IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/conmgt/v34y2016i12p845-858.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk-chasing behaviour in on-site construction decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-Charles Fiolet
  • Carl Haas
  • Keith Hipel

Abstract

Risk-chasing behaviour in on-site construction decision-making can result in illogical decisions and, thus, significant project losses. Accordingly, the authors conducted a set of experiments in order to detect the existence of such behaviour under a range of typical project conditions within a set of common situations. Fifty-three project leaders participated in the experiments by making choices framed by a set of 24 questions. Each question related to a known behavioural tendency, included the influence of an external parameter, and contained information from which expected values could be derived. Participants were well distributed by geography, age and experience. Contrary to the common perception that construction decision-makers are relentlessly risk-averse, they demonstrated risk-chasing behaviour when the decision occurred in over-budget project conditions. Younger participants were even more risk chasing in such conditions. Understanding and identifying where such behaviour occurs could ultimately lead to the development of means of avoiding the resulting losses.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-Charles Fiolet & Carl Haas & Keith Hipel, 2016. "Risk-chasing behaviour in on-site construction decisions," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(12), pages 845-858, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:34:y:2016:i:12:p:845-858
    DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2016.1207790
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01446193.2016.1207790
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01446193.2016.1207790?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. Weber, Bethany J. & Chapman, Gretchen B., 2005. "The combined effects of risk and time on choice: Does uncertainty eliminate the immediacy effect? Does delay eliminate the certainty effect?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 104-118, March.
    2. Bing Li & A. Akintoye & P. J. Edwards & C. Hardcastle, 2005. "Critical success factors for PPP/PFI projects in the UK construction industry," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(5), pages 459-471.
    3. Rafael Sacks & Michael Harel, 2006. "An economic game theory model of subcontractor resource allocation behaviour," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(8), pages 869-881.
    4. S.Z.S. Tabish & Kumar Neeraj Jha, 2011. "Identification and evaluation of success factors for public construction projects," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(8), pages 809-823, August.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Yee Cheong Yong & Nur Emma Mustaffa, 2013. "Critical success factors for Malaysian construction projects: an empirical assessment," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(9), pages 959-978, September.
    7. Campo, Sandra, 2012. "Risk aversion and asymmetry in procurement auctions: Identification, estimation and application to construction procurements," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 168(1), pages 96-107.
    8. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    9. Joseph A. Mikels & Andrew E. Reed, 2009. "Monetary Losses Do Not Loom Large in Later Life: Age Differences in the Framing Effect," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 64(4), pages 457-460.
    10. Beverley M. Lloyd-walker & Anthony John Mills & Derek H.T. Walker, 2014. "Enabling construction innovation: the role of a no-blame culture as a collaboration behavioural driver in project alliances," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 229-245, March.
    11. Xianbo Zhao & Bon-Gang Hwang & Sui Pheng Low, 2013. "Critical success factors for enterprise risk management in Chinese construction companies," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(12), pages 1199-1214, December.
    12. Sa�d Boukendour & Will Hughes, 2014. "Collaborative incentive contracts: stimulating competitive behaviour without competition," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 279-289, March.
    13. Yoram Halevy, 2008. "Strotz Meets Allais: Diminishing Impatience and the Certainty Effect," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 1145-1162, June.
    14. Jaewhan Kim & Peter Philips, 2014. "Remuneration and absenteeism on a large construction site," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(10), pages 983-999, October.
    15. Caroline T.W. Chan, 2012. "The principal factors affecting construction project overhead expenses: an exploratory factor analysis approach," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(10), pages 903-914, October.
    16. Bolton, Gary E. & Ockenfels, Axel, 2012. "Behavioral economic engineering," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 665-676.
    17. Matthew Rabin & Joel L. Schrag, 1999. "First Impressions Matter: A Model of Confirmatory Bias," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(1), pages 37-82.
    18. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    2. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin, 2011. "Viewing the future through a warped lens: Why uncertainty generates hyperbolic discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 169-203, December.
    3. Robison, Lindon J. & Shupp, Robert S. & Myers, Robert J., 2010. "Expected utility paradoxes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 187-193, April.
    4. Kamilçelebi, Hatime & Ünal, Emre, 2014. "Analyzing Framing Effecty by an Experiment among Students in Turkey," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 1(1), pages 27-31..
    5. Stefan Schiller, 2017. "The Quest for Rationality: Chief Financial Officers’ and Accounting Master’s Students’ Perception of Economic Rationality," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, April.
    6. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    7. Robert C. Bird & Vivek Soundararajan, 2020. "The Role of Precontractual Signals in Creating Sustainable Global Supply Chains," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 81-94, June.
    8. van Buiten, Marc & Keren, Gideon, 2009. "Speaker-listener incompatibility: Joint and separate processing in risky choice framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 106-115, January.
    9. Mark Schneider, 2016. "Dual Process Utility Theory: A Model of Decisions Under Risk and Over Time," Working Papers 16-23, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    10. Hatime KAMÝLÇELEBÝ & Emre ÜNAL, 2014. "Analyzing Framing Effecty by an Experiment among Students in Turkey," Journal of Economic and Social Thought, KSP Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 27-31, December.
    11. Mark J Hurlstone & Stephan Lewandowsky & Ben R Newell & Brittany Sewell, 2014. "The Effect of Framing and Normative Messages in Building Support for Climate Policies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    12. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2010. "Certain and Uncertain Utility: The Allais Paradox and Five Decision Theory Phenomena," Levine's Working Paper Archive 814577000000000447, David K. Levine.
    13. Meraner, Manuela & Musshoff, Oliver & Finger, Robert, 2018. "Using involvement to reduce inconsistencies in risk preference elicitation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 22-33.
    14. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2021. "Preferences over Time and under Uncertainty: Theoretical Foundations," CESifo Working Paper Series 9215, CESifo.
    15. Han, Charles C., 2014. "Demarketing fear: Bring the nuclear issue back to rational discourse," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 183-192.
    16. Dharshing, Samdruk & Hille, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2017. "The Influence of Political Orientation on the Strength and Temporal Persistence of Policy Framing Effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 295-305.
    17. Shang, Xuesong & Duan, Hebing & Lu, Jingyi, 2021. "Gambling versus investment: Lay theory and loss aversion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    18. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2012. "Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3357-3376, December.
    19. Shoham Choshen‐Hillel & Ehud Guttel & Alon Harel, 2022. "Framing negligence," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 296-339, June.
    20. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2012. "The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting," ECON - Working Papers 096, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2018.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:conmgt:v:34:y:2016:i:12:p:845-858. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20 .

    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.