Comparing Aspiration Models: The Role of Selective Attention Mark Washburn and Philip Bromiley California State University; University of California, Irvine  For many years, scholars have used a variety of models to measure organizational aspirations, but these alternative measures reflect differing assumptions about the decision- making processes determining aspiration levels. This study begins by examining some of the implications of the aspiration models in use. It then extends the theoretical model of aspiration levels from the behavioural theory of the firm to incorporate varying attention, another fundamental concept from the theory. Finally, it uses direct aspiration measures on the sales performance of retailers in a large automotive manufacturer to assess the alternative theories by comparing existing models with one that incorporates varying attention. We find support for a model where the importance of the factors influencing aspiration levels varies with the level of past firm performance relative to industry performance. Thus, the varying attention so central to the behavioural theory of the firm influences the formulation of aspirations. Keywords: aspirations, behavioural theory, search, social comparison INTRODUCTION Aspiration levels generally refer to levels of outcomes that will satisfy the individual or organization. Since publication of March and Simon’s (1958) Organizations and Cyert and March’s (1963), Behavioral Theory of the Firm (BTOF), a substantial literature has developed demonstrating that aspiration levels strongly influence firm behaviour across domains that include risk taking (Bromiley, 1991; Gooding et al., 1996; Miller and Chen, 2004; Singh, 1986; Wiseman and Bromiley, 1996), research and development (Chen and Miller, 2007), strategic change (Greve, 1998, 2003a), decision making (Audia and Brion, 2007), acquisitions (Iyer and Miller, 2008), forecasting (Mezias, 1988), growth (Wiklund and Shepherd, 2003), and learning (Baum and Dahlin, 2007; Dow, 1990; Rhee, 2009). While many studies use the construct of organizational aspirations, few have direct measures of aspiration levels. With the exceptions of Lant (1992) and Mezias et al. (2002), published quantitative studies using aspiration levels have used proxies based on variables that theoretically should influence the levels. Address for reprints: Mark Washburn, College of Business Administration, California State University, Long Beach, Long Beach, CA 90840, USA (bromiley@uci.edu). © 2011 The Authors Journal of Management Studies © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management Studies. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. Journal of Management Studies 49:5 July 2012 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01033.x