Effect of Self-serving Bias in IS Success Model – Implications for E-learning System Success Research Laura Havinen University of Vaasa, Wolffintie 34, 65200 Vaasa, Finland Abstract User satisfaction has a central role in the research of e-learning system success, especially in studies utilizing DeLone and McLean IS success model. This critical review examines the role of self-serving bias in the context of e-learning system success. Self-serving bias refers to the tendency of attributing positive outcomes to internal causes and negative outcomes to external causes and is a phenomenon prone to occur in educational settings. In this article, the issue is first discussed based on previous literature. After that, three studies on e-learning system success are reviewed to highlight the role of user satisfaction in current e-learning system success research and the abundance of discussing self-serving bias as a possible confounding factor. As a result of the study, it´s suggested that due to the risk self-serving bias, user satisfaction should not be used as a sole measure for IS success when examining e-learning system success from the student viewpoint. Keywords IS success, e-learning, e-learning systems, attribution theory, self-serving bias 1 1. Introduction success. The model has been widely applied and modified in the field of IS, and it serves as a theoretical Student gets a low grade on an e-learning course and background for many studies on the success of e- blames the e-learning system for their failure. Clearly, learning systems [4]–[8]. the user is unsatisfied, but can it be stated that the One of the success dimensions in the IS success system is unsuccessful? model is user satisfaction. User satisfaction is a This article focuses on e-learning, which according subjective measure and thus prone to bias. Yet many to Sangrà, Vlachopoulo and Cabrera [1] can be empirical studies on IS success use user satisfaction as described with the following: “E-learning is an a key measure or even as a surrogate of IS success [9]. approach to teaching and learning, representing all or This can be noted also in the study of e-learning part of the educational model applied, that is based on systems success [10]. the use of electronic media and devices as tools for In this article, the role of user satisfaction as improving access to training, communication, and measure for IS success is discussed by considering interaction and that facilitates the adoption of new self-serving bias, a phenomenon that has been ways of understanding and developing learning.” In e- identified in the field of social psychology. Self-serving learning, technology is used as one enabler of the bias means that individuals tend to blame external learning process [2]. E-learning systems aid among factors for failures and credit success to themselves other things in presenting content, assessing learner [11]. This phenomenon can be seen in practice for outcomes, promoting collaboration, and facilitating example so, that a student blames the teacher when problem solving [2]. he receives a low grade in an exam [12]. Self-serving In 1992, DeLone and McLean [3] proposed the IS bias has been distinguishable also in other contexts success model that models the dimensions of IS than classroom, for example with users interacting TKTP 2024: Annual Doctoral Symposium of Computer Science, 10.- © 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). 11.6.2024 Vaasa, Finland laura.havinen@uwasa.fi 0009-0000-3364-7407 CEUR ceur-ws.org Workshop ISSN 1613-0073 Proceedings with robots [13] and with e-commerce users version of the model was presented in 1992, and it attributing negative outcomes to computers rather was revised in 2003 [3], [20]. than positive outcomes [14]. In the field of IS, self- The original model (see Figure 1) included six serving bias has been pointed out to be one possible interdependent dimensions that are system quality, explanation for bias in user satisfaction surveys, so information quality, use, user satisfaction, individual that user blames the system for their failure [15]-[17]. impact, and organizational impact [3]. System quality The aim of this article is to discuss the possibility refers to the desired characteristics of the information of self-serving bias acting as a confounding variable system and measures technical success. Information affecting the relationship between net benefits and quality refers to the characteristics of the information user satisfaction in the IS success model. This is done product, such as accuracy, and measures semantic in the context of e-learning and from the viewpoint of success. Use and user satisfaction refer to measuring a student as a user. Given that self-serving bias is a interaction between the information product and concept that has been constructed for achievement users. Individual impact refers to the influence on contexts, it is assumed that the theory benefits management decisions, and organizational impact on especially the research in the field of e-learning. As a organizational performance. These last four contribution, this study gives implications for future dimensions measure effectiveness success. research on e-learning systems success about how self-serving bias should be considered. This article can be categorized as a critical review, where the aim is to highlight an untrustworthy area of existing knowledge [18]. Furthermore, this article seeks to provide explanation [19] by adding understanding about factors affecting user satisfaction. This article answers the call to analyze the interrelationship between dimensions in the IS success model [20], [9] Figure 1: Original IS success model [3]. and to research causal attributions in IS context and The six dimensions are reliant on one another [3]. for IS artifacts [21]. System quality and information quality affect use and The article is constructed as follows. First, the user satisfaction both singularly and jointly. The theoretical background is described including the amount of use can affect the degree of user DeLone and McLean IS success model and the concept satisfaction as well as the other way around. This of self-serving bias. Then the results of the critical effect can be either positive or negative. Use and user review on e-learning success are reported. Lastly, the satisfaction are antecedents for individual impact. article concludes with the implications for research Impact on individual performance leads to based on the results. organizational impact. In 2003, the model was updated (see Figure 2) 2. Theoretical background [20]. Service quality dimension was added besides the This article is rooted on two theories which have been information quality and system quality. Service validated by several empirical studies and give a solid quality refers to the quality of support for the users ground for the study: the IS success model [3] from IS from the IS department and IT support. Individual research, and Weiner´s [22] attribution theory from impact and organizational impact were replaced by social psychology. Regarding the IS success model, the net benefits. The net benefits is a broader dimension view is especially on the relationship between user describing more precisely the range of entities that satisfaction and net benefits. In the context of the IS activity can impact, which include e.g. work attribution theory, this article focuses on locus of groups, industries and societies. In addition, the control and especially on the self-serving bias. In the concept of use was clarified by dividing it into following chapters, both theories are described. intention to use and use. Intention to use describes the attitude and use the behavior, and the division also 2.1. The IS Success Model helps to complete the model in both process and causal sense. Use precedes user satisfaction in process The DeLone and McLean IS Success model is a view, but in causal view user satisfaction can also taxonomy of information systems success that aims to affect use via the intention to use. categorize central IS success measures. The framework is widely adopted in IS research. The first example, if a student gets good feedback, they might credit it to internal cause, such as high ability (“I succeeded because I am clever”) or external cause, such as help from others (“I succeeded because others helped me”). People tend to credit positive outcomes with internal causes and blame external causes for negative outcomes (see e.g. [26]-[29]). This phenomenon is referred to as self-serving bias [11]. Figure 2: Updated IS success model [20]. There are several possible explanations for this phenomenon. Reasons for self-serving bias can be to As DeLone and McLean [20] point out, the model consciously protect desirable self-view or to influence is based on both process and causal considerations. others´ perceptions, but often it happens For example, in process view use must precede user unintentionally and even unconsciously [29]. People satisfaction but in causal view increased user tend to seek causes for outcomes that differ from their satisfaction will lead to increase in intention to use positive expectations (“I got a low grade although I and therefore increase in use. The arrows show the thought I would succeed on this course”) or from their associations of the dimensions in the process sense. self-schema (“I got a low grade although I am a good Whether the causality is positive or negative depends student”), or which are inconsistent with actions (“I on the context. E.g. a high-quality system could lead to got a low grade although I have studied hard”) [29]. higher user satisfaction and positive net benefits. Individuals make self-serving attributions in More use of a system with poor quality could lead to situations where the outcome is important for them lower user satisfaction and negative net benefits. and thus has implications for self-worth [29]. As a conclusion of the generation of the IS success According to Campbell and Sedikides [26], self- model, DeLone and McLean [3] claim that IS success is serving bias happens in a situation where self-threat, a multidimensional construct that should be that is threat to the self-concept, is high. These kinds evaluated based on systematically combined of situations are especially those where an individual individual measures from different categories, to acts as an actor, views the task at hand important, make measuring comprehensive. Later, they have also conducts tasks that are skills-oriented, and acts in a stressed that it is important to measure the competitive setting. interactions between success dimensions to reveal Especially in the context of user-satisfaction the impact of independent variables [20]. surveys, Hufnagel and Conca [17] point out the following factors to be associated with self-serving 2.2. Self-serving bias bias: performance outcomes, prior expectation, Attribution is a field of study in social psychology that expertise, experience, perceived responsibility for focuses on causal explanations. Attribution-based outcomes, and extent of volitional control. It is theories examine the causes individuals’ credit for important to note that the extent and presence of self- events and outcomes [23], [24]. The major serving bias varies across conditions. In addition to contribution to forming attribution theory was made contextual differences, culture and age also have an by Heider [25], and later among others by Kelley [24] effect [28]. and Weiner [22]. Weiner´s [22] attribution theory is In the context of exam performance, Arkin and directed especially on academic achievement and the Maruyama [30] found the self-serving bias causing causes of success and failure. Weiner focuses on students to attribute external factors for failing in a classroom settings, where he claims that people ask test more likely in their own case than they assume “why” questions especially related to achievement external factors to have affected the average student. contexts. Because Weiner´s attribution theory was Also, Noel, Forsyth and Kelley [12] found that crafted especially for academic settings, it is in special students who performed poorly on a course interest in this study of e-learning. examination blamed external factors such as teacher, Weiner´s attribution theory divides causalities in ambiguity of the textbook and unfairness of items on three-dimensions: locus, stability, and controllability. the test. Gotlieb [31] applied attribution theory in the In this study, the focus is especially on the locus of study of student evaluations and found that grades causality. Locus refers to whether an individual may affect student evaluations of professors (i.e. if the interprets cause to be internal or external. For student gets a high grade, they will give more positive evaluation for the teaching and vice versa). 2.3. Self-serving bias in IS success research but considered the effect to be able to be eliminated. Hufnagel [15] claims that evaluating system Attribution theory and its implications have been effectiveness based on user satisfaction ratings may applied in IS research, both in general and in the be biased if it measures more individual’s attribution context of IS success, although not to a great extent. to their own performance outcome, and Hufnagel and Kelley et al. [21] state that “attribution theory makes Conca [17] point out self-serving bias as a possible contributions to explaining and understanding IS bias in user satisfaction surveys and call for phenomena”. They see especially that the theory on researchers to recognize potential sources of bias. causal attributions benefit the research on post- adoption usage. Alony, Hasan and Paris [32] used 2.4. IS success model from the viewpoint of attribution theory to analyze how well biases in self-serving bias attribution predict non-interpersonal relationship and saw also potential in post-adoption research. In The IS success model focuses on the dependent the field of HCI, Niels and Janneck [33] appoint variable on the field of IS, that means the dimensions attribution theory as an applicable background theory which describe what is IS success. The independent to understand users and their behavior. They have variables are those variables that influence IS success, applied attribution theory to generate personas on such as user characteristics [39]. In addition, there are how individuals attribute computer-related failure also control variables and variables that have a and success. moderating effect instead of direct effect on IS success The self-serving bias in connection to the IS [39]. This study claims that self-serving bias should be success model has been brought up especially related considered as a confounding variable in the model, to the worry about possible confounding variables on which is as a variable that influences the relationship the dimension of user satisfaction. Especially under between other variables. criticism has been the tendency to use user This study focuses on the dependent variables net satisfaction as a measure for IS success, which means benefits and user satisfaction. As stated before, net replacing or removing net benefits. Some studies benefits refer to the success of outcome stage, and the confirm the possibility to use user satisfaction as a measures vary depending on the case. Net benefits measure for system effectiveness [34], while others describe the extent of contribution IS gives to the don´t. This is understandable, since user satisfaction stakeholders (individuals, groups, organizations, is a complex variable, and there is no clear view of all industries, and nations) [39]. In the context of e- the user and environment characteristics that affect it learning systems the stakeholders can be customers (see e.g. [35]). (e.g. students), suppliers (e.g. teachers, educational Already in the original paper about IS Success institutions, content providers), board and model, DeLone and McLean [3] bring up the wide use shareholders (e.g. education ministry), professional of user satisfaction/user information satisfaction as a associations (e.g. teachers´ association) and other measure for IS success and state the worry that “user- special interest groups (e.g. students´ commissions) satisfaction measures might be biased by user [2]. This study focuses on the students as computer attitudes”. User attitude towards IS has stakeholders. been found to have an impact on user satisfaction e.g. What the net benefits are is left for the researcher in the meta-analysis on IS success model by to define in the given context and related to the given Sabherwal, Jeyaraj and Chowa [36]. stakeholders [20]. There is a large variety of methods Self-serving bias as a confounding variable on user measuring and thus defining the net benefits [9]. Net satisfaction has been noted in several studies. Snead benefits can be e.g. improved decision-making, et al. [37] claim that causal attributions can act as an improved productivity, increased sales, or improved intervening variable between the independent profits [9]. variable and dependent variable in research related to From the student perspective in the e-learning IS success. Mathieson [16] argues that for user context the net benefits are on the individual level. satisfaction instruments to accurately reflect IS Most used net benefits on individual level are success, users must have accurate beliefs about the IS. perceived usefulness or job impact [9]. In the context As an example of possible bias, Mathieson [16] refers of e-learning systems perceived usefulness can be to user attributing the cause of failure to system seen for example as experienced usefulness in studies instead of himself. Iivari & Ervasti [38] acknowledge [6], and job impact can be seen for example as the possibility of self-serving bias as confounding improved performance, more effective learning, or factor between user satisfaction and IS effectiveness cost and time savings [5]. In the context of learning, net benefits can also be thought to be related to performance impact. Performance indicator is gaining knowledge, attaining learning outcomes and described as “the extent to which online learning improving student competence (e.g. [40], [5]). influences student performance based on This study focuses on those kinds of net benefits productivity, knowledge acquisition, and resource that imply to the user whether they have succeeded or savings”. The performance impact is affected by user failed. From the student’s point of view, these kinds satisfaction, actual usage and TFF. Moreover, user of net benefits would be e.g. those that are satisfaction and actual usage also affect performance communicated via course grade and/or teacher impact indirectly through TFF. Research data was feedback, such as the forementioned gaining collected through a survey, and it consisted of 448 knowledge, attaining learning outcomes and responses from university students. In the results of improving student competence. the study, user satisfaction was seen as the second According to Petter. DeLone and McLean [9], most significant affecting factor to academic studies have shown strong support for the performance after task technology fit. Also, user relationship between user satisfaction and net satisfaction was seen to have a meaningful impact on benefits, and between net benefits and user TTF together with actual usage. satisfaction on individual level. The connection Cidral et al. [42] focus in their study on finding the between net benefits and user satisfaction is valid determinants for e-learning systems success. They both when net benefits are positive and when they are applied IS success model together with e-learning negative. The nature of the interaction depends on the satisfaction theory. The aim of the study is to find case [20]. The connection between net benefits and determinants of user perceived satisfaction, use and user satisfaction is of primary interest in this study. individual impact in the context of e-learning. They suggest a model that modifies the IS success model 3. Critical review based on the theory of e-learning satisfaction. In this model, the main success factor is individual impact, In the following, a qualitative literature review is which is defined as “the degree of benefit perceived by conducted to illustrate the role of user satisfaction in students when using an e-learning system”. Individual studies related to e-learning system success. The impact is affected by use and user perceived literature review focuses on studies on e-learning satisfaction. Furthermore, use is affected by user system success that discuss the dimension of user perceived satisfaction. The data was gathered through satisfaction and use as a theoretical framework the a survey and consisted of 301 responses from DeLone and McLean IS success model. students in higher education institutions. The user The search was conducted in the journal perceived satisfaction was found to be a significant Computers & Education which is a high-level journal factor affecting the individual impact, as the following that focuses especially on e-learning. The used search citation highlights: “The significant impact of user term was (elearning OR e-learning) AND success AND perceived satisfaction on individual impacts supports "user satisfaction" and the search was performed in the suggestion that user perceived satisfaction can full-text articles for the period of 1.1.2015- serve as a valid substitute for individual impact”. 31.12.2023. The search resulted in 26 articles. These Ung, Labadin and Mohamad [43] study the articles were reviewed according to titles and feasibility of a localized e-learning system abstracts to ensure that they discuss e-learning myCTGWBL aimed at training computational thinking system success from the student viewpoint, which skills to teachers. The research data was gathered eliminated 13 articles. After that, the remaining 13 through pre-experiment and post-experiment articles were reviewed by reading the full text to surveys, of which in the latter they inquired the ensure that the IS success model had a significant role respondents’ perceptions towards the e-learning as a background theory in the studies. This led to the system. The post-experiment survey was answered by rejection of 10 articles, leaving finally three articles 369 teachers after 14 days of self-learning using the that were selected for the qualitative review. In the system. The IS success model was used as a following, the content of the articles is shortly framework for determining the system success. The described and after that, the findings are discussed. study implies that the system’s success is determined Isaac et al. [41] study task-technology fit (TTF) by net benefits but does not clearly specify what those and compatibility as mediating variables for IS net benefits are. Instead, the study refers to general success in online learning. The conceptual model of theory about net benefits being improved task their study combines compatibility and TFF with the performance and productivity. Regarding IS success IS success model and has as the IS success indicator the article mainly discusses the meaning of user satisfaction and user intention. User satisfaction is evaluation of factors such as the teacher, textbook or seen having a central role affecting the IS success as even IS [12], [14], [31]. As DeLone and McLean [3] can be seen from the following citations “Moreover, state, it is important to use a variety of measures to the proposed myCTGWBL success model indicates minimize the effect of confounding variables. User that user intention and user satisfaction are closely satisfaction is a complex variable [35], as is the self- related to system success.” and “Additionally, one of serving bias [31] and it is difficult to pinpoint exactly the most vital features influencing the performance of what affects what in certain circumstances. The use of myCTGWBL is user satisfaction” [43]. control variables can help to reveal possible In all the three reviewed studies, user satisfaction dependencies. was considered significantly influencing net benefits. This was most visible in the study by Cidral [42], 5. Discussion which suggested that user satisfaction could be applicable to replace the individual impacts as This study aimed to find implications for research by indicator for IS success. These notions are in line with discussing the phenomenon of self-serving bias in the the findings of Petter, Delone and McLean [9], who context of e-learning systems success from a student state that in the field of e-learning systems success viewpoint. Based on the qualitative review of three user satisfaction is used as a key measure and even studies on e-learning system success it was noted that solely measure of IS success. As can be seen from the user satisfaction has a central role in e-learning study by Ung, Labadin and Mohamad [43], in the system success, and it can even be seen as possible context of e-learning clearly defining the net benefits sole measure for IS success, without discussing the can be difficult as e.g. performance in the context of possibility of self-serving bias. Taking into learning is not as straightforward to define as in other consideration the discussed theoretical background contexts. Each of the studies used surveys as a data related to self-serving bias this was seen problematic, gathering method relying on self-reported data, but and thus as the main result of the study was given one only Isaac et al. [41] mentioned the self-reported key implication for future research, that is to avoid actions as a possible limitation for the study. Not using user satisfaction as a sole measure for IS success surprisingly none of the studies mentioned self- in this context. serving bias as a possible confounding factor or This article grasps only the surface of implications addressed attribution theory in other ways. that attribution theory could have for IS success, but succeeds in opening new directions for research in IS. This follows on the path of Kelley et al. [21] who see 4. Implications for e-learning system attribution theory being in its “spring” of existence in success research IS research. In the context of studying IS success, this The covered theoretical background gives study increases the understanding of variables implications that self-serving bias could emerge in an affecting IS success in e-learning context, and in e-learning context and affect student attitudes related general. to IS success. Deriving from the discussed literature The suggestion made in this study is not unique, and from the review on the three studies on e-learning but it can be found already in the works of DeLone and systems success, the following suggestion for research McLean [3] and Petter, DeLone and McLean [9]. The in e-learning systems success can be made. contribution of this study is to strengthen them in the Avoid using user satisfaction as a sole measure context of e-learning systems success with the notion for IS success in the context of e-learning from the of the phenomenon of self-serving bias. student viewpoint. As a recommendation to practitioners, taking the As Petter, DeLone and McLean [9] point out, user self-serving bias into account can benefit both satisfaction should not be used as a sole indicator of IS education providers and IS professionals. Identifying success. It has been stated that the possibility of self- and changing focus of attribution cause from external serving bias can affect user satisfaction ratings in to internal might lead to improved IS success but also general [15]-[17]. This should be especially improved performance [12]. Acknowledging the considered in the context of e-learning, where the possibility of self-serving bias can be considered in the elements promoting self-serving bias are strongly evaluation practices of e-learning systems, e.g. by present, such as the outcome being important for self- collecting system related feedback before assigning worth [29] and the possible threat to the self-concept the final grades. [26]. Previous literature gives implications that failing This study gives multiple recommendations to on a course can lead to distortion in the student researchers. Firstly, it serves as a good background for further empirical study. Finding significant [2] M. Aparicio, F. Bacao, T. Oliveira, An e-learning differences between different user groups could serve theoretical framework, Educational Technology as a guide for further research and to understand & Society 19.1 (2016) 292–307. prior results [17]. It could also be considered if self- [3] W.H. DeLone, E. R. McLean, E. R.. Information serving bias has impact on possible mediating Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent variables, such as task-technology fit in the Variable, Information Systems Research 3.1 relationship between user satisfaction and net (1992) 60–95. doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60. benefits [41]. [4] C. W. Holsapple, A. Lee‐Post, Defining, Assessing, As guidelines for further research, it should be and Promoting E‐Learning Success: An noted that Weiner´s [22] attribution theory focuses on Information Systems Perspective, Decision success and failure. To reveal self-serving bias, it is Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 4.1 important to find out if the student experienced a (2006) 67–85. doi:10.1111/j.1540- success or a failure. If the course grade is used as an 4609.2006.00102.x. implication for success or failure [31], it is important [5] A. Hassanzadeh, F. Kanaani, S. Elahi, A model for to monitor if the course grade matches with student measuring e-learning systems success in expectations [29]. As Campbell and Sedikides [26] universities, Expert Systems With Applications point out, self-serving bias is higher in situations with 39.12 (2012) 10959–10966. high self-threat, which gives an implication to doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.03.028. evaluate also whether the student experiences the [6] J. S. Mtebe, R. Raisamo, A Model for Assessing course as important for himself. Learning Management System Success in Higher Also, it should be noted, that if the student chooses Education in Sub-Saharan Countries, EJISDC: to attribute the cause of success or failure to an The Electronic Journal on Information Systems external factor, which factor does he favor. Instead of in Developing Countries 61.1 (2014) 1–17. the IS it could be for example the teacher, other doi:10.1002/j.1681-4835.2014.tb00436.x. students, luck, or task difficulty [22]. There has been [7] M. Yakubu, S. Dasuki, Assessing eLearning noted a difference that individuals attribute cause to a systems success in Nigeria: An application of the controllable external factor rather than DeLone and McLean information systems uncontrollable external factor. For example, people in success model, Journal of Information severe car crashes tend to attribute causes to other Technology Education: Research 17 (2018) drivers rather than uncontrollable events such as 183–203. doi:10.28945/4077. weather or road conditions [44]. From this viewpoint [8] T. Adeyinka, S. Mutula, A proposed model for there is a question whether students preferably evaluating the success of WebCT course content attribute the cause to controllable event, and whether management system, Computers in Human they experience the e-learning system as a Behavior 26.6 (2010) 1795–1805. controllable factor. This can vary also depending on doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.007. the nature of the e-learning course, for example based [9] S. Petter, W. Delone, E. R. McLean, Measuring on the course’s self-study degree. information systems success: Models, As a critical review, this study may suffer from dimensions, measures, and interrelationships, subjectivity because of the limited selection of European Journal of Information Systems 17.3 reviewed literature [18]. This risk has been (2008) 236–263. doi:10.1057/ejis.2008.15. minimized by reporting the literature search [10] K. F. Hew, X. Hu, C. Qiao, Y. Tang, What predicts explicitly and grounding the work on two prevalent student satisfaction with MOOCs: A gradient theories and on previous research applying those boosting trees supervised machine learning and theories. sentiment analysis approach, Computers & Education 145 (2020). References doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103724. [11] D. T. Miller, M. Ross, Self-Serving Biases in the [1] A. Sangrà, D. Vlachopoulos, N. Cabrera, Building Attribution of Causality: Fact or Fiction? an Inclusive Definition of E-Learning: An Psychological Bulletin, 82.2 (1975) 213–225. Approach to the Conceptual Framework, doi:10.1037/h0076486. International Review of Research in Open and [12] J. G. Noel, D. R. Forsyth, K. N. Kelley, Improving Distributed Learning 13.2 (2012) 145–159. the Performance of Failing Students by doi:10.19173/irrodl.v13i2.1161. Overcoming Their Self-Serving Attributional Biases, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 8.1&2 (1987) 151–162. [23] B. Weiner, Reflections on the history of doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0801&2_10. attribution theory and research: People, [13] S. You, J. Nie, K. Suh, S. Sundar, When the robot personalities, publications, problems, Social criticizes you: Self-serving bias in human-robot Psychology 39.3 (2008) 151– interaction, in: Proceedings of the 6th 156. doi:10.1027/1864-9335.39.3.151. international conference on Human-robot [24] H. H. Kelley, The Process of Causal Attribution. interaction, HRI '11, 2011, pp. 295–296. American Psychologist 28.2 (1973) 107–128. doi:10.1145/1957656.1957778. doi: 10.1037/h0034225. [14] Y. Moon, Don’t Blame the Computer: When Self- [25] F. Heider, The Psychology of Interpersonal Disclosure Moderates the Self-Serving Bias, Relations, Psychology Press, New York, 1958. Journal of Consumer Psychology 13.1&2 (2003) doi:10.1037/10628-000. 125–137. doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP13- [26] W. K. Campbell, C. Sedikides, Self-Threat 1&2_11. Magnifies the Self-Serving Bias: A Meta-Analytic [15] E. M. Hufnagel, User satisfaction - are we really Integration, Review of General Psychology 3.1 measuring system effectiveness, in: Proceedings (1999) 23–43. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.3.1.23. of the Twenty-Third Annual Hawaii [27] H. A. McAllister, Self-Serving Bias in the International Conference on System Sciences, Classroom: Who Shows It? Who Knows 1990, pp. 437–446. It? Journal of Educational Psychology 88.1 doi:10.1109/HICSS.1990.205289. (1996) 123–131. doi:10.1037/0022- [16] K. Mathieson, Belief formation and system 0663.88.1.123. success: When do responses to satisfaction [28] A. H. Mezulis, L. Y. Abramson, J. S. Hyde, B. L. instruments reflect system attributes? in: Hankin, Is There a Universal Positivity Bias in Proceedings of the 1993 conference on Attributions? A Meta-Analytic Review of Computer personnel research, SIGCPR ’93, 1993, Individual, Developmental, and Cultural pp. 463–472. doi:10.1145/158011.158262. Differences in the Self-Serving Attributional [17] E. M. Hufnagel, C. Conca, User Response Data: Bias, Psychological Bulletin 130.5 (2004) 711– The Potential for Errors and Biases. Information 747. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.711. Systems Research 5.1 (1994) 48–73. [29] J. Shepperd, W. Malone, K. Sweeny, Exploring doi:10.1287/isre.5.1.48. Causes of the Self-serving Bias, Social and [18] G. Paré, M. Trudel, M. Jaana, S. Kitsiou, Personality Psychology Compass 2.2 (2008) Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A 895–908. doi:10.1111/j.1751- typology of literature reviews, Information & 9004.2008.00078.x. Management 52.2 (2015) 183–199. [30] R. M. Arkin, G. M. Maruyama, Attribution, Affect, doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008. and College Exam Performance. Journal of [19] S. Gregor, The Nature of Theory in Information Educational Psychology 71.1 (1979) 85–93. Systems, MIS Quarterly 30.3 (2006) 611–642. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.71.1.85. doi:10.2307/25148742. [31] J. Gotlieb, Justice in the Classroom and Students’ [20] W. H. DeLone, E. R. McLean, The DeLone and Evaluations of Marketing Professors’ Teaching McLean Model of Information Systems Success: Effectiveness: An Extension of Prior Research A Ten-Year Update, Journal of Management Using Attribution Theory, Marketing Education Information Systems 19.4 (2003) 9–3. Review 19.2 (2009) 1–14. doi:10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748. doi:10.1080/10528008.2009.11489069. [21] H. Kelley, D. Compeau, C. Higgins, M. Parent, [32] I. Alony, H. Hasan, C. Paris, Applying attribution Advancing theory through the conceptualization theory to is research as a practical method for and development of causal attributions for assessing postadoption behaviour, in: ECIS 2014 computer performance histories, ACM SIGMIS Proceedings - 22nd European Conference on Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 2014, pp. 1–13. Information Systems 44.3 (2013) 8–33. [33] A. Niels, M. Janneck, Computer-Related doi:10.1145/2516955.2516957. Attribution Styles: Typology and Data Collection [22] B. Weiner, A Theory of Motivation for Some Methods, in: Proceedings of Human-Computer Classroom Experiences, Journal of Educational Interaction–INTERACT 2015: 15th IFIP TC 13 Psychology 71.1 (1979) 3–25. International Conference, 2015, pp. 274–291. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.71.1.3. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22668-2_22. [34] A. Al‐Maskari, M. Sanderson, A Review of Factors [44] A. E. Stewart, Attributions of Responsibility for Influencing User Satisfaction in Information Motor Vehicle Crashes, Accident Analysis and Retrieval, Journal of the American Society for Prevention 37 (2005) 681–688. Information Science and Technology 61.5 doi:10.1016/j.aap.2005.03.010. (2010) 859–868. doi:10.1002/asi.21300. [35] J. R. Griffiths, F. Johnson, R. J. Hartley, User Satisfaction as a Measure of System Performance, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 39.3 (2007) 142–152. doi:10.1177/0961000607080417. [36] R. Sabherwal, A. Jeyaraj, C. Chowa, Information System Success: Individual and Organizational Determinants, Management Science 52.12 (2006) 1849–1864. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0583. [37] K. C. Snead, S. R. Magal, L. F. Christensen, A. A. Ndede-Amadi, Attribution Theory: A Theoretical Framework for Understanding Information Systems Success, Systemic Practice and Action Research 28 (2014) 273–288. doi:10.1007/s11213-014-9328-x. [38] J. Iivari, I. Ervasti, User information satisfaction: IS implementability and effectiveness, Information & Management 27 (1994) 205–220. doi:10.1016/0378-7206(94)90049-3. [39] S. Petter, W. H. DeLone, E. R. McLean, Information System Success: The Quest for the Independent Variables, Journal of Management Information Systems 29.4 (2013) 7–62. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222290401. [40] R. Halonen, H. Thomander, E. Laukkanen, DeLone & McLean IS Success Model in Evaluating Knowledge Transfer in a Virtual Learning Environment, International Journal of Information Systems and Social Change 1.2 (2010) 36–48. doi:10.4018/jissc.2010040103. [41] O. Isaac, A. Aldholay, Z. Abdullah, T. Ramayah, Online learning usage within Yemeni higher education: The role of compatibility and task- technology fit as mediating variables in the IS success model, Computers & Education 136, (2019) 113–129. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.012. [42] W. A. Cidral, T. Oliveira, M. Di Felice, M. Aparicio, E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study, Computers & Education 122 (2018) 273–290. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.001. [43] L. L. Ung, J. Labadin, F. S. Mohamad, Computational thinking for teachers: Development of a localised E-learning system, Computers & Education 177 (2022) 104379. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104379.