IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v137y2016icp13-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Overcoming the outcome bias: Making intentions matter

Author

Listed:
  • Sezer, Ovul
  • Zhang, Ting
  • Gino, Francesca
  • Bazerman, Max H.

Abstract

People often make the well-documented mistake of paying too much attention to the outcomes of others’ actions while neglecting information about the original intentions leading to those outcomes. In five experiments, we examine interventions aimed at reducing this outcome bias in situations where intentions and outcomes are misaligned. Participants evaluated an individual with fair intentions leading to unfavorable outcomes, an individual with selfish intentions leading to favorable outcomes, or both individuals jointly. Contrary to our initial predictions, participants weighed others’ outcomes more—not less—when these individuals were evaluated jointly rather than separately (Experiment 1). Consequently, separate evaluators were more intention-oriented than joint evaluators when rewarding and punishing others (Experiment 2a) and assessing the value of repeated interactions with these individuals in the future (Experiment 2b). Third-party recommenders were less outcome-biased in allocating funds to investment managers when making separate evaluations relative to joint evaluations (Experiment 3). Finally, raising the salience of intentions prior to discovering outcomes helped joint evaluators overcome the outcome bias, suggesting that joint evaluation made attending to information about intentions more difficult (Experiment 4). Our findings bridge decision-making research on the outcome bias and management research on organizational justice by investigating the role of intentions in evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Sezer, Ovul & Zhang, Ting & Gino, Francesca & Bazerman, Max H., 2016. "Overcoming the outcome bias: Making intentions matter," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 13-26.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:137:y:2016:i:c:p:13-26
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.07.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597816304289
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.07.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Angela Fagerlin & Peter A. Ubel, 2004. "“Is 28% Good or Bad?†Evaluability and Preference Reversals in Health Care Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(2), pages 142-148, March.
    2. Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & Dijk, Eric van & Wilke, Henk A.M. & Vermunt, Riel C., 2004. "Evaluability of outcomes in ultimatum bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 97-106, September.
    3. Stanca, Luca, 2010. "How to be kind? Outcomes versus intentions as determinants of fairness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 19-21, January.
    4. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
    5. Iris Bohnet & Alexandra van Geen & Max Bazerman, 2016. "When Performance Trumps Gender Bias: Joint vs. Separate Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1225-1234, May.
    6. Bazerman, Max H. & Schroth, Holly A. & Shah, Pri Pradhan & Diekmann, Kristina A. & Tenbrunsel, Ann E., 1994. "The Inconsistent Role of Comparison Others and Procedural Justice in Reactions to Hypothetical Job Descriptions: Implications for Job Acceptance Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 326-352, December.
    7. Bazerman, Max H. & Moore, Don A. & Tenbrunsel, Ann E. & Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. & Blount, Sally, 1999. "Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 41-58, May.
    8. Wang, Long & Keith Murnighan, J., 2013. "The generalist bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 47-61.
    9. Gary Charness & David I. Levine, 2007. "Intention and Stochastic Outcomes: An Experimental study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(522), pages 1051-1072, July.
    10. Gino, Francesca & Shu, Lisa L. & Bazerman, Max H., 2010. "Nameless + harmless = blameless: When seemingly irrelevant factors influence judgment of (un)ethical behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 93-101, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:3:p:236-252 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Richard B. Anderson & Laura Marie Leventhal & Don C. Zhang & Daniel Fasko, Jr. & Zachariah Basehore & Christopher Gamsby & Jared Branch & Timothy Patrick, 2019. "Belief bias and representation in assessing the Bayesian rationality of others," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(1), pages 1-10, January.
    3. Bai, Feng & Ho, Grace Ching Chi & Liu, Wu, 2020. "Do status incentives undermine morality-based status attainment? Investigating the mediating role of perceived authenticity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 126-138.
    4. Bazerman, Max H. & Sezer, Ovul, 2016. "Bounded awareness: Implications for ethical decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 95-105.
    5. Kausel, Edgar E. & Ventura, Santiago & Rodríguez, Arturo, 2019. "Outcome bias in subjective ratings of performance: Evidence from the (football) field," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PB).
    6. Björn Meder & Nadine Fleischhut & Nina‐Carolin Krumnau & Michael R. Waldmann, 2019. "How Should Autonomous Cars Drive? A Preference for Defaults in Moral Judgments Under Risk and Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 295-314, February.
    7. Meier, Pascal Flurin & Flepp, Raphael & Meier, Philippe & Franck, Egon, 2022. "Outcome bias in self-evaluations: Quasi-experimental field evidence from Swiss driving license exams," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 201(C), pages 292-309.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:1:p:1-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Kappes, Heather Barry & Balcetis, Emily & De Cremer, David, 2018. "Motivated reasoning during recruitment," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 84093, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Christian König-Kersting & Monique Pollmann & Jan Potters & Stefan T. Trautmann, 2021. "Good decision vs. good results: Outcome bias in the evaluation of financial agents," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(1), pages 31-61, February.
    11. Xiaoqian Fan & Qian Cao & Lin Yang, 2021. "Do professional norms in the medical industry favor outcome bias?," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(5), pages 1275-1283, July.
    12. Mary Parkinson & Ruth M. J. Byrne, 2017. "Moral judgments of risky choices: A moral echoing effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(3), pages 236-252, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arvid Erlandsson, 2021. "Seven (weak and strong) helping effects systematically tested in separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(5), pages 1113-1154, September.
    2. Kogut, Tehila & Ritov, Ilana, 2005. "The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 106-116, July.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:5:p:1113-1154 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Netta Barak-Corre & Chia-Jung Tsay & Fiery Cushman & Max H. Bazerman, 2018. "If You’re Going to Do Wrong, At Least Do It Right: Considering Two Moral Dilemmas at the Same Time Promotes Moral Consistency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1528-1540, April.
    5. Moore, Don A., 1999. "Order Effects in Preference Judgments: Evidence for Context Dependence in the Generation of Preferences, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 146-165, May.
    6. Jie, Yun, 2020. "Responding to requests for help: Effects of payoff schemes with small monetary units," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    7. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    8. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    9. Bazerman, Max H. & Sezer, Ovul, 2016. "Bounded awareness: Implications for ethical decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 95-105.
    10. Berg, Joyce E. & Dickhaut, John W. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2010. "Preference reversals: The impact of truth-revealing monetary incentives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 443-468, March.
    11. John A. List, 2002. "Preference Reversals of a Different Kind: The "More Is Less" Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1636-1643, December.
    12. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:7:p:593-601 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Christopher Shallow & Rumen Iliev & Douglas Medin, 2011. "Trolley problems in context," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(7), pages 593-601, October.
    15. Tan, Huimin & Lv, Xingyang & Liu, Xiaoyan & Gursoy, Dogan, 2018. "Evaluation nudge: Effect of evaluation mode of online customer reviews on consumers’ preferences," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 29-40.
    16. Jonathan E. Alevy & John A. List & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2011. "How Can Behavioral Economics Inform Nonmarket Valuation? An Example from the Preference Reversal Literature," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 365-381.
    17. Garret Ridinger, 2021. "Intentions versus Outcomes: Cooperation and Fairness in a Sequential Prisoner’s Dilemma with Nature," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-30, July.
    18. Li, Xilin & Hsee, Christopher K., 2019. "Beyond preference reversal: Distinguishing justifiability from evaluability in joint versus single evaluations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 63-74.
    19. Gago, Andrés, 2021. "Reciprocity and uncertainty: When do people forgive?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    20. Amos Schurr & Ilana Ritov & Yaakov Kareev & Judith Avrahami, 2012. "Is that the answer you had in mind? The effect of perspective on unethical behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(6), pages 679-688, November.
    21. José Luis Pinto‐Prades & José Antonio Robles‐Zurita & Fernando‐Ignacio Sánchez‐Martínez & José María Abellán‐Perpiñán & Jorge Martínez‐Pérez, 2017. "Improving scope sensitivity in contingent valuation: Joint and separate evaluation of health states," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 304-318, December.
    22. K. P. Purnhagen & E. Herpen & S. Kamps & F. Michetti, 2021. "Oversized Area Indications on Bonus Packs Fail to Affect Consumers’ Transactional Decisions—More Experimental Evidence on the Mars Case," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 385-406, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:137:y:2016:i:c:p:13-26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.