IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tuz/journl/v16y2018i2p63-74.html

Comparison Of Openness To Experience In Managers And Non-Managers Employed At Meat Industry ‘Ovako’ Visoko, Bosnia And Herzegovina

Author

Listed:
  • Goran Ridic

    (Faculty of Business Administration (FBA), International University of Sarajevo (IUS))

  • Minela Ahmic

    (Faculty of Business Administration (FBA), International University of Sarajevo (IUS))

  • Ognjen Ridic

    (Faculty of Business Administration (FBA), International University of Sarajevo (IUS))

  • Senad Busatlic

    (Faculty of Business Administration (FBA), International University of Sarajevo (IUS))

Abstract

This primary research was conducted in order to find out what was the level of managers’ and employees’ openness to experience. In addition to this, this research will try to answer the question as to; are there any differences between the managers and non-managers or employees of a certain industry, in terms of openness to experience. It additionally covers the enduring characteristics, in other words, the big five personality traits, where Openness to Experience is to be one of those traits and the main emphasis is placed particularly on it. This research project is based on extensive literature review and previous works related to the openness to experience. Quantitative research design was applied with cross-sectional time frame at the end of Summer and beginning of Fall, 2015. The original-primary research has been conducted at the meat industry OVAKO, one part of AKOVA Impex. Quantitative survey instrument originally developed by Oregon Research Institute was adopted as a basis and was modified to meet statistical criteria for this research. Selection process was simple random sampling, which means that every single individual had the equal opportunity to be selected. Survey questions were distributed to 200 participants. From the sampling frame, 130 participants formed sample and the rest of 70 questionnaires were not completely filled out. The study found out that there was no statistically significant difference between the managers and non-managers in terms of openness to experience at meat industry OVAKO, Visoko.

Suggested Citation

  • Goran Ridic & Minela Ahmic & Ognjen Ridic & Senad Busatlic, 2018. "Comparison Of Openness To Experience In Managers And Non-Managers Employed At Meat Industry ‘Ovako’ Visoko, Bosnia And Herzegovina," Economic Review: Journal of Economics and Business, University of Tuzla, Faculty of Economics, vol. 16(2), pages 63-74, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:tuz:journl:v:16:y:2018:i:2:p:63-74
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ef.untz.ba/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/09-EKONOMSKA-REVIJA-Vol.-XVI-Issue-2-pp.-63-74.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Todd McElroy & Keith Dowd, 2007. "Susceptibility to anchoring effects: How openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 48-53, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Görzen, 2019. "Can Experience be Trusted? Investigating the Effect of Experience on Decision Biases in Crowdworking Platforms," Working Papers Dissertations 55, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    2. Ben-Shahar, Danny & Golan, Roni, 2014. "Real estate and personality," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 111-119.
    3. Lukas Meub & Till Proeger, 2018. "Are groups ‘less behavioral’? The case of anchoring," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 117-150, August.
    4. Kevin Bauer & Andrej Gill, 2024. "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Algorithmic Assessments, Transparency, and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 226-248, March.
    5. Qian Wang & Michael Chau & Chih-Hung Peng & Eric W. T. Ngai, 2022. "Using the Anchoring Effect and the Cultural Dimensions Theory to Study Customers’ Online Rating Behaviors," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 1451-1463, October.
    6. Marija Andonova & Nikica Mojsoska-Blazevski, 2015. "Factors Influencing the Earnings Expectations among Macedonian Students: A Comparative Perspective with the EU Students," Croatian Economic Survey, The Institute of Economics, Zagreb, vol. 17(1), pages 71-110, June.
    7. Paulina Wojciechowska, 2017. "Influence of personality on buying behaviour: a cross- cultural study comparing Poland and the UK," Journal of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour in Emerging Markets, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 2(6), pages 54-76.
    8. Naveh Eskinazi & Miki Malul & Mosi Rosenboim & Tal Shavit, 2023. "Do you still trust me? An experimental study on the effect of uncertainty, complexity and anchors in a trust game," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(2), pages 892-905, March.
    9. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2016. "Are groups 'less behavioral'? The case of anchoring," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 188 [rev.], University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    10. Barbera, Michael & Northey, Gavin & Septianto, Felix & Spanjaard, Daniela, 2018. "Those prices are HOT! How temperature-related visual cues anchor expectations of price and value," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 178-181.
    11. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2014. "Are groups 'less behavioral'? The case of anchoring," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 188, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    12. Bergers, Dominic, 2022. "The status quo bias and its individual differences from a price management perspective," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    13. Meunier, Elliot & Smith, Pauline & Griessinger, Thibaud & Robert, Corinne, 2024. "Understanding changes in reducing pesticide use by farmers: Contribution of the behavioural sciences," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    14. Winkler, Jens & Moser, Roger, 2016. "Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 63-76.
    15. Víctor Alberto Pena & Alina G�mez-Mej�a, 2019. "Effect of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic and optimism bias in stock market forecasts," Revista Finanzas y Politica Economica, Universidad Católica de Colombia, vol. 11(2), pages 389-409.
    16. Cary Deck & Jungmin Lee & Javier Reyes & Chris Rosen, 2012. "Risk‐Taking Behavior: An Experimental Analysis of Individuals and Dyads," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(2), pages 277-299, October.
    17. Nwafor, Onyi & Singh, Rahul & Collier, Cassie & DeLeon, Dereck & Osborne, Jim & DeYoung, Jon, 2021. "Effectiveness of nudges as a tool to promote adherence to guidelines in healthcare and their organizational implications: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 286(C).
    18. Furnham, Adrian & Boo, Hua Chu, 2011. "A literature review of the anchoring effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 35-42, February.
    19. Dominic Bergers, 2021. "Individual differences in the susceptibility of biases relevant in price management: a state-of-the-art article," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 20(4), pages 497-528, August.
    20. Lijie Shan & Shusai Wang & Linhai Wu & Fu-Sheng Tsai, 2019. "Cognitive Biases of Consumers’ Risk Perception of Foodborne Diseases in China: Examining Anchoring Effect," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-14, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • M12 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Personnel Management; Executives; Executive Compensation
    • M54 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Labor Management

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tuz:journl:v:16:y:2018:i:2:p:63-74. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Senad Celikovic (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/efutzba.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.