IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/fufsci/v2y2020i2ne31.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychological biases and heuristics in the context of foresight and scenario processes

Author

Listed:
  • Elna Schirrmeister
  • Anne‐Louise Göhring
  • Philine Warnke

Abstract

This article studies the relevance of psychological biases and heuristics in the context of foresight and scenario processes. Though there is extensive literature studying cognitive mechanisms from the psychological side, discussions on the application of these findings in the foresight context, and more specifically with regard to specific steps of the scenario method, are rare. Some studies focus on a potential debiasing effect of scenario processes and do not examine the role biases and heuristics play during the process. We address this gap drawing from empirical research and practical experience. First, we examine the relevant cognitive mechanisms using a twofold perspective: Can the respective mechanism be an impediment or can it be an enabler within the scenario process? We specify the circumstances under which the respective mechanism occurs and establish its assumed effects. Second, we outline recommendations on how to modify the method to reduce the bias or to take advantage of it, respectively. In summary, we propose that the contextual debiasing effect of scenario processes can be significantly advanced by applying these modifications and a facilitation team that is aware of psychological biases and heuristics. Finally, implications for the scenario method and directions for future research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Elna Schirrmeister & Anne‐Louise Göhring & Philine Warnke, 2020. "Psychological biases and heuristics in the context of foresight and scenario processes," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:fufsci:v:2:y:2020:i:2:n:e31
    DOI: 10.1002/ffo2.31
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.31
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/ffo2.31?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timofei Nestik, 2018. "The Psychological Aspects of Corporate Foresight," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 12(2), pages 78-90.
    2. Schoemaker, Paul J.H. & Day, George S. & Snyder, Scott A., 2013. "Integrating organizational networks, weak signals, strategic radars and scenario planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 815-824.
    3. 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..
    4. Gerard P. Hodgkinson & Nicola J. Bown & A. John Maule & Keith W. Glaister & Alan D. Pearman, 1999. "Breaking the frame: an analysis of strategic cognition and decision making under uncertainty," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(10), pages 977-985, October.
    5. Meissner, Philip & Wulf, Torsten, 2013. "Cognitive benefits of scenario planning: Its impact on biases and decision quality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 801-814.
    6. Paul Goodwin & George Wright, 2001. "Enhancing Strategy Evaluation in Scenario Planning: a Role for Decision Analysis," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 1-16, January.
    7. Herbert A. Simon, 1991. "Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 125-134, February.
    8. Ramirez, Rafael & Wilkinson, Angela, 2014. "Rethinking the 2×2 scenario method: Grid or frames?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 254-264.
    9. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof Winterfeldt, 2018. "Individual and Group Biases in Value and Uncertainty Judgments," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Luis C. Dias & Alec Morton & John Quigley (ed.), Elicitation, chapter 0, pages 377-392, Springer.
    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. Björn M. Persson, 2024. "Understanding the origins of foresight—How it has shaped our minds and societies," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), March.
    2. Nicholas J. Rowland & Matthew J. Spaniol, 2021. "On inquiry in futures and foresight science," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), March.
    3. Ari Hyytinen & Petri Rouvinen & Mika Pajarinen & Joosua Virtanen, 2023. "Ex Ante Predictability of Rapid Growth: A Design Science Approach," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(6), pages 2465-2493, November.
    4. Amber Geurts & Ralph Gutknecht & Philine Warnke & Arjen Goetheer & Elna Schirrmeister & Babette Bakker & Svetlana Meissner, 2022. "New perspectives for data‐supported foresight: The hybrid AI‐expert approach," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), March.
    5. Heiko A. von der Gracht, 2022. "The force that rules the world: Commentary on Fenton‐O'Creevy and Tuckett (2021)," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3-4), September.
    6. Lee Roy Beach, 2021. "Scenarios as narratives," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), March.
    7. John J. Oliver, 2023. "Scenario planning: Reflecting on cases of actionable knowledge," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3-4), September.
    8. David J. Grüning, 2023. "Free will determines the limits of psychological foresight: Review of “Free Will” by Sam Harris," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), March.

    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. Meissner, Philip & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "The effect of cognitive diversity on the illusion of control bias in strategic decisions: An experimental investigation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 430-439.
    2. Lorenz Graf-Vlachy, 2019. "Like student like manager? Using student subjects in managerial debiasing research," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 347-376, April.
    3. Gary Bowman & R. Bradley MacKay, 2020. "Scenario planning as strategic activity: A practice‐orientated approach," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(3-4), September.
    4. Meissner, Philip & Brands, Christian & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "Quantifiying blind spots and weak signals in executive judgment: A structured integration of expert judgment into the scenario development process," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 244-253.
    5. Hussain, M. & Tapinos, E. & Knight, L., 2017. "Scenario-driven roadmapping for technology foresight," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 160-177.
    6. Philip Meissner & Torsten Wulf, 2016. "Debiasing illusion of control in individual judgment: the role of internal and external advice seeking," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 245-263, March.
    7. Lehr, Thomas & Lorenz, Ullrich & Willert, Markus & Rohrbeck, René, 2017. "Scenario-based strategizing: Advancing the applicability in strategists' teams," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 214-224.
    8. Bouhalleb, Arafet & Tapinos, Efstathios, 2023. "The impact of scenario planning on entrepreneurial orientation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    9. MacKay, R. Bradley & Stoyanova, Veselina, 2017. "Scenario planning with a sociological eye: Augmenting the intuitive logics approach to understanding the Future of Scotland and the UK," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 88-100.
    10. Giuseppe Pernagallo & Benedetto Torrisi, 2020. "A theory of information overload applied to perfectly efficient financial markets," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(2), pages 223-236, October.
    11. Patrick Krieger & Carsten Lausberg, 2021. "Entscheidungen, Entscheidungsfindung und Entscheidungsunterstützung in der Immobilienwirtschaft: Eine systematische Literaturübersicht [Decisions, decision-making and decisions support systems in r," Zeitschrift für Immobilienökonomie (German Journal of Real Estate Research), Springer;Gesellschaft für Immobilienwirtschaftliche Forschung e. V., vol. 7(1), pages 1-33, April.
    12. Mohammad Reza Nikbakht & Mehrdad Sadr Ara, 2016. "A new experimental model for profit maximization," Journal of Economic and Financial Studies (JEFS), LAR Center Press, vol. 4(3), pages 45-52, June.
    13. Giorgio Fagiolo & Mattia Guerini & Francesco Lamperti & Alessio Moneta & Andrea Roventini, 2017. "Validation of Agent-Based Models in Economics and Finance," LEM Papers Series 2017/23, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    14. Niittymies, Aleksi, 2020. "Heuristic decision-making in firm internationalization: The influence of context-specific experience," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(6).
    15. James Derbyshire & Mandeep Dhami & Ian Belton & Dilek Önkal, 2023. "The value of experiments in futures and foresight science as illustrated by the case of scenario planning," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), June.
    16. TINA M. Jose Vega & Dennis M. López, 2012. "Evaluating The Effect Of Industry Specialist Duration On Audit Quality And Audit Fees," Working Papers 0023, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    17. Kuvaas, Bard & Selart, Marcus, 2004. "Effects of attribute framing on cognitive processing and evaluation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 198-207, November.
    18. Ralf Elbert & Lowis Seikowsky, 2017. "The influences of behavioral biases, barriers and facilitators on the willingness of forwarders’ decision makers to modal shift from unimodal road freight transport to intermodal road–rail freight tra," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(8), pages 1083-1123, November.
    19. Babar Khalid & Ahmed Imran Hunjra, 2015. "Measuring the Validity of the Instrument of Information Asymmetry, Accounting Information, Personal Values, Investment Satisfaction and Investor Decision: An Empirical Analysis of Pakistani Stock Exch," Journal of Policy Research (JPR), Research Foundation for Humanity (RFH), vol. 1(1), pages 36-54, March.
    20. Luhe Yang & Duoxing Yang & Lianzhong Zhang, 2022. "The Effect of Bounded Rationality on Human Cooperation with Voluntary Participation," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-12, May.

    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:wly:fufsci:v:2:y:2020:i:2:n:e31. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2573-5152 .

    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.