IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i9p7507-d1138919.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Relationship between Distance and Risk Perception in Multi-Tier Supply Chain: The Psychological Typhoon Eye Effect

Author

Listed:
  • Ming-Xing Xu

    (School of Transportation, Fujian University of Technology, Fuzhou 350108, China
    CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China)

  • Shu Li

    (Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
    Department of Psychology, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350108, China)

  • Li-Lin Rao

    (CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
    Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Lei Zheng

    (School of Economics and Management, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350108, China)

Abstract

Previous research has shown that an individual’s proximity to the epicenter can influence their perception and response to risk. However, this aspect has been largely overlooked in the supply chain risk literature. This paper aims to fill this gap by investigating the impact of distance on the perception and response to supply chain disruption risk. An online survey was conducted with 1055 managers working within the supply chain of ZTE, a Chinese multinational company providing integrated communications and information solutions. The survey aimed to examine how their distance from the disruption epicenter (i.e., ZTE) affected their risk perception and subsequent managerial responses. The findings indicate that those closer to the epicenter perceive a lower risk of disruption compared to those farther away, resulting in a reduced likelihood of taking management action. This phenomenon is referred to as the “psychological typhoon eye” (PTE) effect in supply chain disruption risk. Further analysis revealed that risk information quality mediated the relationship between distance and risk perception, while an individual’s job position level moderated the relationship between risk information quality and disruption risk perception. To mitigate the PTE effect in the multi-tier supply chain, the focal firm must prioritize high-quality information synchronization, extending beyond single-company initiatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Ming-Xing Xu & Shu Li & Li-Lin Rao & Lei Zheng, 2023. "The Relationship between Distance and Risk Perception in Multi-Tier Supply Chain: The Psychological Typhoon Eye Effect," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-25, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:9:p:7507-:d:1138919
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/9/7507/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/9/7507/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keller, Kevin Lane & Staelin, Richard, 1987. "Effects of Quality and Quantity of Information on Decision Effectiveness," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(2), pages 200-213, September.
    2. Li, Yuhong & Zobel, Christopher W., 2020. "Exploring supply chain network resilience in the presence of the ripple effect," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    3. Singh, Nitya P. & Hong, Paul C., 2020. "Impact of strategic and operational risk management practices on firm performance: An empirical investigation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 723-735.
    4. William J. Burns & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and the Economic Crisis: A Longitudinal Study of the Trajectory of Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 659-677, April.
    5. Shu-Wen Yang & Ming-Xing Xu & Yi Kuang & Yang Ding & Yu-Xin Lin & Fei Wang & Li-Lin Rao & Rui Zheng & Shu Li, 2023. "An Agenda-Setting Account for Psychological Typhoon Eye Effect on Responses to the Outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-17, February.
    6. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Hans Kastenholz & Silvia Frey & Arnim Wiek, 2007. "Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 59-69, February.
    7. Haoran Chu & Janet Z. Yang, 2020. "Risk or Efficacy? How Psychological Distance Influences Climate Change Engagement," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 758-770, April.
    8. Sarkar, Sourish & Kumar, Sanjay, 2015. "A behavioral experiment on inventory management with supply chain disruption," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 169-178.
    9. Scott DuHadway & Steven Carnovale & Vijay R. Kannan, 2018. "Organizational Communication and Individual Behavior: Implications for Supply Chain Risk Management," Journal of Supply Chain Management, Institute for Supply Management, vol. 54(4), pages 3-19, October.
    10. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    11. Kevin P. Scheibe & Jennifer Blackhurst, 2018. "Supply chain disruption propagation: a systemic risk and normal accident theory perspective," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(1-2), pages 43-59, January.
    12. James G. March & Zur Shapira, 1987. "Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(11), pages 1404-1418, November.
    13. Geng, Liuna & Liu, Ting & Zhou, Kexin & Yang, Genmao, 2018. "Can power affect environmental risk attitude toward nuclear energy?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 87-93.
    14. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2009. "On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, January.
    15. Young Woong Park & Jennifer Blackhurst & Chinju Paul & Kevin P. Scheibe, 2022. "An analysis of the ripple effect for disruptions occurring in circular flows of a supply chain network," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(15), pages 4693-4711, August.
    16. Jiho Yoon & Srinivas Talluri & Claudia Rosales, 2020. "Procurement decisions and information sharing under multi-tier disruption risk in a supply chain," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(5), pages 1362-1383, March.
    17. Ahmet Ozkul & Mehmet Barut, 2009. "Measuring supply chain relationships: a social network approach," International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(1), pages 38-61.
    18. Manjul Gupta & Sushil Gupta, 2019. "Influence of National Cultures on Operations Management and Supply Chain Management Practices—A Research Agenda," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 28(11), pages 2681-2698, November.
    19. 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.
    20. Andrea T. Thalmann & Peter M. Wiedemann, 2006. "Beliefs and Emotionality in Risk Appraisals," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(5), pages 453-466, July.
    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. Schmidt, Christoph G. & Wuttke, David A. & Heese, H. Sebastian & Wagner, Stephan M., 2023. "Antecedents of public reactions to supply chain glitches," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    2. Jessica L. Darby & David J. Ketchen & Brent D. Williams & Travis Tokar, 2020. "The Implications of Firm‐Specific Policy Risk, Policy Uncertainty, and Industry Factors for Inventory: A Resource Dependence Perspective," Journal of Supply Chain Management, Institute for Supply Management, vol. 56(4), pages 3-24, October.
    3. Giovanna Culot & Matteo Podrecca & Guido Nassimbeni & Guido Orzes & Marco Sartor, 2023. "Using supply chain databases in academic research: A methodological critique," Journal of Supply Chain Management, Institute for Supply Management, vol. 59(1), pages 3-25, January.
    4. Dmitry Ivanov, 2022. "Viable supply chain model: integrating agility, resilience and sustainability perspectives—lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID-19 pandemic," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 319(1), pages 1411-1431, December.
    5. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    6. Sara Jonsson & Inga-Lill Söderberg, 2018. "Investigating explanatory theories on laypeople’s risk perception of personal economic collapse in a bank crisis – the Cyprus case," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(6), pages 763-779, June.
    7. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    8. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    9. Goudarzi, Fatemeh (Sahar) & Olaru, Doina & Bergey, Paul, 2023. "Beyond risk attitude: Unpacking behavioral drivers of supply chain contracts," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    10. Ivanov, Dmitry & Dolgui, Alexandre, 2021. "OR-methods for coping with the ripple effect in supply chains during COVID-19 pandemic: Managerial insights and research implications," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    11. A. V. Thomas & Biswajit Mahanty, 2021. "Dynamic assessment of control system designs of information shared supply chain network experiencing supplier disruption," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 425-451, March.
    12. Niels Bugert & Rainer Lasch, 2023. "Analyzing upstream and downstream risk propagation in supply networks by combining Agent-based Modeling and Bayesian networks," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(5), pages 859-889, July.
    13. Joan Nymand Larsen & Peter Schweitzer & Khaled Abass & Natalia Doloisio & Susanna Gartler & Thomas Ingeman-Nielsen & Jón Haukur Ingimundarson & Leneisja Jungsberg & Alexandra Meyer & Arja Rautio & Joh, 2021. "Thawing Permafrost in Arctic Coastal Communities: A Framework for Studying Risks from Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, March.
    14. Vaibhav S. Narwane & Rakesh D. Raut & Sachin Kumar Mangla & Manoj Dora & Balkrishna E. Narkhede, 2023. "Risks to Big Data Analytics and Blockchain Technology Adoption in Supply Chains," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 327(1), pages 339-374, August.
    15. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    16. Jonas Eduardsen & Svetla Marinova, 2016. "Decision-makers' risk perception in the internationalisation of small and medium-sized firms," International Journal of Export Marketing, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(1), pages 4-26.
    17. William Schueller & Christian Diem & Melanie Hinterplattner & Johannes Stangl & Beate Conrady & Markus Gerschberger & Stefan Thurner, 2022. "Propagation of disruptions in supply networks of essential goods: A population-centered perspective of systemic risk," Papers 2201.13325, arXiv.org.
    18. K. Katsaliaki & P. Galetsi & S. Kumar, 2022. "Supply chain disruptions and resilience: a major review and future research agenda," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 319(1), pages 965-1002, December.
    19. Wissuwa, Florian & Durach, Christian F. & Choi, Thomas Y., 2022. "Selecting resilient suppliers: Supplier complexity and buyer disruption," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).
    20. 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.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:9:p:7507-:d:1138919. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.