Assessing the Core Variables of Business Managers’ Intuitive Decision Ability: A Review and Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature on Intuition and Related Issues Leading to the Notion of ‘Objectively Informed Intuition’
2.1. Definition of ‘Objectively Informed Intuition’ (OII)
the process of coming to a business decision using both initial subconscious conclusions together with modifying mental thought, sometimes involving discussions and research, such that all resources of the mind, both subconscious and conscious, are brought to bear to provide a decision thought by the decision maker to best achieve their objectives.
2.2. Managerial Ability, ‘Objectively Informed Intuition’ and Decision Application Skills
3. Core Variables Influencing Decision Making
3.1. Business Related Phenotype … an Important Building Block
3.2. Factors in Business Related Phenotype Influencing ‘Objectively Informed Intuition’
3.3. Training and Interactions with Business Related Phenotype
3.4. Experience and Related Skills
3.5. Dynamic Development
3.6. Summary
4. Quantification of ‘Objectively Informed Intuition’ (OII)
4.1. Background
4.2. Hypothesis
5. Obtaining Information from a Sample of Decision Makers to Assess the Hypothesis and Model Parameters
6. Results from the Analyses
6.1. A Structural Equation Model (SEM) Identifying Subjects’ OII Levels as Related to the Explanatory Variables (p,t,e)
6.2. A Linear Regression Equation
7. Discussion
7.1. Improving ‘Objectively Informed Intuition’ (OII)
7.2. Improvements in the Understanding of OII … Subjects for Further Research
- (i)
- Gene expression and related impacts
- (ii)
- Inconsistency, biases and affectation.
- (iii)
- Brain functions and ‘objectively informed intuition’ (OII).
- (iv)
- Testing for OII skill.
- (v)
- Implications and limitations
8. Conclusions
- (i)
- ‘intrinsic and uninformed’, then moving onto
- (ii)
- ‘experienced informed subconscious’, next
- (iii)
- ‘training informed’ leading to
- (iv)
- ‘cognitive influenced’ and finally a decision maker can be classed an
- (v)
- ‘OII expert’.
Supplementary Materials
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Jung, C. Psychological Types; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Appelt, K.; Milch, K.; Handgraaf, M.; Weber, E. The Decision making individual differences inventory and guidelines for the study of individual differences in judgement and decision making research. Judgement Decis. Mak. 2011, 6, 252–262. [Google Scholar]
- Salas, E.; Rosen, M.; DiazGrandos, D. Expertise-based intuition and decision making in organizations. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 941–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McElroy, T.; Dickinson, D.; Levin, I. Thinking about decisions: An integrated approach of person and task factors. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2020, 43, 538–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stignum, B.; Wenstop, F. (Eds.) Foundations of Utility and Risk Theory with Applications; Springer-Science + Business Media B.V.: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Kahneman, D. Thinking Fast and Slow; Farrar, Straus, & Giroux: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Kyburg, H. Rational belief. Behav. Brain Sci. 1983, 6, 231–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glöckner, A.; Witteman, C. Beyond dual-process models: A categorisation of processes underlying intuitive judgement and decision making. Think. Reason. 2010, 16, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burke, L.; Miller, M. Taking the mystery out of intuitive decision making. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 1999, 13, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khatri, N.; Ng, H. Role of intuition in strategic decision making. Hum. Relat. 2000, 53, 57–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liebowitz, J. Editor. Bursting the Big Data Bubble: The Case for Intuition-Based Decision Making; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Liebowitz, J.; Chan, Y.; Jenkin, T.; Spicker, D.; Paliszkiewicz, J.; Babiloni, F. If numbers could “feel”: How well do executives trust their intuition? VINE J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. Syst. 2019, 49, 531–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, R. Consideration of the origin of Herbert Simon’s theory of “satisficing” (1933–1947). Manag. Decis. 2004, 42, 1240–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monstrogiorgio, A.; Petracca, E. Satisficing as an alternative to optimality and suboptimality in perceptual decision making. Behav. Brain Sci. 2018, 41, E235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romero, C. Extended lexicographic goal programming, a unifying approach. Omega 2001, 29, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keeney, R. Making better decisions. Decis. Anal. 2004, 1, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Y.; Highhouse, C.; Lake, C.; Petersen, N.; Rada, T. Meta-analytic investigations of the relation between intuition and analysis. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2017, 30, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunwoody, P.; Haarbauer, E.; Mahon, R.; Marino, C.; Tang, C. Cognitive adaption and its consequences: A test of cognitive continuum theory. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2000, 13, 32–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newell, B.; Shanks, D. Unconscious influences on decision making: A critical review. Behav. Brain Sci. 2014, 37, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barrafrem, K.; Hausfield, J. Tracing risky decisions for oneself and others: The role of intuition and deliberation. J. Econ. Psychol. 2020, 77, 102188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sollner, A.; Broder, A.; Hilbig, B. Deliberation versus automaticity in decision making: Which presentation format features facilitate automatic decision making? Judgement Decis. Mak. 2013, 8, 278–298. [Google Scholar]
- Gavirneni, S.; Xia, Y. Anchor selection and group dynamics in news vendor decisions: A note. Decis. Anal. 2009, 6, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luoma, J.; Martela, F. A dual-processing view of three cognitive strategies in strategic decision making: Intuition, analytic reasoning, and reframing. Long Range Plan. 2001, 54, 102065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thanos, I. The complementary effects of rationality and intuition on strategic decision quality. Eur. Manag. J. 2022, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, D. Peter Drucker and the challenge of tyranny. J. Manag. Dev. 2010, 29, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borghans, L.; Duckworth, A.; Heckman, J.; ter Weel, B. The economics and psychology of personality traits. J. Hum. Resour. 2008, 43, 972–1059. [Google Scholar]
- Simon, H. Models of Man: Social and Rational; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1957. [Google Scholar]
- Dane, E.; Pratt, M. Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 35–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akinci, C.; Sadler-Smith, E. Intuition in management research: A historical review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2012, 14, 104–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Simon, H. Motivational and emotional controls of cognition. Psychol. Rev. 1967, 74, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frantz, R. Herbert Simon. Artificial intelligence as a framework for understanding intuition. J. Econ. Psychol. 2003, 24, 265–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yaniv, I.; Meyer, D. Activation and metacognition of inaccessible stored information: Potential bases for incubation effects in problem solving. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 1987, 13, 187–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meziani, N.; Cabantous, L. Acting intuition into sense: How film crews make sense with embodied ways in knowing. J. Manag. Stud. 2020, 57, 1384–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aczel, B.; Lukacs, B.; Komlos, J.; Aitken, M. Unconscious intuition or conscious analysis? Critical questions for the Deliberation-Without-Attention paradigm. Judgement Decis. Mak. 2011, 6, 351–358. [Google Scholar]
- Sinclair, M. Misconceptions about intuition. Psychol. Inq. 2010, 21, 378–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldacchino, L.; Ucbasaran, D.; Cabantous, L.; Lockett, A. Entrepreneurship research on intuition: A critical analysis and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2015, 17, 212–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodgkinson, G.; Langan-Fox, J.; Sadler-Smith, E. Intuition: A fundamental bridging construct in the behavioural sciences. Br. J. Psychol. 2008, 99, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lieberman, M. Social cognitive neuroscience: A review of core processes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007, 58, 259–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Horstmann, N.; Ahlgrimm, A.; Glöckner, A. How distinct are intuition and deliberation? An eye-tracking analysis of the instruction-induced decision modes. Judgement Decis. Mak. 2009, 4, 335–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, J.; Dane, E. Affect, emotion and decision making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2016, 136, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredrickson, B.; Branigan, C. Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought action repertoires. Cogn. Emot. 2005, 19, 313–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juanchich, C.; Dewberry, C.; Sirota, M.; Narendran, S. Cognitive reflection predicts real-life decision outcomes, but not over and above personality and decision making styles. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2016, 29, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baumeister, R.; Masicampo, E.; Vohs, K. Do conscious thoughts cause behaviour? Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2011, 62, 331–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pretz, J.; Brookings, J.; Carlson, L.; Humbert, T.; Roy, M.; Memmert, D. Development and validation of a new measure of intuition: The types of intuitive scale. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2014, 27, 454–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, A.; Turpin, M.; Fugelsang, J.; Koehler, D. Intuition speed as a predictor of choice and confidence in point spread predictions. Judgement Decis. Mak. 2019, 14, 148–155. [Google Scholar]
- Hodgkinson, G.; Healey, M. Psychological foundations of dynamic capabilities reflexion and reflection in strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 2011, 32, 1500–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gächter, S. A co-operative instinct. Nature 2012, 489, 374–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Klein, G. Naturalistic decision making. Hum. Factors 2008, 50, 456–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Nuthall, P. Modelling the origins of managerial ability in agricultural production. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2009, 53, 413–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sternberg, R.; Grigorenko, E. Cultural intelligence and successful intelligence. Group Organ. Manag. 2006, 31, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belsky, J.; Pluess, M. Beyond risk, resilience and dysregulation, phenotypic plasticity and human development. Dev. Psychopathol. 2013, 25, 1243–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jang, A.; Nassar, M.; Dillon, D.; Frank, M. Positive reward prediction errors during decision-making strengthen memory coding. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2019, 3, 719–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forsman, A. Rethinking phenotypic plasticity and its consequences for individuals, populations and species. Heredity 2015, 115, 276–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baker, L.; Treloar, S.; Reynolds, C.; Heath, A.; Martin, N. Genetics of educational attainment in Australian twins: Sex differences and secular changes. Behav. Genet. 1996, 26, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ford, M. Intelligence and personality in social behavior. In International Handbook of Personality and Intelligence: Perspectives on Individual Differences; Saklofske, D., Zeidner, M., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1995; pp. 125–142. [Google Scholar]
- Gasson, R.; Crow, G.; Errington, A.; Hutson, J.; Marsden, T.; Winter, D. The farm as a family business: A review. J. Agric. Econ. 1988, 39, 1–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Volkova, E.; Rusalov, V. Cognitive styles and personality. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 99, 266–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kozhevnikov, M. Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychol. Bull. 2007, 133, 464–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dewberry, C.; Juanchich, M.; Narendran, S. Decision making competence in everyday life: The roles of general cognitive styles, decision making styles and personality. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2013, 55, 783–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cormier, P.; Carlson, J.; Das, J. Planning ability and cognitive performance: The compensatory effects of a dynamic assessment approach. Learn. Individ. Differ. 1990, 2, 437–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glen, R.; Suciu, C.; Baughn, C.; Anson, R. Teaching design thinking in business schools. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2015, 13, 182–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sekaran, U.; Bougie, R. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach; John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Gaglio, C. The role of mental simulations and counterfactual thinking in opportunity identification process. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2004, 28, 533–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hough, J.; Ogilvie, D.T. An empirical test of cognitive style and strategic decision outcomes. J. Manag. Stud. 2005, 42, 417–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karlaftis, V.; Giorgio, J.; Vertes, P.; Wang, R.; Shen, Y.; Tino, P.; Welchman, A.; Kourti, Z. Multimodel imaging of brain connectivity reveals predictors of individual decision strategy in statistical learning. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2019, 3, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dijkstra, K.; van der Pligt, J.; van Kleef, G. Deliberation versus intuition: Decomposing the role of expertise in judgement and decision making. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2013, 26, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naquin, S.; Holton, E. The effects of personality, affectivity, and work commitment on motivation to improve work through learning. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2002, 13, 357–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esfandagheh, F.; Harris, R.; Oreyzi, H. The impact of extraversion and pre-training self-efficacy on levels of training outcomes. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 2012, 15, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rotter, J. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol. Monogr. 1966, 80, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Roberts, Z.; Rogers, A.; Thomas, C.; Spitzmueller, C. Effects of proactive personality and conscientiousness on training motivation. Int. J. Train. Dev. 2018, 22, 126–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowold, J. The impact of personality on training-related aspects of motivation, test of a longitudinal model. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2007, 18, 9–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bidjerano, T.; Yun Dai, D. The relationship between the big-five model of personality and self regulated learning strategies. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2007, 17, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matthews, G.; Deary, I. Personality Traits; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Noe, R.; Tews, M.; Marand, A. Individual differences and informal learning in the workplace. J. Vocat. Behav. 2003, 83, 327–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Komarraju, M.; Karau, S.; Schmek, R.; Avdic, A. The big five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2011, 51, 472–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, R.; Jayasuriya, R.; Caputi, P.; Hammer, D. Exploring the role of goal theory in understanding training motivation. Int. J. Train. Dev. 2008, 121, 54–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, B.; Ford, J. Reactions to skill assessment, the forgotten factor in explaining motivation to learn. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2007, 18, 33–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ainley, M. Connecting with learning: Motivation, affect and cognition in interest processes. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2006, 18, 391–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Efklides, A. Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL Model. Educ. Psychol. 2011, 46, 6–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jakešová, J.; Kalenda, J. Self-regulated learning: Critical-realistic conceptualization. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 171, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ericsson, K. The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance; Ericsson, K.A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P., Hoffman, R., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Eberhardt, W.; Bruine de Bruin, W.; Strough, J. Age differences in financial management: The benefits of more experience and less negative emotion. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2019, 32, 9–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kolb, D. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Eraut, M. Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2000, 70, 113–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scott, S. Enhancing reflection skills through learning portfolios: An empirical test. J. Manag. Educ. 2010, 34, 430–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadler-Smith, E.; Burke, L. Fostering intuition in management education. J. Manag. Educ. 2009, 33, 239–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peltie, J.; Hay, A.; Drago, W. The reflective continuum: Reflecting on reflection. J. Mark. Educ. 2005, 27, 250–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matthew, C.; Sternberg, R. Developing experience-based (tacit) knowledge through reflection. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2009, 19, 530–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hogarth, R. Intuition: A challenge for psychological research on decision making. Psychol. Inq. Int. J. Adv. Psychol. Theory 2010, 21, 338–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuthall, G. Learning how to learn: The social construction of knowledge acquisition in the classroom. In Proceedings of the 7th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Athens, Greece, 26–30 August 1997; p. 77. [Google Scholar]
- Shanteau, J.; Stewart, T. Why study decision making? Some historical perspectives and comments. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1992, 53, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plessner, H.; Betsch, C.; Betsch, T. Intuition in Judgement and Decision Making; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Yechiam, E.; Busemeyer, J. Comparison of basic assumptions embedded in learning models for experience-based decision making. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2005, 12, 387–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cox, E. Adult learners learning from experience: Using a reflective practice model to support work based learning. Reflective Pract. Int. Multidiscip. Perspect. 2005, 6, 459–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, B. Learning from errors, the role of context, emotion and personality. J. Organ. Behav. 2011, 32, 435–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vera, D.; Crossan, M.; Rerup, C.; Werner, S. ‘Thinking before acting’ or ‘acting before thinking’: Antecedents of individual action propensity in work situations. J. Manag. Stud. 2013, 51, 603–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ojose, B. Applying Piaget’s theory of cognitive developments to mathematics instruction. Math. Educ. 2008, 18, 26–30. [Google Scholar]
- Cimpian, A.; Salomon, E. The inherence heuristic: An intuitive means of making sense of the world, and a potential precursor to psychological essentialism. Behav. Brain Sci. 2014, 37, 257–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merriam, S. The role of cognitive development in Mezirow’s transformational learning theory. Adult Educ. Q. 2004, 55, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinberg, L.; Morris, A. Adolescent development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 83–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rice, F.; Dolgin, K. The Adolescent, Development, Relationships and Culture, 11th ed.; Pearson Education: Auckland, New Zealand, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Lerner, R.; Steinberg, L. Handbook of Adolescent Psychology: Individual Bases of Adolescent Development, 3rd ed.; Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Kelly, G. A brief introduction to personal construct theory. Costruttivismi 2017, 4, 2–25. [Google Scholar]
- Gegenfurtner, A.; Vauras, M. Age-related differences in the relation between motivation to learn and transfer of training in adult continuing education. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2002, 37, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kochoian, N.; Raemdonck, I.; Frenay, M.; Zacher, H. The role of age and occupational future time perspective in workers’ motivation to learn. Vocat. Learn. 2017, 10, 27–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, J.; Bargh, J. The selfish goal: Autonomously operating motivational structures as the proximate cause of human judgement and behaviour. Behav. Brain Sci. 2014, 37, 121–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardaker, J.; Huirne, R.; Anderson, J.; Lien, G. Coping with Risk in Agriculture; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Elkind, P. Perceptions of risk, stressors, and Locus of Control influence intentions to practice safety behaviors in agriculture. J. Agromedicine 2008, 12, 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harlow, S.; Cummings, R.; Aberasturi, S. Karl Popper and Jean Piaget: A rational approach for constructivism. Educ. Forum 2007, 71, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elen, M.; D’Heer, E.; Geuens, M.; Vermier, I. The influence of mood on attitude-behavior consistency. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 917–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Ashkanasy, N.; Ahlstrom, D. The rationality of emotions: A hybrid process model of decision making under uncertainty. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2014, 31, 293–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanchard-Fields, F.; Jahnke, H.; Camp, C. Age differences in problem solving style: The role of emotional salience. Psychol. Ageing 1995, 10, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zander, T.; Fernandez Cruz, A.; Winkelmann, M.; Volz, K. Scrutinizing the emotional nature of intuitive coherent judgements. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2017, 30, 693–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mason, K.; Sripada, C.; Stich, S. The philosophy of psychology. In The Routledge Companion to Twentieth-Century Philosophy; Moran, D., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Strahler, A. Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues; Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 1992; p. 3. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C.; Chen, Y.; Horowitz Hou, H.; Liu, Z.; Pellegrino, D. Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery. J. Informetr. 2009, 3, 191–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mroczka, J. The cognitive process in metrology. Measurement 2013, 46, 2896–2907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graeb, B.; Chappell, M.; Wittman, H.; Ledermann, S.; Kerr, R.; Gemmill-Herren, B. The state of family farms in the world. World Dev. 2016, 87, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nuthall, P.; Old, K. Intuition, the farmers’ primary decision process: A review and analysis. J. Rural Stud. 2018, 58, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowen, N.; Guo, S. Structural Equation Modelling; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Bentler, P. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 107, 238–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fischer, K. A theory of cognitive development, the control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychol. Rev. 1980, 87, 477–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loo, R. Kolb’s learning styles and learning preferences: Is there a linkage? Educ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kilpatrick, S.; Johns, S. How farmers learn: Different approaches to change. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2003, 9, 151–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dobson, K.; Dozois, D. Historical and philosophical bases of the cognitive-behavioral therapies. In Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies; Dobson, K.S., Ed.; Guilford Press: New York, USA, 2010; pp. 3–38. [Google Scholar]
- Conard, M.; Matthews, R. Modelling the stress process: Personality eclipses dysfunctional cognition and work load in predicting stress. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2008, 44, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Proudfoot, J.; Corr, P.; Guest, D.; Dunn, G. Cognitive behavioural training to change attributional style improves employee well being, job satisfaction, productivity, and turnover. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2009, 46, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weck, F.; Gropalis, M.; Hiller, W.; Bleichhardt, G. Effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral group therapy for patients with hypochondriasis (health anxiety). J. Anxiety Disord. 2015, 30, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sitzmann, T.; Weinhardt, J. Training engagement theory, a multilevel perspective on effectiveness of work related training. J. Manag. 2018, 44, 732–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerasoli, C.; Alliger, G.; Donsbach, J.; Mathieu, J.; Tannenbaum, S.; Orvis, K. Antecedents and outcomes of informal learning behaviors: A meta analysis. J. Bus. Psychol. 2018, 33, 203–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, S.; Carette, B.; Anseel, F.; Lievens, F. Systematic reflection: Implications for learning from failures and successes. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 23, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andresen, L.; Boud, D.; Cohen, R. Experienced-based learning. In Understanding Adult Education and Training; Allen and Unwin: Sydney, Australia, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Quinn, J.; Anderson, P.; Finkelstein, S. Managing professional intellect. Harvard Business Review, March–April 1996; 71–80. [Google Scholar]
- Lam, C.; DeRue, D.; Karam, E.; Hollenbeck, J. The impact of feedback frequency on learning and task performance: Challenging “the more is better” assumption. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2011, 116, 217–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cope, J. Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection: Discontinuous events triggers for higher level learning. Manag. Learn. 2003, 34, 429–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nieuwenstein, M.; Wierenga, T.; Morey, R.; Wicherts, J.; Blom, T.; Wagenmakers, E.; van Rijn, H. On making the right choice. Judgement Decis. Mak. 2015, 10, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
- Huizenga, H.; Duijvenvoorda, A.; van Ravenzwaaji, D.; Wetzel, R.; Jansen, B. Is the unconscious, if it exists, a superior decision maker? Behav. Brain Sci. 2014, 37, 32–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bargh, J. Unconscious thought theory and its discontents: A critique of critiques. Soc. Cogn. 2011, 29, 629–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alves, M.; Vastola, V.; Galina, S.; Zollo, M. Intuition, reflection and organizational adaption to discontinuous change. In Proceedings of the Academy of Management 81st Annual Meeting, Online, 29 July–4 August 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piaget, J. Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Hum. Dev. 1972, 15, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braun, K.; Champagne, F. Paternal influences on offspring development, behavioural and epigenetic pathways. J. Neuroendocrinol. 2014, 26, 697–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willbanks, A.; Leary, M.; Greenshields, M.; Tyminski, C.; Heerboth, S.; Lapinska, K.; Haskins, K.; Sarkar, S. The Evolution of epigenetics: From prokaryotes to humans and its biological consequences. Genet. Epigenetics 2016, 8, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ballestar, E. Epigenetic lessons from twins: Prospects for autoimmune disease. Clin. Rev. Allergy Immunol. 2010, 39, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bechara, A.; Damasio, A. The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision. Games Econ. Behav. 2005, 52, 336–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feinstein, D.; Church, D. Modulating gene expression through psychotherapy: The contribution of non-invasive somatic interventions. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2010, 14, 283–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yehuda, R.; Daskalakis, N.; Desarnaud, F.; Makotkine, I.; Lehrner, A.; Koch, E.; Flory, J.; Buxbaum, J.; Meaney, M.; Bierer, L. Epigenetic biomarkers as predictors and correlates of symptom improvement following psychotherapy in combat veterans with PTSD. Front. Psychiatry 2013, 4, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Heim, E.; Binder, B. Current research trends in early life stress and depression: Review of human studies on sensitive periods, gene-environment interactions, and epigenetics. Exp. Neurol. 2012, 233, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pablo-Lerchundi, I.; Morales-Alonso, G.; González-Tirados, R. Influences of parental occupation on occupational choices and professional values. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 645–1649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oren, L.; Caduri, A.; Tziner, A. Intergenerational occupational transmission: Do offspring walk in the footsteps of mom or dad, or both? J. Vocat. Behav. 2013, 83, 551–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epstein, H. An outline of the role of brain in human cognitive development. Brain Cogn. 2001, 45, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Casey, B.; Tottenham, N.; Liston, C.; Durston, S. Imaging the developing brain: What have we learned about cognitive development. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2005, 9, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gormley, W.; Gayer, T.; Phillips, D.; Dawson, B. The effects of universal Pre-K on cognitive development. Dev. Psychol. 2005, 41, 872–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cruce, T.; Wolniak, G.; Seifert, T.; Pascarella, E. Impacts of good practice on cognitive development, learning orientations, and graduate degree plans during the first year of college. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 2006, 47, 365–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuthall, P. Biases and stress. In Farm Business Management: The Human Factor, 2nd ed.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2019; Chapter 6; pp. 134–151. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, L.; Bechara, A.; Damasio, H.; Aitken, M.; Sahakian, B.; Robbins, T. Differential effects of insular and ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions on risky decision making. Brain 2008, 131, 1311–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alós-Ferrer, C.; Hügelschäfer, S. Faith in intuition and behavioral biases. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2012, 84, 182–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hilbert, M. Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: How noisy information processing can bias human decision making. Psychol. Bull. 2012, 138, 211–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Burns, D. The Feeling Good Handbook: Using the New Mood Therapy in Everyday Life; W. Morrow: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Armstrong, S. The influence of individual cognitive style on performance in management education. Educ. Psychol. 2000, 20, 323–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, L. Thinking styles and cognitive development. J. Genet. Psychol. 2002, 163, 179–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nelson, C. Neural plasticity and human development, the role of early experience in sculpting memory systems. Dev. Sci. 2000, 3, 115–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Germine, L.; Duchaine, B.; Nakayama, K. Where cognitive development and aging meet: Face learning ability peaks after age 30. Cognition 2011, 118, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allinson, C.; Hayes, J. The cognitive style test index: A measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research. J. Manag. Stud. 1996, 33, 119–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Bruin, W.; Parker, A.; Fischoff, B. Individual differences in adult decision making competence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 92, 938–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, A.; de Bruin, W.; Fischoff, B. Negative decision outcomes are more common among people with lower decision-making competence: An item level analysis of the Decision Outcome Inventory (DOI). Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 363–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jackson, M. Systems Thinking—Creative Holism for Managers; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Flood, R. The Relationship of ‘Systems Thinking’ to Action Research. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 2010, 23, 269–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Volkema, R.; Gormon, R. The influence of cognitive-based group composition on decision-making process and outcome. J. Manag. Stud. 2002, 35, 105–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, I.; Mackaness, W. Management ‘intuition’: An interpretative account of structure and content of decision schemas using cognitive maps. J. Manag. Stud. 2002, 38, 147–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larrick, R.; Soll, J. Intuitions about combining opinions, mis-appreciation of the averaging principal. Manag. Sci. 2006, 52, 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Keeney, R. Foundations for group decision analysis. Decis. Anal. 2013, 10, 103–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bratianu, C. Exploring managerial decision making through the lens of knowledge dynamics. In Strategica: Upscaling Digital Transformation in Business and Economics, 7th ed.; Bratianu, C., Zbuchea, A., Hrib, B., Vițelar, A., Anghel, F., Eds.; Faculty of Management (SNSPA): Bucharest, Romania, 2019; pp. 427–433. [Google Scholar]
- Patton, J. Intuition in decisions. Manag. Decis. 2003, 41, 989–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jane, M.; Mohr, B. Appreciative inquiry: Change at the speed of imagination. Organ. Dev. J. 2001, 19, 92–93. [Google Scholar]
Researcher/s | Findings Relevant to This Study |
---|---|
Aczel et al. [34] and Sinclair [35]. | Lack of awareness of decision processes ended in poorer performance suggesting cognition is helpful. And suggests ‘intuition blended with deliberation’ occurs. |
Baldacchino et al. [36], Salas et al. [3] and Hodgkinson et al. [37]. | Outlines a dual process theory of both unconscious and deliberative processes which is supported by neuroscience (Lieberman [38]). Also ‘affect’ has an influence. |
Glockner & Witteman [8], Horstmann et al. [39], | Deliberation is involved in instruction induced decisions, and generally involves deliberation. Also ‘affect’ influences decisions. |
George & Dane [40] and Fredrickson & Branigan [41]. | Positive attitude influences cognitive responsiveness. |
Juanchich et al. [42]. | Personality and decision style influences intuition. |
Baumeister et al. [43]. | Conscious thoughts influence behaviour. ‘(create) behavior (that) emerges from a combination of conscious and unconscious processes’ and ‘allows behavior to be informed by social and cultural factors’ (p. 353) |
Pretz et al. [44]. | Showed that ‘inferential’ intuition, based on analytical processes, is distinct and correlated with good judgement showing the importance of analysis. |
Walker et al. [45]. | Believe decision speed influences outcome thus encouraging taking time to reflect. |
Hodgkinson & Healey [46], Pretz et al. [44] and George & Dane [40] | All note the importance of ‘affect’ in decisions suggesting cognitive influence. |
Researcher/s | Findings Relevant to This Study |
---|---|
Volkova & Rusalov [57]. | Relationships between personality and cognitive styles are significant [58]. |
Dewberry et al. [59]. | Personality explains significant variance in decision competence (p. 787). |
Pretz et al. [44]. | Aspects of personality influences type of intuition used. Also, with intelligence, influences looking ahead skills [60]. |
Glen et al. [61]; Sekaran & Bougie [62]. | Personality and intelligence influence observation skills as the precursor to planning. |
Hodkinson & Healey (2011) [44]. | Influences on implementation skills, personal relationships and labour motivation. |
Gaglio [63]; Sinclair [35] & Baldacchino et al. [36]. Hough & Ogilvie [64]. | This group note the impact of phenotypic components, and training and experience, on entrepreneurship, original thought, creative intuition, and new ideas and their analysis. Cognitive style as related to personality influences strategic decision outcomes. |
Researcher/s | Findings Relevant to This Study |
---|---|
Naquin & Holton [67]. | Personality (conscientiousness and agreeableness) related to training motivation, and extraversion explained 57% of variance. |
Esfandagheh et al. [68]. | Significant relationships between personality (extraversion and conscientiousness), and the Locus of Control [69], with training outcomes and speed, and motivation to learn. |
Roberts et al. [70]. | Locus of Control mediated control of learning, and ‘proactive personality’ was related to leaning motivation and success. |
Rowold [71]. | Extraversion and agreeableness (personality) were important to learning success. |
Bidjerano & Yun Dai [72]. | Five factor personality model [73] defined components of self regulated learning including critical thinking and time management…., and GPA correlated with model components other than neuroticism (lowers GPA). |
Noe et al. [74]. | Found ‘zest’ (energy, anticipation….) correlated with informal learning. |
Komarraju et al. [75]. | Found elaborative processing, methodical study and fact retention highly correlated with personality components. |
Smith et al. [76] and Bell & Ford [77]. | Discovered that the decision maker’s goals and motivation was related to training success. |
Ainley [78], Efklides [79], and Jakešová & Kalenda [80] | Explored societal and parental influences on learning through emotions developed and their impact on learning. Bad, relative to good, emotions impacted on outcomes. |
Researcher/s | Findings Relevant to This Study |
---|---|
Hogarth [89] and Salas et al. [3]. Nuthall [90]. | Lessons from experience requires accurate observation. Feedback is valuable helping memory storage and ideas on modifications of lessons. Concepts need repeating three times before understanding occurs (on ave.). |
Shanteau & Stewart [91] and Plessner et al. [92]. | Feedback must be timely and accurate for experience lessons to be useful and used sensibly in updating OI rules [93]. |
Matthew & Sternberg [88]. | Critical thinking is important for experiential lessons to embed in ‘objectively informed intuition’. |
Cox [94] and Eraut [84]. | Structured reflection is important in purposeful lessons from experience and also helps in memory embedding. |
Zhao [95]. Vera et al. [96]. | Judgement errors lead to emotions strengthening the desire to improve learning from experience. Reflection with personality, conscientiousness and emotional stability helps as does an awareness of societal attitudes. Factors associated with thoughtful decision making related to lack of experience. |
Output Type → Variables | Objective Factor ‘Surplus Cash’ Weighted | Objective Factor ‘Asset Increase’ Weighted | Objective Factor ‘Physical Productivity’ Weighted | Average Coefficient |
---|---|---|---|---|
BRPhenotype -> ‘objectively informed intuition’ | 0.53 (0.000) | 0.25 (0.000) | 0.76 (0.000) | 0.51 |
Training -> ‘objectively informed intuition’ | 0.38 (0.000) | 0.19 (0.000) | 0.61 (0.000) | 0.39 |
Experience ->’objectively informed intuition’ | 0.12 (0.000) | 0.08 (0.000) | 0.21 (0.000) | 0.10 |
‘Objectively informed intuition’ -> Output | 10.48 (0.000) | 38.17 (0.000) | 1.34 (0.000) | 16.66 |
Training <-> experience | 0.36 (0.000) | 0.36 (0.000) | 0.36 (0.000) | 0.36 |
Experience <-> BRphenotype. | −0.20 (0.000) | −0.20 (0.000) | −0.20 (0.000) | −0.20 |
Comparative fit index (CFI) | 0.93 | 0.86 | 0.94 |
Output Type → Variable | Objective Factor ‘Surplus Cash’ Weighted | Objective Factor ‘Asset Increase’ Weighted | Objective Factor ‘Physical Productivity’ Weighted | Average Coefficient |
---|---|---|---|---|
BRPhenotype | 0.40 (0.000) | 0.24 (0.000) | 0.45 (0.000) | 0.36 |
Training | 0.31 (0.000) | 0.18 (0.000) | 0.37 (0.000) | 0.29 |
Experience | 0.09 (0.000) | 0.07 (0.002) | 0.11 (0.000) | 0.09 |
BRPhenotype × training | −0.03 (0.090) | |||
BRPhenotype squared | 0.10 (0.000) | |||
Training × experience | 0.01 (0.556) | |||
BRPhenotype × experience | 0.05 (0.003) | |||
BRPhenotype × experience squared | 0.06 (0.001) | |||
R2 | 0.36 (0.000) | 0.12 (0.000) | 0.44 (0.000) |
Researcher/s | Findings Relevant to This Study |
---|---|
Braun & Champagne [141]; Willbanks et al. [142]; Ballestar [143] Bechara & Damasio [144]; Feinstein & Church [145]; Yehuda et al. [146]; Heim & Binder [147]. Pablo-Lerchundi et al. [148]; Oren et al. [149]. Epstein [150]; Casey et al. [151]; Ojose [97]; Piaget [140]; Gormley et al. [152]; Cruce et al. [153]. Nuthall [154]; Damasio (Clark et al. [155]); Alós-Ferrer and Hügelschäfer [156]; Hilbert [157]. Burns [158]; Hilbert [157]; Hodgkinson et al. [37]; Alós-Ferrer and Hügelschäfer [156]; Armstrong [159]; Zhang [160]; Salas et al. [3]. Armstrong [159]; Sinclair [35]; Nelson [161]; Germine et al. [162]; McElroy et al. [4]. | Emerging concept of epigenetics and gene related impacts The benefits gained by parents through their experience can potentially be passed onto offspring through what has been termed ‘epigenetics’. Environmental behaviourally induced effects can be passed on to offspring without DNA change…mice experiments, human identical twin studies. Enhanced ability to imagine future outcomes from the development of the prefrontal brain. Psychotherapy shifts patterns of gene expression providing permanent benefits which epigenetically can be passed on. Children tend to follow parent’s profession possibly through epigenetic and direct environmental impacts. Brain development and Piaget’s stages with possible impairment and enhancement from parental influences leading to eventual choice of activity and OI development. Superior abilities in family line. Inconsistency, biases and affectation Most decision makers have biases influencing decisions inappropriately. Biases need identifying and altering. Emotion (affect) leads to inconsistency of biases. Various tests developed to effectively assess biases and cognitive distortion. Most use inappropriate measures for business situations. Decision types should influence tests. Expertise is domain restricted and processes change with more complexity in decision problem all of which should be allowed for. Brain functions and ‘objectively informed intuition’ (OII) Studies have considered where OII activity is positioned in the brain but without influencing models. Never-the-less, also relates to brain maturation and improvement with age and experience all related to stimulation and practice. However, some aspects decline with age. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nuthall, P.L. Assessing the Core Variables of Business Managers’ Intuitive Decision Ability: A Review and Analysis. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 409. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12110409
Nuthall PL. Assessing the Core Variables of Business Managers’ Intuitive Decision Ability: A Review and Analysis. Behavioral Sciences. 2022; 12(11):409. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12110409
Chicago/Turabian StyleNuthall, Peter L. 2022. "Assessing the Core Variables of Business Managers’ Intuitive Decision Ability: A Review and Analysis" Behavioral Sciences 12, no. 11: 409. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12110409
APA StyleNuthall, P. L. (2022). Assessing the Core Variables of Business Managers’ Intuitive Decision Ability: A Review and Analysis. Behavioral Sciences, 12(11), 409. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12110409