Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Is confidence in decisions related to feedback? Evidence-and lack of evidence-from random samples of real-world managerial behavior?

Contents:

Author Info

Abstract

Confidence in decision making is an important dimension of managerial behavior. However, what is the relation between confidence, on the one hand, and the fact of receiving or expecting to receive feedback on decisions taken, on the other hand? To explore this and related issues in the context of everyday decision making, use was made of the ESM (Experience Sampling Method) to sample decisions taken by undergraduates and business executives. For several days, participants received 4 or 5 SMS messages daily (on their mobile telephones) at random moments at which point they completed brief questionnaires about their current decision making activities. Issues considered here include differences between the types of decisions faced by the two groups, their structure, feedback (received and expected), and confidence in decisions taken as well as in the validity of feedback. No relation was found between confidence in decisions and whether participants received or expected to receive feedback on those decisions. In addition, although participants are clearly aware that feedback can provide both “confirming” and “disconfirming” evidence, their ability to specify appropriate feedback is imperfect. Finally, difficulties experienced in using the ESM are discussed as are possibilities for further research using this methodology.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://www.econ.upf.edu/docs/papers/downloads/655.pdf
File Function: Whole Paper
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra in its series Economics Working Papers with number 655.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Jan 2003
Date of revision: Apr 2004
Handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:655

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.econ.upf.edu/

Related research

Keywords: Decision making; learning; confidence; Leex;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. Juslin, Peter, 1994. "The Overconfidence Phenomenon as a Consequence of Informal Experimenter-Guided Selection of Almanac Items," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 226-246, February.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Robin Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2004. "Simple models for multi-attribute choice with many alternatives: When it does and does not pay to face tradeoffs with binary attributes," Economics Working Papers 739, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Apr 2005.
  2. Robin Hogarth & Mariona Portell & Anna Cuxart, 2007. "What risks do people perceive in everyday life? A perspective gained from the experience sampling method (ESM)," Economics Working Papers 1005, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
  3. Robin Hogarth, 2004. "The challenge of representative design in psychology and economics," Economics Working Papers 751, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jan 2005.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:655. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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