To encourage the use of computational modeling in organizational behavior research, an example computational model is developed and rigorous tests of it presented. Specifically, a computational model based on control theory was created to test the theory’s explanation of the goal-level effect (e.g., higher goals lead to higher performance). Data from simulations of the model were compared with the behavior of 32 undergraduate students performing a scheduling task under various within-subject manipulations and across time. Correlational analyses indicated that the model accounted for most of the participants’data, with coefficients between the model and each participant’s behavior mostly in the high 90s.
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338-375.
2.
Axelrod, R. (1997). Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. In R. Conte, R. Hegselmann, & P.Terna (Eds.), Simulating social phenomena (pp. 21-40). Berlin: Springer.
3.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
4.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally College.
5.
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671-684.
6.
Edwards, J. R. (1992). A cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 17, 238-274.
7.
Fleenor, J. W. (2001). Review of the book, Computational modeling of behavior in organizations: The third scientific discipline. Personnel Psychology, 54, 248-251.
8.
Forrester, J. W. (1968). Principles of systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
Hulin, C. L., & Ilgen, D. R. (2000). Introduction to computational modeling in organizations: The good that modeling does. In D. R. Ilgen & C. L. Hulin (Eds.), Computational modeling of behavior in organizations: The third scientific discipline (pp. 3-18). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
10.
Jagacinski, R. J., & Flach, J. M. (2003). Control theory for humans: Quantitative approaches to modeling performance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Katz, D.,& Kahn, R.L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations.New York: John Wiley.
12.
Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1988). On time and method. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
Klein, H. J. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 150-172.
14.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
15.
Levine, R. L., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (Eds.). (1992). Analysis of dynamic psychological systems. New York: Plenum.
16.
Locke, E. A. (1991). Goal theory vs. control theory: Contrasting approaches to understanding work motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 9-28.
17.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal-setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.
19.
Lord, R. G., & Hanges, P. J. (1987). A control system model of organizational motivation: Theoretical development and applied implications. Behavioral Science, 32, 161-178.
20.
Lord, R. G., & Levy, P. E. (1994). Moving from cognition to action: A control theory perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 43, 335-398.
21.
Luce, R. D. (1995). Four tensions concerning mathematical modeling in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 1-26.
22.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlations coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30-46.
23.
Mento, A. J., Steel, R. P., & Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal setting on task performance: 1966-1984. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 23-51.
24.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt.
25.
Naylor, J. C., & Ilgen, D. R. (1984). Goal-setting: A theoretical analysis of a motivational technology. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 95-140). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
26.
Pervin, L. (Ed.). (1989). Goal concepts in personality and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
Pitt, M. A., Myung, I. J., & Zhang, S. (2002). Toward a method of selecting among computational models of cognition. Psychological Review, 109, 472-491.
28.
Powers, W. T. (1973). Behavior: The control of perception. Chicago: Aldine.
29.
Powers, W. T. (1978). Quantitative analysis of purposive systems: Some spadework at the foundations of scientific psychology. Psychological Review, 85, 417-435.
30.
Raudenbush, S. W. (2000). Comparing personal trajectories and drawing causal inferences from longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 501-525.
31.
Richardson, G. P. (1976). Problems with causal-loop diagrams. System Dynamics Review, 2, 158-170.
32.
Richardson, G. P. (1991). Feedback thought: In social science and systems theory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
33.
Rogosa, D. R., Brandt, D., & Zimowski, M. (1982). A growth curve approach to the measurement of change. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 726-748.
34.
Runkel, P. J. (1990). Research methods for control theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 34, 14-23.
35.
Runkel, P. J., & McGrath, J. E. (1972). Research on human behavior: A systematic guide to method. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
36.
Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1248-1264.
37.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.
39.
Simon, H.A.(1992). What is an “explanation” of behavior?Psychological Science, 3, 150-161.
40.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, R. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
41.
Sterman, J. D. (1994). Learning in and about complex systems. System Dynamics Review, 10, 291-330
42.
Taber, C. S., & Timpone, R. J. (1996). Computational modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Living systems theory as a paradigm for organizational behavior: Understanding humans, organizations, and social processes. Behavioral Science, 41, 165-204.
44.
Vancouver, J. B. (2000). Self-regulation in organizational settings: A tale of two paradigms. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 303-341). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
45.
Vancouver, J. B., & Putka, D. P. (2000). Analyzing goal-striving behavior and a test of the generalizability of perceptual control theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 334-362.
46.
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., Tischner, E. C., & Putka, D. J. (2002). Two studies examining the negative effect of self-efficacy on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 506-516.
47.
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., & Williams, A. A. (2001). The changing signs in the relationships between self-efficacy, personal goals and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 605-620.
48.
Whicker, M. L., & Sigelman, L. (1991). Computer simulation applications: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Or control and communication in the animal and the machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50.
Wright, P. M. (1992). An examination of the relationships among monetary incentives, goal level, goal commitment, and performance. Journal of Management, 18, 677-693.
