with IT and IF cognitive style – even, two cells have less than 5 subjects. The subjects distribution forbid the performing of further analysis since it is not reasonable to compare
a cell with 40 subjects and another cell only with one subjects. This phenomenon can be used as a warning by further researchers in determining number of cells or factorial
design used in experiment. Although, if hypothesis testing is conducted, results show a significant effect of
sponsorship variable and it interacts with cognitive style variable see table 4.2 and table 4.3 in appendix 1.
4.2. Discussion 4.2.1. Descriptive Statistics
Result indicates that subjects consider explicit information as a dimension of an important opportunity cost variable. Subjects change their decision as soon as they
receive information describing explicit opportunity cost choice in Decision 3. This results apply on 115 out of 118 subjects analyzed, showing that subject hesitant to relate
their decision with opportunity cost when there is no information about the magnitude explicitly available as described by table 4.4 appendix 2.
Results also show that 101 85 subjects ask for the relevant additional information, with 79 66.9 subjects using the information correctly in decision-making
table 4.5 - appendix 2.
4.2.2. Additional Analysis
A sample with proportional distribution is used to analyze subjects’ behaviour in resources allocation decisions. The first step conducted is examining dimension process
of perception of cognitive styles sensation versus intuition – as used by Chenhall and Morris 1991. The total 118 samples consists of 100 subjects’ 84.7 sensation style
versus 18 subjects’ 15.3 intuition style as shown in table 4.6 appendix 3.
16
The second step conducted is examining dimension process of judgement of cognitive styles thinking versus feeling. The total 118 samples consists of 83 subjects’
70.3 thinking style versus 35 subjects’ 29.5 feeling style as shown in table 4.7
appendix 3.
The third step conducted is examining combination of sensationthinking ST versus sensationfeeling SF which had proportional data structure. The total 100
samples consists of 69 subjects’ 70.3 ST cognitive style versus 31 subjects’ 29.5
SF cognitive style as shown in table 4.8 appendix 3.
The two-way ANOVA test provides results as follows. First, there is a statistically significant main effect of sponsorship variable—supporting the expectation that manager’
resource allocation decision is influenced by his involvement in a project. Second, cognitive styles variable do not have a significant main effect in manager’s decision.
Finally, interaction of both sponsorship bias and cognitive styles variables has a statistically significant effect on managers’ resource allocation decision F=6.338 and p-
value=0.013, consistent with Chenhall and Morris 1991. It shows that manager’s involvement in a project and his cognitive styles will influence the decision he made.
5. CONCLUSION, LIMITATION, AND IMPLICATION 5.1. Conclusion
The results of this study provide support for the notion that the treatment of implicit opportunity costs by managers is influenced by their cognitive style. This study
also provides support for the proposition that the effect of cognitive style may be confounded by the existence of project sponsorship.
This study failed to test of hypotheses because sample size for each category of combination of cognitive style disproportional. Statistically, the results of hypotheses test
17
