IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v69y2023i3p1575-1596.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Worst-First Heuristic: How Decision Makers Manage Conjunctive Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua Lewis

    (New York University, New York, New York 10012)

  • Daniel Feiler

    (Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755)

  • Ron Adner

    (Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755)

Abstract

Many important managerial outcomes hinge on the co-occurrence of multiple uncertain events, a situation termed conjunctive risk . Whereas past literature has addressed the psychology of choosing to enter situations with conjunctive risk, this article elucidates a novel way in which the psychology of managing conjunctive risk is importantly distinct. We examine a case in which there are two independent events, one is currently less likely than the other, both are required for overall success, and the decision maker must evaluate opportunities to increase the chance of the less-likely or more-likely requirement. We introduce the hypothesis of a worst-first heuristic. Decision makers intuitively evaluate improvements in conjunctive risk according to their impact on the biggest barrier to success, the least likely of the required events. We find evidence for such a worst-first heuristic across nine experiments ( n = 3,653, including samples from the United States and United Kingdom in Studies 1–5 and Studies S1–S3 in the online supplement, as well as a sample of managers in Study 6). Participants invest more to improve chances of less-likely requirements than more-likely requirements, even when the latter improvements have at least as much impact on the aggregate chance of success. Moreover, we find that decision makers exhibit this behavior particularly when managing conjunctive risk, as doing so makes them attend to which threat is the worst. Conversely, they do not appear to exhibit the behavior when making formally equivalent decisions about choosing between conjunctive risks. This bias toward underinvesting in stronger-links holds important implications for decision making in contexts subject to conjunctive risk—both managerial and societal.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua Lewis & Daniel Feiler & Ron Adner, 2023. "The Worst-First Heuristic: How Decision Makers Manage Conjunctive Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(3), pages 1575-1596, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:69:y:2023:i:3:p:1575-1596
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2022.4411
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4411
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4411?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. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    2. Kelly Shue & Richard R. Townsend, 2021. "Can the Market Multiply and Divide? Non‐Proportional Thinking in Financial Markets," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 76(5), pages 2307-2357, October.
    3. Alex B. Markle & Yuval Rottenstreich, 2018. "Simultaneous Preferences for Hedging and Doubling Down: Focal Prospects, Background Positions, and Nonconsequentialist Conceptualizations of Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(12), pages 5946-5959, December.
    4. Richard H. Thaler & Shlomo Benartzi, 2001. "Naive Diversification Strategies in Defined Contribution Saving Plans," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 79-98, March.
    5. 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..
    6. Nathan Alexander Sears, 2020. "Existential Security: Towards a Security Framework for the Survival of Humanity," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(2), pages 255-266, April.
    7. Stefano DellaVigna & Devin Pope, 2018. "What Motivates Effort? Evidence and Expert Forecasts," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(2), pages 1029-1069.
    8. Ron Adner & Daniel Feiler, 2019. "Interdependence, Perception, and Investment Choices: An Experimental Approach to Decision Making in Innovation Ecosystems," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 109-125, February.
    9. Nick Bostrom, 2013. "Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 4(1), pages 15-31, February.
    10. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    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. 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.
    2. Stephan Tontrup & Christopher Jon Sprigman, 2022. "Self‐nudging contracts and the positive effects of autonomy—Analyzing the prospect of behavioral self‐management," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 594-676, September.
    3. Takashi Hayashi, 2008. "Context dependence and consistency in dynamic choice under uncertainty: the case of anticipated regret," KIER Working Papers 659, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    4. Marc Scholten & Daniel Read & Neil Stewart, 2019. "The framing of nothing and the psychology of choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 125-149, October.
    5. Takashi Hayashi, 2011. "Context dependence and consistency in dynamic choice under uncertainty: the case of anticipated regret," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(4), pages 399-430, April.
    6. Neil Stewart & Stian Reimers & Adam J. L. Harris, 2015. "On the Origin of Utility, Weighting, and Discounting Functions: How They Get Their Shapes and How to Change Their Shapes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(3), pages 687-705, March.
    7. Santiago I. Sautua, 2016. "Risk, Ambiguity, And Diversification," Documentos de Trabajo 14588, Universidad del Rosario.
    8. Martín Egozcue & Xu Guo & Wing-Keung Wong, 2015. "Optimal output for the regret-averse competitive firm under price uncertainty," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 5(2), pages 279-295, December.
    9. Tomas Bonavia & Josué Brox-Ponce, 2018. "Shame in decision making under risk conditions: Understanding the effect of transparency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    10. Qin, Jie, 2015. "A model of regret, investor behavior, and market turbulence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 150-174.
    11. Embrey, Matthew & Seel, Christian & Philipp Reiss, J., 2024. "Gambling in risk-taking contests: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 570-585.
    12. Leonid Kogan & Stephen A. Ross & Jiang Wang & Mark M. Westerfield, 2006. "The Price Impact and Survival of Irrational Traders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(1), pages 195-229, February.
    13. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    14. Sugden, Robert & Wang, Mengjie & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2019. "Take it or leave it: Experimental evidence on the effect of time-limited offers on consumer behaviour," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 1-23.
    15. Camille Magron & Maxime Merli, 2012. "Stocks repurchase and sophistication of individual investors," Working Papers of LaRGE Research Center 2012-02, Laboratoire de Recherche en Gestion et Economie (LaRGE), Université de Strasbourg.
    16. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thierry Post, 2011. "Loss Aversion with a State-Dependent Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1094-1110, June.
    17. Tonin, Stefania, 2018. "Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 189-200.
    18. Ulrich Schmidt & Stefan Traub, 2009. "An Experimental Investigation of the Disparity Between WTA and WTP for Lotteries," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 229-262, March.
    19. Oyakhilome IBHAGUI, 2017. "Optimal Asset Allocation of a Pension Fund: Does The Fear of Regret Matter?," Journal of Economics Library, KSP Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 130-159, June.
    20. Franz Dietrich & Antonios Staras & Robert Sugden, 2021. "Savage’s response to Allais as Broomean reasoning," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 143-164, April.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:69:y:2023:i:3:p:1575-1596. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.