provide students with more access andexposure to computer programming languages and graphics applications.

Nevertheless, the finding that experience with computer programming and graphicsapplications had a strong impact on CSE beliefs should not imply that non-pro-gramming and other types of computer experiences (i.e. experiences with softwarepackages) are not relevant to the formation of CSE beliefs. On the contrary, theother computer experiences examined in this study had positive correlation withCSE. Moreover, non-programming computer experiences have been found to reducecomputer anxiety (Leso & Peck, 1992) and improve computer attitudes (Koohang,1989).

The results of this study support and confirm findings reported in previousresearch. As pointed out earlier, Busch (1995) found that experience with computerprogramming as the most important determinant of self-efficacy beliefs with respectto Lotus 1-2-3. Additionally, Busch found that males demonstrated higher percep-tions of computer self-efficacy and, at the same time, had more experience withcomputer programming than females. Based on the strong relationship betweenexperience with programming languages and CSE beliefs, gender differences in CSEmay be attributed, in part, to gender difference in experience with programminglanguages.

Prior research has investigated the relationship between experience with computerprogramming and other computing outcomes. For instance, Kagan and Pierton(1987) found that programming experience had stronger impact on performancethan general software experience. Furthermore, Koohang (1989) found that subjectswith more programming experience demonstrated less computer anxiety and morepositive computer attitudes than those who had less programming experience. Hesuggested that more experience with computer programming enhances individualsunderstanding of computers and how they work. This may help reduce fear ofcomputers and increase confidence in computing skills.

6. Limitations and future research

The results of this study offer several important directions for future research.Firstly, this study represents a preliminary attempt to examine the unique impact ofspecific types of computer experiences on computer self-efficacy beliefs. Therefore,the results of the present study should be interpreted with caution. More empiricalstudies using more diverse samples and additional computer experiences are neededbefore the findings reported here can be generalized to other settings. Secondly, thisstudy examined the impact of general computer programming experience. Prior

448 B. Hasan / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 443–450

research examined the impact of experience in specific programming languages suchas BASIC and Pascal on IS outcomes (Gardner, Dukes, & Discenza, 1993).Accordingly, it is worthwhile to explore the relationship between CSE beliefs andmodern non-procedural programming languages, including objected-oriented andevent-driven languages.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly, this study used subjective, self-reported mea-sures of computer experience. Because self-reported measures are susceptible tomeasurement errors and personal biases, future research needs to consider using objec-tive measures of computer experience such as objective tests of computer experience.

References

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Bozionelos, N. (2001). Computer experience: relationship with computer experience and prevalence.

Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 213–224.

Busch, T. (1995). Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes toward computers. Journal of Edu-

cational Computing Research, 12(2), 147–158.

Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial

test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.

Ellen, P. S., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (1991). Resistance to technological innovations: an experi-

mental examination of the role of self-efficacy and performance satisfaction. Journal of The Academy of

Marketing Science, 19(4), 297–307.

Gardner, D. G., Dukes, R. L., & Discenza, R. (1993). Computer use, self-confidence, and attitudes: a

causal analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 9(4), 427–440.

Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and

performance in computer software training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(6), 884–891.

Harrison, A., & Rainer, K. (1992). The influence of individual differences on skills in end-user computing.

Journal of Management Information Systems, 9(1), 93–111.

Hill, T., Smith, N. D., & Mann, M. F. (1987). Role of efficacy expectations in predicting the decision to

use advanced technologies: the case of computers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(2), 307–313.

Hoxmeier, J. A., Nie, W., & Purvis, G. T. (2000). The impact of gender and experience on user confidence

in electronic mail. Journal of End User Computing, 12(4), 11–20.

Igbaria, M., & Iivari, J. (1995). The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega International Journal

of Management Science, 23(6), 587–605.

Kagan, D., & Pierton, L. R. (1987). Cognitive level and achievement in computer literacy. Journal of

Psychology, 121, 317–327.

Karsten, R., & Roth, R. M. (1998). Computer self-efficacy: a practical indicator of student computer

competency in introductory IS courses. Informing Science, 1(3), 61–68.

Keil, M., Beranek, P. M., & Konsynski, B. R. (1995). Usefulness and ease of use: field study evidence

regarding task consideration. Decision Support Systems, 13(1), 75–91.

Koohang, A. A. (1989). A study of attitudes toward computers: anxiety, confidence, liking, and percep-

tion of usefulness. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22(2), 137–150.

Leso, T., & Peck, K. L. (1992). Computer anxiety and different types of computer courses. Journal of

Educational Computing Research, 8(4), 469–478.

Marakas, G. M., Yi, M. Y., & Johnson, R. (1998). The multilevel and multifaceted character of computer

self-efficacy: Toward a clarification of the construct and an integrative framework for research. Infor-

mation Systems Research, 9(2), 126–163.

Potosky, D. (2002). A field study of computer self-efficacy beliefs as an outcome of training: the role of

computer playfulness, computer knowledge, and performance during training. Computers in Human

Behavior, 18(3), 241–255.

B. Hasan / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 443–450 449

Smith, B., Caputi, P., Crittenden, N., Jayasuriya, R., & Rawstorne, P. (1999). A review of the construct of

computer experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(1), 227–242.

Szajna, B., & Mackey, J. M. (1995). Predictors of learning performance in a computer-user training

environment: a path-analytic study. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 7(2), 167–

185.

Torkzadeh, G., & Dwyer, D. J. (1994). A path analytic study of determinants of information systems

usage. Omega International Journal of Management Science, 22(4), 339–348.

Zhang, Y., & Espinoza, S. (1998). Relationships among computer-self-efficacy, attitudes toward compu-

ters, and desirability of learning computing skills. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(4),

420–438.

450 B. Hasan / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 443–450