The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Aspiration Level Adaptation: An Empirical Exploration
Abstract
Organizations have been modeled as goal directed systems which use simple decision rules to adapt behavior in response to performance feedback. This paper examines the formation of organizational goals, or aspiration levels, over time in groups of individuals representing top management teams of simulated organizations. The analysis compares the empirical validity of an adaptive attainment discrepancy model with models derived from rational and adaptive expectations theories. The results suggest that the attainment discrepancy model, which is based on a simple decision rule of adjustment to performance feedback, provides the most robust description of aspiration formation. They are also informative with regard to the application of expectation models to aspiration formation: There is a great deal of similarity between these results and those of prior studies on expectation formation. In addition, the study finds that there tends to be an optimistic bias in aspiration formation, that adaptation is not consistently incremental, and that adaptive learning may, over time, lead to behavioral outcomes that are consistent with rationality.
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
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives
Locke, E. A. (1968) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(68)90004-4 · Cited by 2,409
Cited by
A Behavioral Theory of the Firm—40 Years and Counting: Introduction and Impact
Argote, L., & Greve, H. R. (2007) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0280 · Cited by 606
The Lean Startup Framework: Closing the Academic–Practitioner Divide
Shepherd, D. A., & Gruber, M. (2021) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1177/1042258719899415 · Cited by 459
Model calibration as a testing strategy for system dynamics models
Oliva, R. (2003) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(02)00622-7 · Cited by 314
Heuristics as adaptive decision strategies in management: HEURISTICS IN MANAGEMENT
Artinger, F., Petersen, M., Gigerenzer, G., & Weibler, J. (2015) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.1950 · Cited by 255
Satisficing: Integrating Two Traditions
Artinger, F. M., Gigerenzer, G., & Jacobs, P. (2022) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.20201396 · Cited by 90
N. Lane, J., Friis, S., Cai, T., Menietti, M., Weber, G., & Guinan, E. (2024) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4769282 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Lant, T. K.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1992-05
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 623-644
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2118980931
- Cited by
- 521
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.25
- 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
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.