Good example or not?

[Marli Oostenbrink]

Hi all, would the following be a good (everyday) example to contrast
effectual and causal reasoning?

"The simple task of planning a birthday party with a theme may be used
to contrast the two types of reasoning. An individual who first
decides on a theme, buy decorations and food according to the theme
and then host the party is an example of casual reasoning. An example
of effectual reasoning would involve an individual who would first
determine if she or any of her friends have decorations from previous
parties, then decide on the theme and then host the party."

Thanks!

[Read, Stuart]

Dear Marli -

Nice question. The short answer is yes - to me it feels like a good
basis for an explanation of the difference between effectuation and
causation. And it brings up at least two larger issues relating to
effectuation; 1) level of goal specificity, and 2) the nature of
pre-commitment.

Goal specificity is something people seem to have a hard time with until
you explain it. And offering the idea in the context of a party, you
could have all sorts of different levels of goals:

Low.> Get together with people (and do what you can with what you have
and who shows up)
....> Get together with friends (specific people)
....> Get together with friends and do something
Med.> Get together with friends and go scuba diving
....> Get together with friends and go scuba diving at a specific place
....> Get together with friends and go scuba diving at a specific place
and at a specific time
High> Invite specific people to a scuba theme party at a specific place
and at a specific time

Then, in the context of such an event, the question of pre-commitment
arises. Do you tell people what you want to do when you invite them, or
ask them what theyd like to do when you invite them? How many "Yes"
answers does it take for you (and them) to commit to a particular
(theme, place, time, ...)? How do you know when they and/or you are
committed?

Other ideas? Anyone else?

Best, Stuart

[Marli Oostenbrink]

Thank you very much Stuart!!

> Thanks!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[D Johansen]

Stuart,

Do you happen to have a citation (perhaps one of your own?) for the two issues you identify below.

Thanks,
Doug

[Stuart Read]

No citation as I dont know anything that has been written about these two issues. 

As far as I know these count as open research territory. 

 

Best, Stuart

[Magdalena Markowska]

Hi,

 

Carver & Scheier (1998) talk quite extensively about goals hierarchy and goals specificity. This however, not in effectuation context but in the broader context of self-regulatory learning behaviors.

 

Best,

Magdalena

>>> Stuart Read <stuar...@gmail.com> 2010-06-14 20:47 >>>

[Read, Stuart]

Exactly.  And how does such work relate (or not) to the third urn of uncertainty?  Whats different?  What new theoretical developments are necessary to provide alternatives to prediction-based goals?  How do motivations (another literature) form goals differentially under uncertainty, and at what level?  What other literatures might inform the goal specificity question under true uncertainty?  The intersection of goal heirarchies and uncertainty/effectuation is open territory for sure.

 

Best, Stuart

 

---

From: effect...@googlegroups.com [mailto:effect...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Magdalena Markowska
Sent: 15 June 2010 08:34
To: effect...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Good example or not?

[D Johansen]

Magdalena,

Thank you!
Doug