Attribution error
The manner in which human beings react to technology is different. This may be caused by the different perceptions that the people have on technology. This research paper attempts to examine if human perception is influenced by major factor technological failures in many organizations. The main objective of this research is to know the extent in which human perceptions are influenced by technological failure. Weiner (78) notes that technology failures in organizations may include failure in machines, computer errors, and unplanned for circuit breaks. According to Delfabbro and Winefield (14), the decision making process of the human beings is influenced by the perceptions they have of the work that they have.
Hypothesis 1: technological failures attribute to human perceptions of accountability in many organizations.
Hypothesis 2: technological failures are not attributed to human perceptions of accountability in many organizations.
The variables in this research include organizational accountability and counterfactual thoughts. Counterfactual thoughts are the reflection by individuals working in an organization of what might have happened if the technological failures had not occurred. These thoughts can influence the level of accountability when discretional conduct is being weighed. In many cases, people tend to make these judgments in order to assign accountability to failure in organizations. According to Peterson, Christopher, Steven, and Martin (17), organizational accountability is the degree at which an organization is held accountable for its actions towards the occurrence of technological failure and the impacts that the technological failures have on the organization. The outcomes of organizational accountability showed that human error is accountable for the misfortunes of an organization. When tested, counterfactual thoughts had a major bearing of misfortunes in that imaginations could enable better human outcomes than the technological errors.
The kind of research that was conducted was an experimental study. Experimental study has several pros and cons. The strengths of the experimental study include; this type of research can be controlled thus the limits, and the scope can be easily determined. It is also relatively easy to replicate this form of experimental research. This has a significant impact in that other people can have similar results when using the same design. According to Ragin (99), the weaknesses of this study are; artificiality. The people conducting the experiments tend to control the environment in which they are working on, and this is usually not the case in the real world. This mode of study is also weak in that it is mainly centered on explanations, and the descriptive part is usually ignored.
The predictor variables were measured before the outcomes. From a causal perspective, the technological failures that cause accidents allow organizations to slip scot free of any blame in terms of accountability.
The findings in this study tend to generalize the information in many other situations as it was a controlled experiment and the actual results were from an artificial environment. The information in this study is also important especially towards business people. Businessmen can use this information to fine tune their businesses and put measures that work in their organization is not affected by human attribution errors. According to Ragin (113) people make decisions based on the research and studies conducted when working on the identified human errors. Jervis (76) argues that problem solving is a difficult task that must be well coordinated especially in circumstances where human errors are concerned. This is because human errors are sometimes difficult to identify especially be the individuals involved. This study ruled out alternative explanations for the results at the study tried to determine the effects of the technology failure has on human attribution and the descriptive part was generally ignored.
In this study, graduate level students were used. The best option that should have been chosen should have been business people. This makes a huge difference as the students who were used enabled the business environment to be controlled. The analytical method that was used is regression analysis. The hypothesis was confirmed. According to Jervis (100), for people working in these organizations, they should use the information to improve their attribution errors and maximize their outputs. Had the hypotheses not been confirmed, we should have concluded that human errors are no a causative agents for accountability in the case of organizational accountability.
Conclusion
The results of this research are significant in the long term for students as it will enable the students to deal with human perception errors in the future especially in the working environments. After the study was conducted, the first hypothesis was confirmed. The findings in this study advance the fairness theory as it clearly proves that a causative variable can have some effects on the way we judge organizational accountability. The results of this study can have several implications in terms of the causal effect and in most of the cases the students decided to delve backwards thus generating counterfactual thoughts about the technology being tested. While dealing with, human perceptions, it is also critical that students understand how technology works so that they do not blame the technology in case the technology they are using fails to work. It is also evident from the study that the mode of the experiment was a controlled environment thus providing artificial results. In order to find the actual result, real business people should have been used for this study. Through this study, we can learn that most of the current organizational processes are based on technology and especially computer technology. It is vital to note that we should not put all our efforts in developing new technologies but we should also put extra effort in managing our emotions and our thinking process towards the functionality of the technology that we invent. Cognitive and physiological frameworks of the functioning of the society must be recognized. Attribution errors by human beings leads them to judge performance the way they perceive the performance should be done instead of judging the errors in the real way based on facts and evidence.
Works cited
Peterson, Christopher, Steven F. Maier, and Martin E. P. Seligman. Learned Helplessness: A Theory for the Age of Personal Control. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Print.
Weiner, Bernard. Atributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. Heidelberg: Springer, 2012.Print.
Jervis, R. Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.1996.Print.
Ragin, Charles C. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Internet resource.
Delfabbro, P. H., & Winefield, A. H. Predictors of irrational thinking in regular slot machine gamblers. Journal of Psychology, (2000).
.
