决策风格和目标追求

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Jozef Bavolar, Pavol Kacmar, Ladislav Lovas, Simona Durbisova
{"title":"决策风格和目标追求","authors":"Jozef Bavolar,&nbsp;Pavol Kacmar,&nbsp;Ladislav Lovas,&nbsp;Simona Durbisova","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>While previous research has demonstrated the role of decision-making styles in attaining various real-life outcomes, it has neglected to explore the underlying goal-related processes in terms of goal dimensions (ways in which people appraise their goals during goal striving). The present study examines whether the most studied decision-making styles are related to self-reported effort, goal progress, and action crisis as well as other goal dimensions. We conducted 14 studies (mutual conceptual replications) with <i>N</i><sub>total</sub> = 2574 (70% females) which included the General Decision-Making Styles questionnaire and various goal-related scales. The results from the mini meta-analysis showed that the rational and intuitive styles were positively related to the goal dimensions associated with successful goal pursuit (e.g., goal commitment, goal attainability, positive emotions, and goal progress), while the avoidant style was mainly related to various difficulties associated with goal striving (e.g., controlled motivation, negative emotions, and action crisis). The dependent and especially spontaneous styles were found to be very weakly associated with the selected goal dimensions. When the separate studies were analyzed in the regression analyses and more process-oriented goal dimensions were accounted for, decision-making styles were only minor predictors of self-reported effort expenditure, goal progress and action crisis. The study highlights the need and usefulness of a more nuanced processual approach in the research of individual decision-making differences in goal-directed behavior.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2349","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decision-making styles and goal striving\",\"authors\":\"Jozef Bavolar,&nbsp;Pavol Kacmar,&nbsp;Ladislav Lovas,&nbsp;Simona Durbisova\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bdm.2349\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>While previous research has demonstrated the role of decision-making styles in attaining various real-life outcomes, it has neglected to explore the underlying goal-related processes in terms of goal dimensions (ways in which people appraise their goals during goal striving). The present study examines whether the most studied decision-making styles are related to self-reported effort, goal progress, and action crisis as well as other goal dimensions. We conducted 14 studies (mutual conceptual replications) with <i>N</i><sub>total</sub> = 2574 (70% females) which included the General Decision-Making Styles questionnaire and various goal-related scales. The results from the mini meta-analysis showed that the rational and intuitive styles were positively related to the goal dimensions associated with successful goal pursuit (e.g., goal commitment, goal attainability, positive emotions, and goal progress), while the avoidant style was mainly related to various difficulties associated with goal striving (e.g., controlled motivation, negative emotions, and action crisis). The dependent and especially spontaneous styles were found to be very weakly associated with the selected goal dimensions. When the separate studies were analyzed in the regression analyses and more process-oriented goal dimensions were accounted for, decision-making styles were only minor predictors of self-reported effort expenditure, goal progress and action crisis. The study highlights the need and usefulness of a more nuanced processual approach in the research of individual decision-making differences in goal-directed behavior.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2349\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2349\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2349","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然先前的研究已经证明了决策风格在实现各种现实生活结果中的作用,但它忽略了从目标维度(人们在追求目标过程中评估目标的方式)来探索潜在的目标相关过程。本研究考察了研究最多的决策风格是否与自我报告的努力、目标进展、行动危机以及其他目标维度有关。我们与Ntotal进行了14项研究(相互概念复制) = 2574人(70%为女性),包括一般决策风格问卷和各种目标相关量表。迷你元分析的结果表明,理性和直觉风格与成功追求目标的目标维度(如目标承诺、目标可达性、积极情绪和目标进展)呈正相关,而回避型风格主要与目标争取相关的各种困难有关(如控制动机、负面情绪和行动危机)。依赖性风格,尤其是自发风格,被发现与所选目标维度的相关性非常弱。当在回归分析中对单独的研究进行分析,并考虑到更多以过程为导向的目标维度时,决策风格只是自我报告的努力支出、目标进展和行动危机的次要预测因素。这项研究强调了在研究目标导向行为中的个人决策差异时,更细致的过程方法的必要性和有用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Decision-making styles and goal striving

While previous research has demonstrated the role of decision-making styles in attaining various real-life outcomes, it has neglected to explore the underlying goal-related processes in terms of goal dimensions (ways in which people appraise their goals during goal striving). The present study examines whether the most studied decision-making styles are related to self-reported effort, goal progress, and action crisis as well as other goal dimensions. We conducted 14 studies (mutual conceptual replications) with Ntotal = 2574 (70% females) which included the General Decision-Making Styles questionnaire and various goal-related scales. The results from the mini meta-analysis showed that the rational and intuitive styles were positively related to the goal dimensions associated with successful goal pursuit (e.g., goal commitment, goal attainability, positive emotions, and goal progress), while the avoidant style was mainly related to various difficulties associated with goal striving (e.g., controlled motivation, negative emotions, and action crisis). The dependent and especially spontaneous styles were found to be very weakly associated with the selected goal dimensions. When the separate studies were analyzed in the regression analyses and more process-oriented goal dimensions were accounted for, decision-making styles were only minor predictors of self-reported effort expenditure, goal progress and action crisis. The study highlights the need and usefulness of a more nuanced processual approach in the research of individual decision-making differences in goal-directed behavior.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信