Search results

Although microblogs have become an important information source, the credibility of their postings is still a critical concern due to the open and unregulated nature. To understand the antecedents of microblog information credibility, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the dual-role of cognitive heuristics (i.e. the additivity and bias roles) and the effect of gender differences.

This study collected data via an online field survey of active microblog users, and a total of 204 valid responses was received.

This study demonstrates the dual-role of source credibility and vividness, the additivity role of microblog platform credibility, and the bias role of social endorsement. Furthermore, this study also found out gender difference that the additivity role of cognitive heuristics was stronger for men while bias role was stronger for women.

This research enriches the microblog literature by examining the cognitive heuristic determinants as key predictors of microblog information credibility, and contributes to the information credibility literature by identifying and analyzing the dual-role effect of cognitive heuristics and corresponding gender differences.

This study can help organizations better manage their reputation, especially during the reputation crises, and also serves as a reminder to microblog platform operators of the importance of their microblog platform credibility.

This study can help organizations better manage their reputation, especially during the reputation crises, and serves as a reminder to the microblog platform operators of the importance of their microblog platform credibility.

This study investigates the dual-role effect of cognitive heuristics (i.e. the additivity role and bias role) and corresponding gender differences that are less touched on before, and thus provides a more nuanced understanding of the more complex effects of cognitive heuristics.

In many real-life situations, we do not know the exact values of the expected gain corresponding to different possible actions, we only have lower and upper bounds on these gains – i.e., in effect, intervals of possible gain values. The purpose of this study is to describe all possible ways to make decisions under such interval uncertainty.

The authors used both natural invariance and additivity requirements.

The authors demonstrated that natural requirements – invariance or additivity – led to a two-parametric family of possible decision-making strategies.

This is a first description of all reasonable strategies for decision-making under interval uncertainty – strategies that satisfy natural requirements of invariance or additivity.

This chapter examines the main methodological issues involved in the comprehension of the cost structure of the airport industry and suggests considerations for future airport cost analyses. Such understanding has become a crucial concern for policy makers, regional planners, and managers in order to deal with optimal market design (e.g., regulation and market configuration) and airport strategies (e.g., pricing, investments, and alliances). An in-depth analysis of the economics of cost functions is presented, together with a description of the relevant multi-output cost economies measures (average incremental costs, scale and scope economies, and cost complementarities). We also discuss the assumptions underlying estimates of total versus variable cost functions and the importance of estimating a sufficiently flexible functional form. Moreover, we provide a critical survey of the international empirical literature on the cost structure of the airport industry, which highlights how econometric estimates strongly depend on the sample choice and the empirical model considered. Indeed, while econometric studies on international samples based on long-run cost function estimates show that long-run scale economies are never exhausted, single country studies mostly estimate variable cost functions and find lower values for scale economies at median sample points that tend to decrease with size. We discuss why we believe that studies based on the estimation of short-run variable cost functions offer more reliable results, given the reasonable assumption of airport overcapitalization in the short run. We conclude our work by noting that underlying policy issues related to planning and regulation, as well as to the optimal market structure of the airport sector, need to take into account the role played by vertical relationships between airports and airlines.

This study analyses the determinants of the value of a portfolio of real options and explores implications for strategic management. It focuses the analysis on four elements: the number of real options in the portfolio, constraints on the number of options that can be exercised, the volatility of underlying assets, and the correlation between underlying assets. These elements are articulated around a trade-off between growth options and switching options and are applied to different strategic situations of technological, market, and macroeconomic uncertainty.

In investment decision making, the net present value (NPV) rule is often used alongside the well‐known capital asset pricing model (CAPM). In particular, the use of disequilibrium NPV is endorsed in corporate finance for both valuation and decision. The purpose of this paper is to test the reliability of this approach to capital budgeting valuations and decisions.

The use of disequilibrium values for computing a project's NPV is considered, and the consistency with the CAPM is checked. The resulting valuation and decision are contrasted with the no‐arbitrage principle, which is universally considered a benchmark for rationality.

The paper finds that the disequilibrium NPV is logically deducted from the CAPM for decision‐making purposes. However, this NPV provides nonadditive values, which makes it inconsistent with the no‐arbitrage principle.

The use of the CAPM+NPV procedure for valuing projects is invalid if disequilibrium values are used. Its use for decision making is logically valid but practically unsafe, because decision makers may frame equivalent courses of action in different ways, resulting in different decisions, which implies that they may incur arbitrage losses.

The literature does not distinguish between equilibrium and disequilibrium NPV nor between valuation and decision. This paper explicitly makes this distinction and the resulting consequences are highlighted.

In real life, we only know the consequences of each possible action with some uncertainty. A typical example is interval uncertainty, when we only know the lower and upper bounds on the expected gain. A usual way to compare such interval-valued alternatives is to use the optimism–pessimism criterion developed by Nobelist Leo Hurwicz. In this approach, a weighted combination of the worst-case and the best-case gains is maximized. There exist several justifications for this criterion; however, some of the assumptions behind these justifications are not 100% convincing. The purpose of this paper is to find a more convincing explanation.

The authors used utility approach to decision-making.

The authors proposed new, hopefully more convincing, justifications for Hurwicz’s approach.

This is a new, more intuitive explanation of Hurwicz’s approach to decision-making under interval uncertainty.

The purpose of this paper is to examine people’s understanding and evaluation of uncertainty intervals produced by experts as part of a quality assurance procedure of large public projects.

Three samples of educated participants (employees in a large construction company, students attending courses in project management and judgment and decision making, and judges of district and appeal courts) answered questionnaires about cost estimates of a highway construction project, presented as a probability distribution.

The studies demonstrated additivity neglect of probabilities that are graphically displayed. People’s evaluations of the accuracy of interval estimates revealed a boundary (a “cliff”) effect, with a sharp drop in accuracy ratings for outcomes above an arbitrary maximum. Several common verbal phrases (what “can” happen, is “entirely possible” and “not surprising”) which might seem to indicate expected outcomes were regularly used to describe unlikely values near or at the top of the distribution (an extremity effect).

All judgments concerned a single case and were made by participants who were not stakeholders in this specific project. Further studies should compare judgments aided by a graph with conditions where the graph is changed or absent.

Experts and project managers cannot assume that readers of cost estimates understand a well-defined uncertainty interval as intended. They should also be aware of effects created by describing uncertain estimates in words.

The studies show how inconsistencies in judgment affect the understanding and evaluation of uncertainty intervals by well-informed and educated samples tested in a maximally transparent situation. Readers of cost estimates seem to believe that precise estimates are feasible and yet that costs are usually underestimated.