IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/popmgt/v27y2018i4p624-643.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Behavioral Remedy for the Censorship Bias

Author

Listed:
  • Jordan Tong
  • Daniel Feiler
  • Richard Larrick

Abstract

Existing evidence suggests that managers exhibit a censorship bias: demand beliefs tend to be biased low when lost sales from stockouts are unobservable (censored demand) compared to when they are observable (uncensored demand). We develop a non†constraining, easily implementable behavioral debias technique to help mitigate this tendency in demand forecasting and inventory decision†making settings. The debiasing technique has individuals record estimates of demand outcomes (REDO): participants explicitly record a self†generated estimate of every demand realization, allowing them to record a different value than the number of sales in periods with stockouts. In doing so, they construct a more representative sample of demand realizations (that differs from the sales sample). In three laboratory experiments with MBA and undergraduate students, this remedy significantly reduces downward bias in demand beliefs under censorship and leads to higher inventory order decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jordan Tong & Daniel Feiler & Richard Larrick, 2018. "A Behavioral Remedy for the Censorship Bias," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 27(4), pages 624-643, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:popmgt:v:27:y:2018:i:4:p:624-643
    DOI: 10.1111/poms.12823
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12823
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/poms.12823?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Perera, H. Niles & Hurley, Jason & Fahimnia, Behnam & Reisi, Mohsen, 2019. "The human factor in supply chain forecasting: A systematic review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 574-600.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1439-1463 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. George Lifchits & Ashton Anderson & Daniel G. Goldstein & Jake M. Hofman & Duncan J. Watts, 2021. "Success stories cause false beliefs about success," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1439-1463, November.
    4. Ho Cheung Brian Lee & Jan Stallaert & Ming Fan, 2020. "Anomalies in Probability Estimates for Event Forecasting on Prediction Markets," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(9), pages 2077-2095, September.
    5. Tinglong Dai & Sridhar Tayur, 2022. "Designing AI‐augmented healthcare delivery systems for physician buy‐in and patient acceptance," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(12), pages 4443-4451, December.
    6. Song-Hee Kim & Jordan Tong & Carol Peden, 2020. "Admission Control Biases in Hospital Unit Capacity Management: How Occupancy Information Hurdles and Decision Noise Impact Utilization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(11), pages 5151-5170, November.
    7. Rajesh Bagchi & Sung H. Ham & Chuan He, 2020. "Strategic Implications of Confirmation Bias‐Inducing Advertising," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(6), pages 1573-1596, June.
    8. Abolghasemi, Mahdi & Hurley, Jason & Eshragh, Ali & Fahimnia, Behnam, 2020. "Demand forecasting in the presence of systematic events: Cases in capturing sales promotions," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    9. Fasolo, Barbara & Heard, Claire & Scopelliti, Irene, 2024. "Mitigating cognitive bias to improve organizational decisions: an integrative review, framework, and research agenda," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 125404, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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:bla:popmgt:v:27:y:2018:i:4:p:624-643. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1937-5956 .

    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.