Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 298

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

Laureiro‐Martínez, Daniella, Brusoni, Stefano·2018·Strategic Management Journal

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/smj.2774

Cites

131 of 131 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 131 references

Cited by

See all 298

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.