IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0289383.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to promote knowledge transfer within R&D team? An evolutionary game based on prospect theory

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaoya Zhu
  • Xiaohua Meng
  • Yanjing Zhang

Abstract

Knowledge transfer is the basis for R&D teams and enterprises to improve innovation performance, win market competition and seek sustainable development. In order to explore the path to promote knowledge transfer within the R&D team, this study considers the bounded rationality and risk preference of individuals, incorporates prospect theory into evolutionary game, constructs a perceived benefits matrix distinct from the traditional benefits matrix, and simulates the evolutionary game process. The results show that, R&D personnel’s knowledge transfer decisions depend on the net income difference among strategies; only if perceived cost is less than the sum of perceived synergy benefit, perceived organization reward value, and perceived organization punishment value, can knowledge be fully shared and transferred within the R&D team. Moreover, R&D personnel’s knowledge transfer decisions are interfered by the irrational psychological factors, including overconfidence, reflection, loss avoidance, and obsession with small probability events. The findings help R&D teams achieve breakthroughs in improving the efficiency of knowledge transfer, thereby enhancing the capacity of enterprises for collaborative innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaoya Zhu & Xiaohua Meng & Yanjing Zhang, 2023. "How to promote knowledge transfer within R&D team? An evolutionary game based on prospect theory," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(12), pages 1-19, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0289383
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289383
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0289383
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0289383&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0289383?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. Yi Su & Wen Guo & Zaoli Yang & Hocine Cherifi, 2021. "Reverse Knowledge Transfer in Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions in the Chinese High-Tech Industry under Government Intervention," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2021, pages 1-18, January.
    2. Daniel Friedman, 1998. "On economic applications of evolutionary game theory," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 15-43.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    4. 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..
    5. Lozano, Javier & Blanco, Ester & Rey-Maquieira, Javier, 2010. "Can ecolabels survive in the long run?: The role of initial conditions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2525-2534, October.
    6. Jiong Sun & Laurens G. Debo & Sunder Kekre & Jinhong Xie, 2010. "Component-Based Technology Transfer in the Presence of Potential Imitators," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(3), pages 536-552, March.
    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. Tianpei Tang & Yuntao Guo & Guohui Zhang & Hua Wang & Quan Shi, 2020. "Understanding the Interaction between Cyclists’ Traffic Violations and Enforcement Strategies: An Evolutionary Game-Theoretic Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-29, November.
    2. Shilong Li & Zhijie Tong, 2025. "Tripartite evolutionary game and simulation of solvency supervision under C‐ROSS II based on prospect theory," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 46(1), pages 515-528, January.
    3. Yan Li & Jiale Zhang, 2024. "Evolutionary Game Analysis of Low-Carbon Incentive Behaviour of Power Battery Recycling Based on Prospect Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-24, March.
    4. John Finch & Nicola Dinnei, 2001. "Capturing Knightian Advantages of Large Business Organisations Through Group Decision-making Processes," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 379-403.
    5. Si-hua Chen, 2017. "An Evolutionary Game Model of Knowledge Workers’ Counterproductive Work Behaviors Based on Preferences," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-11, January.
    6. Dong, Jun & Jiang, Yuzheng & Liu, Dongran & Dou, Xihao & Liu, Yao & Peng, Shicheng, 2022. "Promoting dynamic pricing implementation considering policy incentives and electricity retailers’ behaviors: An evolutionary game model based on prospect theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    7. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    8. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    9. Jonathan Meng & Feng Fu, 2020. "Understanding Gambling Behavior and Risk Attitudes Using Cryptocurrency-based Casino Blockchain Data," Papers 2008.05653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    10. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    11. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    12. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    13. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    14. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    15. Bin Zou, 2017. "Optimal Investment In Hedge Funds Under Loss Aversion," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-32, May.
    16. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    17. Wiafe, Osei K. & Basu, Anup K. & Chen, En Te, 2020. "Portfolio choice after retirement: Should self-annuitisation strategies hold more equities?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 241-255.
    18. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, January.
    19. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    20. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.

    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:plo:pone00:0289383. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.