Search results

After a long hiatus, psychology and economics today are back in conversation with each other: active research programs in behavioral economics, neuro-economics, and the economics of happiness bespeak a thriving cross-disciplinary discussion. Yet for most of the twentieth century, economists distanced themselves from psychology; when they spoke of science, they referred, in the first instance, to the physical sciences, then perhaps to the biological sciences. A hundred years ago, however, American intellectuals viewed psychology as a progressive science and economics as traditionalist – mired in the antiquated notions of laissez-faire and individualism. A social science that assumed individuals knew their preferences, directed their actions toward fulfilling them in a rational manner, and in the process engaged others in dispassionate exchange, was clearly not speaking to the issues of the modern world. The death of progressivism in the wake of WW I only reinforced the rise of psychology: good intentions weren’t enough, motives were suspect, rational individuals went mad in the midst of conflict and turmoil, complex emotions ruled. Careful psychological analysis could, however, enable society to gain some degree of control over the fundamental irrationality of human action.

The kinds of decisions people make or how they react to certain situations could differ according to the society, atmosphere or environment those people come from. Studies about the influence of human behaviors on economics, business and actions were initiated by analyzing human behaviors and those studies carry on into behavioral finance and behavioral accounting.

In previous years, the models used were based on the assumption that people behave rationally while making decisions. These models lost validity recently and behavioral accounting started to search for the influences affecting human behaviors. They started considering not only the people who prepare accounting data but also the people who take advantage of this data. People’s environment, cultural differences, psychological and sociological factors have entered into the accounting’s field of interest as factors that have an influence on behavior.

The aim of this study is to try to analyze the theoretical bases and extent of behavioral accounting, which focuses on the human behavior factors being observed while creating or using financial reports. The authors also aim to contribute to the literature by including the neuroaccounting dimension into the analysis.

Purpose – To respond to a paper by D'Amico and Boettke arguing that certain scholars, including myself, whom they label “Neuro-Hayekians” have both oversold the importance of Hayek's The Sensory Order for understanding his economics and misunderstood the importance of institutions as opposed to brains/minds in generating social order.

Methodology/approach – I offer a different interpretation of my own work, particularly my use of the word “foundational” to describe the role of The Sensory Order in Hayek's system as well as a criticism of D'Amico and Boettke's apparent dualism.

Finding – On a more careful reading of my own work, as well as that of Hayek himself, I argue that I am not guilty of holding the view that D'Amico and Boettke attribute to me.

Research limitations/implications – The major implication of this exchange is that there is much more agreement than D'Amico and Boettke seem to think.

Originality/value of paper – The value of this paper is found in its attempt to make clear that those scholars arguing for the importance of Hayek's cognitive theory in understanding his work are not arguing that it is a necessary or sufficient condition for understanding his system. Rather, it is valuable for grasping the interconnectedness of his theories of the mind and the market and the relationship between them.

As the developing nations grow and experience rapid institutional transformation, research has begun to investigate the roles of culture, cognition and institutional context on entrepreneurship and innovation. This chapter aims to advance the entrepreneurial cognition literature by juxtaposing entrepreneurial effectuation, domain-specific expertise and ambiguity. By conducting a qualitative study of Chinese high-tech domestic and returnee entrepreneurs, the authors propose a spectrum between causation and effectuation and argue that the entrepreneur’s perceived level of ambiguity may better explain differing logic orientations among entrepreneurs, contributing to our understanding of entrepreneurial cognition. The authors theorize that (1) individual actors and the level of institutional development jointly comprise the entrepreneur’s logic orientation; (2) the level of perceived ambiguity mediates the strategy adopted by high-tech entrepreneurs; (3) the entrepreneur’s logic orientation can be regarded as a continual spectrum from effectuation to causation. Finally, the logic orientation concept is applied to the context of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A) from a process perspective and the implications and fit of logic orientation with the stages of cross-border M&A are discussed.

The attention-based view (ABV) of the firm highlights the role of decision makers’ attention in firm behavior. The ABV vastly improves our understanding of decision makers’ focus of attention; how that focus is situated in an organization’s procedural and communication channels; and how the distribution of the focus of attention among decision makers participating in those procedural and communication channels affects their understanding of a situation, their motivation to act, and, ultimately, their behavior. Significant progress has been made in recent years in refining and extending the ABV. However, the role of individual differences in the capacity to read other people’s desires, intentions, knowledge, and beliefs – that is, the theory of mind (ToM) – has remained on the sidelines. The ToM is a natural complement to the ABV. In this study, we explore how the ToM allows for an understanding of the advantage that organizations have over markets within the ABV.

I propose a model of behavior in social interactions where individuals maximize a three-term utility function: a conventional consumption utility term and two “social” terms that capture social preference. One social term is a taste for desert, which is maximized when the individual believes the other person is getting what they deserve. The second social term measures the target individuals’ anger or gratitude from the interaction which is determined by a value function derived from prospect theory. After introducing the model and generating a series of comparative statics results and derived predictions, I report the results of a series of quasi-field experiments on social preferences. I discuss how the model explains several paradoxes of empirical moral philosophy that are less explicable by current economic models of social preference focusing on outcomes and intentions.

Building trust and living interpersonal trust are crucial corporate executive virtues that are needed today. Once you have developed and solidified a high level of genuine interpersonal trust with all your stakeholders, especially customers, suppliers, and employees, then you are on the right path of managing and transforming your company. A high level of interpersonal trust between all stakeholders and corporates in a business situation will break down communication barriers, foster serious conversation and sharing of ideas, and will eliminate corporate transactional anxieties of fear, mistrust, guilt, rigidity, blame, and resentment. When stakeholders trust you and you trust them, then you speak freely, they speak freely, and your mutual sustained transparency is a gateway to survival, revival, and sustained corporate recovery and transformation, and steady growth and prosperity. Conversely, when there is low trust, high mistrust, and high distrust among stakeholders in a business situation, communications and conversations are stressed and fragmented, teamwork and team spirit are very low, and the company is heading toward its ruin and extermination. Such is the crucial role of interpersonal trust in business. This chapter explores the crucial phenomenon of corporate interpersonal trust. We review various cases, models, concepts, definitions, and theories of trust from the management literature in general, and from the marketing field in particular, to derive psychological, behavioral, ethical, and moral principles of corporate trust, trusting relations, and trusting strategies.

With behavioral experiments and protocol analysis, researchers can capture cognition in action. Using behavioral experiments, they can study realized behavior, not perception or self-reports. And they can do that in a controlled laboratory environment to establish causality, curbing spurious relationships. With protocol analysis, a method to elicit decision-makers’ thoughts, researchers can tap into cognitive processes. In combination, the two methods offer a novel approach to grasp mental processes alongside behavior, to reach causality and replicate findings. We describe the methods, demonstrate how researchers can apply them, and share practices from the design of experimental instruments to the replication of findings.