Search results

The purpose of this paper is to determine if self-serving bias affects audit client satisfaction level with their audit firm.

A 2×2 between-subjects design is used, where the authors experimentally manipulate the level of client involvement in the audit and the extent of value-added services the client received.

Using a sample of 115 financial managers (audit clients), the authors find no evidence that self-serving bias exists among clients in the experimental setting. Rather, they find that clients appear to be more satisfied with their auditor when they (clients) participate more in the service exchange.

The research is limited to a specific context within the privately held company audit setting.

Audit firms may consider encouraging their privately held clients to participate more in the audit process by clearly communicating expectations and providing clients with audit preparedness materials, including templates and training where necessary.

Although the self-serving bias has been shown to exist in the marketing literature, the authors present a setting where the relationship between service provider (auditor) and customer (client) is such that the self-serving bias may not hold.

The high failure rate for expatriate leaders is well documented. One major cause of these failures has been identified as the incongruencies in the perceptions of expatriate leaders and the host members that they manage. This article describes theory and research which suggests that a potential explanation for at least some of these perceptual incongruencies is that they are a result of culturally‐based attributional biases interacting with self‐serving and actor‐observer attributional biases. Although not all of the interactions of these biases result in incongruent perceptions, some interactions appear to be particularly prone to result in incongruent perceptions such as when leaders from highly individualistic and low context cultures interact with members from highly collectivistic and high context cultures. Suggestions for research and interventions designed to reduce incongruent attributions between leaders and members are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how upstream social marketing can benefit from using social media commentary to identify cognitive biases. Using reactions to leading media/news publications/articles related to climate and energy policy in Australia, this paper aims to understand underlying community cognitive biases and their reasonings.

Social listening was used to gather community commentary about climate and energy policy in Australia. This allowed the coding of natural language data to determine underlying cognitive biases inherent in the community. In all, 2,700 Facebook comments were collected from 27 news articles dated between January 2018 and March 2020 using exportcomments.com. Team coding was used to ensure consistency in interpretation.

Nine key cognitive bias were noted, including, pessimism, just-world, confirmation, optimum, curse of knowledge, Dunning–Kruger, self-serving, concision and converge biases. Additionally, the authors report on the interactive nature of these biases. Right-leaning audiences are perceived to be willfully uninformed and motivated by self-interest; centric audiences want solutions based on common-sense for the common good; and left-leaning supporters of progressive climate change policy are typically pessimistic about the future of climate and energy policy in Australia. Impacts of powerful media organization shaping biases are also explored.

Through a greater understanding of the types of cognitive biases, policy-makers are able to better design and execute influential upstream social marketing campaigns.

The study demonstrates that observing cognitive biases through social listening can assist upstream social marketing understand community biases and underlying reasonings towards climate and energy policy.

What is the discipline's current grasp of cognitive biases in negotiation processes? What lessons can be drawn from this body of literature? The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss the limited research on cognitive biases in the context of negotiations.

This article reviews research from judgment and decision-making, conflict management, psychology, and management literatures to systematize what we already know about cognitive biases in negotiations.

Decision-making studies have mainly identified 21 biases that may lead to lower quality decisions. Only five of those biases have been studied relating to negotiations: the anchoring, the overconfidence, the framing, the status quo and the self-serving bias. Moreover, negotiation literature has identified five additional biases that affect negotiation processes: the fixed-pie error, the incompatibility error, the intergroup bias, the relationship bias and the toughness bias. Biased behavior differs across cultures and emotional mood.

Implications for future research include building comprehensive models of how negotiators can overcome cognitive biases, studying interconnections between different biases, and increasing complexity of the studies to provide practitioners with more practical advice.

The literature reviewed in this paper spans diverse disciplines and perspectives. This paper can be a starting point for researchers interested in understanding how cognitive biases affect negotiations. Moreover, it could be a starting point for future research on this field.

The multiple performance measures in strategic performance measurement systems should be selected to represent a set of causally linked strategic drivers and outcomes. The pattern of results thus can provide information concerning the proper execution of the strategy (i.e., the performance evaluation role) and the strength of the cause-and-effect linkages assumed by the strategy (i.e., the strategy evaluation role). Unfortunately, managers’ tendency to re-evaluate the strategy when performance falls short of target is low in practice. Possible explanations include motivational and cognitive biases. We experimentally examine two decision aids, an attribution aid, and a decomposition aid, designed to help managers ease these challenges. Study 1 shows the decision aids, individually and in combination, increase managers’ tendency to re-examine a problematic strategy. Study 2 demonstrates the effectiveness of the two decision aids, when used together, under a different pattern of results and among a sample of more experienced managers.

The purpose of this article is to develop a conceptual model predicting the influence of biased causal explanations for subordinate behaviors and outcomes on a leader's functionality and the quality of leader‐member relationships.

Attribution theory is used to analyze the effect of leader perceptions and emotions on the functionality of leader‐member relationships. It is predicted that the negative emotions and expectancies stemming from biased leader attributions will promote dysfunctional leader behaviors. These dysfunctional behaviors, in turn, are believed to reduce the quality of leader‐member relationships.

Although much of the proposed model is based on empirical evidence, it is acknowledged that some key relationships have not been tested directly in past research. It is suggested that future research can seek to validate these aspects of the model. It is also suggested that future research explore the role of subordinate, as well as leader, attributions in dysfunctional relationships.

Several implications of the model for promoting functional leadership in organizations are described. The importance of leaders being aware of their attributional biases is indicated and information provided on how to assess one's attribution style. Also discussed are implications for reducing situational ambiguity and increasing causal feedback in the workplace.

This paper builds on past attribution theory research to address a shortage of research on the cognitive, interpersonal aspects of functional and dysfunctional leadership.

This study aims to propose a framework of bias in construction project dispute resolution (CPDR hereafter).

With reference to the literatures on effects of bias, manifestations of bias in CPDR were developed. Based on data obtained from construction professionals about their frequency of having these bias manifestations, the underlying constructs of biased behaviors were explored by a principal component factor analysis. A confirmatory factor analysis was further conducted to validate the framework of bias in CPDR.

Four types of bias were identified as the constructs that underlie biased behaviors in CPDR. These four biases were included in the bias framework proposed: preconception, self-affirmation, optimism and interest-oriented. The potency of these types of bias was also evaluated.

First, the findings inform that the existence of bias in CPDR is real. Early detection allows management to intervene and steer CPDR team back to rational courses. Second, this study suggests optimizing CPDR procedures to diminish the chance of bias occurring.

Bias is almost an uncharted area in CPDR. The study fills this research gap by conceptualizing the underlying constructs of biased behaviors. The findings inform construction professionals of the likelihood of practicing biased behaviors in CPDR. Repeated dispute decisions in the commonly used multi-tiered dispute resolution process would enable the creeping in of biases.

This chapter presents an investigation of the relationship between psychological entitlement and stress. Empirical and conceptual evidence is considered suggesting that Conservation of Resources (COR) theory may apply differently to employees with a heightened sense of entitlement. Using attribution and COR theory, a conceptual framework is offered predicting that entitlement is positively associated with subjective stress, based on the logic that psychologically entitled employees develop unjustifiably inflated levels of self-evaluative internal coping resources such as self-esteem and self-efficacy that promote unmet expectations. It is also proposed that political skill and the ability to manage perceptions of competency may attenuate this relationship. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the challenges associated with managing psychologically entitled employees.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a positive and functional attributional model of leadership, using both leadership perceptions and leadership effectiveness as criteria. Drawing from cognitive complexity theory, and attributional complexity theory, this article identifies attributional accuracy of managers as the fundamental component of the functional model developed here. The model of leadership developed here focuses on such key leadership constructs as leader information processing using complex schemata, leader attributions and their accuracy, leader behaviors that follow their attributions, mediating variables such as subordinate self‐efficacy, satisfaction, and motivation, and outcome variables such as leadership perceptions and subordinate performance. These variables are linked in a process model.

The article depends on a critical review of the literature to build a theoretical model consistent with theory building guidelines.

Accurate attributions and the avoidance of attributional biases are identified as key factors determining effectiveness and leadership perceptions. Leader interactive behaviors, feedback latency, and the development of strategies for improving performance are identified as key consequences of attributional accuracy.

This article has implications for the ways in which managers are selected and trained to provide leadership in organizations.

The theory developed here breaks new ground in the investigation of the positive and functional attributional processes of leaders leading to organizational or unit effectiveness. This research contributes to knowledge by pointing to the functional role of accurate attributions and the delineation of the processes through which such attributions can lead to enhancing subordinate motivation and hence leadership effectiveness.

In complex environments, the use of technology to enhance the capability of people is commonplace. In rapidly changing and often unpredictable environments, it is not enough that these human-automated “teams” perform well when events go as expected. Instead, the human operators and automated aids must be flexible, capable of responding to rare or unanticipated events. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the Framework of Automation Use (Dzindolet, Beck, Pierce, & Dawe, 2001) as it relates to adaptive automation. Specifically, our objectives are to: (1) examine a number of factors that determine how people can effectively integrate their activities with their machine partners in fluid environments and (2) consider the implications of these findings for future research.