IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transe/v72y2014icp159-172.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The clock is ticking: The role of uncertainty, regulatory focus, and level of risk on supply chain disruption decision making behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Cantor, David E.
  • Blackhurst, Jennifer V.
  • Cortes, Juan David

Abstract

Supply chain employees must make decisions on when and how to react to potential and realized supply chain disruptions. Drawing on regulatory focus theory, we examine how an individual’s regulatory focus, level of risk, as well as the uncertainty of the supply chain disruption affect willingness to pursue a new disruption mitigation strategy. Employing a vignette-based field experiment, we present and discuss findings related to supply chain risk decision making. These findings have implications for future behavioral supply chain risk research.

Suggested Citation

  • Cantor, David E. & Blackhurst, Jennifer V. & Cortes, Juan David, 2014. "The clock is ticking: The role of uncertainty, regulatory focus, and level of risk on supply chain disruption decision making behavior," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 159-172.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transe:v:72:y:2014:i:c:p:159-172
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tre.2014.10.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554514001744
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Hakkyun Kim & Akshay R. Rao & Angela Y. Lee, 2009. "It's Time to Vote: The Effect of Matching Message Orientation and Temporal Frame on Political Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(6), pages 877-889, April.
    2. Crowe, Ellen & Higgins, E. Tory, 1997. "Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 117-132, February.
    3. Nikolay Archak & Anindya Ghose & Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis, 2011. "Deriving the Pricing Power of Product Features by Mining Consumer Reviews," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(8), pages 1485-1509, August.
    4. Gabriele Paolacci & Jesse Chandler & Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis, 2010. "Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(5), pages 411-419, August.
    5. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    6. Tang, Christopher S., 2006. "Perspectives in supply chain risk management," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 451-488, October.
    7. Tamar Avnet & Anne-Laure Sellier, 2011. "Clock time vs. event time: Temporal culture or self-regulation?," Post-Print hal-00668709, HAL.
    8. Brian Tomlin, 2006. "On the Value of Mitigation and Contingency Strategies for Managing Supply Chain Disruption Risks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(5), pages 639-657, May.
    9. Gino, Francesca & Margolis, Joshua D., 2011. "Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (Un)ethical behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 145-156, July.
    10. Forster, Jens & Higgins, E. Tory & Bianco, Amy Taylor, 2003. "Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 148-164, January.
    11. Remus, William, 1986. "Graduate students as surrogates for managers in experiments on business decision making," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 19-25, February.
    12. Weber, James, 1992. "Scenarios in Business Ethics Research: Review, Critical Assessment, and Recommendations," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(02), pages 137-160, April.
    13. Francesca Gino & Gary Pisano, 2008. "Toward a Theory of Behavioral Operations," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 676-691, March.
    14. Brockner, Joel & Higgins, E. Tory, 2001. "Regulatory Focus Theory: Implications for the Study of Emotions at Work," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 35-66, September.
    15. Levine, John M. & Higgins, E. Tory & Choi, Hoon-Seok, 2000. "Development of Strategic Norms in Groups," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 88-101, May.
    16. Shipp, Abbie J. & Edwards, Jeffrey R. & Lambert, Lisa Schurer, 2009. "Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past, present, and future," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 1-22, September.
    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. Hasani, Aliakbar & Khosrojerdi, Amirhossein, 2016. "Robust global supply chain network design under disruption and uncertainty considering resilience strategies: A parallel memetic algorithm for a real-life case study," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 20-52.
    2. Bendul, Julia C. & Skorna, Alexander C.H., 2016. "Exploring impact factors of shippers’ risk prevention activities: A European survey in transportation," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 206-223.
    3. Cui, Qinquan & Chiu, Chun-Hung & Dai, Xin & Li, Zhongfei, 2016. "Store brand introduction in a two-echelon logistics system with a risk-averse retailer," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 69-89.

    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:transe:v:72:y:2014:i:c:p:159-172. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600244/description#description .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.