A Capability Based Decision Model to Improve the...

1

Capability Based Decision Model of Attribution: Empirical Development in

Iran

Parastoo Ghalamchi1

Tariq M Khan 1

1 Brunel Business School, College of Business, Arts and Social Sciences, Brunel

University, London

Corresponding author: Parastoo Ghalamchi, Brunel Business School, Brunel University,

Kingston Lane, Uxbridge Middlesex, UK, UB8 3PH, Email: [email protected]

Parastoo Ghalamchi is a PhD student at Brunel University.

Tariq Khan (PhD) is lecturer and director of postgraduate programmes at Brunel University. He

received his BEng in Aerospace Engineering from Kingston University, his MSc in

Manufacturing Technology from University of Warwick, and his PhD in Intelligent Education

Systems from University of Salford. He subsequently worked as a research associate in Heriot-

Watt University Edinburgh and as a senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University.

mailto:[email protected]

Capability Based Decision Model of attribution 2

Abstract

This study aims to improve the reliability of existing attribution processes by developing a

decision model that is inspired by Sen's (1999) Capability Approach (CA) and Weiner’s (1995)

Attribution Theory. The model is intended to provide a more complete representation of the

decision maker’s state of self-determination, than currently is possible, as it influences their

decisions. This paper presents the theoretical model and discusses the empirical development of

the model from a process of ten semi-structured interviews with young adult employees. By

applying thematic analysis, 11 significant themes were identified: Freedom Awareness, Third-

Party Evaluation, First-Party Evaluation, Ontology of Attribution, Impact of Commodities,

Impact of Affective State, Awareness of Affective State, Teleological, Causal, Correlational, and

Logical reasoning. Our significant finding is that all of these themes collectively help specify

one’s self-determinism from two different perspectives, which suggests that people have

different levels of awareness of these factors as they influence decision making behaviour.

Keywords: Capability Approach, Decision Model, Attribution Theory, Self-determination,

and Freedom

Word count (excluding tables and references): 5308


Introduction

Third party observers attribute unreliable reasons to individual’s decision behaviour because they

ignore the actor’s set of available opportunities. As evidence, several studies show that one’s

self-reflection and other’s attribution to his/her behaviour are dichotomous (Commission, 2013;

Foerster, 2013; Cerne et al., 2013). To explain someone’s behaviour, people attribute too much

influence to dispositions and too little influence to structural and situational factors (Mali, 2013;

Swift et al., 2013). The unreliability of third party’s attribution is thought to be because of

cognitive biases (Bohns and Flynn, 2013), preferences, emotions and well-being concerns (Chen

et al., 2013; Carroll et al., 2013; Gong et al., 2014), cultural background (Lakshman, 2008),

interpersonal relations, beliefs, religion, morality, and occupational stereotypes (Martinez et al.,

2013), norms (Robinson et al., 2013), and the nature of behaviour to which a reason is to be

attributed (Byrne et al., 2013, and Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara and Suárez-Acosta, 2013). Thus,

different individuals attribute various reasons to a single behaviour and it is difficult to

distinguish the reliable attribution from the not. All of these studies present the problem of

rationalization of the attribution process that we try to address in the present study. In particular,

our focus is on understanding decision behaviour, and rationalization caused by ignoring the

individual’s set of available opportunities (i.e. capability set) when they make a choice

(Noaparast, 2014). In this paper through an empirical study we develop our theoretical capability

based decision model to improve the relevance of the attribution process. The purpose of this

decision model is to map the many influences acting on the decision maker from the affective,

conative and cognitive domains, and to provide a frame of reference from which either the actor

(through self-reflection) or an observer (through inference) can attribute ‘reasons’ for the actor’s

behaviour.

It is necessary to develop a model that helps with attributing reliable reasons to decision

behaviour because, first of all, the scope of the attribution process is broad and it needs cognitive

labor (Martinko, 1995; Samnani et al., 2013), secondly, because our attributions to our current

situation influence our subsequent behaviour, so it is a complex task to understand the relation

between our self-reflected attributions and our behaviour (Courtney et al., 2013; Handford and

Leithwood, 2013; Hussain and ur Rehman, 2013), and finally because existing attribution

theories are limited and are prone to be unreliable, while the attribution researchers’ judgment is

liable to be influenced by their own personal needs or ego weaknesses (van Heerden, 1999).


Unlike mainstream Attribution Theories (e.g. Kelley, 1967; Weiner, 1995), this study is not trying

to analyze how ordinary people make attributions, but we try to improve the attribution process

by providing certain insights that help people to understand why someone has made a certain

decision. The focus of our model is to understand an individual’s decision behaviour, which is

complex, especially when you need to consider the actor’s level of volition and freedom. To

understand decision behaviour and freedom of choice, we base our model on Sen’s Capability

Approach, that offers a strong philosophical background to explain human self-determined

behaviour (Alkire and Foster, 2011; Clark, 2005).

The present study is unique because there is no other theory of attribution that aligns with

Sen’s Capability Approach (CA). Recently in management studies CA has been used to

understand different aspects of sustainable development (Baltes, 1987), to explore the

implications of disability policy making (Trani et al., 2011), to design a set of principles for

talent management (Swailes and Downs, 2012), to investigate the career of senior managers in

human resource management (Cornelius and Skinner, 2008), to study work place equality (Gagn

and Deci, 2005), to develop a formal model of entrepreneurship (Gries and Naudé, 2011), to

study job satisfaction (Cassar, 2010), to tackle the problems of uncontrollability and practical

applicability (Kleine, 2011), to explain changes in individual longer-term well-being by

measuring their capabilities and choices (Muffels and Headey, 2013), and to study labor well-

being (Lessmann, 2012). None of these studies has used the Capability Approach to understand

the reasons behind human decision behaviour in order to improve the attribution process by

considering an actor’s level of self-determination. Meanwhile, Attribution Theory (AT) has not

been integrated with the CA, and there is only a small literature applying AT in the field of

organizational management (e.g. Ashkanasy and Gallois, 1994; Harvey et al., 2006; Martinko et

al., 2007; Martinko and Martinez, 2012; West et al., 2009). There is also a dearth of research on

using AT to understand decision-making behaviour (e.g. Blume and Covin, 2011). In the field of

management, the Informational Processing Model, developed by Lord and Smith (1983) has

been the dominant decision framework, but it does not explain freedom of choice neither does it

aim at improving the attribution process. Overall, the fields of economy, psychology and

management are drifting apart and our model aims to bridge these fields.

Another novelty of this study is that our framework captures both rational and affective

domains of human behaviour. The rational core of the model is developed based on the logical


understanding of decision behaviour and covers the domains that dictate logical or physical

impossibilities to decision makers. In the affective shell of the model, we focus on how the

emotion that is developed as a result of the individual’s choice (Weiner, 1995, 1972) influences

this person’s subsequent capability set and freedom of choice, which is in line with Loewenstein

and Lerner's (2003) research on the role of affect on decision making. Another advantage of our

model is that it gathers freedom, attribution, teleological (Collins, 1978), causal (Bargh et al.,

2001), correlational (Kelley et al., 2013) and logical types of reasoning, plus social (Tajfel, 1978)

and institutional inlfuences (Meyer, 2008), in a single framework to understand human decision

behaviour. To improve the multi-disciplinary theoretical structure of the model, we need to

empirically test its theoretical elements, and this paper presents the qualitative round of empirical

development of our model.

This paper starts with the theoretical background of the capability based decision model

and then we present the empirical development of the model. To develop the model, we design a

set of questions based on different aspects of the model and we use them to conduct ten semi-

structured interviews, investigating the reasons behind the career choice of 10 adult employees in

Iran. As a result we identify 11 themes through thematic analysis and coding of the interviews

and we integrate these themes in the model. In the final section we discuss the results and present

the conclusion and suggestions for future quantitative empirical development of the model.

State and Limitations of Attribution Theories

A review on attribution literature shows that third party observers tend to ignore an individual’s

level of self-determination in their attribution process. These studies are in the contexts of gender

studies (Foerster, 2013), political ethics (Xiaoping, 2013), and healthcare management

(Blakeman, 2014; Kroning, 2013). It is found that when third party observers ignore an

individual’s level of self-determination, the observer’s attributions have several aggravating

outcomes. Some of these detrimental consequences are violating the individual’s right to exercise

their freedom of choice (Foerster, 2013; Xiaoping, 2013), threatening patients’ well being

(Blakeman, 2014), and violating patients’ self-determination in the healthcare context (Kroning,

2013).

The existing attribution theories are not sufficient because they suffer from

methodological and theoretical challenges (van Heerden, 1999). Some of the methodological


limitations of existing Attribution Theories (ATs) are the following issues: a) even the trained

psychologist researchers are prone to make fundamental attribution error in their research; b) the

cut off point between the external and internal factors influencing an individual’s behavior is not

rigorously identified in ATs (van Heerden, 1999); c) there is an absence of a substantial empirical

literature linking attributions to actual achievement related behavior; d) ATs measure likelihood

rather than actual behavior (Graham, 2008, 1991); e) ATs lack a solid measurement of ‘emotion’

arising from attributions (Weiner, 2010); f) ATs mainly focus on explaining an individual’s

achievement behaviors while ignoring other forms of behavior (Graham and Folkes, 1990).

Further, the theoretical foundation of exiting Attribution Theories (ATs) suffer from its

naive nature, because (Heider, 1944) primarily established AT to understand lay peoples’

attribution processes. Skinner et al (1996) argue against this approach, because they believe it

overshadows the scientific aspect of attribution studies. Further, ATs have cultural biases that

overshadow their cross-cultural generalizability (Maehr and Nicholls, 1980). As evidence, there

is a need to improve the theoretical and methodological reliability of the attribution process,

which is benefit of present study, with a particular focus on decision behavior.

Theory: Capability Approach

The Capability Approach (CA) is a useful approach to explain human decision behaviour with a

focus on freedom of choice, because it has a compelling philosophical background. Sen (1999) in

developing CA was influenced by Aristotle’s concept of Eudemonia (Nussbaum, 1987); Adam

Smith’s call for analysis of ‘necessities’ and ‘human conditions’, the rational agency of human

beings who have freedom to decide what to value and pursue (Smith, 1937); Karl Marx’s

emphasis on human freedom and emancipation; John Rawls’s emphasis on human self-respect,

importance of access to primary goods, and limitations of utility-centre theories; and Berlin's

(1969) two concepts of negative and positive freedom, emphasis on human value pluralism, the

idea that human values are products of mankind not nature, the idea of Objective Pluralism that

refers to the trueness of certain values across different cultures, such as freedom (Clark, 2005a).

The main challenge of Capability Approach is the apparent difficulty in operationalizing

this useful theoretical paradigm (Alkire and Foster, 2011; Clark, 2005; Lessmann, 2012;

Robeyns, 2005), and the present study is an endeavour to address this shortcoming. Gasper

(2010) in a review on studies that try to operationalize CA argues that Sen (1999) has failed to

modify his CA based on different notions of agency, and this paradigm lacks an operational


framework. The problem of operationalizing CA starts with this question ‘how to define valuable

capabilities’. In an attempt to answer this question, some rely on experts to identify the

capabilities or listen to the individuals themselves (e.g. Alkire, 2002; Alkire and Foster, 2011),

Some ask the respondents to evaluate a pre-designed list of capabilities before the experts’

evaluation (e.g. Clark, 2005, 2002), some like Nussbaum (1987) heavily rely on Aristotle to

develop a list of ‘Central Human Capabilities’, and Sen (2004) himself suggests the direct

approach for generating a capability list through public discussion and reasoning.

Notwithstanding, Alkire (2005), one of the dominant scholars working in this field argues

that operationalizing CA needs to happen not only in many countries, but also at many different

levels, and in respect to different problems. It is commonly accepted among the researchers in

this field that there is no one universal set of domain capabilities, and the actual scope of analysis

differs considerably, based on each problem (Alkire and Foster, 2011; Braun and Clarke, 2006).

In this study, our fundamental principle about the nature of capabilities is that a capability set is

changeable and dynamic, but its membership does not change randomly. The idea is that

capabilities transit in and out of a capability set, because of the influence of both ‘rational’ and

‘affective’ factors.

Capability Based Decision Model

In working towards improving the reliability of third party attributions about an individual’s

decision behavior, we establish our framework on a decision model initially developed to

operationalize Sen’s capability theory, by Yorulmaz and Khan (2008a/b). This early work

established the rational and affective domains of decision making and tied them to Sen’s

theoretical ideas on freedom, volition and capabilities. The work presented here builds on the

Yorulmaz and Khan model by developing two important aspects: (1) Evaluation and (2)

Feedback. Whereas Yorulmaz and Khan identified the importance of evaluation (third party and

self-evaluation) and the influence of feedback on an individual’s capabilities, and in addition

noted the dynamic nature of one’s capabilities due in part to side-effects and the consequences of

prior decisions, these three areas were under developed and remained immature in the theoretical

development of the model. Thus the present work should be considered as an endeavor to

develop the Yorulmaz and Khan model to a more mature state that can particularly be used to

improve the reliability of the attribution process of decision-making. Accordingly, we begin by


describing the fundamentals of the Yorulmaz and Khan model and then proceed to discuss where

the limitations lie and where this current work seeks to contribute. Figure 1 presents the original

model of Yorulmaz and Khan (2008a/b).

Figure 1: Decision making model based on the Capability Approach

Yorulmaz and Khan’s model represents the two principles of volition and value in decision

making. It recognizes that people sometimes make free will decisions but other times external

forces can influence their decisions and so a resulting decision should not be considered to be

entirely based on freedom to choose (i.e. volition). The issue of value or benefit arises when

determining the outcomes of a decision. Some decisions are beneficial while others have more of

an adverse consequence for the decision maker’s well-being. However, the notion of value is

seen from two perspectives: the decision maker’s self and alternatively, third party others. The

basis of the model is the Capability Set, which is comprised from the totality of capabilities

available to a decision maker at a moment in time. This set is dynamic and so can change as a

result of decisions made. Capabilities are acted on by factors (internal and external) to render

some realizable while others remain unrealizable. It is the set of realizable capabilities that offer

the decision maker the choices. When a decision is made entirely at will, the resulting state of

being is considered a functioning; conversely, where an element of compulsion is involved, the

state of being that results is known as a commanding. Certain states arise as a direct consequence

of other states and the elimination of certain capabilities. These states are called consequentials

because they are not chosen consciously by the decision maker. Combinations of the level of

volition and the value of the resulting state lead to the four resulting end states in Figure 1.


All factors influencing one’s capability set are categorized in the ‘Rational Core’ (rational

domain) and ‘Affective Shell’ (affective domain) of the model. The Rational Core of the model

includes the following domains of constraints that act on the possible outcomes available to a

decision maker:

a) Logical constraints: Often two functionings are mutually exclusive such that both

cannot be true or both false at the same time. An obvious example maintains that one

cannot do something while simultaneously not do it. Constraints derived from a

consideration of logical validity serve to define which choices are reasonable (in its

strong sense). Note that the issue of soundness is not considered here.

b) Physical constraints: The laws that govern natural phenomena impose constraints on

ones decisions through permitting and inhibiting particular actions and states. It is a

basic principle of the model that decision makers are unable to evade the influence of

nature and the laws that describe possibility when arriving at a possible choice.

c) Capital constraints: Where the necessary resources and means are absent, one’s

choices are not considered to be realizable. As an example, consider the student who

wishes to attain a degree without paying tuition fees, without attending classes and

without studying.

d) Axiological (self-imposed) constraints: Where there are no externally imposed

constraints from physics, logic and resources, still decision makers introduce their

own constraints based on personal value systems, which serve to define the

allowable choices. Often moral, ethical and religious considerations enter the

decision making process and dictate which options become ineligible for a particular

decision maker. Strict adherence to religious law, for example, would exclude

marriage for some priests (i.e. Catholic).

The rational core just described rests on four domains of constraints: two that are immanent

(logical and physical) and two that are organic (capital and axiological). Collectively these

constraints determine the scope of functionings that are possible, reasonable, realizable and

allowable for the individual decision maker. Beyond what one knows to be possible, reasonable,

realizable and allowable, there is the added consideration of what is desirable, which is


represented at the affective level and discussed below. The limitation of the Yorulmaz and Khan

model is the immaturity of their model in this respect and does not adequately detail the

following three constructs that it introduces under the label of ‘Affective Shell’ but does not

develop. Our research is develops the affective shell further to provide a more comprehensive

account of how affect plays with rationality to influence a decision maker. Affective experience

plays a more central role in everyday judgment and decision-making than has been realized in

decision models (Clore and Parrott, 1991a). The attempt to empirically develop the affective

shell of the model is one of our main contributions.

The Affective Shell includes the following three domains:

a) Third Party Evaluation and Self-Reflection: one cannot anticipate how another will

perceive their behaviour - whether it is approved and encouraged, and how others’

reactions impacts on the actor.

b) Environmental Feedback: shows how the evaluation result will influence the capability

set next time around.

c) Side Effects: depict how the subsequent impact of a decision affects the availability of

choices in the next step.

Figure 2 shows the extended decision model developed in our research, with a focus on

evaluation, feedback and side effects. Our investigation of these three areas is centred on an

empirical analysis of a case study involving interviews with a group of people who have made

important life decisions.

Figure 2: Extended Capability Based Decision Model


Research Case and Method

This paper starts from the basic theoretical decision model based on Sen’s Capability Approach,

and modifies it with the introduction of Weiner’s attribution theory, institutional theory and

social identity theories. We do not cover the theoretical developments in this paper, instead we

focus on the empirical development of ideas based around analysis of people working at an

educational organization in Iran. The focus of the study is on the decision of becoming a

Personal Tutor in the Kanoon organization. This is a case of career choice for Iranian university

students, which is a conscious and significant decision in their life. Personal Tutors are university

students, who are working as a part time educational supporter in Kanoon, one of the largest

private educational institutions in Iran, with 450 branches around the country and 6000 Personal

Tutors (in 2014). The first round of empirical investigation is interviewing with ten Personal

Tutors and asking them about the factors influencing their career.

Our purpose in interviewing this group of people was to establish the plausibility of the

constructs in the model (Figure 2). Several constructs have been developed for this research

project. Some have been taken from Sen’s original work, such as the notion of Freedom, while

others have been introduced to the model in our work, such as self-determination and

teleological reasoning. Questions were developed for each of these constructs in order to

determine whether these constructs played an important part in the deliberations of the decision

maker. If we were able to show that all factors were actually involved in the decision making

process, it would go some way to providing plausibility to the decision model.

Following are a sample of the interview questions based on different aspects of the model:

Freedom: Did you choose this job as your number one preference? What were your other

alternatives, and why did you not choose them?

Attribution: Rank the following reasons based on their influence on your decision of becoming a

Personal Tutor: Ability, Effort, Others, or Luck.

Did you think you had influence over your own decision or did somebody else influence it,

significantly?


Rational Core

Physical and logical constraints: Did you have any other preferable job alternative that

choosing this job prevented you actualizing?

Were you hampered in any way by any longstanding illness, or disability, infirmity, or mental

health problem to choose this job, rather than your other more preferred job?

Capital Constraints: Could you say that you have chosen this job, because you had physical

constraints that did not allow you to choose what you like the most?

Did you choose this job because of financial reasons?

Axiological constraints: Did you have any preferable job alternative that you could not choose

because it was against your beliefs?

Did you have any preferable job alternative that you did not choose but your explanation is not

convincing for others who have different personal beliefs about religious, tradition or ethical

issues?

Which of the following institutions always had a great influence on your decisions, and

particularly your career choice? Legal, Religious, Cultural, Political, Economic, Social,

Organizational, Professional, and Other reason.

Affective Shell

Third party evaluation and self-reflection: How does your decision contribute to your relative

position within this social group that you are influenced by?

How important was your social group in your career choice?

Feedback: What other alternatives did you have when you were choosing this job?

Would you feel different if you had chosen your second most preferable alternative?

Side Effects: Did the consequence of your previous decisions prevent you from choosing

another job (decisions such as choosing your university major, or decision of moving to another

city)?

Research Site and Method

Our data collection approach had three steps. First of all, we designed the interview questions

based on the elements of the affective state of the model. Secondly, we published a request in

Kanoon official website (www.kanoon.ir) to recruit Personal Tutors to participate in our research.

http://www.kanoon.ir/


As a result, 10 Personal Tutors contacted us to participate in the research. Thirdly, we conducted

semi-structured interviews with these Personal Tutors, through Skype while recording the

conversation, with their own permission.

Thematic Analysis

Research Analysis: Coding Result

This section presents an analysis of interviews with focus on the factors influencing participants’

career choice. Although we could conceivably consider many other themes, our focus is on the

Capability Approach (Sen, 1999) as embedded in the existing decision model. Hence, we limit

the scope of coding to just those themes that have potential relevance within the context of the

capability theory and the current decision model (Figure 2). Table 1 has been generated based on

the qualitative content analysis of participants’ view, which indicates the list of key themes, sub-

themes and coding. The themes were taken from Sen's (1999) Capability Approach, Kelemen's

(1999) Teleological Theory, Weiner's (1995) Attribution Theory of Motivation, Meyer's (2008)

Phenomenological Institutional Theory, Simon's (1972) theory of Bounded Rationality, and

Kelley's (1967) Co-Variation Model. The following sections will examine individually each

theme.

Table 1: Thematic Analysis on Interviews and Coding Results

Key themes Sub-themes

1)

Freedom Awareness

- ACTUAL SENTENCE USE:

- My other better alternatives;

- My first priority was to become a professor;

- I made this decision freely;

- Situation pushed me to make this decision, but I made a free choice;

- I cannot fight with all the things around me;

- I could have made other choice, but I decide freely;

- My main alternative was studying for PhD;

- My main alternative was becoming a professor in a university abroad;

- My main alternative was working in my university major;

- Being Personal Tutor in Kanoon is an option, which may not be the first option but keeps us in

contact with society;

- I had freedom of choice among limited number of similar options;

- I did not face a close door among the options that I had but they were not many alternatives;


- If I had more options to choose then the gender difference might be important;

- Being man or woman does not limit your options in this job of Personal Tutor;

- In public sector priority is with men, but it Personal Tutor there is no difference;

2)

Teleological

Reasoning

- Actual Sentence Use:

- This job had a justified future;

- To start show your brother ship then you will be promoted;

- When I was student, I was thinking about being in my Personal Tutor’s shoes;

- I became Personal Tutor because I felt job security in Kanoon;

- I became Personal Tutor because Kanoon has a learning environment;

- This job gave me required job experience;

- I could not reach my economic goals as Personal Tutor;

- I did not aim to stay in this role but I expect to be promoted after six year;

- Since I was student I like to be a Personal Tutor;

- I like to give consultancy to students since I was student myself;

- When becoming Personal Tutor I was not thinking about its future;

- It was a job that I liked too;

- I became a Personal Tutor in order to be in touch with students and give them consultancy;

- Teaching them (the students) at home if I could find a class;

- Because the other options were not interesting for me at all;

- Because I like this job,

- I do this with a minimum wage;

- I like Personal Tutorship over other part time jobs because I like educational atmosphere;

- I think I like the role of Personal Tutor rather than teacher;

- If I took Kanoon exams as a student I could choose a better major and then find a better job;

3)

Causal Reasoning


- I have some belongings that I cannot leave them;

- Because my university lessons were more intense and I could not do a part time job;

- They have passed a law that only those with PhD degree can become a professor in university;

- My belonging to my family did not let me to leave them and go to another country to study;

- As I could not find a related job to my major I became a Personal Tutor;

- Comparing bad feeling I gave from interviews in other organizations, working in Kanoon gave

me good feeling;

- My previous job was not satisfying and by accident I saw an add for Personal Tutorship;

- I was lazy to start a difficult job;

- I had to try harder for other alternatives;

-


4)

Correlational

Reasoning

- Actual Sentence Used

- At that time I was 19 years old.

- Simultaneously I could choose to work as an engineer.

- At that time I had no experience.

- Other people like me decided the same.

- I became Personal Tutor, because I was looking for this job.

- I did not have required job experience to choose another job.

- I could not find a job related to my major.

- It was because of my major that I end up being Personal Tutor.

- I had no other job opportunity.

5)

Logical Reasoning


- However, this choice is still my priority;

- I can change myself to another person and forget my family and leave the country;

- I was forced to choose it; (pause) No, the word (i.e. forced) I used is not a right word;

- I did not want to do my other options, so I chose this (job) freely;

- Even though its wage was very low, I liked it;

- First I decided to learn managerial role then later I can study for higher degrees;

- In future, I can choose my other option of doing PhD.

- I never though that I made a wrong decision;

- I was only 19 years when making this decision;

- At this age I had no other alternative;

- With all these things (difficulties) I was satisfied with my job.

6)

Impact of

Commodity


- The influential factors in my decision definitely are within me.

- I chose it because of interest and ability that I felt from within.

- I was the best student in our school.

- I was hard working with good results at school.

- There are so many other better candidates with PhD from other countries.

- To start working in Kanoon you must first become a Personal Tutor and show your abilities.

- I think this is a free choice.

- They interviewed me for this job, so it could be effort.

- That means that my interests are also important that I became Personal Tutor in Kanoon.

- Because of my personality I may not continue the task that I have started in a perfect way.

- I have to work in Kanoon to build up my personality.

- One or two days of hopelessness is enough, not more.

- To be hired I did not do any effort.

- After the interview I was easily accepted as a Personal Tutor.

- The organization has had a very positive view towards me, because I had the things that they

were looking for.


- I did not do so much effort, but during my job in Kanoon, I was always working hard.

- I was trying hard to stay in Kanoon, when I faced difficulty and desperate.

- Ability and wisdom are more important that effort. Without thinking this person cannot enter

Kanoon.

7)

First Party

Evaluation


- A job that insures you with regular salary;

- I do not pay attention to what others say;

- I try to prove others that I made a right choice, by improving in my job;

- I had the required back ground as my family is working in Kanoon;

- I do not accept many people, only my family;

- I only believe in my family;

- My concerns are my families concerns;

- I have consulted an expert and he/she prevented me start my business;

- Female age of entrepreneurship is higher;

- My mother had a great role;

- My mother forced me to choose an option that leads me towards stability;

- My family directed my university major;

- My parents’ influence is positive and I accept it;

- I can moderate my family’s influence but it is a good force;

- My family’s force lead me towards good end;

- We live in small city and everyone finds out about your actions and decisions;

- In our small city we have to do things that are asked by people in power;

- In other jobs people have better social status;

- My interests and freedom to choose are more important than my social status;

-

8)

Third Party

Evaluation

- Actual Sentence Use

-

- Others could not understand me;

- Discouraging signals coming from other sources around;

- My father and mother knew me as;

- My parents always look at me in a good way;

- After becoming Personal Tutor, the perception towards me had been changed;

- It seems that they were saying I did a mistake;

- No One knows my interest;

- I know my self;

- Seeing me from outside they cannot have a correct judgment;

- When I entered this role I found out that it was a bit different with what was in my mind about

it;

- After a while I found out that my previous perception was wrong;

- All of my colleagues are trying to get money from people’s children;


- This job has difficulties of its own;

- The manager above us is not an interesting and kind man at all;

- They ask us lots of tasks, while the money we got in return is not enough at all;

- I prefer teaching in a good high school to a university;

- I am forced not to show my different religious beliefs because they attribute different thing to

my behaviour;

- Comparing to other jobs I learn managerial rules as a Personal Tutor;

- I laugh at those who criticize my decision, because I know better;

- They say I made a mistake;

- My father was not agree;

- My family could not stop me from reaching my interest;

- I compare my job with my students’ parents’ jobs and I see other jobs are better accepted in

Iran;

- I wish I had chosen a major that suites better the countries social and economic situation;

- When I go for job interview in public sector they look at me like an unemployed person;

- When I say what is my major and university, they look at me like I have done nothing

important;

- My father and partner (husband/wife) has no objection to work as a Personal Tutor;

- I was lazy and being Personal Tutor helped me because I had to work on weekends;

- In future decisions I pay more attention to environment and how to treat others at work;

- I consult with others but I always take the final decision;

- My family Knew me;

- After environment my personality is important in my decisions;

- I do not choose the jobs that my friends always choose;

9)

Ontology of

Attribution


- To be hired I did not do any effort but as a Personal Tutor I worked hard;

- I had the factors that organization were looking for;

- Wisdom is more important that effort to enter Kanoon;

- I became Personal Tutor because I needed a part time job as a university student but they did

not promote me;

- Personal Tutorship is not my career prospect;

- I want to continue in my university major;

- Non of luck, family, friends, effort, ability, were reason that I decided to become a Personal

Tutor;

- Others were not important in my decision and I have special interest different with my friends;

- It was not luck, by accident I found the role of Personal Tutor, because I was looking for a job;


10)

Impact of Affective

State


- Because, I am funded to my family and like Iran;

- I had a sense of gratitude towards Kanoon;

- If it was not because of Kanoon, I could not succeed in Concour;

- Kanoon helped me and I felt gratitude towards it;

- I had to return Kanoon’s favour;

- I like to;

- Helping students satisfies some feeling in me that I like to do this job;

- It was important work in Kanoon, not other places;

- I like working in Kanoon;

- I want to talk about myself;

- I am seeing myself indebted to Kanoon;

- Main feeling;

- I was hopeful when deciding to become a Personal Tutor;

- I made a right choice because I wanted to build up my character;

- After some defeats I became helpless;

- Working with students in Kanoon is energising

11)

Awareness of

Affective State


- This job help me to build my character;

- I forced myself to stay in this job;

- My personality is like when something contradicts with my study, I get rid of it;

- I decided to stay in this job to build up (my character);

- I wanted to sit and do a secure job and be relaxed;

- I found stability and serenity in Kanoon;

- I chose what I liked which was not a right decision;

- Others reacted unpleasantly when they found out that I am a Personal Tutor;

- I had to prove them wrong;

Integrating the Results in “Capability Based Decision Model of Attribution”

Here, the theoretical Capability Based Decision model with rational design is informed by

empirical data. The result of thematic analysis on interviews is generating 11 themes that are

integrated in the Capability Based Decision Model as presented in Figure 3. One of our key

findings is that each theme has two perspectives: self and other. In other words, people have a

perception of how others see them that differs from their own personal perceptions of

themselves. In Table 2 the themes are reflected in the model.

The Capability Based Decision model has a core part, which is its ‘Rational Level’, and a

shell that is ‘Affective Level’. As shown in Figure 2, the rational level includes factors that


dictate a choice, and realized capabilities are governed by these ‘Constraints’ that prohibit what a

decision maker can choose. On the other hand, the ‘Affective Level’ of the decision model that is

developed empirically includes ‘Influencers’ that are a milder form of constraints that a decision

maker is prepared to supplant in favour of other constraints. ‘Influencers’ lead the decision maker

towards her realized capabilities. Given a capability set available to a decision maker, first we

apply ‘Rational Constraints’ to produce a subject that is realizable, then we apply the

‘Influencers’ at the ‘Affective Level’ to produce the final realized capabilities. Further, we

identify four forms of reasoning: a) Teleological, b) Causal, c) Logical, and d) Correlational

which are embedded in the model. Overall, Table 2 presents two levels of “Capability Based

Decision Model of Attribution” and their elements that are driven from interviews, and Figure 3

shows these elements in the model.

Table 2: Decision model integrated with components from thematic analysis

Level in Model Components and Definitions

Rational Level

(Constraints)

1. Objective Freedom: (individual’s real Capabilities.)

2. Objective Commodities: resources enabling agent to pursuit what she/he

wants.

3. Valid and Sound Logical Argument: (A logical reasoning that has the

characteristics of a logical argument, its propositions are true, and has no

fallacy.)

4. Valid and known Causal Argument: (A causal reasoning that has no

fallacy, and decision maker is aware of causal theory.)

5. Correlational reasoning that required information exists: (When decision

maker attribute the cause of her decision to a present state/event at time

of decision-making that correlate with her decision.)

6. Third Party Evaluation: (Institutions that impose expedience, social

obligations and taken for granted rules on decision maker, and existence

of third party judgment.)

7. First Party Evaluation: (Decision Maker self reflection on her decision,

the value and norms in a social group that decision maker adapts them

and compare herself with out-group members against those norms.)

Affective Level 1. Subjective Freedom: (Decision maker perception about freedom.)


(Influencer) 2. Subjective Commodities: (Decision maker perception about her

commodities.)

3. Awareness of Institutions and Social Groups: (Decision maker

perception about the influence of institution and social groups.)

4. Teleological Reasoning: (Decision maker goal based reasoning.)

5. Invalid Causal Reasoning: (Decision maker perception about

casual theory, and transition from previous state to her current state.)

6. Correlational Reasoning without required information: (When

decision maker attribute her decision to a present state/event at time of

decision-making, but she does not have access to the required information.)

7. Invalid and unsound Logical Reasoning: (Logical Reasoning that

ether its propositions are not true, or there is a fallacy in its logical

argument.)

Discussion

This paper’s findings are threefold; a) 11 themes describing the factors influencing one’s

decision-making exercise, b) “self” and “other” sides of each theme, and c) integration of these

11 themes in Capability Based Decision Model of Attribution. Here, we discuss how these

findings lead us towards improving the reliability of the attribution process in Capability Based

Decision Model of Attribution, and what their significance is in relation to existing decision-

making and attribution literatures.

Here, we show how our findings lead us to improve the reliability of attribution process, from six

perspectives. At first, these 11 themes that we have found from thematic analysis of 10

interviews will empirically develop the theoretical foundation of Capability Based Decision

Model of Attribution. Secondly, the theme of “Freedom Awareness” generated from thematic

analysis can help us to pay more attention to how an individual interprets his/her ‘freedom’

(Alkire and Deneulin, 2009; Gamble, 2003), and the extent to which a lay person’s interpretation

of ‘freedom’ is difference from Sen’s (1999) definition of freedom in his Capability Approach.


Figure 3: Revised Capability Based Decision Model


These findings show that people ignore the “number” and “quality” of their available

opportunities (i.e. capabilities), when they interpret their freedom of choice. Freedom awareness

has already been acknowledged (e.g. Andersson et al., 2012), but our findings support this idea

with empirical evidence and clarify it for third party observers to use in their attributions.

Overall, considering one’s “Freedom Awareness” is one step forward to address the

misattribution caused by ignoring an individual’s level of self-determination by third party

observers (Blume and Covin, 2011).

Thirdly, two themes of “Impact of Affective State” and “Awareness of Affective State”

help us to indicate how one’s subsequent capability set changes by one’s emotional state (Clore

and Parrott, 1991b; Nussbaum, 2004). No doubt, considering the “Impact of Affective State” and

one’s “Awareness” of his/her feeling in decision-making will improve existing attribution

processes, in which one’s feelings prevent him/her to assign a reliable attribution towards

someone else’s decision behavior (Bargh and Williams, 2007; Damasio, 2005). Fourthly,

considering the themes about types of reasoning (i.e. teleological, logical, correctional, and

causal reasoning), which we have found in this study will help us to explain an individual’s

decision exercise. It has been acknowledged that ignoring one’s type of reasoning has been one

of the reasons behind the unreliability of third-party attributions (Jones and McGillis, 1976;

Kelley et al., 2013), but their focus has been on correlational type of reasoning and other ways of

reasoning have been ignored so far.

The fifth issue that shows how this study improves the reliability of existing attribution

process is the theme of “Impact of Commodities”, which leads third party observers to pay

attention to a decision maker’s limitations and constructs, and prevents misjudgments that are

caused by overlooking one’s abilities (Alkire and Deneulin, 2009; Sen, 1999).

Overall, the 11 themes that we have been found in this study show us the important

factors shaping an individual’s explanation of the reasons behind their decisions. As a result, we

can build our theoretical model by what we have found.

When we take all these themes together we arrive at a representation of self-determinism

in which the level of freedom to make decisions is assessed in terms of available capabilities,

necessary capital, and the extent of influence on the actor. The influences of constraints (logical,

physical, capital and axiological) to have a deleterious effect on the available realizable


capabilities is a key constituent of analysis, In addition, further analysis of the specific forms of

reasoning employed by the actor to explain their behaviour is informative of the determining

forces acting on them. When it is considered that a pure form of self-determination would require

that the agent be free from biases, prejudices, and any form of influence other than personal

desire, we can consider the extent to which the actor is aware of such forces, and the role they

might have played in their decision making process. In practice, of course, it is highly unlikely

that anyone could detach themselves from all external and internal influences, so the issue of

self-determination is more properly one of degree than of absoluteness. In a similar manner, it is

impossible for the actor to self-determine in a way that transcends the physical and the logical, so

their degree of freedom in choosing a course of action is necessarily less than the ideal form. Add

to this the psychological realm in which predispositions sway one’s decisions, it is quite apparent

that total self-determinism is far from being practically achievable. Yet, it is educational to

identify the extent to which a person’s degree of self-determinism is curtailed by different

influencers, and so an exercise in seeking to identify the most potent of influences is useful.

Whether causality, teleology, or correlational reasoning played a pivotal role in the decision

making process further helps to identify situations in which the explanatory power of the

explanation may be evaluated and, therefore, it becomes possible to comment on the extent to

which reasoning is sound and/or given to rationalization. From our investigations actors are

given to overestimate their degree of self-determinism when one contrasts the self and other

perspectives (as elicited through the framework), and this situation leads to a tendency to

rationalize in the sense that a reasonable explanation is forwarded that might be seen to be a

conciliation of apparently incongruent self and other perspectives.

In addition to the importance of the themes that we have found in this study, our results

have significance in relation to existing literature. Firstly, one of the challenges in existing

attribution theories are that attribution researchers heavily rely on an individual’s self-reports

(Graham and Folkes, 1990; van Heerden, 1999); and an individual’s explanations are prone to

‘rationalization’. In other words, actors tend to replace their justifications of behaviour with

rationalizations that replace references to values, emotions and customs with apparent reason and

causality to heighten explanatory power. In this regard, what we have found as two “self” and

“other” sides of each theme allow us to identify when one is rationalizing.


The second significance of our findings in regard to existing attribution literature is the

importance of paying attention to one’s feelings in explaining decisions that rise from one’s

emotion through self-reflection and third party assessments (Weiner, 2010); the influence of

emption on subsequent decisions has previously been acknowledged by (Barbalet, 1996).

However, in our model we have managed to show its impact on one’s subsequent capabilities,

which is one novelty of this study.

Conclusion

In this study we develop a capability based decision model at the theoretical and empirical level.

The theoretical foundation of the model is Sen's (1999) Capability Approach integrated with

Attribution Theory. The purpose of this model is to improve the attribution reliability of decision

behaviour, with a particular focus on an individual’s self-determination. In this study, the

theoretical model is informed by qualitative empirical data, collected from 10 interviews with

adult employees who are asked about the factors that have influenced their career choice. The

thematic analysis on interviews results in 11 themes. The key finding of this study is that each

theme has two sides of self and other. In other words, an individual’s self-perception and their

assumed image to others are not always the same in the context of attribution of behaviour. This

is a novel finding and can be used to identify the cases of misattribution in self-report methods.

Hence, we call for further research in this area with the aim of improving the Capability Based

Decision Model of Attribution to measure an individual’s level of self-determination, while

identifying the difference between individuals’ self and other narratives, when explaining their

decisions.

References

Alkire, S., 2005. Why the capability approach? J. Hum. Dev. 6, 115–135.Alkire, S., 2002. Dimensions of human development. World Dev. 30, 181–205.Alkire, S., Deneulin, S., 2009. The human development and capability approach. Introd. Hum.

Dev. Capab. Approach Freedom Agency Earthscan Lond.Alkire, S., Foster, J., 2011. Understandings and misunderstandings of multidimensional poverty

measurement. J. Econ. Inequal. 9, 289–314.


Andersson, A., Grönlund, \AAke, Wicander, G., 2012. Development as freedom–how the capability approach can be used in ICT4D research and practice. Inf. Technol. Dev. 18, 1–4.

Ashkanasy, N.M., Gallois, C., 1994. Leader attributions and evaluations: Effects of locus of control, supervisory control, and task control. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 59, 27–50.

Baltes, P.B., 1987. Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: On the dynamics between growth and decline. Dev. Psychol. 23, 611.

Barbalet, J.M., 1996. Social emotions: confidence, trust and loyalty. Int. J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 16, 75–96.

Bargh, J.A., Gollwitzer, P.M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., Trötschel, R., 2001. The automated will: nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81, 1014.

Bargh, J.A., Williams, L.E., 2007. The nonconscious regulation of emotion. Handb. Emot. Regul. 1, 429Á445.

Berlin, I., 1969. Two concepts of liberty. Berl. I 118–172.Blakeman, C.C., 2014. A nursing model of leadership practice and policy implementation: End-

of-life care challenge (Ed.D.). University of Phoenix, United States -- Arizona.Blume, B.D., Covin, J.G., 2011. Attributions to intuition in the venture founding process: Do

entrepreneurs actually use intuition or just say that they do? J. Bus. Ventur. 26, 137–151.Bohns, V.K., Flynn, F.J., 2013. Underestimating our influence over others at work. Res. Organ.

Behav. 33, 97–112.Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–

101.Byrne, A., Barling, J., Dupré, K.E., 2013. Leader Apologies and Employee and Leader Well-

Being. J. Bus. Ethics 1–16.Carroll, C., Rick, J., Leaviss, J., Fishwick, D., Booth, A., 2013. A qualitative evidence synthesis

of employees’ views of workplace smoking reduction or cessation interventions. BMC Public Health 13, 1095.

Cassar, L., 2010. Quality of Employment and Job-Satisfaction: Evidence from Chile. OPHI working paper.

Clark, D.A., 2005. The Capability Approach: Its Development, Critiques and Recent Advances.Clark, D.A., 2002. Development ethics: a research agenda. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 29, 830–848.Clore, G.L., Parrott, W.G., 1991a. Moods and their vicissitudes: Thoughts and feelings as

information. Emot. Soc. Judgm. 107–123.Clore, G.L., Parrott, W.G., 1991b. Moods and their vicissitudes: Thoughts and feelings as

information. Emot. Soc. Judgm. 107–123.Collins, A.W., 1978. Teleological Reasoning. J. Philos. 75, 540. doi:10.2307/2025843Commission, corporateName= S.S., 2013. Human Resource Capability Survey 2013. State Serv.

Comm. Website.Cornelius, N., Skinner, D., 2008. The Careers of Senior Men and Women – A Capabilities

Theory Perspective. Br. J. Manag. 19, S141–S149. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00579.x

Courtney, T.K., Verma, S.K., Chang, W.-R., Huang, Y.-H., Lombardi, D.A., Brennan, M.J., Perry, M.J., 2013. Perception of slipperiness and prospective risk of slipping at work. Occup. Environ. Med. 70, 35–40.


Damasio, A., 2005. Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Penguin. com.Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 1985. The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in

personality. J. Res. Personal. 19, 109–134. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6Foerster, L., 2013. Film Reviews: Dishonored; They Call Me Muslim: Two women, two choices

about the hijab; ARUSI Persian Wedding; and Four Wives–One Man. J. Int. Womens Stud. 11, 340–343.

Gagn, M. ne, Deci, E.L., 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 26, 331–362. doi:10.1002/job.322

Gamble, A., 2003. Development as Freedom (review). Common Knowl. 9, 350.Gasper, D., 2010. Understanding the diversity of conceptions of well-being and quality of life. J.

Socio-Econ. 39, 351–360. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.11.006Gong, T., Yi, Y., Choi, J.N., 2014. Helping Employees Deal With Dysfunctional Customers The

Underlying Employee Perceived Justice Mechanism. J. Serv. Res. 17, 102–116.Graham, C., 2008. Happiness and health: Lessons—and questions—for public policy. Health Aff.

(Millwood) 27, 72–87.Graham, S., 1991. A review of attribution theory in achievement contexts. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 3,

5–39.Graham, S.E., Folkes, V.S., 1990. Attribution theory: Applications to achievement, mental health,

and interpersonal conflict. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Gries, T., Naudé, W., 2011. Entrepreneurship and human development: A capability approach. J.

Public Econ. 95, 216–224. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.008Handford, V., Leithwood, K., 2013. Why teachers trust school leaders. J. Educ. Adm. 51, 194–

212.Harvey, P., Martinko, M.J., Gardner, W.L., 2006. Promoting authentic behavior in organizations:

An attributional perspective. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 12, 1–11.Heider, F., 1944. Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychol. Rev. 51, 358.Hussain, T., ur Rehman, S.S., 2013. Do Human Resource Management Practices Inspire

Employees’ Retention? Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 6, 3625–3633.Jones, E.E., McGillis, D., 1976. Correspondent inferences and the attribution cube: A

comparative reappraisal. New Dir. Attrib. Res. 1, 389–420.Kelemen, D., 1999. Function, goals and intention: Children’s teleological reasoning about

objects. Trends Cogn. Sci. 3, 461–468.Kelley, H., Compeau, D., Higgins, C.A., Parent, M., 2013. Advancing theory through the

conceptualization and development of causal attributions for computer performance histories. ACM SIGMIS Database 44, 8–33.

Kelley, H.H., 1967. Attribution theory in social psychology., in: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

Kleine, D., 2011. The capability approach and the “medium of choice”: Steps towards conceptualising information and communication technologies for development. Ethics Inf. Technol. 13, 119–130.

Kroning, M., 2013. Measuring Current Knowledge to Develop an Advanced Heath Care Education Program for Nurses (Ed.D.). Walden University, United States -- Minnesota.

Lakshman, C., 2008. Attributional theory of leadership: a model of functional attributions and behaviors. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 29, 317–339. doi:http://dx.doi.org.v-ezproxy.brunel.ac.uk:2048/10.1108/01437730810876131


Lessmann, O., 2012. Applying the Capability Approach Empirically: An Overview with Special Attention to Labor. Manag. Rev. Int. Rev. Manag. Stud. 23, 98–118.

Loewenstein, G., Lerner, J.S., 2003. The role of affect in decision making. Handb. Affect. Sci. 619, 3.

Lord, R.G., Smith, J.E., 1983. Theoretical, information processing, and situational factors affecting attribution theory models of organizational behavior. Acad. Manage. Rev. 8, 50–60.

Maehr, M.L., Nicholls, J.G., 1980. Culture and achievement motivation: A second look. Stud. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2, 221–267.

Mali, V., 2013. A Study on Locus of Control and Its Impact on Employees’ Performance. Int. J.Martinez, L.R., Ruggs, E.N., Sabat, I.E., Hebl, M.R., Binggeli, S., 2013. The Role of

Organizational Leaders in Sexual Orientation Equality at Organizational and Federal Levels. J. Bus. Psychol. 1–12.

Martinko, M.J., 1995. The Nature and function of Attribution Theory. Attrib. Theory Organ. Perspect. 7.

Martinko, M.J., Harvey, P., Douglas, S.C., 2007. The role, function, and contribution of attribution theory to leadership: A review. Leadersh. Q. 18, 561–585.

Martinko, M.J., Martinez, A.D., 2012. Fuzzy attribution styles. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 19, 17–24.

Meyer, J.W., 2008. Reflections on institutional theories of organizations. Sage Handb. Organ. Institutionalism 790–811.

Muffels, R., Headey, B., 2013. Capabilities and choices: Do they make Sen’se for understanding objective and subjective well-being? An empirical test of Sen’s capability framework on German and British panel data. Soc. Indic. Res. 110, 1159–1185.

Noaparast, E.B., 2014. THE HIJAB (MUSLIM HEADSCARF) IN SCHOOLS OF IRAN: A REFLECTION ON THE RELATION BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SPHERES. Online J. Islam. Educ. January 2.

Nussbaum, M.C., 2004. Emotions as judgments of value and importance.Nussbaum, M.C., 1987. Nature, function, and capability: Aristotle on political distribution.

World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University Helsinki,, Finland.

Robeyns, I., 2005. The Capability Approach: a theoretical survey. J. Hum. Dev. 6, 93–117. doi:10.1080/146498805200034266

Robinson, B., Stey, P., Alfano, M., 2013. Virtue and vice attributions in the business context: An experimental investigation. J. Bus. Ethics 1–13.

Samnani, A.-K., Singh, P., Ezzedeen, S., 2013. Workplace bullying and employee performance: An attributional model. Organ. Psychol. Rev.

Sen, A., 2004. Rationality and freedeom. Harvard University Press.Sen, A., 1999a. Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.Sen, A., 1999b. Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.Simon, H.A., 1972. Theories of bounded rationality. Decis. Organ. 1, 161–176.Skinner, C.H., Fletcher, P.A., Henington, C., 1996. Increasing learning rates by increasing

student response rates: A summary of research. Sch. Psychol. Q. 11, 313.Smith, A., 1937. The wealth of nations (1776). N. Y. Mod. Libr. 740.Swailes, S., Downs, Y., 2012. Problematising the “war for talent”: using Sen’s Capability

Approach as a new framework for thinking about talent management.


Swift, S.A., Moore, D.A., Sharek, Z.S., Gino, F., 2013. Inflated applicants: Attribution errors in performance evaluation by professionals. PloS One 8, e69258.

Tajfel, H.E., 1978. Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press.

Trani, J.-F., Bakhshi, P., Bellanca, N., Biggeri, M., Marchetta, F., 2011. Disabilities through the Capability Approach lens: Implications for public policies. ALTER - Eur. J. Disabil. Res. Rev. Eur. Rech. Sur Handicap 5, 143–157. doi:10.1016/j.alter.2011.04.001

Van Heerden, J., 1999. Explaining misattribution. New Ideas Psychol. 17, 67–70. doi:10.1016/S0732-118X(98)00013-0

\vCerne, M., Dimovski, V., Mari\vc, M., Penger, S., \vSkerlavaj, M., 2013. Congruence of leader self-perceptions and follower perceptions of authentic leadership: Understanding what authentic leadership is and how it enhances employees’ job satisfaction. Aust. J. Manag. 0312896213503665.

WEINER, B., 2010. The Development of an Attribution-Based Theory of Motivation: A History of Ideas. Educ. Psychol. 45, 28–36. doi:10.1080/00461520903433596

Weiner, B., 1995. Attribution theory in organizational behavior: A relationship of mutual benefit. Attrib. Theory Organ. Perspect. 3–6.

Weiner, B., 1972. Theories of motivation: From mechanism to cognition.West, B.J., Patera, J.L., Carsten, M.K., 2009. Team level positivity: Investigating positive

psychological capacities and team level outcomes. J. Organ. Behav. 30, 249–267.Xiaoping, L., 2013. French Muslim Headscarf Ban under the Context of International Law.Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, P., Suárez-Acosta, M.A., 2013. Employees’ Reactions to Peers’

Unfair Treatment by Supervisors: The Role of Ethical Leadership. J. Bus. Ethics 1–13.

A Capability Based Decision Model to Improve the...

Documents

Transcript of A Capability Based Decision Model to Improve the...