Search results

This article introduces the best-worst scaling object case, a quantitative method of producing individual level models of heterogeneous perceptions, for use in behavioural decision making research in projects. Heterogeneous individual perceptions refer to observed or unobserved differences between individual perceptions that impact the outcome being studied. Individual level models of perceptions are important to account for the impact of heterogeneous perceptions on measurement tasks, so they do not become an unobserved source of variance that potentially biases research inferences.

An overview of individual heterogeneity is provided highlighting the requirement for individual level models in quantitative perception measurements. A literature review is then conducted of the quantitative methods and tasks used to measure perceptions in behavioural decision making research in projects and their potential to produce individual level models.

The existing quantitative methods cannot produce the necessary individual level models primarily due to the inability to address individual level scale effects, responses styles and biases. Therefore, individual heterogeneity in perceptions can become an unobserved source of variance that potentially biases research inferences.

A method new to project management research, the best-worst scaling object case, is proposed to produce individual level models of heterogeneous perceptions. Guidance on how to implement this method at the individual level is provided along with a discussion of possible future behavioural decision making research in projects.

This article identifies a largely unacknowledged measurement limitation of quantitative behavioural decision making research in projects and provides a practical solution: implementing the best-worst scaling object case at the individual level.

With the growing interest in behavioral health and medical decision-making, this systematic integrative review aims to understand research on cognitive biases in the context of consumer health information seeking and where future research opportunities may reside.

Following a systematic review protocol, 40 empirical research articles, out of 1,127 journal research papers from 12 academic databases, from 1995 to 2019, are included for review.

The study of cognitive biases in consumer health information seeking is a nascent and fast-growing phenomenon, with variety in publication venues and research methods. Among the 16 biases investigated, optimistic bias and confirmation bias have attracted most attention (46.9%). Researchers are most interested in specific disease/illness (35%) and the health factors of consumer products (17.5%). For theoretical presence, about one-third of the reviewed articles have cited behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman, although most of the references are the early works of Kahneman.

As an emerging research area, there exists plenty of cognitive biases to be investigated in the context of health information seeking. In the meantime, the adoption of more recent theoretical insights such as nudge for debiasing may enrich this research area. Health communication scientists may find incorporating the behavioral decision research framework enriches the disciplinary inquiry of health information seeking, while information scientists could use it to commence the cognitive turn of information science evolution.

Through evidence-based understanding, this review shows the potential research directions that health communication scientists and information scientists could contribute to optimize health decisions through the adoption of behavioral decision research framework.

Behavioral strategy, as a cognitive- and social-psychological view on strategic management, has gained increased attention. However, its conceptualization is still fuzzy and deserves an in-depth investigation. The authors aim to provide a holistic overview and classification of previous research and identify gaps to be addressed in future research.

The authors conducted a systematic literature review on behavioral strategy. The final sample includes 46 articles from leading management journals, based on which the authors develop a research framework.

The results reveal cognition and traits as major internal factors. Besides, organizational and environmental contingencies are major external factors of behavioral strategy.

To the authors’ best knowledge, this is the first holistic systematic literature review on behavioral strategy, which categorizes previous research.

George Loewenstein, a prominent behavioral economist, recalls thatIn 1994, when Thaler, Camerer, Rabin, Prelec and I spent the year at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, we had a meeting to make a kind of final decision about what to call what we were doing. Remarkably, at that time, the name behavioral economics was not yet well established. I actually advocated “psychological economics,” and Thaler was strong on behavioral economics. I'm kind of glad that he prevailed; I think it's a better, catchier, label, although it creates confusion due to association with Behaviorism. (G. Loewenstein, personal email to author, June 16, 2008)

Behavioral decision research focuses on cognitive biases and other barriers to economic rationality. However, if cognitive biases are costly to eliminate, the second-best solution to bounded rationality may be less rationality rather than more. I define the concept of behavioral rationality and discuss two extreme forms of strategizing, which I call Romantic and Mercenary. Using twentieth century humanitarian Albert Schweitzer as a case study, I discuss the optimization of economic and behavioral rationality. I argue that the success of behavioral strategy as a field does not depend on removing cognitive biases but on helping people deliver more effective strategic actions.

This study aims to aid theory building, the use of decision theory (DT) concepts in sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) research is examined.

An abductive approach considers two DT concepts, Snowden’s Cynefin framework for sense-making and Keeney’s value-focussed decision analysis, in a systematic literature review of 160 peer-reviewed papers in English.

Around 60 per cent of the papers on decision-making in SSCM come from operational research (OR), which makes explicit use of DT. These are almost all normative and rationalist and focussed on structured decision contexts. Some exceptions seek to address unstructured decision contexts via Complex Adaptive Systems or Soft Systems Methodology. Meanwhile, a second set, around 16 per cent, comes from business ethics and are empirical, behavioural decision research. Although this set does not explicitly refer to DT, the empirical evidence here supports Keeney’s value-focussed analysis.

There is potential for theory building in SSCM using DT, but the research only addresses SSCM research (including corporate responsibility and ethics) and not DT in SCM or wider sustainable development research.

Use of particular decision analysis methods for SSCM may be improved by better understanding different decision contexts.

The research shows potential synthesis with ethical DT absent from DT and SCM research.

Empirical behavioural decision analysis for SSCM is considered alongside normative, rational analysis for the first time. Value-focussed DT appears useful for unstructured decision contexts found in SSCM.

Empirical, behavioural decision analysis for SSCM is considered alongside normative rational analysis for the first time. Value-focussed DT appears useful for unstructured decision contexts found in SSCM.

The success of multinational enterprises (MNEs) is at least as much a function of management ability and behavior as it is of industry characteristics or environmental factors. These managers display human limitations that affect judgment. Yet International business (IB) researchers tend to ignore management in their research, treating the firm as a black box. To the extent top management team (TMT) is considered, rational behavior in classical economic sense is assumed. Behavioral elements were studied by others in different fields. Clearly, managers behave according to different rules than those assumed in much of the IB literature. Further, managers are not part of a herd but unique. The result of such a lacuna is that theory fails to predict actual behavior and does not allow best guidance for policy options. The chapter summarizes research on behavioral decision making and calls for its application in future research in international business.

The success of multinational enterprises (MNEs) is at least as much a function of management ability and behavior as it is of industry characteristics or environmental factors. MNE managers, like all managers, display human limitations, e.g., overconfidence that affect judgment. Yet IB researchers still tend to ignore management in their research, treating the firm as a black box. To the extent that the top management team is considered, rational behavior in the classical economic sense is assumed, yet, clearly, managers behave according to different rules than those assumed in much of the IB literature. Further, managers are not part of a herd, but unique. The result of such a lacuna is that theory fails to predict actual behavior and does not allow best guidance for policy options. The paper summarizes research on behavioral decision making and calls for its application in future research in international business.

Despite widespread interest in “behavioral strategy,” it is not clear what this term, or its associated academic subfield, is all about. Unless a critical mass of scholars can agree on the meaning of behavioral strategy, and professionally identify with it, this embryonic community may face a marginal existence. We describe three alternative conceptions for the academic subfield of behavioral strategy, along with assessments of the pros and cons of each. The “small tent” version amounts to a direct transposition of the logic of behavioral economics to the field of strategic management, specifically in the style of behavioral decision research. The “midsize tent” view is that behavioral strategy is a commitment to understanding the psychology of strategists. And the “large tent’ view includes consideration of any and all psychological, sociological, and political factors that influence strategic outcomes. We conclude that the midsize tent represents the best path forward, not too narrow and not too broad, allowing rich scope but with coherence. The large tent conception of behavioral strategy, however, is not out of the question and warrants serious consideration.