IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v268y2018i1d10.1007_s10479-016-2349-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uncertain outcome presentations bias decisions: experimental evidence from Finland and Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Azzurra Morreale

    (Lappeenranta University of Technology)

  • Jan Stoklasa

    (Lappeenranta University of Technology
    Palacky University, Olomouc)

  • Mikael Collan

    (Lappeenranta University of Technology)

  • Giovanna Lo Nigro

    (Università degli Studi di Palermo)

Abstract

Even in their everyday lives people are expected to make difficult decisions objectively and rationally, no matter how complex or uncertain the situation. In this research, we study how the format of presentation and the amount of presented information concerning risky events influence the decision-making process, and the propensity to take risk in decision makers. The results of an exploratory survey conducted in Finland and in Italy suggest that decision-making behavior changes according to the way the information is presented. We provide experimental evidence that different representations of expected outcomes create distinct cognitive biases and as a result affect the decisions made. This identified change in the perception of risk has, to the best of our knowledge, not been identified nor directly studied previously in the scientific literature. The paper thus presents novel insights into managerial decision-making that are potentially relevant for decision support theory, with implications to decision-makers and for information providers. Understanding the impact of various forms of presentation of risk is crucial in being able to convey information clearly and in a way that avoids misunderstandings. The implications of the results on being able to avoid opportunistic manipulation of decisions, are also of great concern in many application areas. Social networks are more and more frequently being used as a source of information and in this context it is crucial to acknowledge the effect that different ways of presenting and communicating risky outcomes may have on the behavior of the target group. Here presented results may, for example, be highly relevant for marketing and advertising that is conducted by using social media or social networks.

Suggested Citation

  • Azzurra Morreale & Jan Stoklasa & Mikael Collan & Giovanna Lo Nigro, 2018. "Uncertain outcome presentations bias decisions: experimental evidence from Finland and Italy," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 268(1), pages 259-272, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:268:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-016-2349-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-016-2349-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10479-016-2349-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-016-2349-3?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
    ---><---

    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. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Elke U. Weber & Niklas Siebenmorgen & Martin Weber, 2005. "Communicating Asset Risk: How Name Recognition and the Format of Historic Volatility Information Affect Risk Perception and Investment Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 597-609, June.
    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. Hogarth, Robin M. & Soyer, Emre, 2015. "Communicating forecasts: The simplicity of simulated experience," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1800-1809.
    5. Christine Kaufmann & Martin Weber & Emily Haisley, 2013. "The Role of Experience Sampling and Graphical Displays on One's Investment Risk Appetite," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 323-340, July.
    6. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1999. "Risk Aversion or Myopia? Choices in Repeated Gambles and Retirement Investments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(3), pages 364-381, March.
    7. Maria Scutellà & Raffaella Recchia, 2013. "Robust portfolio asset allocation and risk measures," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 204(1), pages 145-169, April.
    8. Cooper, Arnold C. & Woo, Carolyn Y. & Dunkelberg, William C., 1988. "Entrepreneurs' perceived chances for success," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 97-108.
    9. Christos Avdoulas & Stelios Bekiros & Sabri Boubaker, 2018. "Evolutionary-based return forecasting with nonlinear STAR models: evidence from the Eurozone peripheral stock markets," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 262(2), pages 307-333, March.
    10. James H. Barnes, 1984. "Cognitive biases and their impact on strategic planning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 129-137, April.
    11. Kent D. Miller & Zur Shapira, 2004. "An empirical test of heuristics and biases affecting real option valuation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 269-284, March.
    12. Simon, Mark & Houghton, Susan M. & Aquino, Karl, 2000. "Cognitive biases, risk perception, and venture formation: How individuals decide to start companies," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 113-134, March.
    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. S. Di Luozzo & A. Fronzetti Colladon & M. M. Schiraldi, 2024. "Decoding excellence: Mapping the demand for psychological traits of operations and supply chain professionals through text mining," Papers 2403.17546, arXiv.org.

    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. Najoua Dali & Sana Harbi, 2016. "The Effect of Risk Perception and Cognitive Biases on the Evaluation of Opportunity in Family and Non-Family Entrepreneurs: The Case of Tunisian Entrepreneurs," Journal of Enterprising Culture (JEC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 24(03), pages 281-312, September.
    2. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.
    3. Rodney C. Shrader & Mark Simon & Steven Stanton, 2021. "Financial forecasting and risky decisions: an experimental study grounded in Prospect theory," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 1827-1841, December.
    4. Joseph McManus, 2018. "Hubris and Unethical Decision Making: The Tragedy of the Uncommon," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(1), pages 169-185, April.
    5. Dubard Barbosa, Saulo & Fayolle, Alain & Smith, Brett R., 2019. "Biased and overconfident, unbiased but going for it: How framing and anchoring affect the decision to start a new venture," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 528-557.
    6. Dhami, Mandeep K. & Thomson, Mary E., 2012. "On the relevance of Cognitive Continuum Theory and quasirationality for understanding management judgment and decision making," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 316-326.
    7. Levesque, Moren & Schade, Christian, 2005. "Intuitive optimizing: experimental findings on time allocation decisions with newly formed ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 313-342, May.
    8. Kraft, Priscilla S. & Günther, Christina & Kammerlander, Nadine H. & Lampe, Jan, 2022. "Overconfidence and entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of different types of overconfidence in the entrepreneurial process," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 37(4).
    9. Kambiz Talebi & Pouria Nouri & Abdolah Ahmadi Kafeshani, 2014. "What Factors Contribute to Entrepreneurs’ Decision Making Biases? A Comprehensive Study," International Journal of Management Sciences, Research Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 4(2), pages 59-68.
    10. Cornil, Yann & Hardisty, David J. & Bart, Yakov, 2019. "Easy, breezy, risky: Lay investors fail to diversify because correlated assets feel more fluent and less risky," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 103-117.
    11. Christoph Huber & Jürgen Huber, 2019. "Scale matters: risk perception, return expectations, and investment propensity under different scalings," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 76-100, March.
    12. Bradbury, Meike A.S. & Hens, Thorsten & Zeisberger, Stefan, 2019. "How persistent are the effects of experience sampling on investor behavior?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 61-79.
    13. Simon, Mark & Houghton, Susan M. & Aquino, Karl, 2000. "Cognitive biases, risk perception, and venture formation: How individuals decide to start companies," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 113-134, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Just, David R. & Zilberman, David, 2005. "Behavior, Production and Competition," Working Papers 127075, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    16. Donna Marie De Carolis & Barrie E. Litzky & Kimberly A. Eddleston, 2009. "Why Networks Enhance the Progress of New Venture Creation: The Influence of Social Capital and Cognition," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 33(2), pages 527-545, March.
    17. Mark Simon & Susan M. Houghton, 2002. "The Relationship among Biases, Misperceptions, and the Introduction of Pioneering Products: Examining Differences in Venture Decision Contexts," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 27(2), pages 105-124, April.
    18. Burmeister, Katrin & Schade, Christian, 2007. "Are entrepreneurs' decisions more biased? An experimental investigation of the susceptibility to status quo bias," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 340-362, May.
    19. Rawley Heimer & Zwetelina Iliewa & Alex Imax & Martin Weber, 2021. "Dynamic Inconsistency in Risky Choice: Evidence from the Lab and Field," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 094, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    20. Robert A. Lowe & Arvids A. Ziedonis, 2006. "Overoptimism and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 173-186, February.

    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:spr:annopr:v:268:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-016-2349-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.