Uncertain outcome presentations bias decisions: experimental evidence from Finland and Italy

Even in their everyday lives people are expected to make difficult decisions objectively and rationally, no matter how complex or uncertain the situation. In this research, we study how the format of presentation and the amount of presented information concerning risky events influence the decision-making process, and the propensity to take risk in decision makers. The results of an exploratory survey conducted in Finland and in Italy suggest that decision-making behavior changes according to the way the information is presented. We provide experimental evidence that different representations of expected outcomes create distinct cognitive biases and as a result affect the decisions made. This identified change in the perception of risk has, to the best of our knowledge, not been identified nor directly studied previously in the scientific literature. The paper thus presents novel insights into managerial decision-making that are potentially relevant for decision support theory, with implications to decision-makers and for information providers. Understanding the impact of various forms of presentation of risk is crucial in being able to convey information clearly and in a way that avoids misunderstandings. The implications of the results on being able to avoid opportunistic manipulation of decisions, are also of great concern in many application areas. Social networks are more and more frequently being used as a source of information and in this context it is crucial to acknowledge the effect that different ways of presenting and communicating risky outcomes may have on the behavior of the target group. Here presented results may, for example, be highly relevant for marketing and advertising that is conducted by using social media or social networks.

[1]  Mark Simon,et al.  Cognitive biases, risk perception, and venture formation: How individuals decide to start companies , 2000 .

[2]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Dressing Up Like an Organization: When Psychological Theories Can Explain Organizational Action , 1991 .

[3]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[4]  Martin Weber,et al.  The Role of Experience Sampling and Graphical Displays on One's Investment Risk Appetite , 2012 .

[5]  J. March,et al.  Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking , 1987 .

[6]  D. Teece Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[7]  N. Weinstein Unrealistic optimism about future life events , 1980 .

[8]  N. A. Nichols Scientific management at Merck: An interview with CFO Judy Lewent , 1994 .

[9]  E. Johnsen Richard M. Cyert & James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of The Firm, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963, 332 s. , 1964 .

[10]  Azzurra Morreale,et al.  An Open Innovation Decision Support System to Select a Biopharmaceutical R&D Portfolio , 2016 .

[11]  Miguel A. Vadillo,et al.  Illusion of Control , 2013, Experimental psychology.

[12]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  Communicating forecasts: The simplicity of simulated experience , 2015 .

[13]  G. Breakwell Risk communication: factors affecting impact. , 2000, British medical bulletin.

[14]  Lenos Trigeorgis,et al.  Option implied ambiguity and its information content: Evidence from the subprime crisis , 2018, Ann. Oper. Res..

[15]  S. Sitkin,et al.  Determinants of Risky Decision-Making Behavior: A Test of the Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions and Propensity , 1995 .

[16]  Charles H. Schwenk Information, Cognitive Biases, and Commitment to a Course of Action , 1986 .

[17]  Andy Alaszewski,et al.  Risk communication: identifying the importance of social context , 2005 .

[18]  Stanley B. Block Are “Real Options” Actually Used in the Real World? , 2007 .

[19]  H. Simon,et al.  Selective perception: A note on the departmental identifications of executives. , 1958 .

[20]  Mikael Collan,et al.  Thoughts about Selected Models for the Valuation of Real Options , 2011 .

[21]  Charles R. Schwenk Strategic Decision Making , 1995 .

[22]  James H. Barnes Cognitive biases and their impact on strategic planning , 1984 .

[23]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[24]  Charles R. Schwenk,et al.  Conjectures on Cognitive Simplification in Acquisition and Divestment Decision Making , 1985 .

[25]  F. Hansford-Miller 13. Judgement and Choice: The Psychology of Decision , 1988 .

[26]  John Beshears,et al.  Can Psychological Aggregation Manipulations Affect Portfolio Risk-Taking ? Evidence from a Framed Field Experiment , 2009 .

[27]  E. Weber,et al.  Communicating Asset Risk: How Name Recognition and the Format of Historic Volatility Information Affect Risk Perception and Investment Decisions , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[28]  R. Thaler,et al.  Risk Aversion Or Myopia? Choices in Repeated Gambles and Retirement Investments , 1999 .

[29]  Maria Grazia Scutellà,et al.  Robust portfolio asset allocation and risk measures , 2013, Annals of Operations Research.

[30]  Maria Grazia Scutellà,et al.  Robust portfolio asset allocation and risk measures , 2013, Ann. Oper. Res..

[31]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[32]  M. Shubik,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. , 1964 .

[33]  K. Clark,et al.  Dynamic Manufacturing: Creating the Learning Organization , 1988 .

[34]  Martin Weber,et al.  The Role of Experience Sampling and Graphical Displays on One's Investment Risk Appetite , 2012, Manag. Sci..

[35]  Gary P. Pisano,et al.  Toward a Theory of Behavioral Operations , 2008, Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag..

[36]  Kalevi Kyläheiko,et al.  Making sense of technology: Towards a synthesis between neoclassical and evolutionary approaches , 1998 .

[37]  Kelly G. Shaver,et al.  Person, Process, Choice: The Psychology of New Venture Creation , 1992 .

[38]  Kent D. Miller,et al.  AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF HEURISTICS AND BIASES AFFECTING REAL OPTION VALUATION , 2004 .

[39]  Dan Lovallo,et al.  Creating more accurate acquisition valuations , 2014 .

[40]  Carolyn Y. Woo,et al.  Entrepreneurs' perceived chances for success , 1988 .

[41]  J. Fredrickson The Comprehensiveness of Strategic Decision Processes: Extension, Observations, Future Directions , 1984 .

[42]  Han T. J. Smit,et al.  Playing at Acquisitions: Behavioral Option Games , 2015 .

[43]  Sabri Boubaker,et al.  Evolutionary-based return forecasting with nonlinear STAR models: evidence from the Eurozone peripheral stock markets , 2018, Ann. Oper. Res..