See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220496105

Using information technology: Engagement

modes, flow experience, and personality
orientations

Article in Computers in Human Behavior September 2006

DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.022 Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS

35 287

3 authors:

Parvaneh Sharafi Leif Rune Hedman

Stockholm University Ume University
7 PUBLICATIONS 134 CITATIONS 81 PUBLICATIONS 1,625 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Henry Montgomery
Stockholm University
84 PUBLICATIONS 1,558 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Women and men in management: Stereotypes, evaluation and discourse View project

Psychological mechanisms underlying political orientations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leif Rune Hedman on 20 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Computers in
Human Behavior
Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 899916
www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Using information technology:

engagement modes, ow experience,
and personality orientations
a,*
Parvaneh Shara , Leif Hedman b, Henry Montgomery a

a
Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm 106-91, Sweden
b
Department of Psychology, Umea University, 901-87 Umea, Sweden

Available online 9 April 2004

Abstract

The engagement mode (EM) model describes how an IT user (subject) engages in an activity with
an object in a certain mode. The model species ve engagement modes (Enjoying/Acceptance,
Ambition/Curiosity, Avoidance/Hesitation, Frustration/Anxiety, and Eciency/Productivity),
which are characterized on three dimensions (evaluation of object, locus of control between subject
and object, and intrinsic or extrinsic focus of motivation). Using questionnaire data from 290 par-
ticipants, we extended previous empirical support for the model as well as described the models rela-
tionship to ow experience. In addition, it was found that autonomy, controlled and impersonal
orientation in conjunction with socio-demographic variables dierentiated among specic engage-
ment modes and ow experience. We conclude that the EM-model, ow experience, and causality
orientation theories provide a uniform framework for understanding how people adapt to informa-
tion technology.
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Engagement modes; Flow experience; Motivational and personality orientation; Information techn-
ology

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 8 16 38 23.
E-mail address: psi@psychology.su.se (P. Shara).

0747-5632/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.022
900 P. Shara et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 899916

1. Introduction

The most obvious reasons for using IT are to have an eective and enjoyable interaction
with technology that does not frustrate the user or waste the users time (Norman, 1998).
The challenge for researchers is to identify and describe essential conditions of this inter-
action in terms of positive and negative aspects associated with technology. Recent nd-
ings in usability research have emphasized the need for enhanced descriptive models
that can capture the psychological characteristics of users and how users interact with
computer technology (Carroll, 1991, 1997, 2002). Descriptive models that address the
human side of interaction with IT would provide valuable and practical information
regarding the design of useful IT-systems (Bannon, 1991; Carroll, 1997; Grudin, 1990;
Nardi, 1996).
To fulll these needs, we have presented a descriptive model, the engagement mode
(EM) model; to address the types of interaction users engage in using IT. In addition, this
model assumes that the user needs some skill to use IT and that IT helps the user acquire
skills (Montgomery, Shara, & Hedman, in press). We dene IT as the use of computers to
accomplish a task such as searching and receiving information and using computers as a
communication tool at work and during leisure time.
Previously, the concept of engagement mode has been used to describe general proper-
ties of peoples activities in relation to the external world (Heidegger, 1927/1996). The
EM-model describes an individuals dierent modes of engagement with IT, the underly-
ing psychological aspects of these modes, and how they are related to the ow experience.
The validity of the EM-model is supported by multivariate analysis (multidimensional
scaling and factor analysis) of self-reported data from more than 300 participants (Mont-
gomery et al., in press). The main purpose of this paper is to examine the reliability of the
model by testing it on new data and to examine the validity of the model in a broader sense
than in our previous study by exploring how it is related to certain aspects of the users
personality.

1.1. The engagement mode model

The EM-model generally involves three interrelated topics concerning how a subject
(e.g., an IT user) interacts with an object (e.g., an IT-application), all of which were exam-
ined empirically in our previous study. These topics are: (i) dimensions in engagement
modes, (ii) how levels on these dimensions are combined to form engagement modes,
and (iii) how engagement modes are related to the ow experience.

1.1.1. Dimensions in engagement modes

The EM-model assumes that when a subject (e.g., an IT user) is involved in an activity
with an object (e.g., with an IT-application), he or she perceives this activity on three fun-
damental bipolar dimensions: (a) the extent to which the object is positive or negative
(evaluation dimension); (b) the extent to which the subject controls the object (Locus S)
or the object controls the subject (Locus O) (locus of control dimension); and (c) the extent
to which the activity is focused on goals inherent in the activity itself (Focus I) or on exter-
nal goals (Focus E) (focus of motivation dimension). These dimensions are perhaps the
most frequently addressed constructs in cognitive, personality, and developmental
psychology.
 P. Shara et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 899916 901

1.1.2. Engagement modes

It is assumed that a subjects evaluation of an activity involving a certain object depends
on how the activity is perceived on the other two engagement mode dimensions (Fig. 1).
Depending on whether the locus of control is congruous or incongruous with the focus of
motivation, the resulting activity will be positively or negatively evaluated. Congruity or
incongruity means that the possibilities aorded by the locus of control (Locus S or I)
match or mismatch the rewards that might be provided by the activity (Focus I or E).
Let us go through all four possible combinations of Locus and Focus to see what this
means.
When the subject perceives himself or herself as controlling an object (Locus S), this
skill may be used to attain various external ends (Focus E). A subjects skill will be con-
gruous with a focus on external rewards. To the extent that subjects perceive that this con-
gruity is at hand, they will perceive themselves as being ecient and/or productive
(engagement mode Eciency/Productivity), which is experienced as something positive.
However, if the subjects lack the skill needed to attain an external goal (Focus E) and
if they need to learn this skill (Locus O), Locus and Focus will be incongruous. As a result,
the subject will be frustrated (engagement mode Frustration/Anxiety). On the other hand,
if subjects think that they can master the object, they will experience ambition and maybe
curiosity (engagement mode Ambition/Curiosity). Thus the hope or ambition of changing
incongruity to congruity will result in a positive evaluation.
Consider now engagement modes where the subjects motivation is focused on the
activity itself in dierent ways (Focus I). If the subjects activities are controlled by the
advantages that the object aords them (Locus O) and if they are interested in accepting

Focus E
(Extrinsic motivation)

Frustration/
Efficiency/
Anxiety
Productivity

Ambition/
Curiosity
Locus O Locus S
(O controls S) (S controls O)

Avoidance/
Pleasure/
Hesitation
Acceptance

(Intrinsic motivation)
Focus I

Fig. 1. Overview of the engagement modes model: Dimensions and each engagement mode. The evaluation
dimension is represented in terms of positive and negative engagement modes. Bold phrases: Negative
engagement modes. Not-bold phrases: Positive engagement modes. Focus E represents the Extrinsic Focus of
motivation and Focus I the Intrinsic Focus of motivation on the motivation dimension. Locus O represents the
Objects Locus of control and Locus S represents the Subjects Locus of control on the control dimension.
902 P. Shara et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 899916

the advantages (Focus I), locus and focus will be congruous and the mode of Enjoying/
Acceptance emerges, which obviously is associated with positive evaluation. However,
when the subject experiences a high degree of control of the object (Locus S), the activity
involving the object will provide little advantage to the subject. That is, there is little to be
learned from the activity itself. Nevertheless, if the subject is focused on rewards inherent
in the activity (Focus I), locus and focus will be incongruous and the result will be the
Avoidance/Hesitation mode, which obviously is associated with negative evaluation.
When using computers, people hope for the Eciency/Productivity and even Enjoying/
Acceptance modes. However, the various kinds of problems either related to the design of
dierent applications or the persons lack of skill and knowledge may lead the user to
experience Avoidance/Hesitation and Frustration/Anxiety. According to the EM-model,
a possible way out of this compelling challenge is the Ambition/Curiosity mode that pro-
duces more skilled and competent users, which may lead the user toward a better interac-
tion and hopefully even the experience of ow.

1.2. Engagement modes and ow experience

Flow has been described as an extremely rewarding experience that occurs when a per-
son is fully involved in an activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1993). To experience ow while being
engaged in any activity, individuals must perceive a balance between their skills and the
challenges posed by the object with which they interact, and both their skills and chal-
lenges must be above a critical threshold (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990). As noted, skill
corresponds to locus of control in the subject (Locus S). In contrast, challenge corresponds
to locus of control in the object. Thus, the higher the challenge, the more the subjects
activities are controlled by the object.
Ghani and Deshpande (1994) explored the ow experience in individuals using comput-
ers by including skill as well as challenge. They found that ow occurs when challenge and
skill are both high. They proposed ve components of ow: pleasure, control, concentra-
tion, experimentation, and challenge. In their model, the ow experience consisted of both
pleasure and concentration components. However, they noted their model lacked the
motivational components. In presenting the EM-model, we aimed at bringing the motiva-
tional aspect of interaction into more focus and to nd the compatibility of engagement
modes with ow components.
The EM-model describes the conditions for the emergence of ow in terms of an opti-
mal combination of the three positive engagement modes. More specically, ow occurs
when the subject is encountered with a challenge that is experienced as pleasurable
(engagement mode Enjoying/Acceptance) but is also possible to master (engagement mode
Eciency/Productivity). We assume that the ow experience implies that the subject shifts
between these modes because they correspond to dierent positions of the locus of control
dimension, which cannot exist simultaneously. The shifting is driven by ambition or curi-
osity (engagement mode Ambition/Curiosity) that encourages subjects to nd new chal-
lenges to master.

1.3. Engagement modes and the users personality

Recent research on user interaction with IT points out the need to assess the users
personality, adaptabilities, and goal-orientation (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). In our
 P. Shara et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 899916 903

previous study, we found that the involvement with certain engagement modes in peoples
interaction with IT may be related to the users level of competence (skill) in using IT
(Montgomery et al., in press). In this paper, we look for possible relationships among
the dierent engagement modes, ow experience, and personality/motivational character-
istics of the users. We may expect that users with dierent behavioral and personality ori-
entations show dierent degrees of positive and negative engagement modes and dierent
levels of ow experience. Specically, we want to nd out how dierent types of engage-
ment modes with IT are related to motivational and personality factors. Furthermore, we
want to examine the types of orientation that individuals have learned during their life
through dierent experiences.
The Causality Orientation Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985a, 1985b, 1987) explains how
individuals interpret the causality of events, other peoples behavior, and their own inu-
ence in dierent situations. This theory distinguishes among three types of behavioral and
motivational orientation as relatively enduring aspects of personality and a persons dis-
position to events and objects. Koestner and Zuckerman (1994) found close similarities
between Deci and Ryans model and the goal-oriented behavior described by Dweck
(1986). The causality orientation theory proposes three fundamental orientations: the
autonomous, controlled and impersonal orientation, which can predict and explain a sig-
nicant amount of variations in peoples cognition, aect and behavior (Ryan & Deci,
2000b). These orientations dene how conditions of events inuence peoples behavior.
They also correspond to contextual factors that may advocate and reinforce the occur-
rence of these three types of personality and motivational orientations (Deci & Ryan,
1985a; Ryan & Deci, 2000b).
The autonomous orientation is initiated and regulated by the persons choice of actions
and thoughts in order to reach goals and satisfy needs. The autonomous orientation cor-
relates with a high level of self-esteem, self-awareness, condence, internal locus of con-
trol, attribute of success to ability and eort, absence of boredom, and an eective
approach for achievement (Deci & Ryan, 1985b; Ryan, Kuhl, & Deci, 1997). Autonomous
people show more task involvement than ego involvement (Knee & Zuckerman, 1996).
They tend to view unsolved problems as challenges to be mastered and not as reecting
their failures (Koestner & Zuckerman, 1994). We may expect that autonomous-oriented
people show high scores in positive engagement modes and higher levels of ow experience
since they are task-oriented (Acceptance/Enjoyment) and see problems as challenges
(Ambition/Curiosity), which in turn may lead to mastering relevant objects. In particular,
we expect that autonomous-oriented persons show high levels of Ambition/Curiosity since
this engagement mode encourages the subject to master the challenges that are involved in
dierent interactions. However, autonomous-oriented people may also experience the neg-
ative modes (Frustration/Anxiety and Avoidance/Hesitation), which may be experienced
when the search for and mastering of challenges are met with problems.
The controlled orientation is explained as being determined by imperative rewards and
environmental factors. Therefore, the initiation and regulation of a persons behavior
depends on the demand and control of other people, the environment, and other extrinsic
factors. The controlled orientation is motivated by the persons need for achievement and
doing well in a task assigned by someone else. It is determined by others inuences, expec-
tations, threats, and/or rewards. Deci and Ryan (1985b) found that controlled orientation is
associated with the type A behavior pattern and a general awareness to the viewpoint of oth-
ers. People with this type of motivational orientation want to look good to the controllers or
904 P. Shara et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 899916

evaluators. Controlled-oriented people sometimes show an explosive reaction to the con-

trolling environment when it does not provide pleasure and when it is too threatening. It
can be expected that participants with high scores on controlled orientation may show more
eciency and productivity among the positive modes since they aim to achieve higher con-
trol for looking good, receiving external rewards, or escaping pain. They may display avoid-
ance and hesitation when the expected pleasure is not provided or if the situation seems to
threaten desired results. However, their interaction may involve ow experience as well.
Since ow is the function of necessary level of skill and challenge and since controlled-
oriented people generally feel pressured to be more skilled in order to master the situation,
they may also experience ow.
The third type of orientation is the impersonal orientation in which the initiation of
behaviors is perceived to be beyond the persons control or even independent of that per-
son (for example, the person is not capable of mastering the situation). People with imper-
sonal orientation do not see the causation of events as being related or regulated to them.
They believe that they neither can choose nor regulate their own behaviors. In addition,
they also believe events cannot be transformed or manipulated in a way that they desire.
The impersonal orientation has shown association with social anxiety and personal help-
lessness, self-blaming, and depression, especially when faced with obstacles and diculties
(Deci & Ryan, 1985a). In relation to engagement modes, we may expect that participants
with high impersonal orientation would score low in positive engagement modes and high
in negative modes and would generally not be able to experience ow. This is because the
causation and control of events are not experienced as being related to them. Therefore,
they may simply give up or only feel the pressure and anxiety of their involvement.
As Deci and Ryan (1985a) and Ryan and Deci (2000b) proposed, the three causality
orientations correspond to three classes of contextual conditions. People experience events
and situations that help them to behave in an autonomous, controlled or in an impersonal
way. For example, classrooms, workplaces, and peoples work assignments can facilitate
or inhibit peoples personality/motivation orientations (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). This deni-
tion particularly shows the eect of the contextual conditions that either prevent or pro-
mote autonomy, controlled and impersonal orientation and consequently inuences
dierent ways of interactions.
Zubo (1988) noted that encouraging employees to explore and innovate in dierent
tasks help them to adjust better to new technology and also adapt it more eectively to
their day-to-day work. In relation to dierent types of engagement modes, contextual fac-
tors that promote and prevent the controllability of tasks and events and encourage the
users motivation and positive evaluation play an important role for eciency and enjoy-
ment of work and peoples well-being. Therefore, we may expect that the contextual
aspects of interaction with IT and its dierent applications, which promote or prevent dif-
ferent causal orientation, may inuence dierent engagement modes.

1.4. Present study

In this study, we examined whether the results from our previous study can be replicated
regarding the relationship between the proposed dimensions, engagement modes, and ow
experience when using computer technology. We also aimed at constructing a shorter ver-
sion of the engagement mode questionnaire developed in the previous study. More spe-
cically, we aim at exploring how engagement modes, number of years of experience,
 P. Shara et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 899916 905

IT-competence, and ow experience are related to the users socio-demographic character-

istics and motivational and personality orientations.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Representing dierent degrees of experience with IT-technology, 290 participants

(mean age=29.20 years, 168 women and 122 men) took part in the study either voluntarily
or for course credit. Thirty-ve percent of participants were unemployed and were search-
ing for a new job either on the Internet or through the state job agency. Sixty-ve percent
of the participants were students at the University of Stockholm and Royal Institute of
Technology in Stockholm. Fifty-four percent of the students had a second job beside their
permanent work. Fifty-two percent of the participants had a university degree and the rest
had graduated from high school. The average number of years of experience with comput-
ers for the whole group was nine years. Fifty-six percent of the participants used comput-
ers everyday.

2.2. Questionnaire

The questionnaire consisted of ve dierent sections. The rst section included eight
socio-demographic items. The second section consisted of questions about the partici-
pants IT-competence. Thirty-nine yes-no items were used to assess the participants
competence in using IT. The items covered a wide variety of IT-related activities per-
formed when using a computer and its applications at work (either at a distance or in a
centralized location), in education, at home, and during leisure time (e.g., testing new func-
tions or services, using word processing, drawing gures, making tables, writing computer
programs, testing dierent search engines, creating a home page, reading news and news-
papers, shopping, and playing on-line computer games). IT-experience was estimated by
asking how long the participants had used computers and how often. In the third section,
the EM-scale was used (Montgomery et al., in press). It used 38 items to measure the
modes of Enjoying/Acceptance, Eciency/Productivity, Ambition/Curiosity, Avoid-
ance/Hesitation, and Frustration/Anxiety. The fourth section consisted of a Swedish
translation of the ow-scale (Ghani & Deshpande, 1994) with 16 questions that measured
the ve components of ow experience while using computers: pleasure, concentration,
control, exploration, and challenge. Finally, a Swedish translation of the General Causal-
ity Orientation Scale (GCOS) (Deci & Ryan, 1985b) with a 12-vignette version (51 items)
was used to assess the level of autonomous, controlled, and impersonal orientations. The
items in this scale measure how the respondents perceive the causality of events, other peo-
ples behavior, and their ability to inuence dierent situations. Responses in the EM-
scale, ow-scale, and GCOS were given on 5-point scales ranging from strongly disagree
(1) to strongly agree (5). The instructions in the questionnaire informed the participants
that they were taking part in a study to measure their IT-competence and dierent types
of interaction with IT (engagement modes in relation to IT). The use of IT was dened as
any typical use of computer and Internet to perform a task, searching for information,
communicating in any possible form, and working location (at work or in leisure).
906 P. Shara et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 899916

2.3. Procedure

The participants were contacted by announcing the need for participants who would
like to take part in a questionnaire study about peoples interaction with IT. Their partic-
ipation was voluntary, and they were allowed to ll out the questionnaire where they
found it suitable. They returned the questionnaire to the investigator (in person or by mail)
within a few days. It took about 60 minutes to ll out the questionnaire.

3. Results

3.1. Replication of the proposed structure

In order to test whether the co-variations among the items in the EM questionnaire and
the ow-scale were in line with the EM-model, a non-metric multidimensional scaling was
performed using the SPSS 10.0 statistical package with three dimensions. Generally, the
multi-dimensional scaling method is used to give an overview of the structure of the given
variables, which theoretically are assumed to have certain relationships with each other (cf.
Borg, 1985). The co-variations between variables are reected in the distances among vari-
ables in the multidimensional space. A shorter distance corresponds to larger co-variation
among the variables. In the present case, we hypothesized that the three engagement mode
dimensions would be reected in how items are located along the dimensions in the mul-
tidimensional scaling. More specically, we hypothesized that items would cluster as pre-
dicted by the EM-model (Fig. 1). Finally, we predicted that ow components would be
distributed across the three positive engagement modes in the three-dimensional space.
The Euclidean distance procedure with z-transformed values between variables was
used. The t of the three-dimensional solution was acceptable, the stress value being
0.21. Fig. 2 shows the location of related items to the space constructed by the specic
combination of dimensions explained by the EM-model.
The rst dimension in the multi-dimensional scaling reects the evaluative dimension in
the EM-model. This dimension is illustrated by the shading of the circles. The darker circles
represent the positive and lighter circles represent the negative aspects of IT-interaction. For
example, items such as I can organize things better with the help of IT or IT is a fun toy
represent positive engagement modes and items such as I am afraid that IT use will change
my identity or IT use is demanding represent negative engagement modes. The size of the
circles in the plots shows the size of the positive or negative value of the rst dimension. Hence
larger circles correspond to more extreme scale values on the evaluative dimension.
When we inspect items at the extremes of the vertical and horizontal coordinates, the
Locus and Focus dimensions are visible in the data; they correspond to opposite poles
of each of the two dimensions. The vertical coordinate reects the Locus dimension, with
Locus S at the upper side (IT controls the subject or interaction, e.g., I am pushed to
learn about IT) and Locus O at the bottom (subject controls IT or interaction, e.g., I
have a better control over my life when I use IT). The Focus dimension is reected by
the horizontal coordinate with Focus E (Extrinsic focus of motivation, e.g., using IT
gives me time for other things) on the left side and Focus I (Intrinsic focus of motivation,
e.g., I think IT is a collaborator) on the right side.
Typically, the ve engagement modes were located in the three-dimensional space
as could be expected from the EM-model (Fig. 1). In Fig. 2 the items related to the
 Control
I think IT restricts my life A/H
Exploring
I wonder about how much I use IT A/H

P. Shara et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 899916

I wonder about the role IT plays in my life A/H

I have better control E/P

I want to change my use of IT A/H
I want keep totally away

I can organize everything better E/P

IT will change my social identity A/H
I manage to do many things E/P
IT is a positive challenge
Using IT gives me time E/P
I think IT is a collaborator
I become more independent

I want to learn more A/C Everything becomes more fun Pleasure

I can be more effective E/P IT enriches my social life E/A
I want to take more of IT A/C
IT is interesting A/C IT enriches my social life E/A It is difficult to stop
I am not satisfied F/A
IT is a partner E/A IT gives new knowledge about life E/A
I feel stupid F/A
Challenge IT is a fun toy E/A
I want to do better A/C IT is a great demand F/A
I think IT is an entertainer E/A
IT serves as a model
I am not good enough F/A Concentration
I am pushed to learn F/A

Fig. 2. Multidimensional scaling of items indicating positive and negative evaluations. A/C: Items with high loading on the Ambition/Curiosity factor. E/A: items
with high loading on the Enjoying/Acceptance factor. E/P: items with high loading on the Eciency/Productivity factor. F/A: items with high loadings on the
Frustration/Anxiety factor. A/H: items with high loadings on the Avoidance/Hesitation factor. The size of the circles shows the size of deviation from zero-
evaluation. Some items are abbreviated. Flow components are given in boldface.

907
908 P. Shara et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 899916

Eciency/Productivity mode are marked as E/P (in bold), and they are located in upper left
side of the Fig. 2, where Locus S (subjects locus of control) and Focus E (extrinsic motiva-
tion) dimensions are combined. Examples of relevant items include the following: I can
have a better control over my life when I use IT and I can be more eective using IT.
The items related to Enjoyment/Acceptance (E/A) such as IT is a fun toy and IT enriches
my social life have found their place in the region corresponding to the objects locus of
control (Locus O) and intrinsic focus of motivation (Focus I) in the low right side of
Fig. 2. The Acceptance/Curiosity (A/C) items such as I want to learn more about IT
are located in the space where the combination of Locus O and Focus E meet in the lower
left side of Fig. 2. In addition, items related to engagement mode Frustration/Anxiety (F/A)
in the lower left side of gure correspond to the same combination (Locus O and Focus E)
with items such as when I have problem with IT I feel stupid. Finally in the upper right
side of the gure, the items such as I wonder about how much I use IT corresponds to the
combination of Locus S and Focus I and the Avoidance/Hesitation (A/H) engagement
mode.
The ow components (in bold) found their location among the engagement modes
items and in relationship to the given dimensions. The ow component control and explor-
ing appeared in the dimensional space among Eciency/Productivity items as in the pre-
vious study. The component concentration appeared among Enjoyment/Acceptance mode
items and was close to the component pleasure and challenge in the lower region of Fig. 2.

3.2. Five engagement modes

In order to nd out whether the engagement modes reported by Montgomery et al. (in
press) can be extracted, a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) with Oblimin rotation on
the items of engagement modes was performed. To select the most relevant items for each
factor and to obtain a shorter version of the EM-scale, the items with high loading on
more than one factor were removed. As was expected, the Oblimin rotation showed that
the ve distinctive factors with loadings higher than 0.40 were identical with our previous
ndings. Thus the following ve factors were found: (a) Enjoying/Acceptance; (b) Ambi-
tion/Curiosity; (c) Eciency/Productivity; (d) Frustration/Anxiety; and (e) Avoidance/
Hesitation.
In order to assess the homogeneity of items reecting each engagement mode, Cron-
bach alpha was computed for each index of variables (engagement modes) and items with
lower correlation than the overall Cronbach alpha of corresponding index were removed
as long as such items could be found. A new Principal Components Analysis (PCA) with
Oblimin rotation on the remaining 23 items was performed and ve distinctive factors
were extracted. The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alpha) of these items and
their factor loading (> 0.40) are presented in Fig. 2. The results of factor analysis and reli-
ability test show that the replication of PCA was satisfactory and the construct of a shorter
version (see Table 1).

3.3. Users socio-demographic and personality characteristics

The second main purpose of this study was to nd the relationship between users dier-
ent engagement modes and their socio-demographic and personality characteristics. There-
fore, indexes were computed (mean values across relevant items) for each engagement mode
 P. Shara et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 899916 909

Table 1
Items of the engagement modes scale, factor loading of each item, and alpha coecients for each engagement
mode
Factors and items Factor loading and alpha coecient
Enjoying/Acceptance
I think IT is an entertainer 0.835
IT is a fun toy 0.794
I think many things become more fun when I use IT as help 0.544
IT can give me knowledge about life 0.536
IT enriches my social life 0.522
Alpha 0.764
Avoidance/Hesitation
I wonder about the role IT plays in my life 0.803
I wonder about how much I use IT 0.793
I think that IT restricts my life 0.721
I am afraid that use of IT will change my identity 0.567
I want to change how IT becomes useful for me 0.410
Alpha 0.748
Frustration/Anxiety
When I have problem using IT I feel stupid 0.844
I am not satised about my capability to manage IT 0.806
When there is a problem in my use of IT I become frightened 0.756
I experience that others think I am bad in using IT 0.729
I am pushed to learn about IT 0.669
Alpha 0.824
Eciency/Productivity
I can organize everything better with the help of IT 0.773
I have more control over my life when I use IT 0.751
I can be more eective using IT 0.702
I mange to do more things done with the help of IT 0.618
Alpha 0.835
Ambition/Curiosity
I want to learn more about IT 0.857
I want to do better when I am using IT 0.833
It is interesting to learn how IT functions 0.665
I want to understand more about ITs possibilities 0.655
Alpha 0.834

and ow component. IT-competence scores were assessed from the 39 IT-competence items,
with answers coded as 1 or 0 depending on whether they indicated IT-competence or not.
Before generating indexes for the autonomy, controlled, and impersonal orientations,
Cronbach alpha was computed for three groups of items, one for each orientation (auton-
omy = 0.76, controlled = 0.71, and impersonal = 0.80). The Pearson correlation coecient
between autonomy and controlled was low and not signicant (r = 0.09), whereas the cor-
relation between autonomy and impersonal was negative and signicant (r = 0.17, p <
0.001). The correlation between controlled and impersonal orientation was positive and
signicant (r = 0.30, p < 0.001).
To nd out how much the socio-demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, amount of
experience with IT, and IT-competence) and causality orientation accounted for the
 910
P. Shara et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 899916
Table 2
Results of regression analyses of engagement mode, ow experience, socio-demographic characteristics, and personality characteristics
Independent variables Ambition/ Enjoying/ Eciency/ Avoidance/ Frustration/ Flow experience
Curiosity Acceptance Productivity Hesitation Anxiety
Beta t-Value Beta t-Value Beta t-Value Beta t-Value Beta t-Value Beta t-Value
Age 0.07 1.33 0.06 1.13 0.016 0.32 0.04 0.74 0.03 0.50 0.12 2.05*
Gendera 0.14 2.44* 0.03 0.46 0.00 0.05 0.30 5.23** 0.06 1.20 0.22 3.60**
IT-experience 0.10 1.77 0.04 0.66 0.09 1.80 0.02 0.30 0.08 1.60 0.02 0.36
IT-competence 0.38 6.72** 0.21 3.54** 0.49 9.40** 0.07 1.32 0.34 6.50** 0.23 3.80**
Autonomy orientation 0.20 3.50** 0.14 2.53* 0.18 3.44** 0.12 2.13* 0.19 3.60** 0.17 2.80*
Controlled orientation 0.09 1.60 0.13 2.04* 0.15 2.82*** 0.27 4.80** 0.16 2.60*** 0.15 2.43*
Impersonal orientation 0.08 1.40 0.04 0.69 0.05 0.79 0.16 2.70*** 0.25 4.50** 0.14 2.30*
F 13.05** 5.06** 20.78** 12.90** 22.22** 6.25**
R2 0.22 0.10 0.31 0.21 0.32 0.12
Notes. n = 290.
a
Men were coded as 1 and women as 2.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.
 P. Shara et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 899916 911

variance in engagement modes and ow scores, multiple regression analysis were per-
formed for each engagement mode and ow experience as the dependent variables and
the socio-demographic variables and the causality orientations as the independent vari-
ables. The results are shown in Table 2. First, we will consider the results for the socio-
demographic variables. Age was associated positively with ow experience. Females scored
higher than males on Ambition/Curiosity and ow experience, and they showed less
Avoidance/Hesitation than males. The number of years of experience that the participants
had spent with computers showed no signicant association for dierent dependent vari-
ables. IT-competence was positively associated with the three positive engagement modes
(particularly Eciency/Productivity and Ambition/Curiosity) and with ow experience.
The relationship between IT-competence and Frustration/Anxiety was high and negative,
and there was no signicant association between Avoidance/Hesitation and IT-competence
(see Table 2).
The following observations can be made with respect to which causality orientations
could predict engagement modes and ow. Autonomy orientation showed a positive
and signicant relationship with all positive engagement modes (particularly with Ambi-
tion/Curiosity) and ow experience as compared to other orientations. Autonomy was
also positively related to Frustration/Anxiety and Avoidance/Hesitation modes. Con-
trolled orientation showed a stronger association with the Avoidance/Hesitation mode
than with Frustration/Anxiety among the negative engagement modes and with E-
ciency/Productivity among the positive engagement modes. In contrast to the autonomous
orientation, there was no signicant association with Ambition/Curiosity mode for the
controlled orientation. The controlled orientation also showed a positive and signicant
relationship with ow experience.
Impersonal orientation showed a positive relationship with negative engagement
modes, but there were no statistically signicant associations with any positive engagement
mode. On the other hand, this orientation has a negative and signicant relationship to
ow experience. Among the dependent variables, the largest proportion of variance was
explained for Frustration/Anxiety and Eciency/Productivity (0.32 and 0.31). The pro-
portion of explained variances for ow experience and Enjoying/Acceptance was relatively
low (0.12 and 0.10) and was moderately high for Avoidance/Hesitation and Ambition/
Curiosity (0.21 and 0.22). The explained mean variance was around 0.23.

4. Discussion

The multidimensional analysis and the factor analysis demonstrate that the results from
our previous study can be replicated with respect to the basic structure of engagement
modes in peoples interaction with IT. The reproduction of the same results suggests that
the EM-model is a robust descriptive model that empirically can capture psychological
characteristics of peoples interaction with IT. Moreover, the derived ve factors, which
were identical with the initial presentation of the EM-scale, suggest that the shorter ver-
sion of our questionnaire can be is a practical tool for examining a users engagement
modes.
The relationship between engagement modes and ow components was also largely rep-
licated. This relationship shows the reliable compatibility of EM-model and ow theory,
although the location of the Concentration component is not identical with our previ-
ous study (Montgomery et al., in press). Ghani and Deshpande (1994) showed that ow
912 P. Shara et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 899916

experience is the function of pleasure and concentration components, which is in line with
the present results. Thus the results suggest a better t of the EM-model and ow theory
than was the case in our previous study. To conclude, the overall results of the replication
suggest that the common characteristics of IT-users behavior can be conceptualized and
demonstrated empirically in terms of three dimensions and ve engagement modes and
ow components.
The positive co-variation of IT-competence and the positive engagement modes sug-
gests that the acquisition of necessary skills facilitates ecient, enjoyable, and ambitious
engagement with IT, although a causal relation in the opposite direction cannot be
excluded. In addition, there was a strong negative association between IT-competence
and Frustration/Anxiety mode among the negative engagement modes, which supports
the proposed suggestion. This relationship has been identied in several studies. For exam-
ple, Cohen and Waugh (1989) and Weil and Rosen (1995) reported that the total amount
of competence in using computers was correlated with low computer anxiety and negative
attitudes toward technology. However, in our study, Avoidance/Hesitation did not show a
negative association with IT-competence.
In general, the positive engagement modes seem to facilitate the process of interaction
during the complex processes of skill acquisition and development. The negative engage-
ment modes can be seen as resulting from incompatibility between the level of competence
and the given challenges or problems. It is noteworthy that the amount of experience
(number of years of using IT) showed no negative or positive signicant relationship with
any of the dependent variables. This is in line with Ericsson and Lehmann (1996) ndings
that the number of years of work and experience in a domain is not an accurate predictor
of attained performance. According to these researchers the knowledge and experience rel-
evancy in a specic area is the most determining factor for the quality of the decision-mak-
ing and consequently the performance.
Norman (1998) proposed that when people use technology, they generally expect pro-
ductivity, eciency, and benet from the technology without pain, agony, stress, and anx-
iety. In line with this proposal, the present results indicate that the enjoyment of using a
computer and its related tasks and the desire for eciency and productivity are factors
that contribute to good functional interaction, which in its turn enhances the process of
learning and acquisition of skill and competence (cf. Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001).
Users also experience frustration and anxiety, which lead them to avoidance even though
it is temporary (Carroll, 1991; Norman, 1998). It can be suggested that the ambition and
curiosity engagement mode works as a force and resource factor for coping with the prob-
lems related to the use of IT. To challenge continuing problems or changes, a users level
of competence and skill as well as ambition and curiosity seem to play important roles for
their interaction with IT and ow experience.
Several meaningful relationships were found among the users with regard to causality
orientations and dierent engagement modes, although any generalizations or causal
eects should be taken cautiously. For example, the results indicate that a high level of
autonomous orientation is more related to the persons curiosity, interest, enjoyment, e-
ciency, productivity, and ow experience (the positive experience of IT) and less to anxiety
and avoidance (the negative experience) than is the case for controlled and impersonal ori-
entations. The autonomous orientation, which is closely related to Banduras self-ecacy
belief (1997), Dwecks mastery-oriented behavior (1986), and Higgins and Silbermanno-
tion of promotion-orientation (1998) seem to be determining factors for the amount of
 P. Shara et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 899916 913

eort that a person needs to master dierent challenges. It can be suggested that in a pro-
ductive and enjoyable interaction an individuals self-determined behavior is needed to
manage the given problems and diculties. Such a relationship could be stimulated by
contextual factors such as the usable design of tools and stimulating work assignments.
These factors may encourage the autonomous eorts that are necessary for better perfor-
mance. As Bandura (1977, 1997) suggested, since an individuals behavior, cognition, and
environment are all highly interrelated to expand the level of self-ecacy belief, the indi-
vidual must be able to rely on his or her own abilities as well as the environment support.
Staple, Hulland, and Higgins (1998) also reported that the employees self-ecacy and
autonomy with respect to IT played a critical role for their work eectiveness, perceived
productivity, job satisfaction, and ability to cope with problems.
As the denition of controlled orientation implies, the external conditions sometimes
control peoples behavior or alternatively the person may choose the controlled orienta-
tion either as a coping strategy or because it is rewarding and decreases the threatening
eects. However, no matter what has caused the controlled orientation the outcome
behaviors may be high enjoyment and eciency (Enjoying/Acceptance and Eciency/Pro-
ductivity modes). The external rewards or threats may also cause the person to experience
the negative modes like the Frustration/Anxiety mode and especially the Avoidance/Hes-
itation mode. Perhaps the low level of relationship between controlled-oriented behavior
and the Ambition/Curiosity mode compared to autonomous-oriented users provides more
evidence that controlled-oriented individuals use IT mostly for its external possibilities and
credits or to avoid possible threats.
In comparison to the autonomous and controlled orientation, the impersonal orienta-
tion was unrelated to positive engagement modes. Participants scoring high on impersonal
orientation experienced the negative aspects of interaction and negative association with
ow experience. This is perhaps due to the experience of personal helplessness, self-blam-
ing, and social anxiety or because the contextual conditions did not enhance the experience
of required control and prevented their independent and eective involvement. The imper-
sonal orientation is closely related to Seligman (1975) helplessness and Bandura (1997) a
motivated behavior. Further studies are needed to search for more detailed reasons behind
peoples impersonal orientation in IT interaction.
Studies show that the voluntary use of computer technology with curiosity and playful-
ness as compared to the forced or constrained types of interacting are recognized as play-
ing important roles in peoples volitional interactions and communications when using IT
(Ghani & Deshpande, 1994; Homan & Novak, 1996; Zubo, 1988). In addition, the
usable and useful design and its applications should give the users more control and more
freedom of choice (Bannon, 1991; Norman, 1998). The present study suggests that the
level of freedom and the amount of control for making free choices improve peoples com-
petence and skill in having a more ecient (Eciency/Productivity mode), enjoyable
(Enjoying/Acceptance mode), and interesting (Ambition/Curiosity mode) interaction
when using IT.
It may seem at rst that autonomous people who are more intrinsically motivated and
task oriented should experience only the enjoyment of the activities and thus not experience
avoidance and frustration. However, as Ryan and Deci (2000b) have explained, the auton-
omous- and controlled-oriented people can be both intrinsically and extrinsically moti-
vated. It can be suggested that people with autonomous and controlled orientation may
both experience the positive and negative aspects of interaction although due to dierent
914 P. Shara et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 899916

reasons as compared to impersonal oriented users. Nonetheless, the higher score of frustra-
tion and anxiety for impersonal oriented people indicates that the low perceived control
and interpretation of situation as demanding are the pervasive contributors to low enjoy-
ment, eciency, and curiosity. The results suggest that frustration and anxiety produced
during the interaction are related to low perceived control and low IT-competence. How-
ever, the experience of low control and low IT-competence should not be interpreted only
as reecting the individuals choice or lack of skill but also related to work assignments,
contextual aspects, and IT-applications.
Moreover, the high signicant positive association between IT-competence and ow
experience shows that in order to experience ow the individuals should be more compe-
tent and know how to use dierent IT-application (uency in usage). The uency of usage,
as dened by Papert and Resnick (1993), involves not only knowing how to use IT but also
knowing how to construct things of signicance with IT. Because the autonomous orien-
tation also showed the highest association with ow experience compared to other person-
ality orientations, ow experience can be considered as the sign and indicator of the
eective functional and innovative interaction.
Generally, the present results suggest that the users skill, competence, and uency in
usage are his or her individual contributions to the process of ecient, enjoyable, and ow
involved interaction, which is most probably achieved through self-regulated use of the
needed ambition and curiosity. From the users side of interaction, the autonomous and
even controlled personality orientation will advance the quality of interaction, eciency,
and pleasure of the activity (although the autonomous orientation is more favorable).
However, the context of interaction in the usable design (Carroll, 1997, 2002) and a stim-
ulating work climate and assignment (Staple et al., 1998) should also facilitate the users
self-regulated behavior that contributes to the quality of the users IT-interaction.
Taken together, the reliable relationship between the EM-model, ow theory, and cau-
sality orientation theory indicates that they can jointly provide a theoretical framework to
describe the characteristics of the users cognitive capabilities in adapting to new technol-
ogy. Future research should examine in more detail the coherent and dynamic system of
the user (subject), the IT application (object), and the situation (context) in light of the
EM-model, ow, and causality orientation theories. Studies should be designed to under-
stand how the eective and enjoyable interactions are inuenced by personality factors,
and situational and contextual circumstances. Moreover, research should examine
whether enjoyment, eciency, and curiosity lead to higher IT-competence or whether
IT-competence leads to enjoyment, eciency, and curiosity.

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by Grant No. 1998-0239 from the Swedish Transport and
Communication Research Board and Grant No. 220-155600 from EU Goal 1 North of
Sweden.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-ecacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84,
191215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-ecacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
 P. Shara et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 899916 915

Bannon, L. J. (1991). From human factors to human actors: The role of psychology and humancomputer
interaction studies in system design. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of
computer system (pp. 2544). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Borg, I. (1985). Multidimensional data representations: When and why. Ann Arbor: Matheisi Press.
Carroll, J. M. (1991). Designing interaction: Psychology at the humancomputer interface. Cambridge University
Press.
Carroll, J. M. (1997). Scenario-based design. In M. G. Helander, T. K. Landauer, & P. V. Prabhu (Eds.),
Handbook of humancomputer interaction (pp. 383406). Elsevier.
Carroll, J. M. (2002). Humancomputer interaction in the new millennium. New York: ACM Press.
Cohen, B. A., & Waugh, G. W. (1989). Assessing computer anxiety. Psychological Reports, 65, 735738.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. The experience of play in work and games. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Collins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). The evolving self, a psychology for the third millennium. New York: Harper Collins
Publishers.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985a). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York:
Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality.
Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109134.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 53, 10241037.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes aecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 10401048.
Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence on maximal
adaptation on task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273305.
Ghani, J. A., & Deshpande, P. D. (1994). The characteristics and the experience of optimal ow in human
computer interaction. Journal of Psychology, 128, 381391.
Grudin, J. (1990). The computer reaches out: The historical continuity of user interface design. In proceedings of
CHI 90. Washington: Seattle.
Heidegger, M. (1927/1996). Being and time: A translation of Sein und Zeit (J. Stambaugh, Trans.). Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Higgins, E. T., & Silberman, I. (1998). Development of regulatory focus-promotion and prevention as ways of
living. In J. Heckhausen & C. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulation across the life span (pp. 78113).
Cambridge University Press.
Homan, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: conceptual
foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60, 5068.
Knee, C. R., & Zuckerman, M. (1996). Causality orientation and the disappearance of the self-serving bias.
Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 7687.
Koestner, R., & Zuckerman, M. (1994). Causality orientations, failure and achievement. Journal of Personality,
62(3), 321346.
Montgomery, H., Shara, P., & Hedman, L. (in press). Engaging in activities involving information technology:
Dimensions, modes, and ow. Human Factors (manuscript accepted).
Nardi, B. A. (1996). Context and consciousness. Activity theory and humancomputer interaction. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Papert, S., & Resnick, M. (1993). Technological uency and the representation of knowledge. Proposal to the
national science foundation. MIT Media Laboratory.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Classic denitions and new directions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 5467.
Ryan, R. M., Kuhl, J., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Nature and autonomy: Organizational view of social and
neurobiological aspects of self-regulation in behavior and development. Development and Psychopathology, 9,
701728.
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 471499.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness. San Francisco: Freeman.
Staple, D. S., Hulland, J. S., & Higgins, C. A. (1998). A self-ecacy theory explanation for the management of
remote workers in virtual organizations. Available http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue4/staples.html.
916 P. Shara et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 899916

Weil, M. M., & Rosen, L. D. (1995). The psychological impact of technology from a global perspective: A study
of technological sophistication and technophobia in university students from 23 countries. Computer in
Human Behavior, 11, 95133.
Zubo, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York: Basic Books.

View publication stats