@article{SeewannVerwiebe2020, author = {Seewann, Lena and Verwiebe, Roland}, title = {How do people interpret the value concept?}, series = {Journal of beliefs and values}, volume = {41}, journal = {Journal of beliefs and values}, number = {6}, publisher = {Routledge}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {1469-9362}, doi = {10.1080/13617672.2019.1707748}, pages = {419 -- 432}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Value research has a long and extensive history of theoretical definitions and empirical investigations using large scale quantitative surveys. However, the way the general population understands, defines, and relates to the concept of values, and how these views vary across individuals is seldom addressed. The present study examined subjective interpretations of the term through focus group interviews, and reports on the development of a Value Conceptualisation Scale (VCS) that distinguishes six dimensions of different views on values: normativity, relevance, validity, stability, consistency, and awareness. Focus group interviews (n = 38) as well as several surveys (n = 100, n = 1519, n = 903, n = 94) were used to develop, refine, and test the scale in terms of response variety, temporal stability, as well as convergent and discriminant validity. These systematic results show that views on values do indeed vary significantly between participants. Correlations with dogmatism, preference for consistency, and metacognition were found for corresponding dimensions. The VCS provides an original measure, which enables future research to explore this variation on the conceptualisation of values.}, language = {en} } @misc{SeewannVerwiebe2020, author = {Seewann, Lena and Verwiebe, Roland}, title = {How do people interpret the value concept?}, series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {4}, issn = {1867-5808}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-51584}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-515843}, pages = {16}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Value research has a long and extensive history of theoretical definitions and empirical investigations using large scale quantitative surveys. However, the way the general population understands, defines, and relates to the concept of values, and how these views vary across individuals is seldom addressed. The present study examined subjective interpretations of the term through focus group interviews, and reports on the development of a Value Conceptualisation Scale (VCS) that distinguishes six dimensions of different views on values: normativity, relevance, validity, stability, consistency, and awareness. Focus group interviews (n = 38) as well as several surveys (n = 100, n = 1519, n = 903, n = 94) were used to develop, refine, and test the scale in terms of response variety, temporal stability, as well as convergent and discriminant validity. These systematic results show that views on values do indeed vary significantly between participants. Correlations with dogmatism, preference for consistency, and metacognition were found for corresponding dimensions. The VCS provides an original measure, which enables future research to explore this variation on the conceptualisation of values.}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{HaaseMatthiesenSchueffleretal.2020, author = {Haase, Jennifer and Matthiesen, Julia and Sch{\"u}ffler, Arnulf and Kluge, Annette}, title = {Retentivity beats prior knowledge as predictor for the acquisition and adaptation of new production processes}, series = {Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences}, volume = {53}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences}, doi = {10125/64331}, pages = {4797 -- 4805}, year = {2020}, abstract = {In the time of digitalization the demand for organizational change is rising and demands ways to cope with fundamental changes on the organizational as well as individual level. As a basis, learning and forgetting mechanisms need to be understood in order to guide a change process efficiently and successfully. Our research aims to get a better understanding of individual differences and mechanisms in the change context by performing an experiment where individuals learn and later re-learn a complex production process using a simulation setting. The individual's performance, as well as retentivity and prior knowledge is assessed. Our results show that higher retentivity goes along with better learning and forgetting performances. Prior knowledge did not reveal such relation to the learning and forgetting performances. The influence of age and gender is discussed in detail.}, language = {en} } @misc{GanghofEppnerPoerschke2018, author = {Ganghof, Steffen and Eppner, Sebastian and P{\"o}rschke, Alexander}, title = {Australian bicameralism as semi-parliamentarism}, series = {Australian Journal of Political Science}, journal = {Australian Journal of Political Science}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-412984}, pages = {24}, year = {2018}, abstract = {The article analyses the type of bicameralism we find in Australia as a distinct executive-legislative system - a hybrid between parliamentary and presidential government - which we call 'semi- parliamentary government'. We argue that this hybrid presents an important and underappreciated alternative to pure parliamentary government as well as presidential forms of the power-separation, and that it can achieve a certain balance between competing models or visions of democracy. We specify theoretically how the semi-parliamentary separation of powers contributes to the balancing of democratic visions and propose a conceptual framework for comparing democratic visions. We use this framework to locate the Australian Commonwealth, all Australian states and 22 advanced democratic nation-states on a two- dimensional empirical map of democratic patterns for the period from 1995 to 2015.}, language = {en} }