The DOI matches its Crossref record; 131 of the 131 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cognitive flexibility and adaptive decision‐making: Evidence from a laboratory study of expert decision makers
Abstract
Research Summary : How can strategic decision makers overcome inertia when dealing with change? In this article we argue that cognitive flexibility (i.e., the ability to match the type of cognitive processing with the type of problem at hand) enables decision makers to achieve significantly higher decision‐making performance. We show that superior decision‐making performance is associated with using semiautomatic Type 1 cognitive processes when faced with well‐structured problems, and more deliberative Type 2 processes when faced with ill‐structured problems. Our findings shed light on the individual‐level mechanism behind organizational adaptation and complement recent work on strategic inertia. In addition, our findings extend management studies that have stressed the relevance of cognitive flexibility for responding to the demands of increasingly open, flexible, and rapidly changing organizations. Managerial Summary : Humans are creatures of habits. We tend to prefer known courses of action over new ones. In many cases, habits are good. However, when things change in unpredictable ways, the past may not be good guidance for the future. We argue that “cognitive flexibility”—the ability of understanding when to rely on habits vs. when to explore new courses of action—enables managers to switch from a “fast” decision mode, based on habits, to a “slow,” more deliberate decision mode that facilitates the exploration of new courses of action. Managers high in cognitive flexibility reflect on the situation at hand, recognize and value diversity in viewpoints, and integrate such diversity in their own decision processes. By valuing diversity, they are more likely to overcome inertia.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732305276687 · Cited by 44,601
Teece, D. J. (2007) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.640 · Cited by 16,825
Diamond, A. (2013) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 · Cited by 13,268
An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change
Berkowitz, M. K., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1983) · Southern Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/1058233 · Cited by 10,549
The Content Analysis Guidebook
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071802878 · Cited by 9,286 · cited 2×
“Consistent with the commonly accepted standards of verbal protocol and content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004; Neuendorf, 2002), each coder coded the data independently.”
MethodShiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.127 · Cited by 7,335
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250141009 · Cited by 7,283
Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780 · Cited by 6,963
A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality.
Kahneman, D. (2003) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697 · Cited by 5,540
Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612460685 · Cited by 4,271
Cited by
Artificial intelligence in organizations: New opportunities for phenomenon-based theorizing
von Krogh, G. (2018) · Academy of Management Discoveries · doi:10.5465/amd.2018.0084 · Cited by 641
Cherry, K. M., Hoeven, E. V., Patterson, T. S., & Lumley, M. N. (2021) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2021.101973 · Cited by 267
Algorithmic bias in machine learning-based marketing models
Akter, S., Dwivedi, Y. K., Sajib, S., Biswas, K., Bandara, R. J., & Michael, K. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.083 · Cited by 242
Asgharian Asl, F., & Vaghef, L. (2022) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.01.025 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Laureiro‐Martínez, D., & Brusoni, S.
- Venue
- Strategic Management Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-03-15
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1031-1058
- ISSN
- 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0266
- OpenAlex
- W2790283004
- Cited by
- 298
- References
- 131
- FWCI
- 24.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cognitive flexibility and adaptive decision‐making: Evidence from a laboratory study of expert decision makers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/smj.2774
- The paper
- Laureiro‐Martínez, D., & Brusoni, S. (2018). Cognitive flexibility and adaptive decision‐making: Evidence from a laboratory study of expert decision makers. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2774
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.