IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/busres/v13y2020i3d10.1007_s40685-020-00132-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Betting the farm and playing it safe? Hyper-core self-evaluation in decisions when managers are winning and losing

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Hönl

    (Philipps-University Marburg)

  • Philip Meissner

    (ESCP Business School Berlin)

  • Torsten Wulf

    (Philipps-University Marburg)

Abstract

Core self-evaluation summarizes a decision maker’s self-worth. This key personality trait has been shown to lead to extreme performance consequences of either winning or losing big. We suggest that these extreme performance outcomes may partly rest in how core self-evaluation affects executive’s perception and evaluation of risk in choices under uncertainty. We conducted a choice experiment building on the original prospect theory experiments with 97 executives, in which we measured the effect of core self-evaluation on risk behavior. As a robustness test, we replicated and validated our findings with a larger sample of 111 executives. Building on the tenets of prospect theory, we show that decision makers with high levels of core self-evaluation are less loss averse. Surprisingly, this effect differs depending on whether gains or losses are highlighted in the decision. For gains, higher levels of core self-evaluation are associated with behaviors that are closer to risk neutrality. For losses, however, we find that higher levels of core self-evaluation further enhance the risk-seeking behavior of decision makers. These findings contribute towards understanding the effects of core self-evaluation in the work environment as well as in the decision process and provide an additional lens for studying how the personality of executives affects choices under uncertainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Hönl & Philip Meissner & Torsten Wulf, 2020. "Betting the farm and playing it safe? Hyper-core self-evaluation in decisions when managers are winning and losing," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(3), pages 1293-1316, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:busres:v:13:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s40685-020-00132-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s40685-020-00132-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40685-020-00132-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40685-020-00132-y?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. Nathan J. Hiller & Donald C. Hambrick, 2005. "Conceptualizing executive hubris: the role of (hyper‐)core self‐evaluations in strategic decision‐making," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 297-319, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Palich, Leslie E. & Ray Bagby, D., 1995. "Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-taking: Challenging conventional wisdom," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 10(6), pages 425-438, November.
    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. 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.
    6. Kray, Laura J. & Galinsky, Adam D., 2003. "The debiasing effect of counterfactual mind-sets: Increasing the search for disconfirmatory information in group decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 69-81, May.
    7. Dan Lovallo & Colin Camerer, 1999. "Overconfidence and Excess Entry: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 306-318, March.
    8. Anisa Shyti, 2013. "Over-Confidence and Entrepreneurial Choice Under Ambiguity," Working Papers hal-01947464, HAL.
    9. Daniel Kahneman & Dan Lovallo, 1993. "Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 17-31, January.
    10. Danny Miller, 1983. "The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Types of Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(7), pages 770-791, July.
    11. Shyti , Anisa, 2013. "Over-Confidence and Entrepreneurial Choice Under Ambiguity," HEC Research Papers Series 982, HEC Paris.
    12. Lattimore, Pamela K. & Baker, Joanna R. & Witte, Ann D., 1992. "The influence of probability on risky choice: A parametric examination," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 377-400, May.
    13. Pamela K. Lattimore & Joanna R. Baker & A. Dryden Witte, 1992. "The Influence Of Probability on Risky Choice: A parametric Examination," NBER Technical Working Papers 0081, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Michael Kilka & Martin Weber, 2001. "What Determines the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function Under Uncertainty?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(12), pages 1712-1726, December.
    15. Giovanni Gavetti, 2012. "PERSPECTIVE—Toward a Behavioral Theory of Strategy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 267-285, February.
    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. Hönl, Andreas & Meissner, Philip & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "Risk attribution theory: An exploratory conceptualization of individual choice under uncertainty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 20-27.
    2. Foster, Gigi & Frijters, Paul & Schaffner, Markus & Torgler, Benno, 2018. "Expectation formation in an evolving game of uncertainty: New experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 379-405.
    3. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    4. Zahra Murad & Martin Sefton & Chris Starmer, 2016. "How do risk attitudes affect measured confidence?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 21-46, February.
    5. Marcello Basili & Alain Chateauneuf & Fulvio Fontini, 2005. "Choices Under Ambiguity With Familiar And Unfamiliar Outcomes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 195-207, March.
    6. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L'Haridon & Corina Paraschiv, 2011. "Experienced vs. Described Uncertainty: Do We Need Two Prospect Theory Specifications?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(10), pages 1879-1895, October.
    7. Vincent Laferrière & David Staubli & Christian Thöni, 2023. "Explaining Excess Entry in Winner-Take-All Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 1050-1069, February.
    8. Burson, Katherine A. & Faro, David & Rottenstreich, Yuval, 2010. "ABCs of principal-agent interactions: Accurate predictions, biased processes, and contrasts between working and delegating," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 1-12, September.
    9. Martina Nardon & Paolo Pianca, 2019. "Behavioral premium principles," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 42(1), pages 229-257, June.
    10. Cédric Gutierrez & Thomas Åstebro & Tomasz Obloj, 2020. "The Impact of Overconfidence and Ambiguity Attitude on Market Entry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 308-329, March.
    11. José Lara Resende & George Wu, 2010. "Competence effects for choices involving gains and losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 109-132, April.
    12. Martina Nardon & Paolo Pianca, 2019. "European option pricing under cumulative prospect theory with constant relative sensitivity probability weighting functions," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 249-274, February.
    13. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto & Peter P. Wakker, 2001. "Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(11), pages 1498-1514, November.
    14. Martina Nardon & Paolo Pianca, 2014. "European option pricing with constant relative sensitivity probability weighting function," Working Papers 2014:25, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    15. 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.
    16. Ariane Charpin, 2018. "Tests des modèles de décision en situation de risque. Le cas des parieurs hippiques en France," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(5), pages 779-803.
    17. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    18. Syngjoo Choi & Jeongbin Kim & Eungik Lee & Jungmin Lee, 2022. "Probability Weighting and Cognitive Ability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5201-5215, July.
    19. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    20. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin, 2011. "Viewing the future through a warped lens: Why uncertainty generates hyperbolic discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 169-203, December.

    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:busres:v:13:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s40685-020-00132-y. 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.