Finishing on time: When do predictions influence completion times?
AbstractPeople typically predict they will finish projects earlier than they do. Whereas previous research has examined the determinants of this prediction bias, the present research explored potential consequences for behavior. In particular, we examined whether and when task completion predictions influence actual completion times. In four experiments we used anchoring manipulations to induce participants to make relatively early or late task completion predictions, and then examined when they started and/or finished the target tasks. As hypothesized, the prediction manipulation influenced completion times under certain conditions defined by the nature of the target task. Manipulated predictions affected completion times of closed tasks, defined as tasks carried out within a single, continuous session but not of open tasks, defined as tasks requiring multiple work sessions. This implies that task completion predictions help to initiate action, but their impact diminishes over the course of extensive, multi-stage projects.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
Volume (Year): 111 (2010)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp
Prediction Planning fallacy Bias Optimism Task completion times;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Terry Connolly & Doug Dean, 1997. "Decomposed Versus Holistic Estimates of Effort Required for Software Writing Tasks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(7), pages 1029-1045, July.
- Paese, Paul W., 1995. "Effects of Framing on Actual Time Allocation Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 67-76, January.
- Hinsz, Verlin B. & Kalnbach, Lynn R. & Lorentz, Nichole R., 1997. "Using Judgmental Anchors to Establish Challenging Self-Set Goals Without Jeopardizing Commitment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 287-308, September.
- Ayelet Fishbach & Ravi Dhar, 2005. "Goals as Excuses or Guides: The Liberating Effect of Perceived Goal Progress on Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(3), pages 370-377, December.
- Buehler, Roger & Messervey, Deanna & Griffin, Dale, 2005. "Collaborative planning and prediction: Does group discussion affect optimistic biases in time estimation?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 47-63, May.
- Morwitz, Vicki G & Johnson, Eric J & Schmittlein, David C, 1993. " Does Measuring Intent Change Behavior?," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(1), pages 46-61, June.
- Buehler, Roger & Griffin, Dale, 2003. "Planning, personality, and prediction: The role of future focus in optimistic time predictions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 80-90.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.