Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40302546›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of psychology2025

Leading From Higher Headquarters.

Jostein Mattingsdal, Roar Espevik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jostein MattingsdalRoyal Norwegian Naval Academy, Leadership Division, Norwegian Defense University College, Laksevåg, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5148-2893
Roar EspevikCenter for Crisis Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6472-4636

Funding

Forsvaret
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study explores the relationship between self-efficacy, task acceptance, and goal setting among senior leaders operating in higher headquarters, particularly within the context of hybrid warfare. The aim is to describe the factors that influence the decision-making (DM) performance of police and military leaders involved in collaborative response efforts during wartime. Path analysis was utilized to investigate an original dataset comprising 102 participants from Norway's police and military (M = 44.4 years). It involved a realistic simulation exercise designed to replicate the challenges associated with hybrid warfare. The study was grounded in Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory. The results indicated that self-efficacy demonstrated a positive and significant indirect effect on DM performance through goal setting. Furthermore, high DM performance in peacetime and high goal setting were both positively associated with DM performance in wartime. This study enhances the understanding of the interplay between self-efficacy, task acceptance, and goal setting in crisis response settings. The findings underscore the significance of cultivating effective DM skills in senior leaders operating in higher headquarters, particularly in defense against hybrid warfare. These insights can be applied to leadership development and policy programs aimed at enhancing national DM frameworks.

Indexed as

Decision MakingGoalsLeadershipMilitary PersonnelPoliceSelf EfficacyWarfareAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwaycollaborative crisis responsedecision‐making performancegoal settingindirect leadershipself‐efficacy

Identifiers

PMID40302546
PMCPMC12423735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.