International Journal of Behavioral Sciences

International Journal of Behavioral Sciences

Cognitive Functions and the Model of Decision-Making Competence: The Specific Case of Organizational Setting

Authors
Salehe Piryaei 1
Molouk Khademi Ashkzari 2
Vahid Nejati 3
Nasrin Arshadi 4
Mahmoud Talkhabi 5
1 PhD Candidate of Educational psychology, Alzahra University, tehran, Iran
2 Department of Educational Psychology, Alzahra university, Tehran, Iran
3 Institute for Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
4 Department of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
5 Assistant Professor at Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
AbstractIntroduction: Decision- making as an executive process, consists of a wide range of inputs such as conditioning based on past experiences, sensory and emotional responses, and the anticipation of future goals. The present study aims to investigate the effects of cognitive/executive functions on decision making competence in organizational settings.Method: The sample of this research consisted of 430 managers from 5 industrial companies in Iran who were selected by random sampling method. The instruments which were used in this study were the Cognitive Ability Questionnaire and the Adult Decision Making Competence (A-DMC) tasks.  Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used through AMOS-22 for data analysis.Results: The results indicated that cognitive/executive functions –planning, cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control, & social cognition- had significant effects on 5 decision making competencies mediating by applying decision rules in the current model.Conclusion: To conclude, from our point of view, different decision-making tasks are separately related to cognitive/executive functions specifically at managerial frameworks. Thus, the current study indicated which cognitive control processes are most operative in the successful performance of managers on different decision tasks. If different executive functions are mainly needed for the successful accomplishment of some decision-making tasks, training these functions in organizations may improve some facets of decision-making performance.
Keywords
Keywords: Cognitive Functions
Decision-making Competence
Organizational Setting
  1. Bolman LG, Deal TE. Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. John Wiley & Sons; 2017 Jul 24.
  2. Baltes BB, Dickson MW, Sherman MP, Bauer CC, LaGanke JS. Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes. 2002 Jan 1;87(1):156-79.
  3. MacLeod IS, Hone G, Smith S. Capturing cognitive task activities for decision making and analysis. In Proceedings of 2005 (No. 10).
  4. Saaty TL. The analytic network process: decision making with dependence and feedback; the organization and prioritization of complexity. Rws publications; 1996.
  5. Del Missier F, Mäntylä T, Bruine de Bruin W. Executive functions in decision making: An individual differences approach. Thinking & Reasoning. 2010 May 1;16(2):69-97.
  6. Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 2000 Mar 18;320(7237):768.
  7. Swami S. Executive functions and decision making: A managerial review. IIMB Management Review. 2013 Dec 31;25(4):203-12.
  8. Tranel D. Development of the concept of" executive function" and its relationship to the frontal lobes. Handbook of neuropsychology. 1994:125-48.
  9. MacPherson SE, Phillips LH, Della Sala S. Age, executive function and social decision making: A dorsolateral prefrontal theory of cognitive aging. Psychology and aging. 2002 Dec;17(4):598.
  10. Goldstein S, Naglieri JA, editors. Handbook of executive functioning. Springer Science & Business Media; 2013 Nov 19.
  11. Toplak ME, West RF, Stanovich KE. Practitioner Review: Do performance‐based measures and ratings of executive function assess the same construct?. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2013 Feb 1;54(2):131-43.
  12. Karbach J, Verhaeghen P. Making working memory work: a meta-analysis of executive-control and working memory training in older adults. Psychological science. 2014 Nov;25(11):2027-37.
  13. Yuan P, Raz N. Prefrontal cortex and executive functions in healthy adults: a meta-analysis of structural neuroimaging studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2014 May 31;42:180-92.
  14. Kelly ME, Loughrey D, Lawlor BA, Robertson IH, Walsh C, Brennan S. The impact of cognitive training and mental stimulation on cognitive and everyday functioning of healthy older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing research reviews. 2014 May 31;15:28-43.
  15. Kelly ME, Loughrey D, Lawlor BA, Robertson IH, Walsh C, Brennan S. The impact of exercise on the cognitive functioning of healthy older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing research reviews. 2014 Jul 31;16:12-31.
  16. Garon N, Bryson SE, Smith IM. Executive function in preschoolers: a review using an integrative framework. Psychological bulletin. 2008 Jan;134(1):31.
  17. Manes F, Sahakian B, Clark L, Rogers R, Antoun N, Aitken M, Robbins T. Decision‐making processes following damage to the prefrontal cortex. Brain. 2002 Mar 1;125(3):624-39.
  18. De Martino B, Kumaran D, Seymour B, Dolan RJ. Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science. 2006 Aug 4;313(5787):684-7.
  19. Hinson JM, Jameson TL, Whitney P. Impulsive decision making and working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2003 Mar;29(2):298.
  20. Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki AH, Howerter A, Wager TD. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive psychology. 2000 Aug 31;41(1):49-100.
  21. Bruine de Bruin W, Parker AM, Fischhoff B. Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2007 May;92(5):938.
  22. Stanovich KE, West RF. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?. Behavioral and brain sciences. 2000 Oct;23(5):645-65.
  23. Bromiley P, Curley SP. Individual differences in risk taking.
  24. Scott BR, Lodge GC. US competitiveness in the world economy. Thunderbird International Business Review. 1985 Dec 1;27(1):26-.
  25. Parker AM, Fischhoff B. Decision‐making competence: External validation through an individual‐differences approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2005 Jan 1;18(1):1-27.
  26. Slovic P, Peters E, Finucane ML, MacGregor DG. Affect, risk, and decision making. Health psychology. 2005 Jul;24(4S):S35.
  27. Parker AM, De Bruin WB, Fischhoff B. Maximizers versus satisficers: Decision-making styles, competence, and outcomes. Judgment and Decision Making. 2007 Dec 1;2(6):342.
  28. Nejati V, Cognitive Abilities Questionnaire: Development and Evaluation of Psychometric Properties. Advances in Cognitive Science. 2013 Sept 15 (2): 12-19.
  29. Levin IP, Gaeth GJ, Schreiber J, Lauriola M. A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational behavior and human decision processes. 2002 May 1;88(1):411-29.
  30. MacPherson SE, Phillips LH, Della Sala S. Age, executive function and social decision making: A dorsolateral prefrontal theory of cognitive aging. Psychology and aging. 2002 Dec;17(4):598.
  31. Toplak ME, Sorge GB, Benoit A, West RF, Stanovich KE. Decision-making and cognitive abilities: A review of associations between Iowa Gambling Task performance, executive functions, and intelligence. Clinical psychology review. 2010 Jul 31;30(5):562-81.
  32. Boy GA. Decision making: a cognitive function approach. InProceedings of the seventh international on naturalistic decision making conference. Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2005.
  33. Simon HA. Models of man; social and rational.
  34. Finucane ML, Mertz CK, Slovic P, Schmidt ES. Task complexity and older adults' decision-making competence. Psychology and aging. 2005 Mar;20(1):71.
International Journal of Behavioral Sciences
Volume 11, Issue 2 - Serial Number 2
64
Summer 2017
Pages 67-73