IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eurman/v30y2012i4p316-326.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the relevance of Cognitive Continuum Theory and quasirationality for understanding management judgment and decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Dhami, Mandeep K.
  • Thomson, Mary E.

Abstract

‘Quasirationality’ (i.e., the combination of intuitive and analytic thought) is increasingly considered to be widespread and beneficial in management. This paper provides an overview of this concept as it is defined by Cognitive Continuum Theory (Hammond, 1996, 2000), and highlights the relevance of the theory for studying managerial judgment and decision making. According to Cognitive Continuum Theory, there are multiple modes of cognition that lie on a continuum between intuition and analysis. Quasirationality is the prevalent mode of cognition. Cognitive (managerial) tasks vary in their ability to induce intuition, quasirationality or analysis, and performance is contingent on the correspondence between task properties and cognitive mode. Using Cognitive Continuum Theory, management researchers can identify tasks requiring different modes of thought, and recognize when quasirationality may outperform analysis and intuition. Researchers can also utilize Cognitive Continuum Theory to iron out some identified anomalies in the strategic management literature and to provide a more refined theoretical framework in this context.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:30:y:2012:i:4:p:316-326
    DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2012.02.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237312000047
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.emj.2012.02.002?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. Hogarth, Robin M. (ed.), 1990. "Insights in Decision Making," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226348551, December.
    2. Einhorn, Hj & Hogarth, Rm, 1981. "Behavioral Decision-Theory - Processes Of Judgment And Choice," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 1-31.
    3. Brinckmann, Jan & Grichnik, Dietmar & Kapsa, Diana, 2010. "Should entrepreneurs plan or just storm the castle? A meta-analysis on contextual factors impacting the business planning-performance relationship in small firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 24-40, January.
    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. 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.
    6. Robert Conroy & Robert Harris, 1987. "Consensus Forecasts of Corporate Earnings: Analysts' Forecasts and Time Series Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(6), pages 725-738, June.
    7. Ashton, Ah, 1982. "An Empirical-Study Of Budget-Related Predictions Of Corporate-Executives," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 440-449.
    8. James H. Barnes, 1984. "Cognitive biases and their impact on strategic planning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 129-137, April.
    9. Robert C. Blattberg & Stephen J. Hoch, 1990. "Database Models and Managerial Intuition: 50% Model + 50% Manager," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(8), pages 887-899, August.
    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. Basel, Jörn S. & Brühl, Rolf, 2013. "Rationality and dual process models of reasoning in managerial cognition and decision making," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 745-754.
    2. Mandeep K. Dhami & Jeryl L. Mumpower, 2018. "Kenneth R. Hammond’s contributions to the study of judgment and decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, January.
    3. Kopalle, Praveen K. & Kuusela, Hannu & Lehmann, Donald R., 2023. "The role of intuition in CEO acquisition decisions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    4. Claudius Bachmann & Laura Sasse & Andre Habisch, 2018. "Applying the Practical Wisdom Lenses in Decision-Making: An Integrative Approach to Humanistic Management," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 125-150, February.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:1:p:1-22 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Sarah L. Carthy & Colm B. Doody & Katie Cox & Denis O'Hora & Kiran M. Sarma, 2020. "Counter‐narratives for the prevention of violent radicalisation: A systematic review of targeted interventions," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), September.
    7. Gilbert-Saad, Antoine & Siedlok, Frank & McNaughton, Rod B., 2023. "Entrepreneurial heuristics: Making strategic decisions in highly uncertain environments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    8. Yixin Hu & Dawei Wang & Kaiyuan Pang & Guangxing Xu & Jinhong Guo, 2015. "The effect of emotion and time pressure on risk decision-making," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(5), pages 637-650, May.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Wierenga, Berend, 2011. "Managerial decision making in marketing: The next research frontier," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 89-101.
    4. Gerd Gigerenzer, 1997. "Bounded Rationality: Models of Fast and Frugal Inference," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 133(II), pages 201-218, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Short, Jeremy C. & Palmer, Timothy B., 2003. "Organizational performance referents: An empirical examination of their content and influences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 209-224, March.
    7. S. Larsson & G. R. Chesley, 1986. "An analysis of the auditor's uncertainty about probabilities," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 259-282, March.
    8. Ganguly, Ananda R & Kagel, John H & Moser, Donald V, 2000. "Do Asset Market Prices Reflect Traders' Judgment Biases?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 219-245, May.
    9. Wüstenhagen, Rolf & Menichetti, Emanuela, 2012. "Strategic choices for renewable energy investment: Conceptual framework and opportunities for further research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-10.
    10. Gerard P. Hodgkinson & Barbara Burkhard & Nicolai J. Foss & Dietmar Grichnik & Riikka M. Sarala & Yi Tang & Marc Van Essen, 2023. "The Heuristics and Biases of Top Managers: Past, Present, and Future," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(5), pages 1033-1063, July.
    11. 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.
    12. A. Peter McGraw & Eldar Shafir & Alexander Todorov, 2010. "Valuing Money and Things: Why a $20 Item Can Be Worth More and Less Than $20," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 816-830, May.
    13. Bruno S. Frey & Reiner Eichenberger, 1996. "Marriage Paradoxes," Rationality and Society, , vol. 8(2), pages 187-206, May.
    14. Kuo-Hwa Chang & Michael Nayat Young, 2019. "Portfolios Optimizations of Behavioral Stocks with Perception Probability Weightings," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 20(2), pages 817-845, November.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Nobuhiko Terui & Shohei Hasegawa & Greg M. Allenby, 2015. "A Threshold Model for Discontinuous Preference Change and Satiation," TMARG Discussion Papers 122, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Tohoku University.
    17. Feduzi, Alberto & Runde, Jochen, 2014. "Uncovering unknown unknowns: Towards a Baconian approach to management decision-making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 268-283.
    18. Hart E. Posen & Michael J. Leiblein & John S. Chen, 2018. "Toward a behavioral theory of real options: Noisy signals, bias, and learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 1112-1138, April.
    19. Jha, Anand & Cox, James, 2015. "Corporate social responsibility and social capital," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 252-270.
    20. 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.
    21. Bruno S. Frey & Reiner Eichenberger, 1989. "Should Social Scientists Care about Choice Anomalies?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 1(1), pages 101-122, July.

    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:eee:eurman:v:30:y:2012:i:4:p:316-326. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/115/description#description .

    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.