https://is.theorizeit.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Jitheshiimk&feedformat=atomIS Theory - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T15:57:57ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.3https://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Socioemotional_Selectivity_Theory&diff=1142Socioemotional Selectivity Theory2019-11-14T14:36:12Z<p>Jitheshiimk: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
*<br />
SST<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s)==<br />
Lifespan theory of motivation<br />
<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)==<br />
*<br />
Emotional Regulation, Perception of time<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
*<br />
Old Age<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
*<br />
The socio-emotional selectivity theory refers to the change in the motivation of the person as a function of his or her lifespan. When we recognized that we don’t have all the time in the world we see our priorities most clearly. The theory was proposed by Laura L. Carstensen, the theory implies that as the person ages he/she become increasingly selective with regards to the investment of their time, effort and other resources such as change also bring about a shift in the motivation and cognitive processing of an individual. This theory was initially put forth as a means to explain the typical decrease in the amount of social interaction that is observed in the old age population prior to the introduction of this theory. There are two influential schools of thought existed each based on a unique theory the first theory was the activity theory posited by Havighurst and Albrecht in 1953, activity theory addresses the issue of how persons can best adjust to the changing circumstances of old age. The second theory was the disengagement theory put forth by coming in Henry in 1961 which stated that the idea of fast approaching and eventually imminent death caused the old individual to distance themselves from the rest of the society in order to prepare for their final farewell the socio-emotional selectivity theory differs from these theories on the basic facts that it claims the reduction of interaction to be a positive rather than a negative notion. It also considers the motivational and cognitive factors associated with the progression of age.<br />
<br />
Socio-emotional selectivity theory is based on the premise that a person’s adaptation to the changing environment is and space bound. It occurs in the context of the different life stages during the course of an individual’s lifespan. It claims that the social goals dictate and motivate the social interaction in a person’s life these social goals are of two types knowledge seeking and emotional regulation, they change accordingly to the social, psychological and cognitive perception of time by the individual. Time is either perceived as being unlimited and limited in early infancy adolescence and early adulthood time is perceived to be an unlimited entity and this notion prompts the individual to possess the social goal of future-oriented knowledge acquisition.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
NA<br />
<br />
Source: Taken from Carstensen, L.L. (1995). Evidence for a Life-Span Theory of Socioemotional Selectivity. The figure Idealized model of socioemotional selectivity theory's conception of the salience of three social motives across the life span.<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
*<br />
Laura L. Carstensen<br />
<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
*<br />
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American psychologist, 54(3), 165.<br />
<br />
Carstensen, L. L. (1993, January). Motivation for social contact across the life span: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. In Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 209-254).<br />
<br />
Carstensen, L. L. (1995). Evidence for a life-span theory of socioemotional selectivity. Current directions in Psychological science, 4(5), 151-156.<br />
<br />
Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and aging, 7(3), 331.<br />
<br />
Carstensen, L. L., Fung, H. H., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and emotion, 27(2), 103-123.<br />
<br />
Löckenhoff, C. E., & Carstensen, L. L. (2004). Socioemotional selectivity theory, aging, and health: The increasingly delicate balance between regulating emotions and making tough choices. Journal of personality, 72(6), 1395-1424.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
*<br />
Psychology<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
*<br />
Individuals<br />
<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
*<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioemotional_selectivity_theory Wikipedia Page<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
Activity Theory, Disengagement Theory<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
*<br />
Wright, K. B., Rains, S., & Banas, J. (2010). Weak-tie supports network preference and perceived life stress among participants in health-related, computer-mediated support groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(4), 606-624.<br />
<br />
Chan, M. (2014). Multimodal connectedness and quality of life: Examining the influences of technology adoption and interpersonal communication on well-being across the life span. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(1), 3-18.<br />
<br />
Leen, E. A., & Lang, F. R. (2013). The motivation of computer-based learning across adulthood. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 975-983.<br />
<br />
Hallam, L., De Backer, C. J., & Walrave, M. (2019). Taking it to the next level: The negligible role of trust when online dating goes offline. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 259-264.<br />
<br />
== Original Contributor(s) ==<br />
*<br />
Raunak Mishra<br />
<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*<br />
Please feel free to make modifications to this site. In order to do so, you must register.__FORCETOC__</div>Jitheshiimkhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Socioemotional_Selectivity_Theory&diff=1141Socioemotional Selectivity Theory2019-11-14T14:35:14Z<p>Jitheshiimk: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
*<br />
SST<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s)==<br />
Lifespan theory of motivation<br />
<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)==<br />
*<br />
Emotional Regulation, Perception of time<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
*<br />
Old Age<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
*<br />
The socio-emotional selectivity theory refers to the change in the motivation of the person as a function of his or her lifespan. When we recognized that we don’t have all the time in the world we see our priorities most clearly. The theory was proposed by Laura L. Carstensen, the theory implies that as the person ages he/she become increasingly selective with regards to the investment of their time, effort and other resources such as change also bring about a shift in the motivation and cognitive processing of an individual. This theory was initially put forth as a means to explain the typical decrease in the amount of social interaction that is observed in the old age population prior to the introduction of this theory. There are two influential schools of thought existed each based on a unique theory the first theory was the activity theory posited by Havighurst and Albrecht in 1953, activity theory addresses the issue of how persons can best adjust to the changing circumstances of old age. The second theory was the disengagement theory put forth by coming in Henry in 1961 which stated that the idea of fast approaching and eventually imminent death caused the old individual to distance themselves from the rest of the society in order to prepare for their final farewell the socio-emotional selectivity theory differs from these theories on the basic facts that it claims the reduction of interaction to be a positive rather than a negative notion. It also considers the motivational and cognitive factors associated with the progression of age.<br />
<br />
Socio-emotional selectivity theory is based on the premise that a person’s adaptation to the changing environment is and space bound. It occurs in the context of the different life stages during the course of an individual’s lifespan. It claims that the social goals dictate and motivate the social interaction in a person’s life these social goals are of two types knowledge seeking and emotional regulation, they change accordingly to the social, psychological and cognitive perception of time by the individual. Time is either perceived as being unlimited and limited in early infancy adolescence and early adulthood time is perceived to be an unlimited entity and this notion prompts the individual to possess the social goal of future-oriented knowledge acquisition.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
[[File:test2.png|200px|thumb|left|alt text]]<br />
<br />
Source: Taken from Carstensen, L.L. (1995). Evidence for a Life-Span Theory of Socioemotional Selectivity. The figure Idealized model of socioemotional selectivity theory's conception of the salience of three social motives across the life span.<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
*<br />
Laura L. Carstensen<br />
<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
*<br />
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American psychologist, 54(3), 165.<br />
<br />
Carstensen, L. L. (1993, January). Motivation for social contact across the life span: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. In Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 209-254).<br />
<br />
Carstensen, L. L. (1995). Evidence for a life-span theory of socioemotional selectivity. Current directions in Psychological science, 4(5), 151-156.<br />
<br />
Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and aging, 7(3), 331.<br />
<br />
Carstensen, L. L., Fung, H. H., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and emotion, 27(2), 103-123.<br />
<br />
Löckenhoff, C. E., & Carstensen, L. L. (2004). Socioemotional selectivity theory, aging, and health: The increasingly delicate balance between regulating emotions and making tough choices. Journal of personality, 72(6), 1395-1424.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
*<br />
Psychology<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
*<br />
Individuals<br />
<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
*<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioemotional_selectivity_theory Wikipedia Page<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
Activity Theory, Disengagement Theory<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
*<br />
Wright, K. B., Rains, S., & Banas, J. (2010). Weak-tie supports network preference and perceived life stress among participants in health-related, computer-mediated support groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(4), 606-624.<br />
<br />
Chan, M. (2014). Multimodal connectedness and quality of life: Examining the influences of technology adoption and interpersonal communication on well-being across the life span. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(1), 3-18.<br />
<br />
Leen, E. A., & Lang, F. R. (2013). The motivation of computer-based learning across adulthood. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 975-983.<br />
<br />
Hallam, L., De Backer, C. J., & Walrave, M. (2019). Taking it to the next level: The negligible role of trust when online dating goes offline. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 259-264.<br />
<br />
== Original Contributor(s) ==<br />
*<br />
Raunak Mishra<br />
<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*<br />
Please feel free to make modifications to this site. In order to do so, you must register.__FORCETOC__</div>Jitheshiimkhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Socioemotional_Selectivity_Theory&diff=1140Socioemotional Selectivity Theory2019-11-14T14:29:54Z<p>Jitheshiimk: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
*<br />
SST<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s)==<br />
Lifespan theory of motivation<br />
<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)==<br />
*<br />
Emotional Regulation, Perception of time<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
*<br />
Old Age<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
*<br />
The socio-emotional selectivity theory refers to the change in the motivation of the person as a function of his or her lifespan. When we recognized that we don’t have all the time in the world we see our priorities most clearly. The theory was proposed by Laura L. Carstensen, the theory implies that as the person ages he/she become increasingly selective with regards to the investment of their time, effort and other resources such as change also bring about a shift in the motivation and cognitive processing of an individual. This theory was initially put forth as a means to explain the typical decrease in the amount of social interaction that is observed in the old age population prior to the introduction of this theory. There are two influential schools of thought existed each based on a unique theory the first theory was the activity theory posited by Havighurst and Albrecht in 1953, activity theory addresses the issue of how persons can best adjust to the changing circumstances of old age. The second theory was the disengagement theory put forth by coming in Henry in 1961 which stated that the idea of fast approaching and eventually imminent death caused the old individual to distance themselves from the rest of the society in order to prepare for their final farewell the socio-emotional selectivity theory differs from these theories on the basic facts that it claims the reduction of interaction to be a positive rather than a negative notion. It also considers the motivational and cognitive factors associated with the progression of age.<br />
<br />
Socio-emotional selectivity theory is based on the premise that a person’s adaptation to the changing environment is and space bound. It occurs in the context of the different life stages during the course of an individual’s lifespan. It claims that the social goals dictate and motivate the social interaction in a person’s life these social goals are of two types knowledge seeking and emotional regulation, they change accordingly to the social, psychological and cognitive perception of time by the individual. Time is either perceived as being unlimited and limited in early infancy adolescence and early adulthood time is perceived to be an unlimited entity and this notion prompts the individual to possess the social goal of future-oriented knowledge acquisition.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
[[File:test1.png]]<br />
<br />
Source: Taken from Carstensen, L.L. (1995). Evidence for a Life-Span Theory of Socioemotional Selectivity. The figure Idealized model of socioemotional selectivity theory's conception of the salience of three social motives across the life span.<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
*<br />
Laura L. Carstensen<br />
<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
*<br />
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American psychologist, 54(3), 165.<br />
<br />
Carstensen, L. L. (1993, January). Motivation for social contact across the life span: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. In Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 209-254).<br />
<br />
Carstensen, L. L. (1995). Evidence for a life-span theory of socioemotional selectivity. Current directions in Psychological science, 4(5), 151-156.<br />
<br />
Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and aging, 7(3), 331.<br />
<br />
Carstensen, L. L., Fung, H. H., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and emotion, 27(2), 103-123.<br />
<br />
Löckenhoff, C. E., & Carstensen, L. L. (2004). Socioemotional selectivity theory, aging, and health: The increasingly delicate balance between regulating emotions and making tough choices. Journal of personality, 72(6), 1395-1424.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
*<br />
Psychology<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
*<br />
Individuals<br />
<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
*<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioemotional_selectivity_theory Wikipedia Page<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
Activity Theory, Disengagement Theory<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
*<br />
Wright, K. B., Rains, S., & Banas, J. (2010). Weak-tie supports network preference and perceived life stress among participants in health-related, computer-mediated support groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(4), 606-624.<br />
<br />
Chan, M. (2014). Multimodal connectedness and quality of life: Examining the influences of technology adoption and interpersonal communication on well-being across the life span. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(1), 3-18.<br />
<br />
Leen, E. A., & Lang, F. R. (2013). The motivation of computer-based learning across adulthood. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 975-983.<br />
<br />
Hallam, L., De Backer, C. J., & Walrave, M. (2019). Taking it to the next level: The negligible role of trust when online dating goes offline. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 259-264.<br />
<br />
== Original Contributor(s) ==<br />
*<br />
Raunak Mishra<br />
<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*<br />
Please feel free to make modifications to this site. In order to do so, you must register.__FORCETOC__</div>Jitheshiimkhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Socioemotional_Selectivity_Theory&diff=1139Socioemotional Selectivity Theory2019-11-14T14:26:06Z<p>Jitheshiimk: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
*<br />
SST<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s)==<br />
Lifespan theory of motivation<br />
<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)==<br />
*<br />
Emotional Regulation, Perception of time<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
*<br />
Old Age<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
*<br />
The socio-emotional selectivity theory refers to the change in the motivation of the person as a function of his or her lifespan. When we recognized that we don’t have all the time in the world we see our priorities most clearly. The theory was proposed by Laura L. Carstensen, the theory implies that as the person ages he/she become increasingly selective with regards to the investment of their time, effort and other resources such as change also bring about a shift in the motivation and cognitive processing of an individual. This theory was initially put forth as a means to explain the typical decrease in the amount of social interaction that is observed in the old age population prior to the introduction of this theory. There are two influential schools of thought existed each based on a unique theory the first theory was the activity theory posited by Havighurst and Albrecht in 1953, activity theory addresses the issue of how persons can best adjust to the changing circumstances of old age. The second theory was the disengagement theory put forth by coming in Henry in 1961 which stated that the idea of fast approaching and eventually imminent death caused the old individual to distance themselves from the rest of the society in order to prepare for their final farewell the socio-emotional selectivity theory differs from these theories on the basic facts that it claims the reduction of interaction to be a positive rather than a negative notion. It also considers the motivational and cognitive factors associated with the progression of age.<br />
<br />
Socio-emotional selectivity theory is based on the premise that a person’s adaptation to the changing environment is and space bound. It occurs in the context of the different life stages during the course of an individual’s lifespan. It claims that the social goals dictate and motivate the social interaction in a person’s life these social goals are of two types knowledge seeking and emotional regulation, they change accordingly to the social, psychological and cognitive perception of time by the individual. Time is either perceived as being unlimited and limited in early infancy adolescence and early adulthood time is perceived to be an unlimited entity and this notion prompts the individual to possess the social goal of future-oriented knowledge acquisition.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
[[File:test.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Source: Taken from Carstensen, L.L. (1995). Evidence for a Life-Span Theory of Socioemotional Selectivity. The figure Idealized model of socioemotional selectivity theory's conception of the salience of three social motives across the life span.<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
*<br />
Laura L. Carstensen<br />
<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
*<br />
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American psychologist, 54(3), 165.<br />
<br />
Carstensen, L. L. (1993, January). Motivation for social contact across the life span: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. In Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 209-254).<br />
<br />
Carstensen, L. L. (1995). Evidence for a life-span theory of socioemotional selectivity. Current directions in Psychological science, 4(5), 151-156.<br />
<br />
Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and aging, 7(3), 331.<br />
<br />
Carstensen, L. L., Fung, H. H., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and emotion, 27(2), 103-123.<br />
<br />
Löckenhoff, C. E., & Carstensen, L. L. (2004). Socioemotional selectivity theory, aging, and health: The increasingly delicate balance between regulating emotions and making tough choices. Journal of personality, 72(6), 1395-1424.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
*<br />
Psychology<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
*<br />
Individuals<br />
<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
*<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioemotional_selectivity_theory Wikipedia Page<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
Activity Theory, Disengagement Theory<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
*<br />
Wright, K. B., Rains, S., & Banas, J. (2010). Weak-tie supports network preference and perceived life stress among participants in health-related, computer-mediated support groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(4), 606-624.<br />
<br />
Chan, M. (2014). Multimodal connectedness and quality of life: Examining the influences of technology adoption and interpersonal communication on well-being across the life span. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(1), 3-18.<br />
<br />
Leen, E. A., & Lang, F. R. (2013). The motivation of computer-based learning across adulthood. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 975-983.<br />
<br />
Hallam, L., De Backer, C. J., & Walrave, M. (2019). Taking it to the next level: The negligible role of trust when online dating goes offline. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 259-264.<br />
<br />
== Original Contributor(s) ==<br />
*<br />
Raunak Mishra<br />
<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*<br />
Please feel free to make modifications to this site. In order to do so, you must register.__FORCETOC__</div>Jitheshiimkhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=1082Main Page2018-11-19T13:13:38Z<p>Jitheshiimk: /* Theories */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Sponsor Thumbs}}<br />
<br />
<div id="mainpage_topbox"><br />
<div id="mainpage_pagetitle">'''Welcome to the <span id="mainpage_mwtitle">Theories Used in IS Research Wiki</span>'''</div><br />
<div class="mainpage_boxcontents"><br />
{{Introduction}}<br />
<br />
{{Citing}}<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="mainpage_sitelinks"><br />
'''[[IS_Theory:About|About this site]]''' &nbsp; | &nbsp; <br />
'''[[IS_Theory:Acknowledgements|Acknowledgements]]''' &nbsp; | &nbsp;<br />
'''[[IS_Theory:Contributing|How to Contribute]]'''<br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="mainpage_newscell"><br />
<div class="mainpage_boxtitle"><br />
<div><b>Highlights</b></div><br />
</div><br />
* '''IS Theories Wiki is now part of the TheorizeIt.org portal.'''<br />
*: For construct discovery, try out the internomological network at [http://INN.TheorizeIt.org INN.TheorizeIt.org].<br />
*: <br />
</div><br />
<br />
== Theories ==<br />
<br />
*[[Absorptive capacity theory]]<br />
*[[Actor network theory]]<br />
*[[Accountability theory]]<br />
*[[Adaptive structuration theory]]<br />
*[[Administrative behavior, theory of]]<br />
*[[Agency theory]] <br />
*[[Argumentation theory]]<br />
*[[Behavioral decision theory]]<br />
*[[Belief Action Outcome Model|Belief Action Outcome Framework]]<br />
*[[Boundary object theory]]<br />
*[[Chaos theory]]<br />
*[[Cognitive dissonance theory]]<br />
*[[Cognitive fit theory]]<br />
*[[Cognitive load theory]]<br />
*[[Competitive strategy (Porter)]]<br />
*[[Complexity theory]]<br />
*[[Contingency theory]]<br />
*[[Critical realism theory]]<br />
*[[Critical social theory]] <br />
*[[Critical success factors, theory of]]<br />
*[[Customer based Discrepancy Theory]]<br />
*[[Customer Focus Theory]]<br />
*[[Deferred action, theory of]] <br />
*[[Delone and McLean IS success model]]<br />
*[[Design Theory]]<br />
*[[Diffusion of innovations theory]]<br />
*[[Dynamic capabilities]]<br />
*[[Elaboration likelihood model]]<br />
*[[Embodied social presence theory]]<br />
*[[Equity theory]] <br />
*[[Evolutionary theory]]<br />
*[[Expectation confirmation theory]] <br />
*[[Feminism theory]]<br />
*[[Fit-Viability theory]]<br />
*[[Flow theory]]<br />
*[[Game theory]]<br />
*[[Garbage can theory]] <br />
*[[General systems theory]]<br />
*[[General deterrence theory]]<br />
*[[General Strain Theory|General Strain theory]]<br />
*[[Hedonic-motivation system adoption model (HMSAM)]]<br />
*[[Hermeneutics]]<br />
*[[Illusion of control]]<br />
*[[Impression management, theory of]]<br />
*[[Information processing theory]]<br />
*[[Information warfare]]<br />
*[[Institutional theory]]<br />
*[[International information systems theory]]<br />
*[[Kellers Motivational Model |Keller's Motivational Model]]<br />
*[[Knowledge-based theory of the firm]]<br />
*[[Language action perspective]] <br />
*[[Lemon Market Theory|Information asymmetry theory (lemon market)]]<br />
*[[Management fashion theory]]<br />
*[[Media richness theory]]<br />
*[[Media synchronicity theory]]<br />
*[[Modal aspects, theory of]]<br />
*[[Multi-attribute utility theory]] <br />
*[[Multi-motive information systems continuance model (MISC)]]<br />
*[[Organizational culture theory]] <br />
*[[Organizational information processing theory]]<br />
*[[Organizational knowledge creation]]<br />
*[[Organizational learning theory]]<br />
*[[Portfolio theory]] <br />
*[[Process virtualization theory]]<br />
*[[Prospect theory]] <br />
*[[Protection motivation theory (NEW entry!)|Protection motivation theory]]<br />
*[[Punctuated equilibrium theory]]<br />
*[[Real options theory]]<br />
*[[Resource-based view of the firm]]<br />
*[[Resource dependency theory]]<br />
*[[Selective organizational information privacy and security violations model (SOIPSVM)]]<br />
*[[Self-efficacy theory]]<br />
*[[SERVQUAL]]<br />
*[[Signaling|Signaling theory]]<br />
*[[Social Bond Theory]]<br />
*[[Social capital theory]]<br />
*[[Social cognitive theory]]<br />
*[[Social Comparison Theory]]<br />
*[[Social exchange theory]]<br />
*[[Social Influence Theory]] (of Kelman)<br />
*[[Social learning theory]]<br />
*[[Social network theory]]<br />
*[[Social Penetration Theory]]<br />
*[[Social shaping of technology]]<br />
*[[Socio-technical theory]]<br />
*[[Soft systems theory]]<br />
*[[Stakeholder theory]] <br />
*[[Structuration theory]]<br />
*[[Structured process modeling theory (SPMT)]]<br />
*[[Task closure theory]] <br />
*[[Task-technology fit]]<br />
*[[Technological frames of reference]]<br />
*[[Technology acceptance model]] <br />
*[[Technology dominance, theory of]] <br />
*[[Technology-organization-environment framework]]<br />
*[[Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT)|Technology Threat Avoidance Theory]]<br />
*[[Theory of collective action]]<br />
*[[Theory of planned behavior]]<br />
*[[Theory of reasoned action]]<br />
*[[Theory of slack resources (TSR)|Theory of slack resources]]<br />
*[[Transaction cost economics]] <br />
*[[Transactive memory theory]] <br />
*[[Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology]]<br />
*[[Usage control model]]<br />
*[[Work systems theory]]<br />
*[[Yield shift theory of satisfaction]]</div>Jitheshiimkhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Comparison_Theory&diff=1081Social Comparison Theory2018-11-19T13:08:34Z<p>Jitheshiimk: Social Comparison Theory</p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
NA<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s)==<br />
NA<br />
<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)==<br />
Self-worth<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Upward and downward comparisons <br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
As per social comparison theory, an individual determines his/her social and personal worth by constantly comparing with others. According to Festinger, comparison with others who are more similar gives more accurate appraisals of one’s capabilities and beliefs.<br />
<br />
This comparison will result in either assimilation or contrast. An assimilation happens when the conclusion is made that one’s characteristics are similar to the other. When the conclusion of comparison is that one’s characteristics do not match with the other, there is a contrast position. Comparisons can be of two types: upward and downward comparisons. The upward comparison is when a person compares with a person who is better than himself/herself. On the other hand, the downward comparison is when a person compares with a person who is worse than himself/herself.<br />
<br />
Upward comparisons with a person slightly better than oneself are associated with self-improvement motivations. On the contrary, downward comparisons with a person slightly worse than oneself are associated with self-enhancement (self-esteem). As per Buunk and Gibbons (2007), autonomy in a situation increases the probability of assimilating with an upward reference point (self-improvement) while lack of autonomy increases the probability of downward comparison (avoiding failure). <br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
[[File:Example1.jpg]]<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
Leon Festinger<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations, 7(2), 117-140.<br />
<br />
Goethals, G. R. (1986). Social comparison theory: Psychology from the lost and found. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12(3), 261-278.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
Psychology<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
Individual<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Krasnova, H., Widjaja, T., Buxmann, P., Wenninger, H., & Benbasat, I. (2015). Research note—why following friends can hurt you: an exploratory investigation of the effects of envy on social networking sites among college-age users. Information systems research, 26(3), 585-605.<br />
<br />
Heo, M., & Toomey, N. (2016). Supporting sustained willingness to share knowledge with visual feedback. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 388-396.<br />
<br />
Matthews, N. L., Lynch, T., & Martins, N. (2016). Real ideal: Investigating how ideal and hyper-ideal video game bodies affect men and women. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 155-164.<br />
<br />
Hendrickse, J., Arpan, L. M., Clayton, R. B., & Ridgway, J. L. (2017). Instagram and college women's body image: investigating the roles of appearance-related comparisons and intrasexual competition. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 92-100.<br />
<br />
Kim, J. W., & Chock, T. M. (2015). Body image 2.0: Associations between social grooming on Facebook and body image concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 331-339.<br />
<br />
Chae, J. (2017). Virtual makeover: Selfie-taking and social media use increase selfie-editing frequency through social comparison. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 370-376.<br />
<br />
Lee, S. Y. (2014). How do people compare themselves with others on social network sites?: The case of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 253-260.<br />
<br />
Haferkamp, N., & Krämer, N. C. (2011). Social comparison 2.0: Examining the effects of online profiles on social-networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(5), 309-314.<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theorie ==<br />
Cognitive Dissonance Theory<br />
<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_comparison_theory<br />
<br />
== Original Contributor(s) ==<br />
Jithesh A<br />
<br />
Please feel free to make modifications to this site. In order to do so, you must register.__FORCETOC__</div>Jitheshiimkhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=File:Example1.jpg&diff=1080File:Example1.jpg2018-11-19T13:00:16Z<p>Jitheshiimk: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jitheshiimkhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Penetration_Theory&diff=1079Social Penetration Theory2018-11-19T12:53:26Z<p>Jitheshiimk: /* Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
SPT<br />
== Alternate name(s) ==<br />
NA<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Relationship<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Shallow and deep disclosure <br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
Social penetration theory seeks to explain the role of information exchange in the development and dissolution of interpersonal relationships. The theory seeks to explain the process of bonding which decides if a relationship is at a superficial level or at an intimate level and how the relationship moves from one level to another (Altman & Taylor, 1973)<br />
<br />
As per the theory, the levels of relationships are arranged metaphorically as an ‘onion’, with the outer layer as the least intimate relationship and the inner core as the most intimate relationship. The public image, which is visible to others, forms the outer layer. On the other hand, the private self forms the inner core and it revealed only to significant others over a period through disclosure.<br />
<br />
For relationships to develop there must be an exchange of information. Vital to social penetration is breadth, which is the number of topics discussed and depth, which is the degree of intimacy that guides these interactions. Breadth encompasses the variety of topics discussed.<br />
<br />
Another important aspect of SPT is the concept of self‐disclosure. It passes through many phases as an interpersonal relationship progresses from least intimate to most intimate (Taylor & Altman, 1987). These stages are 1) orientation 2) exploratory affective exchange 3) affective exchange 4) stable exchange.<br />
<br />
'''Orientation:''' In this stage, people share only superficial information, or the outermost layer, about themselves.<br />
Exploratory affective exchange: In this stage, people share details beyond the most superficial information and use less caution when self‐disclosing.<br />
<br />
'''Affective exchange:''' In this stage, the more intermediate layers are shared, and interactions are increasingly casual.<br />
<br />
'''Stable exchange:''' The main aspects of this stage are openness, breadth, and depth across conversation topics. Some important characteristics of this stage are honesty, intimacy, and open expression of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.<br />
<br />
This theory also explains social depenetration, which happens when self‐disclosure is reduced because of interpersonal conflict and relational stressors (Taylor & Altman, 1987). Social depenetration is the deliberate hiding of some portions of a person’s life to another person.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
[[File:Example.jpg]]<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
Irwin Altman, Dalmas Taylor<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart &\Mnston.<br />
<br />
Baack, D., Fogliasso, C., & Harris, J. (2000). The personal impact of ethical decision: A social penetration theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 24(1), 39-49.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
Individual<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Lim, J. Y. K. (2018). IT-enabled awareness and self-directed leadership behaviors in virtual teams. Information and Organization, 28(2), 71-88.<br />
<br />
Osatuyi, B., Passerini, K., Ravarini, A., & Grandhi, S. A. (2018). “Fool me once, shame on you… then, I learn.” An examination of information disclosure in social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 73-86.<br />
<br />
Huang, H. Y. (2016). Examining the beneficial effects of individual's self-disclosure on the social network site. Computers in human behavior, 57, 122-132.<br />
<br />
Osatuyi, B. (2015). Is lurking an anxiety-masking strategy on social media sites? The effects of lurking and computer anxiety on explaining information privacy concern on social media platforms. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 324-332<br />
<br />
Utz, S. (2015). The function of self-disclosure on social network sites: Not only intimate, but also positive and entertaining self-disclosures increase the feeling of connection. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 1-10.<br />
<br />
Posey, C., Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., & Ellis, T. S. (2010). Proposing the online community self-disclosure model: the case of working professionals in France and the UK who use online communities. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 181-195<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
Social Exchange Theory<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_penetration_theory<br />
<br />
== Original Contributor(s) ==<br />
Jithesh A<br />
<br />
Please feel free to make modifications to this site. In order to do so, you must register.<br />
<br />
__FORCETOC__</div>Jitheshiimkhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Penetration_Theory&diff=1078Social Penetration Theory2018-11-19T12:49:20Z<p>Jitheshiimk: Social Penetration Theory</p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
SPT<br />
== Alternate name(s) ==<br />
NA<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Relationship<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
shallow and deep disclosure <br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
Social penetration theory seeks to explain the role of information exchange in the development and dissolution of interpersonal relationships. The theory seeks to explain the process of bonding which decides if a relationship is at a superficial level or at an intimate level and how the relationship moves from one level to another (Altman & Taylor, 1973)<br />
<br />
As per the theory, the levels of relationships are arranged metaphorically as an ‘onion’, with the outer layer as the least intimate relationship and the inner core as the most intimate relationship. The public image, which is visible to others, forms the outer layer. On the other hand, the private self forms the inner core and it revealed only to significant others over a period through disclosure.<br />
<br />
For relationships to develop there must be an exchange of information. Vital to social penetration is breadth, which is the number of topics discussed and depth, which is the degree of intimacy that guides these interactions. Breadth encompasses the variety of topics discussed.<br />
<br />
Another important aspect of SPT is the concept of self‐disclosure. It passes through many phases as an interpersonal relationship progresses from least intimate to most intimate (Taylor & Altman, 1987). These stages are 1) orientation 2) exploratory affective exchange 3) affective exchange 4) stable exchange.<br />
<br />
'''Orientation:''' In this stage, people share only superficial information, or the outermost layer, about themselves.<br />
Exploratory affective exchange: In this stage, people share details beyond the most superficial information and use less caution when self‐disclosing.<br />
<br />
'''Affective exchange:''' In this stage, the more intermediate layers are shared, and interactions are increasingly casual.<br />
<br />
'''Stable exchange:''' The main aspects of this stage are openness, breadth, and depth across conversation topics. Some important characteristics of this stage are honesty, intimacy, and open expression of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.<br />
<br />
This theory also explains social depenetration, which happens when self‐disclosure is reduced because of interpersonal conflict and relational stressors (Taylor & Altman, 1987). Social depenetration is the deliberate hiding of some portions of a person’s life to another person.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
[[File:Example.jpg]]<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
Irwin Altman, Dalmas Taylor<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart &\Mnston.<br />
<br />
Baack, D., Fogliasso, C., & Harris, J. (2000). The personal impact of ethical decision: A social penetration theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 24(1), 39-49.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
Individual<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Lim, J. Y. K. (2018). IT-enabled awareness and self-directed leadership behaviors in virtual teams. Information and Organization, 28(2), 71-88.<br />
<br />
Osatuyi, B., Passerini, K., Ravarini, A., & Grandhi, S. A. (2018). “Fool me once, shame on you… then, I learn.” An examination of information disclosure in social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 73-86.<br />
<br />
Huang, H. Y. (2016). Examining the beneficial effects of individual's self-disclosure on the social network site. Computers in human behavior, 57, 122-132.<br />
<br />
Osatuyi, B. (2015). Is lurking an anxiety-masking strategy on social media sites? The effects of lurking and computer anxiety on explaining information privacy concern on social media platforms. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 324-332<br />
<br />
Utz, S. (2015). The function of self-disclosure on social network sites: Not only intimate, but also positive and entertaining self-disclosures increase the feeling of connection. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 1-10.<br />
<br />
Posey, C., Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., & Ellis, T. S. (2010). Proposing the online community self-disclosure model: the case of working professionals in France and the UK who use online communities. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 181-195<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
Social Exchange Theory<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_penetration_theory<br />
<br />
== Original Contributor(s) ==<br />
Jithesh A<br />
<br />
Please feel free to make modifications to this site. In order to do so, you must register.__FORCETOC__</div>Jitheshiimkhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=SocialPenetrationTheory&diff=1077SocialPenetrationTheory2018-11-19T12:39:54Z<p>Jitheshiimk: Social Penetration Theory</p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
SPT<br />
== Alternate name(s) ==<br />
NA<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Relationship<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
shallow and deep disclosure <br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
Social penetration theory seeks to explain the role of information exchange in the development and dissolution of interpersonal relationships. The theory seeks to explain the process of bonding which decides if a relationship is at a superficial level or at an intimate level and how the relationship moves from one level to another (Altman & Taylor, 1973)<br />
<br />
As per the theory, the levels of relationships are arranged metaphorically as an ‘onion’, with the outer layer as the least intimate relationship and the inner core as the most intimate relationship. The public image, which is visible to others, forms the outer layer. On the other hand, the private self forms the inner core and it revealed only to significant others over a period through disclosure.<br />
<br />
For relationships to develop there must be an exchange of information. Vital to social penetration is breadth, which is the number of topics discussed and depth, which is the degree of intimacy that guides these interactions. Breadth encompasses the variety of topics discussed.<br />
<br />
Another important aspect of SPT is the concept of self‐disclosure. It passes through many phases as an interpersonal relationship progresses from least intimate to most intimate (Taylor & Altman, 1987). These stages are 1) orientation 2) exploratory affective exchange 3) affective exchange 4) stable exchange.<br />
<br />
'''Orientation:''' In this stage, people share only superficial information, or the outermost layer, about themselves.<br />
Exploratory affective exchange: In this stage, people share details beyond the most superficial information and use less caution when self‐disclosing.<br />
<br />
'''Affective exchange:''' In this stage, the more intermediate layers are shared, and interactions are increasingly casual.<br />
<br />
'''Stable exchange:''' The main aspects of this stage are openness, breadth, and depth across conversation topics. Some important characteristics of this stage are honesty, intimacy, and open expression of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.<br />
<br />
This theory also explains social depenetration, which happens when self‐disclosure is reduced because of interpersonal conflict and relational stressors (Taylor & Altman, 1987). Social depenetration is the deliberate hiding of some portions of a person’s life to another person.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
[[File:Example.jpg]]<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
Irwin Altman, Dalmas Taylor<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart &\Mnston.<br />
<br />
Baack, D., Fogliasso, C., & Harris, J. (2000). The personal impact of ethical decision: A social penetration theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 24(1), 39-49.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
Individual<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Lim, J. Y. K. (2018). IT-enabled awareness and self-directed leadership behaviors in virtual teams. Information and Organization, 28(2), 71-88.<br />
<br />
Osatuyi, B., Passerini, K., Ravarini, A., & Grandhi, S. A. (2018). “Fool me once, shame on you… then, I learn.” An examination of information disclosure in social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 73-86.<br />
<br />
Huang, H. Y. (2016). Examining the beneficial effects of individual's self-disclosure on the social network site. Computers in human behavior, 57, 122-132.<br />
<br />
Osatuyi, B. (2015). Is lurking an anxiety-masking strategy on social media sites? The effects of lurking and computer anxiety on explaining information privacy concern on social media platforms. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 324-332<br />
<br />
Utz, S. (2015). The function of self-disclosure on social network sites: Not only intimate, but also positive and entertaining self-disclosures increase the feeling of connection. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 1-10.<br />
<br />
Posey, C., Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., & Ellis, T. S. (2010). Proposing the online community self-disclosure model: the case of working professionals in France and the UK who use online communities. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 181-195<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
Social Exchange Theory<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_penetration_theory<br />
<br />
== Original Contributor(s) ==<br />
Jithesh A<br />
<br />
Please feel free to make modifications to this site. In order to do so, you must register.__FORCETOC__</div>Jitheshiimkhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=File:Example.jpg&diff=1076File:Example.jpg2018-11-19T12:39:28Z<p>Jitheshiimk: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jitheshiimk