Advertisement

Cognitive Dynamics of Gender in Individuals’ Activity Goal Classification and Formation Process, Activity Strategy and Decision Outcome Expectation

  • Mohammed-Aminu SandaEmail author
Conference paper
  • 5 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1201)

Abstract

This study explored and empirically determined the influence of gender in the goal classification and goal formation processes of individuals, as well as on their considerations of activity strategy and decision outcome expectations in an exam organizational activity. Data was collected from male and female graduate students preparing for end-of-semester examinations and comparatively analyzed inferentially. It is found that by segregating gender, the cognitive dynamics of male and female students when preparing for an exam organizational activity, in terms of their individual goal classification and goal formation processes, as well as their considerations of activity strategy and decision outcome expectations, differ in perceptual orientation. It is concluded that the cognitive dynamics of male and female individuals’ when preparing for an organizational activity, in terms of their individual goal classification and goal formation processes, as well as their considerations of activity strategy and decision outcome expectations differ in their perceptual orientations.

Keywords

Exam activity Cognitive dynamics Goal classification Goal formation process Activity strategy Decision outcome expectation Gender 

References

  1. 1.
    Sanda, M.A.: Dynamics of goal characterization in students’ exams-preparation systemic activity transition processes. Theor. Issues Ergon. 21(1), 112–130 (2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maccoby, E.E., Jacklin, C.N.: The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1974)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maclntyre, T.: Gender differences in cognition: a minefield of research issues. Irish J. Psychol. 18(4), 386–396 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hyde, J.S.: Gender similarities and differences. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65, 373–398 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reynolds, M.R., Scheiber, C., Hajovsky, D.B., Schwartz, B., Kaufman, A.K.: Gender differences in academic achievement: is writing an exception to the gender similarities hypothesis? J. Genet. Psychol. 176(4), 211–234 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marmaras, N., Nathanael, D.: Cognitive engineering practice: melting theory into reality. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 6(2), 109–127 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sanda, M.A.: Mediating subjective task complexity in job design: a critical reflection of historicity in self-regulatory activity. In: Carryl, B. (ed.) Advances in Neuroergonomics and Cognitive Engineering, pp. 340–350. Springer, Cham, Switzerland (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sanda, M.A., Johansson, J., Johansson, B., Abrahamsson, L.: Using systemic structural activity approach in identifying strategies enhancing human performance in mining production drilling activity. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 15(3), 262–282 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P.: Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. Am. Psychol. 57(9), 705–717 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Locke, E.A.: Purpose without consciousness: a contradiction. Psychol. Rep. 25, 991–1009 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bedny, G.Z., Karwowski, W.: A Systemic-Structural Theory of Activity: Applications to Human Performance and Work Design. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sanda, M.A.: Cognitive and emotional-motivational implications in the job design of digitized production drilling in deep mines. In: Hale, K.S., Stanney, K.M. (eds.) Advances in Neuroergonomics and Cognitive Engineering, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 488, pp. 211–222. Springer, Switzerland (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dalal, D.K., Diab, D.L., Zhu, X.S., Hwang, T.: Understanding the construct of maximizing tendency: a theoretical and empirical evaluation. J. Behav. Decis. Making. 28, 437–450 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Ghana Business SchoolAccraGhana
  2. 2.Luleå University of TechnologyLuleåSweden

Personalised recommendations