Advertisement

Analytics and Findings for Competency and Confidence

  • Arch Woodside
  • Rouxelle de Villiers
  • Roger Marshall
Chapter
  • 603 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter covers the QCA analysis of memberships of outcome conditions, decision confidence and decision competence for each of the individual in-basket simulations. The treatment and measured antecedents are re-explored during the same 2-h experiment and results were recorded for the same participants, in the same physical contexts and all other variables were controlled to remain unaltered. In a way, each of these in-baskets simulations acts as a re-test and repeat of the study. It is important to note that the discipline and level of complexity of the decisions varied substantially for each of the in-basket simulations. The next four sections analyse the raw data gathered from each of the participants, for each of the separate in-baskets and interpret the fsQCA analysis of the truth table and combinations of treatment and measured conditions for each simulation, hereafter referred to as In-basket 1, In-basket 2, In-basket 3 and In-basket 4 respectively.

Keywords

Decision Confidence Causal Path Consistency Score Decision Success Competency Training 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1982). Self efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 32(7), 122–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 1017–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. A. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586–598.Google Scholar
  5. Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Boyatzis, R. E., Baker, A., Leonard, D., Rhee, K., & Thompson, L. (1995). Will it make a difference? Assessing a value-based, outcome oriented, competency-based professional program. In R. E. Boyatzis, S. S. Cowen, & D. A. Kolb (Eds.), Innovating in professional education: Steps on a journey from teaching to learning (pp. 167–202). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crow, S. M., Fok, L. Y., Hartman, S. J., & Payne, D. M. (1991). Gender and values: What is the impact on decision making? Sex Roles, 25, 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Acedo Lizárraga, M. L. S., de Acedo Baquedano, M. T. S., & Elawar, M. C. (2007). Factors that affect decision making: Gender and age differences. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 7(3), 381–391.Google Scholar
  11. Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality. In D. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 62–88). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 20–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.0058.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goertz, G. (2003). The substantive importance of necessary condition hypotheses. In G. Goertz & H. Starr (Eds.), Necessary Conditions (pp. 65–94). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Hatala, R., & Case, S. M. (2000). Examining the influence of gender on medical students’ decision making. Journal of Women’s Health and Gender Based Medicine, 9, 617–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19(2), 119–137. doi: 10.1080/10573560308223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mahoney, J. (2007). Qualitative methodology and comparative politics. Comparative Political Studies, 40, 122–144. doi: 10.1177/0010414006296345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mendel, J. M., & Korjani, M. M. (2012). Charles Ragin’s fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) used for linguistic summarizations. Information Sciences, 202, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ragin, C. C. (2004). Redesigning social inquiry [Slide-show PPT]. Retrieved from http://eprints.ncm.ac.uk/379/1/RSDI-RMF.pdf
  19. Ragin, C. C. (2006). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Analysis, 14(3), 291–310. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpj019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ragin, C. C. (2008a). Online tutorial: Qualitative comparative analysis and fuzzy sets. Retrieved from http://www.fsqca.com
  21. Ragin, C. C. (2008b). Redesigning social inquiry. London: University of Chicago Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  22. Ragin, C. C. (2008c). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ragin, C. C. (2008d, May 5, 2010). What is qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)? In Symposium conducted at the meeting of the 3rd ESRC Research Methods Festival. Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/250/1/What_is_QCA.pdf
  24. Rihoux, B., & Lobe, B. (2008). The case for qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): Adding leverage for thick cross-case comparison. In D. Byrne & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The Sage handbook of case-based methods (pp. 222–242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (2009). Configurational comparative methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Schank, R. C. (1994). What we learn when we learn by doing. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Schank, R. C., Fano, A., Jona, M., & Bell, B. (1993). The design of goal-based scenarios. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. R. (1986). Group approaches for improving strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus. Academic Management Journal, 29(1), 51–71. doi: 10.2307/255859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwenk, C. R. (1984). Devil’s advocacy in managerial decision-making. Journal of Management Studies, 21(2), 153–168. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1984.tb00229.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.Google Scholar
  31. Shaw, P., & Linnecar, R. (2007). Business coaching: Achieving practical results through effective engagement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  32. Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Simon, H. A. (1992). Economics, bounded rationality and the cognitive revolution. Aldershot Hants: Elgar.Google Scholar
  34. Simon, H. A., & Kaplan, C. A. (1989). Foundations of cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Tannen, D. (1990). Gender differences in topical coherence: Creating involvement in best friends’ talk. Discourse Processes, 13(1), 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tobias, S. (2010). The expertise reversal effect and aptitude treatment interaction research (commentary). Instructional Science, 38(3), 309–314. doi: 10.1007/s11251-009-9103-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wagemann, C., & Schneider, C. Q. (2010). Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy-Sets: Agenda for a research approach and a data analysis technique. Comparative Sociology, 9(3), 376–396. doi: 10.1163/156913210X12493538729838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1991). Doing gender. In J. Lorber & S. A. Farrell (Eds.), The social construction of gender (pp. 13–37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Wood, J. T. (1990). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arch Woodside
    • 1
  • Rouxelle de Villiers
    • 2
  • Roger Marshall
    • 3
  1. 1.Boston CollegeChestnut HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of MarketingUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of Marketing, Advertising, Retailing & SalesAuckland University of TechnologyAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations