IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/proeco/v142y2013i1p61-73.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A human experiment on inventory decisions under supply uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Ancarani, A.
  • Di Mauro, C.
  • D'Urso, D.

Abstract

Controlled human experiments are adopted in this paper to investigate the impact of supply uncertainty on buyers' inventory management. The experiments aim at assessing the impact of one specific source of supply chain uncertainty, namely stochastic lead times, on inventory holdings and the extent of the bullwhip effect. Three experimental treatments are run within the framework of the beer game manipulating variability in demand and in lead times. Results confirm that the bullwhip effect arises in all experimental treatments and that the variance of orders is higher under stochastic lead times. Analysis of players' behaviour in the course of the game suggests that players react to higher uncertainty by holding fewer inventories, a behaviour consistent with the predictions of some psychological models of choice under ambiguity.

Suggested Citation

  • Ancarani, A. & Di Mauro, C. & D'Urso, D., 2013. "A human experiment on inventory decisions under supply uncertainty," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 61-73.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:proeco:v:142:y:2013:i:1:p:61-73
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.09.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925527312003696
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.09.001?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. Wagner, Stephan M. & Neshat, Nikrouz, 2010. "Assessing the vulnerability of supply chains using graph theory," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 121-129, July.
    2. Kim, Jeon G. & Chatfield, Dean & Harrison, Terry P. & Hayya, Jack C., 2006. "Quantifying the bullwhip effect in a supply chain with stochastic lead time," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(2), pages 617-636, September.
    3. Robin M. Hogarth & Hillel J. Einhorn, 1990. "Venture Theory: A Model of Decision Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(7), pages 780-803, July.
    4. AJ A. Bostian & Charles A. Holt & Angela M. Smith, 2008. "Newsvendor "Pull-to-Center" Effect: Adaptive Learning in a Laboratory Experiment," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 590-608, July.
    5. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Aurelien Baillon & Laetitia Placido & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Rich Domain of Uncertainty: Source Functions and Their Experimental Implementation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 695-723, April.
    6. Hogarth, Robin M & Kunreuther, Howard, 1985. "Ambiguity and Insurance Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 386-390, May.
    7. Joel H. Steckel & Sunil Gupta & Anirvan Banerji, 2004. "Supply Chain Decision Making: Will Shorter Cycle Times and Shared Point-of-Sale Information Necessarily Help?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(4), pages 458-464, April.
    8. A. V. Muthukrishnan & Luc Wathieu & Alison Jing Xu, 2009. "Ambiguity Aversion and the Preference for Established Brands," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(12), pages 1933-1941, December.
    9. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    10. Wakker,Peter P., 2010. "Prospect Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521765015.
    11. 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..
    12. Yoram Halevy, 2007. "Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 503-536, March.
    13. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    14. Hogarth, Robin M & Kunreuther, Howard, 1989. "Risk, Ambiguity, and Insurance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 5-35, April.
    15. Sterman, John D., 1989. "Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 301-335, June.
    16. Rachel Croson & Karen Donohue, 2006. "Behavioral Causes of the Bullwhip Effect and the Observed Value of Inventory Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 323-336, March.
    17. Carmela Di Mauro & Anna Maffioletti, 2004. "Attitudes to risk and attitudes to uncertainty: experimental evidence," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(4), pages 357-372.
    18. Geary, S. & Disney, S.M. & Towill, D.R., 2006. "On bullwhip in supply chains--historical review, present practice and expected future impact," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 2-18, May.
    19. Fangruo Chen, 1999. "Decentralized Supply Chains Subject to Information Delays," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(8), pages 1076-1090, August.
    20. Jammernegg, Werner & Kischka, Peter, 2009. "Risk preferences and robust inventory decisions," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 269-274, March.
    21. Luca Rigotti & Matthew Ryan & Rhema Vaithianathan, 2011. "Optimism and firm formation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(1), pages 1-38, January.
    22. Schmitt, Amanda J. & Snyder, Lawrence V. & Shen, Zuo-Jun Max, 2010. "Inventory systems with stochastic demand and supply: Properties and approximations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(2), pages 313-328, October.
    23. Matthew Rabin & Richard H. Thaler, 2013. "Anomalies: Risk aversion," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 27, pages 467-480, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    24. Hazen, Benjamin T. & Overstreet, Robert E. & Jones-Farmer, L. Allison & Field, Hubert S., 2012. "The role of ambiguity tolerance in consumer perception of remanufactured products," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(2), pages 781-790.
    25. John D. Sterman, 1989. "Modeling Managerial Behavior: Misperceptions of Feedback in a Dynamic Decision Making Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 321-339, March.
    26. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    27. Brian Tomlin, 2009. "Impact of Supply Learning When Suppliers Are Unreliable," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 192-209, August.
    28. Einhorn, Hillel J & Hogarth, Robin M, 1986. "Decision Making under Ambiguity," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 225-250, October.
    29. Tversky, Amos & Wakker, Peter, 1995. "Risk Attitudes and Decision Weights," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(6), pages 1255-1280, November.
    30. W. Viscusi & Harrell Chesson, 1999. "Hopes and Fears: the Conflicting Effects of Risk Ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 157-184, October.
    31. Manuel Arellano & Stephen Bond, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(2), pages 277-297.
    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. Son, Byung-Gak & Lee, Chang-Hun & Ha, Byoung-Chun & Nam, Hyunjeong, 2019. "Investigating the fair treatment of suppliers and its trust fostering role and performance benefits," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C), pages 54-66.
    2. 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.
    3. Liu, Weihua & Wang, Qian & Mao, Qiaomei & Wang, Shuqing & Zhu, Donglei, 2015. "A scheduling model of logistics service supply chain based on the mass customization service and uncertainty of FLSP’s operation time," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 189-215.
    4. Yang, Y. & Lin, J. & Liu, G. & Zhou, L., 2021. "The behavioural causes of bullwhip effect in supply chains: A systematic literature review," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    5. Haeussler, Stefan & Stefan, Matthias & Schneckenreither, Manuel & Onay, Anita, 2021. "The lead time updating trap: Analyzing human behavior in capacitated supply chains," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    6. Sarkar, Sourish & Kumar, Sanjay, 2015. "A behavioral experiment on inventory management with supply chain disruption," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 169-178.
    7. Damberg, Sarah V. & Hartmann, Julia & Heese, H. Sebastian, 2022. "Does bad press help or hinder sustainable supply chain management? An empirical investigation of US-based corporations," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 249(C).
    8. Wang, Xun & Disney, Stephen M., 2016. "The bullwhip effect: Progress, trends and directions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(3), pages 691-701.
    9. Qingwei Wang & Meimei Zheng & Wei Weng, 2023. "Sourcing decisions with loss aversion under yield and demand randomness," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 45(2), pages 661-710, June.
    10. Zhao, Yingshuai & Zhao, Xiaobo, 2015. "On human decision behavior in multi-echelon inventory management," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 116-128.
    11. Zhu, Tianyuan & Balakrishnan, Jaydeep & da Silveira, Giovani J.C., 2020. "Bullwhip effect in the oil and gas supply chain: A multiple-case study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    12. Weihua Liu & Yi Yang & Shuqing Wang & Enze Bai, 2017. "A scheduling model of logistics service supply chain based on the time windows of the FLSP’s operation and customer requirement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 257(1), pages 183-206, October.
    13. Haines, Russell & Hough, Jill & Haines, Douglas, 2017. "A metacognitive perspective on decision making in supply chains: Revisiting the behavioral causes of the bullwhip effect," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 7-20.
    14. Christoph H. Glock & Eric H. Grosse & Ralf M. Elbert & Torsten Franzke, 2017. "Maverick picking: the impact of modifications in work schedules on manual order picking processes," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(21), pages 6344-6360, November.
    15. Gel, Esma S. & Salman, F. Sibel, 2022. "Dynamic ordering decisions with approximate learning of supply yield uncertainty," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    16. Castañeda, Jaime Andrés & Gonçalves, Paulo, 2018. "Ordering behavior in a newsstand experiment," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 186-196.

    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. Jean Desrochers & J. Francois Outreville, 2013. "Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Risk Taking: an experimental investigation of consumer behavior and demand for insurance," ICER Working Papers 10-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    2. Keck, Steffen & Diecidue, Enrico & Budescu, David V., 2014. "Group decisions under ambiguity: Convergence to neutrality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 60-71.
    3. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    4. Koch, Christopher & Schunk, Daniel, 2007. "The Case for Limited Auditor Liability - The Effects of Liability Size on Risk Aversion and Ambiguity Aversion," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 07-04, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    5. Christoph Bühren & Fabian Meier & Marco Pleßner, 2023. "Ambiguity aversion: bibliometric analysis and literature review of the last 60 years," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 495-525, June.
    6. Aurélien Baillon & Laure Cabantous & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Aggregating imprecise or conflicting beliefs: An experimental investigation using modern ambiguity theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 115-147, April.
    7. Lahno, Amrei M., 2014. "Social anchor effects in decision-making under ambiguity," Discussion Papers in Economics 20960, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    8. Carmela Di Mauro & Massimo Finocchiaro Castro, 2011. "Kindness, confusion, or … ambiguity?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 611-633, November.
    9. Laure Cabantous & Denis Hilton, 2006. "De l'aversion à l'ambiguïté aux attitudes face à l'ambiguïté. Les apports d'une perspective psychologique en économie," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 57(2), pages 259-280.
    10. Sujoy Chakravarty & Jaideep Roy, 2009. "Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 199-228, March.
    11. Chen Li, 2017. "Are the poor worse at dealing with ambiguity?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 239-268, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Marielle Brunette & Laure Cabantous & Stéphane Couture & Anne Stenger, 2013. "The impact of governmental assistance on insurance demand under ambiguity: a theoretical model and an experimental test," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 153-174, August.
    14. Robin Cubitt & Gijs van de Kuilen & Sujoy Mukerji, 2020. "Discriminating Between Models of Ambiguity Attitude: a Qualitative Test," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 708-749.
    15. Milos Borozan & Loreta Cannito & Barbara Luppi, 2022. "A tale of two ambiguities: A conceptual overview of findings from economics and psychology," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 6(S1), pages 11-21, July.
    16. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    17. Yang, Y. & Lin, J. & Liu, G. & Zhou, L., 2021. "The behavioural causes of bullwhip effect in supply chains: A systematic literature review," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    18. Gary Charness & Edi Karni & Dan Levin, 2013. "Ambiguity attitudes and social interactions: An experimental investigation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 1-25, February.
    19. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.
    20. Laure Cabantous & Denis Hilton & Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2011. "Is imprecise knowledge better than conflicting expertise? Evidence from insurers’ decisions in the United States," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 211-232, June.

    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:proeco:v:142:y:2013:i:1:p:61-73. 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/locate/ijpe .

    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.