|
Article Excerpt
ABSTRACT: The cognitive science paradigm, with its computational and information processing models of the human mind, dominates much of current accounting information systems (AIS) research. While these models aid our understanding of cognition, it is unclear how much of the mind they explain. Personality type theory (PTT) is one supplement to cognitive science. PTT is especially useful for AIS researchers because an extensively tested and validated psychometric instrument based on PTT, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), is available for use in practice and research. We provide an overview of PTT and the MBTI and discuss how AIS researchers can use PTT to complement and extend current research initiatives. We highlight opportunities for PTT-based AIS research by posing research questions, the investigation of which contributes to the AIS literature.
Keywords: personality type; personality traits; type theory; Jungian psychology; cognitive science; Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
I. INTRODUCTION
The cognitive paradigm, with its accompanying computational and information processing models of cognition, has long dominated accounting information systems (AIS) research One of the strengths of the cognitive paradigm is that it is quantitative, thus allowing one to make and test predictions. An additional advantage of the paradigm is its alignment with computer science and information processing theory via the use of an input/process/output/feedback framework (Newell and Simon 1976).
Cognitive models are universally used in behavioral research and are fundamental to understanding the human mind. There is, however, disagreement over how much of the mind these models explain. While some believe that they account for the majority of mental processes (Johnson-Laird 1988; Pinker 1997), others think that they account for only a small subset (Fodor 2000). Few researchers contend that cognitive psychology provides a complete explanation of mental processes, for it is constrained by restrictive parametric assumptions. A more inclusive paradigm of mind is needed--one that incorporates cognitive processes along with noncognitive processes, such as affectations, feelings, emotions, unconscious structures, and motivations. (1)
Personality type theory (PTT), an established theory within personality-based psychology (Hergenhahn and Olson 1999), is an alternative representation of the mind that can supplement cognitive science. Based on the work of Jung (1921), PTT is especially useful for AIS researchers, for it provides a framework in which cognitive processes may be understood within a larger context, as we will discuss throughout the article. PPT has generated several psychometric instruments (e.g., Myers-Briggs Type Indicator [MBTI], Keirsey Temperament Sorter [KTS], and Jungian Type Survey [JTS] that researchers can use experimentally for testing and measuring PTT constructs. The MBTI, in particular, has been extensively validated and is widely used in numerous areas of research and practice.
This paper identifies opportunities for personality-based AIS research by posing research questions whose answers would provide a rich contribution to the AIS literature. The paper adopts the perspective of Jung (1921) and uses the MBTI to illustrate how personality trait research can inform AIS. This perspective, however, is not the sole or necessarily the predominant viewpoint, but rather illustrates the possible contributions that can be obtained by incorporating personality theories into AIS research.
In the next section, we examine one of the seminal critiques of the role of personality in AIS research. In Section III, we discuss Jungian PTT and the MBTI. Finally, we identify future AIS education and research opportunities within the MBTI context.
II. HUBER'S (1983) CRITIQUE OF COGNITIVE STYLE RESEARCH
Huber's (1983) seminal critique of research on the relationship between cognitive style (which includes a strong personality component) and the use of information systems has had a significant impact on information systems (IS) and AIS research. Accordingly, we reconsider Huber's (1983) arguments as a necessary condition to proceeding forward with our thesis regarding the importance of personality-based research in AIS. Huber (1983, 568) lists the following reasons for his conclusion that cognitive style research is, and will continue to be, "weak and inconclusive":
1. The theory of cognitive style is inadequately developed;
2. The measurement instruments lack reliability and validity;
3. Much research in this area relies on faulty methodology and research designs;
4. Multiple user-characteristics in addition to cognitive style make it difficult to arrive at any conclusions from cognitive style research that inform IS design;
5. Differences between task requirements and user preferences leave IS designers with a dilemma as to which to emphasize;
6. Dysfunctional aspects of user preferences raise the question as to whether IS designers should build systems to match cognitive styles;
7. Advances in technology allow users multiple DSS [decision support systems] options.
PTT and the MBTI allow us to directly address the concerns expressed in reasons one and two. With respect to the first point, some researchers have considerably strengthened cognitive style theory by mapping personality types to styles (e.g., Chenhall and Morris 1991; Hunt et al. 1989; Ruble and Cosier 1990). Regarding Huber's (1983) second criticism, researchers have extensively validated and tested the reliability of the MBTI (Harvey 1996; Wheeler 2001). While the third reason can only be addressed one research project at a time, researchers can improve their research designs, increase the precision of their predictions, and perform more discriminating measurements by relying on validated theories and reliable instruments.
Reasons four through six involve design issues. In his response to Huber, Robey (1983, 580) argues that the inconclusiveness of cognitive style research has been beneficial in that it has "provided much of the rationale for a flexible DSS." Furthermore, the reasons listed for not engaging in cognitive style research may serve as an agenda for future research in this area. In particular, researchers need to determine empirically: (1) the relative importance of cognitive style and personality in relation to other user characteristics, (2) the interaction of task and user characteristics, and (3) the degree to which user preferences are dysfunctional.
We believe that reason seven is the harshest criticism of cognitive style research. Huber (1983) predicted that future systems would be configurable at the user level, which would eliminate many of the concerns with cognitive style research, as it would render irrelevant attempts to design the system to fit the user. As Huber (1983) anticipated, users can now configure many system interface features, but such flexibility raises new issues, many of which can only be answered by assessing user characteristics.
For example, will the choices users make among multiple IS features serve the best interest of the organization (Wheeler and Jones 2003)? If not, how might we restrict or direct users' choices? Robey (1983) observed that once systems with multiple features become a reality, either designers or users would choose which features to make available. In that case, who is to say that designers' preferences are more or less functional than users choices, or that designers have better insight into problem solving than users? Systems designers are trained in specialized technical areas (e.g., hardware design, software programming, and interface design) that generally do not include the psychology of problem solving, decision making, and human cognition. (2) Neither can we assume that users are aware of which interface features will enhance decision-making processes (Davis and Kotteman 1994). PTT and three decades of MBTI research can add useful insight into these areas.
III. JUNGIAN PERSONALITY THEORY AND THE MBTI
Behaviorism relies on a stimulus-response paradigm that focuses on external stimuli and observable behavior as the output/response. This approach tends to ignore psychological processes. Personality psychology and cognitive science view the human mind as mediating the effects of external stimuli on behavioral responses. Researchers can observe one facet of such internal mediation by examining the way in which humans process information. We believe it is also critical to consider other mediating processes, such as personality characteristics. Carl G. Jung (1875-1961) emphasized personality as a mediating and integrating factor for numerous psychological processes, e.g., information processing, individual development, and the role of the unconscious (Pascal 1992).
The relationship between Jungian personality theory (Jung 1921) and cognitive science is complex, but worth investigating because of the dominant role of the cognitive paradigm in AIS research. On one side, Jungian theory, like cognitive science, views the mental functions related to information acquisition and decision making as central to the personality. Researchers often use psychological instruments developed from Jungian theory to capture aspects of cognition for information processing research (Carey et al. 1989; Chenhall and Morris 1991; Kerin and Slocum 1981; Vassen et al. 1993). On the other side, Jungian theory, like other personality theories, insists that human cognition cannot be adequately understood in isolation, but must be placed within a broader context that includes aspects of personality. Thus, Jungian personality instruments include attitude scales that capture such attributes as introversion, extraversion, adaptability, organization, depth of concentration, feeling, intuition, and breadth of interests. Jungian theory does not repudiate the cognitive science approach, so much as insists that it should be grounded, expanded and integrated in a larger framework.
Jung's (1921) theory of personality analyzes the individual as either a whole personality (i.e., a type) or as a collection of characteristics (i.e., traits or preferences) that comprise a personality type. Jungian theory prefers the former approach to the latter because certain traits interact. For example, the type "introverted thinker supported primarily by sensory data" consists of various traits (e.g., introversion, thinking, sensing, and judging) that combine to form the personality. A trait in one personality type may have a different effect than the same trait in another type due to its interaction among traits. (3)
According to Jungian...
|
