The above-average effect in an end-user computing context

253 Pages·2017·2.9 MB·English

by  Shirley F. Gibbs

Lincoln University Digital Thesis 

Copyright Statement 
The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). 
This thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act 
and the following conditions of use: 
 you will use the copy only for the purposes of research or private study  
 you will recognise the author's right to be identified as the author of the thesis and 
due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate  
 you will obtain the author's permission before publishing any material from the 
thesis.
The Above-Average Effect in an End-User
Computing Context

A Thesis
submitted in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

at
Lincoln University
by
Shirley F. Gibbs

Lincoln University
2016
ABSTRACT
Abstract of a thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for
the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

The Above-Average Effect in an End-User Computing Context
by
Shirley F. Gibbs

This thesis investigates how the above-average effect presents in the ubiquitous, fast-changing
domain of end-user computing (EUC). EUC is mandatory in many workplaces but can be performed
with different levels of skill. The above-average effect has been the subject of many studies in many
different domains, as has end-user computing. This study brings these two areas together using an
original approach to understand how processes, such as the above-average effect, interact with
personal factors to influence perceptions of EUC skill level in self and others.
The Above-Average Effect is a social bias found in many domains considered routine, or vaguely
defined. This bias involves making an unwarranted, positive assessment of the difference between
one’s abilities and knowledge and those of an ‘average person’. Explanations for this effect include
self-enhancement, focalism, ego-centrism and the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The focus of this study was
on the relationship of personal factors, such as age, sex, expertise and personality, with the
occurrence of the Above-Average Effect in the context of end-user computing. This context has
several characteristics that should make it an ideal setting for the occurrence and investigation of the
Above-Average Effect. First, there are few opportunities for end-users to observe directly the ability
of others, which contrasts with settings such as driving in which near-continuous observation of
others’ skill level is possible. Second, end-user computing has undergone continuous change that
many users may not notice if they perform routine tasks. Third, end-user computing roles and jobs
cover a range of skill levels, the full extent of which may not be clear to many users.
ii
Measures of personal factors, demonstrated skill, self-perceptions of end-user computing skill and
perceptions of the average end-user’s skill were taken from a sample of employed computer end-
users. Both objective and subjective measures were used to compare self-reports with demonstrated
skill and to test eight hypotheses addressing the Above-Average Effect and the Dunning-Kruger
Effect. A results based testing system was developed and validated specifically for assessing end-user
skill typical of workplace computing. Measurement of perceptions was undertaken using a visual
analogue scale.
Findings confirmed expectations that the Above-Average Effect is present in the end-user computing
domain. In this domain, users often are unaware of the extent of the domain, their own skill level
within it or the skill level of other end-users. Unexpectedly, however, it was found that variables that
previous studies had found to be associated with the Above-Average Effect in this study were not
significantly associated with the Above-Average Effect when analysed in combination. This suggests
the presence of previously unidentified interactions between these variables that lessen the strength
of the Above-Average Effect, specific to the domain of end-user computing.
Evidence to support the operation of the Dunning-Kruger Effect as an explanation for the
occurrences of the Above-Average Effect was mixed. Findings revealed a significant relationship
between self-assessment and estimations of the breadth of the domain. However, there was no
support for an association between a person’s estimation of the breadth of the domain and the
above-average effect. Likewise, there was no support for an association between a combination of
personal and expertise factors and the Dunning-Kruger Effect. As for the Above-Average Effect, this
raises questions as to the types of interactions that lead to reduced evidence of the Dunning-Kruger
Effect.
It was concluded that (1) the Above-Average Effect is present in end-user computing; (2) interactions
between variables individually associated with the Above-Average Effect may moderate the effect;
(3) interactions between variables individually associated with the Dunning-Kruger Effect may
moderate the effect, and (4) the domain of EUC has differences that make it stand out from other
domains the AAE typically occurs in. Possible explanations for and implications of these findings for
theoretical development of the Above-Average Effect and Dunning-Kruger Effect are considered,
especially in domains that are commonplace, constantly changing, and that incorporate a wide range
of levels of expertise. Implications for skill development and training in end-user computing are also
discussed. Based on the findings, further work is recommended to explore the Above-Average Effect
iii
and its relationship to other variables, especially in ubiquitous, fast changing domains such as end-
user computing.
End-user computing is a vast and fast changing domain that, due to its wide use, is often
misunderstood in terms of complexity and range of use. This study contributes to understanding the
AAE in an area not otherwise investigated for this bias. This bias leads to overestimation of skill and
knowledge which can present potential problems for accuracy and efficiency of use. This is significant
because these skills are critical to modern workplaces. A further contribution extends to the
instrumentation developed. This study has proved the worth of such instruments for use in social
settings and shows the VAS provides a more accurate measure of perceptions than do discrete
scales.

Key Words: Above-average effect, Dunning-Kruger effect, End-user computing, self-assessment,
workplace computing, computing experience, individual differences, measures of perception,
personality, demonstrated computing skill.
iv
Acknowledgements
Doctoral study is a journey, often not straight forward but one fraught with detours, this one was no
different. Throughout what became a long hard road I had immense support from a number of
people. The support came in the form of a listening ear when things got difficult, copious cups of
coffee, to reading and proof reading or just being there.
I would like to thank my supervision team, Gary Steel, Alan McKinnon and Kevin Moore. The original
team of Gary Steel and Alan McKinnon were there at the beginning guiding and challenging me as
required. When Alan retired Kevin Moore joined us (sometimes I am sure Kevin had no idea what he
had agreed to). What was meant to be the final sprint to the end soon became an obstacle course,
where slow and not always steady became the norm. During this time of particular frustration and
angst Kevin helped me stay strong and instilled a belief that sometimes I found difficult to accept.
My very dear friend Clare was there from the beginning and she rode every wave with me, at the
times when it seemed I would never catch a break she was there. Thank you so much. I will never
forget the support and love you gave me. Special thanks to Neville for your wisdom and for seeing
the ridiculousness of the situation as I saw it. Cindy, your support and friendship is something I will
always cherish. Walt, Pat, Crile and Brad thank you for your concern and support and not running
away if I cried.
Thanks also are due to all the participants who gave so willingly of their time to help me in my study.
Research of the type I do is impossible without support from willing participants.
Finally, I thank my family. Without you guys this would not have been worth it. Jeff, thank you for not
letting me throw in the towel when things seemed impossible. I love you all very much.

v
Table of Contents
Contents
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. v
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ vi
Figures ................................................................................................................................................. xi
Tables ................................................................................................................................................ xiii
Glossary and abbreviations ............................................................................................................... xvi
Chapter 1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Social perceptions and social biases ........................................................................... 2
1.1.2 Workplace end-user computing .................................................................................. 4
1.2 Thesis statement and aims .................................................................................................. 5
1.3 Research description ........................................................................................................... 8
1.4 Thesis Outline ...................................................................................................................... 9
1.4.1 Chapter 2 –Literature review ...................................................................................... 9
1.4.2 Chapter 3 – Research methods ................................................................................. 10
1.4.3 Chapter 4 – Results and data analysis ....................................................................... 11
1.4.4 Chapter 5 – Discussion .............................................................................................. 11
1.4.5 Chapter 6 - Conclusion, Implications, Recommendations and Future research ....... 12
1.4.6 Appendices ................................................................................................................ 12
Chapter 2 Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 13
2.1 Section one - Perceptions of self-ability from a social perspective .................................. 14
2.1.1 Self-Concept .............................................................................................................. 14
2.1.2 Self-Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 15
2.1.3 Cognitive Biases ......................................................................................................... 17
2.1.3.1 Social biases (in self-evaluation) ........................................................................... 17
2.1.3.2 Above Average Effect (AAE) .................................................................................. 18
2.1.3.3 Cognitive mechanisms explaining the above-average effect ................................ 21
2.2 Individual personal differences ......................................................................................... 25
2.2.1 Personality ................................................................................................................. 25
vi
2.2.1.1 Openness ............................................................................................................... 26
2.2.1.2 Agreeableness ....................................................................................................... 27
2.2.1.3 Neuroticism ........................................................................................................... 28
2.2.1.4 Conscientiousness ................................................................................................. 28
2.2.1.5 Extraversion ........................................................................................................... 29
2.2.2 Expertise .................................................................................................................... 30
Summary of section one ........................................................................................................... 34
2.3 Section two – End-user computing ................................................................................... 35
2.3.1 Workplace computing requirements ........................................................................ 36
2.3.2 Evaluating end-user computing competence ........................................................... 39
2.3.3 EUC workplace learning and training ........................................................................ 44
2.3.4 Summary of section two ........................................................................................... 45
2.4 Section three - Summary of literature .............................................................................. 46
Chapter 3 Method .......................................................................................................................... 49
3.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 49
3.2 Research paradigm ............................................................................................................ 49
3.3 Participants ........................................................................................................................ 50
3.3.1 Participant age .......................................................................................................... 54
3.3.2 Participant gender ..................................................................................................... 55
3.3.3 Participant occupation .............................................................................................. 55
3.3.4 Computer usage and number of applications used in job. ....................................... 56
3.3.5 Modes of learning ..................................................................................................... 58
3.4 Instrumentation ................................................................................................................ 60
3.4.1 Background questionnaire ........................................................................................ 61
3.5 Assessing perceptions of EUC knowledge ......................................................................... 62
3.5.1 Method used to measure perceptions of EUC knowledge ....................................... 62
3.5.2 Measuring self-assessment and estimations of the average computer end-user’s
knowledge ................................................................................................................................. 65
3.6 Detailed development and evaluation of VAS instrument ............................................... 67
3.6.1 VAS Pilot1 .................................................................................................................. 67
3.6.2 VAS Pilot2 .................................................................................................................. 68
3.6.3 VAS Pilot3 .................................................................................................................. 69
vii
3.6.4 Implementation of VAS instrument .......................................................................... 70
3.7 Personality ......................................................................................................................... 70
3.8 Skill assessment ................................................................................................................. 73
3.8.1 Skill-assessment development .................................................................................. 74
3.8.2 Skill assessment instrument content development .................................................. 75
3.8.3 Design of assessment instrument screens ................................................................ 83
3.8.4 Implementation of skill assessment instrument ....................................................... 85
3.8.5 Evaluation of combined instruments ........................................................................ 85
3.9 Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 86
3.10 Summary of instrument development .............................................................................. 87
3.10.1 Perception Measure Development and Validation ................................................... 87
3.10.2 Skill Assessment Development and Validation ......................................................... 87
3.10.3 Pilot of combined instruments .................................................................................. 88
3.11 Analysis method ................................................................................................................ 88
3.12 Ethical considerations ....................................................................................................... 91
Chapter 4 Results ........................................................................................................................... 92
4.1 Introduction to results ...................................................................................................... 92
4.2 Participant characteristics ................................................................................................. 93
4.2.1 Demographic and expertise variables used in analysis ............................................. 93
4.3 Skill assessment results ..................................................................................................... 93
4.3.1 Spreadsheet assessment results ............................................................................... 94
4.3.1.1 Study participants compared with expected average ........................................... 97
4.3.1.2 Spreadsheet assessment result and time taken ................................................... 98
4.3.2 Word-processing assessment results ...................................................................... 100
4.3.2.1 Study participants compared with expected average ......................................... 104
4.3.2.2 Word-processing assessment result and time taken .......................................... 105
4.3.2.3 Word-processing assessment result and measures of perception ..................... 106
4.3.3 Combined assessment results ................................................................................. 107
4.4 Above average effect ...................................................................................................... 110
4.4.1 Tests of the above-average effect ........................................................................... 111
4.4.1.1 Test for H ............................................................................................................ 111
1
viii
4.4.1.2 Test for H ............................................................................................................ 114
2
4.4.1.3 Test for H ............................................................................................................ 116
3
4.4.1.4 Test for H ............................................................................................................ 120
4
4.4.2 Tests of the Dunning-Kruger Effect ......................................................................... 121
4.4.2.1 Test for H ............................................................................................................ 121
5
4.4.2.2 Test for H ............................................................................................................ 124
6
4.4.2.3 Test for H ............................................................................................................ 126
7
4.4.3 Bi-variate correlations between predictors of AAE and DKE .................................. 130
4.5 Summary of results ......................................................................................................... 132
4.5.1 Hypotheses developed to test for AAE ................................................................... 132
4.5.2 Hypotheses developed to test for DKE ................................................................... 134
Chapter 5 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 136
5.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 136
5.2 Implications and limitations in understanding the above-average effect ...................... 137
5.3 The Dunning-Kruger effect .............................................................................................. 147
5.4 End-user Computing ........................................................................................................ 153
5.5 Summary of discussion .................................................................................................... 157
Chapter 6 Conclusion, Implications and Future work .................................................................. 159
6.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 159
6.2 Contribution of research ................................................................................................. 160
6.3 Theoretical implications of an above-average effect ...................................................... 160
6.3.1 Theoretical implications of an above-average effect in an EUC context ................ 164
6.4 Methodological implications ........................................................................................... 165
6.5 Implications for computer end-users .............................................................................. 167
6.6 Recommendations for employers ................................................................................... 168
6.7 Future research ............................................................................................................... 170
6.8 Concluding remarks ......................................................................................................... 173
References ....................................................................................................................................... 175
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 194
Appendix 1: Participant recruitment ............................................................................................... 194
Invitation to participate .......................................................................................................... 194
ix