Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Five-factor model personality traits as predictors of perceived and actual usage of technology

  • Empirical Research
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

Understanding the adoption and use of technology is extremely important in the field of information systems. Not surprisingly, there are several conceptual models that attempt to explain how and why individuals use technology. Until recently, however, the role of personality in general, and the five-factor model (FFM) of personality in particular, had remained largely unexplored. Our study takes an interactional psychology perspective, linking components of the FFM to the use of technology within the conceptual framework of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). After empirically confirming previous research findings linking performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence to technology use, we test direct relationships between FFM personality traits and technology use in the context of a web-based classroom technological system, utilizing measures of perceived and actual use of technology. Consistent with expectations, conscientiousness and neuroticism are associated with perceived and actual use of technology, with conscientiousness demonstrating a positive association with both perceived and actual use and neuroticism, a negative association. Extraversion was also significantly associated with actual use, although not in the positive direction expected. Further, the significant relationships between the personality traits and the actual use of technology were direct and not mediated by expressed intentions to use the system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abu-Shanab E, Pearson JM and Setterstrom AJ (2010) Internet banking and customers’ acceptance in Jordan: the unified model’s perspective. Communications of the Association for Information System 26 (Article 23), 493–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal R and Karahanna E (2000) Time flies when you are having fun: cognitive absorption beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly 24 (4), 665–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal R and Prasad J (1999) Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences 30 (2), 361–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I and Fishbein M (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldas-Manzano J, Ruiz-Mafe C and Sanz-Blas S (2009) Exploring individual personality factors as drivers of M-shopping acceptance. Industrial Management & Data Systems 109 (6), 739–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allport GW and Odbert HS (1936) Trait-names: a psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs 47, No. 211.

  • Al-Natour S, Benbasat I and Cenfetelli R (2011) The adoption of online shopping assistants: perceived similarity as an antecedent to evaluative beliefs. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 12 (5), 347–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JC and Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3), 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage CJ and Christian J (2003) From attitudes to behavior: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behavior. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social Behavior 22 (3), 187–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal G (2011) E-book usage: role of environmental consciousness, personality, and past usage. Journal of Computer Information Systems 52 (2), 93–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett T, Kellermanns FW, Pearson A and Pearson RA (2007) Measuring system usage: replication and extensions. Journal of Computer Information Systems 47 (2), 76–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrick MR and Mount MK (1991) The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta analysis. Personnel Psychology 44 (1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block J (1995) A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin 117 (2), 187–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boag S (2011) Explanation in personality psychology: ‘verbal magic’ and the five-factor model. Philosophical Psychology 24 (2), 223–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers KS (1973) Situationism in psychology: an analysis and a critique. Psychological Review 80 (5), 307–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown SA, Dennis AR and Venkatesh V (2010) Predicting collaboration technology use: integrating technology adoption and collaboration research. Journal of Management Information Systems 27 (2), 9–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckner V,JE, CM Caastille and Sheets TL (2012) The five factor model of personality and employees’ excessive use of technology. Computers in Human Behavior 28 (5), 1947–1953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan FKY, Thong J, Venkatesh V, Brown SA, JEN-HWA HU,P and Kar YT (2010) Modeling citizen satisfaction with mandatory adoption of an E-government technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 11 (10), 519–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang L, Connelly BS and Geeza AA (2012) Separating method factors and higher order traits of the big five: a meta-analytic multitrait-multimethod approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102 (2), 408–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa PT and McCrae RR (1988) Personality in adulthood: a six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (5), 853–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa PT and McCrae RR (1992) Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences 13 (6), 653–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cote S and Miners CTH (2006) Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 51 (1), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis F. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13 (3), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis FD, Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35 (8), 982–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devaraj S, Easley RF and Crant JM (2008) How does personality matter? Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Information Systems Research 19 (1), 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devolder P, Pynoo B, Sijnave B, Voew T and Duyck P (2012) Framework for user acceptance: clustering for fine-grained results. Information & Management 49 (5), 233–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Digman JM (1990) Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology 41 (1), 417–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driskell JE, Hogan J, Salas E and Hoskin B (1994) Cognitive and personality predictors of training performance. Military Psychology 6 (1), 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudley NM, Orvis KA, Lebiecki JE and Cortina JM (1996) A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (1), 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg A, Juckes S, White KM and Walsh SP (2008) Personality and self-esteem as predictors of young people’s technology use. CyberPsychology & Behavior 11 (6), 739–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein S (2010) The big five model: grandiose ideas about surface traits as the foundation of a general theory of personality. Psychological Inquiry 21 (1), 34–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck HJ (1967) The Biological Basis of Personality. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck HJ (1973) Eysenck on Extraversion. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillion G, Braham H and Ekionea JPB (2012) Testing UTAUT on the use of ERP systems by middle managers and end-users of medium-to large-sized Canadian enterprises. Academy of Information & Management Sciences Journal 15 (2), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • George J (1992) The role of personality in organizational life: issues and evidence. Journal of Management 18 (2), 185–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg LR (1990) An alternative description of personality: the big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (6), 1216–1229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg LR (1999) A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In Personality Psychology in Europe (Mervielde I, Deary I, De Fruyt F and Ostendorf F, Eds) Vol. 7, pp 7–28, Tilburg University Press, Tilburg, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison AW and Rainer K (1992) The influence of individual differences on skill in end-user computing. Journal of Management Information Systems 9 (1), 93–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin TR (1995) A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management 21 (5), 967–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin TR (1998) A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods 1 (1), 104–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu LT and Bentler PM (1995) Evaluating model fit. In Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications (Hoyle RH, Ed), pp 76–99, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunsinger M, Poirier CR and Feldman RS (2008) The roles of personality and class size in student attitudes toward individual response technology. Computers in Human Behavior 24 (6), 2792–2798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurtz GM and Donovan JJ (2000) Personality and job performance: the big five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (6), 869–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson JD, Yi MY and Park JS (2013) An empirical test of three mediation models for the relationship between personal innovativeness and user acceptance of technology. Information & Management 50 (4), 154–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacques PH, Garger J, Brown CA and Deale CS (2009) Personality and virtual reality team candidates: the roles of personality traits, technology anxiety and trust as predictors of perceptions of virtual reality teams. Journal of Business and Management 15 (2), 143–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • John OP and Naumann LP (2010) Surviving two critiques by block? The resilient big five have emerged as the paradigm for personality trait psychology. Psychological Inquiry 21 (1), 44–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John OP, Naumann LP and Soto CJ (2008) Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and conceptual issues. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (John OP, Robins RW and Pervin LA, Eds), pp 114–158, Guilford Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judge TA and Ilies R (2002) Relationship of personality to performance motivation: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (4), 797–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junglas IA, Johnson NA and Spitzmuller C (2008) Personality traits and concern for privacy: an empirical study in the context of location-based services. European Journal of Information Systems 17 (4), 387–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kober SE and Neuper C (2013) Personality and presence in virtual reality: does their relationship depend on the used presence measure? International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 29 (1), 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenigstorfer J and Groeppel-Klein A (2012) Consumer acceptance of the mobile internet. Marketing Letters 23 (4), 917–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korzaan ML and Boswell KT (2008) The influence of personality traits and information privacy concerns on behavioral intentions. Journal of Computer Information Systems 48 (4), 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laidra K, Pullmann H and Allik J (2007) Personality and intelligence as predictors of academic achievement: a cross-sectional study from elementary to secondary school. Personality and Individual Differences 42 (3), 441–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamal PA (1991) On the importance of replication. In Replication Research in the Social Sciences (Neuliep JW, Ed), pp 31–35, Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landers RN and Lounsbury JW (2006) An investigation of big five and narrow personality traits in relation to internet usage. Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2), 283–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane W and Manner C (2012) The influence of personality traits on mobile phone application preferences. Journal of Economics & Behavioral Studies 4 (5), 252–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin K (1951) Formalization and progress in psychology. In Field theory in social science (Cartwright D, Ed), Harper Publishing, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim B-C and Ployhart RE (2006) Assessing the convergent and discriminant validity of Goldberg’s international personality item pool: a multitrait-multimethod examination. Organizational Research Methods 9 (1), 29–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin CS (2008) Exploring the personality trait of self-monitoring on technology usage of web portals. CyberPsychology & Behavior 11 (2), 235–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin MY and Ong CS (2010) Understanding information systems continuance intention: a five-factor model of personality perspective. PACIS 2010 Proceedings, Paper 52, Taipei, Taiwan.

  • Liu Y., Li H. and Hu F (2013) Website attributes in urging online impulse purchase: an empirical investigation on consumer perceptions. Decision Support Systems 55 (3), 829–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Major DA, Turner JE and Fletcher TD (2006) Linking proactive personality and the big five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (4), 927–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marakas GM, Johnson RD and Palmer JW (2000) A theoretical model of differential social attributions toward computing technology: when the metaphor becomes the model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 52 (4), 719–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae RR and Costa PT (1989) Rotation to maximize the construct validity of factors in the NEO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research 24 (1), 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcelroy JC, Hendrickson AR, Townsend AM and Demarie SM (2007) Dispositional factors in internet use: personality versus cognitive style. MIS Quarterly 31 (4), 809–820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mount MK and Barrick MR (1995) The big five personality dimensions: implications for research and practice in human resources management. In Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (Rowland KM and Ferris G, Eds) Vol. 13, pp 153–200, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mount MK, Barrick MR and Stewart GL (1998) Five factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance 11 (2/3), 145–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulaik SA, James LR, Alstine JV, Bennett N, Ling S and Stilwell CD (1989) Evaluation of goodness-of-fit for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin 105 (3), 430–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson DL (1990) Individual adjustment to information driven technologies: a critical review. MIS Quarterly 14 (1), 79–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neufeld DJ, Dong L and Higgins C (2007) Charismatic leadership and user acceptance of information technology. European Journal of Information Systems 16 (4), 494–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman WT (1963) Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 66 (6), 574–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ones DS and Viswesvaran C. (1996) Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior 17 (6), 609–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne SC, Youngcourt SS and Beaubien JM (2007) A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (1), 128–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedhazur EJ (1982) Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pramatari K and Theotokis A (2009) Consumer acceptance of RFID-enabled services: a model of multiple attitudes, perceived system characteristics, and individual traits. European Journal of Information Systems 18 (6), 541–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salgado JF (1997) The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology 82 (1), 30–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider B (1983) Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior 5 (1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart KA and Segars AH (2002) An empirical examination of the concern for information privacy instrument. Information Systems Research 13 (1), 36–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straub D, Limayem M and Karahanna-Evaristo E (1995) Measuring system usage: implications for theory testing. Management Science 41 (8), 1328–1342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svendsen GB, Johnsen JK, Almas-Sorensen L and Vitterso J (2013) Personality and technology acceptance: the influence of personality factors on the core constructs of the technology acceptance model. Behaviour & Information Technology 32 (4), 323–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor S and Todd P (1995a) Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly 19 (4), 561–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor S and Todd P (1995b) Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Information Systems Research 6 (2), 144–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terborg JR (1981) Interactional psychology and research on human behavior in organizations. Academy of Management Review 6 (4), 569–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terzis V, Moridis CN and Economides AA (2012) How student’s personality traits affect computer based assessment acceptance: integrating BFI with CBAAM. Computers in Human Behavior 28 (5), 1985–1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tett RP, Jackson DN and Rothstein M (1991) Personality measures as predictors of job performance: a meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology 44 (4), 703–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thatcher JB and Perrewe PL (2002) An empirical examination of individual traits as antecedents to computer anxiety and computer self-efficacy. MIS Quarterly 26 (4), 381–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thetokis A, Vlachos PA and Pramatari K (2008) The moderating role of customer-technology contact on attitude towards technology-based services. European Journal of Information Systems 17 (4), 343–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson RL, Higgins CA and Howell JM (1991) Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly 15 (1), 125–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasilopoulos NL, Cucina JM and Mcelreath JM (2005) Do warnings of response verification moderate the relationship between personality and cognitive ability? Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (2), 306–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V and Davis FD (1996) A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decision Sciences 27 (2), 451–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V and Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology adoption model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 46 (2), 186–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB and Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27 (3), 425–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V, Thong L and XIN X (2012) Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly 36 (1), 157–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V and Windeler JB (2012) Hype or help? A longitudinal field study of virtual world use for team collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13 (10), 735–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vishwanath A (2005) Impact of personality on technology adoption: an empirical model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 56 (8), 803–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang YS, Lin HH and Liao YW (2012a) Investigating the individual difference antecedents of perceived enjoyment in students’ use of blogging. British Journal of Educational Technology 43 (1), 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang W, Ngai EWT and Wei H (2012b) Explaining instant messaging continuance intention: the role of personality. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 28 (8), 500–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson K, Fornasier S and White KM (2010) Psychological predictors of young adults’ use of social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 13 (2), 173–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt EA, Massman AJ and Jackson LA (2010) Trends in youth’s videogame playing, overall computer use, and communication technology use: the impact of self-esteem and the big five personality factors. Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2), 763–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou T. and Lu Y (2011) The effects of personality traits on user acceptance of mobile commerce. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 27 (5), 545–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zmud RW (1979) Individual differences and MIS success: a review of the empirical literature. Management Science 25 (10), 966–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and Information Systems, Mississippi State University, Starkville, U.S.A.

    Tim Barnett, Allison W Pearson & Rodney Pearson

  2. UNC-Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, U.S.A.

    Franz W Kellermanns

Authors
  1. Tim Barnett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Allison W Pearson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rodney Pearson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Franz W Kellermanns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Appendix

Appendix

Table A1

Table A1 Scale Items
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barnett, T., Pearson, A., Pearson, R. et al. Five-factor model personality traits as predictors of perceived and actual usage of technology. Eur J Inf Syst 24, 374–390 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.10

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.10

Keywords

Search

Navigation