IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mup/actaun/actaun_2013061072117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heuristics, biases and traps in managerial decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Gál

    (Department of Strategy and Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Management, Comenius University in Bratislava, Odbojárov 10, P.O. Box 95, 820 05 Bratislava 25, Slovak Republic)

  • Miloš Mrva

    (Department of Strategy and Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Management, Comenius University in Bratislava, Odbojárov 10, P.O. Box 95, 820 05 Bratislava 25, Slovak Republic)

  • Matej Meško

    (Department of Strategy and Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Management, Comenius University in Bratislava, Odbojárov 10, P.O. Box 95, 820 05 Bratislava 25, Slovak Republic)

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to demonstrate the impact of heuristics, biases and psychological traps on the decision making. Heuristics are unconscious routines people use to cope with the complexity inherent in most decision situations. They serve as mental shortcuts that help people to simplify and structure the information encountered in the world. These heuristics could be quite useful in some situations, while in others they can lead to severe and systematic errors, based on significant deviations from the fundamental principles of statistics, probability and sound judgment. This paper focuses on illustrating the existence of the anchoring, availability, and representativeness heuristics, originally described by Tversky & Kahneman in the early 1970's. The anchoring heuristic is a tendency to focus on the initial information, estimate or perception (even random or irrelevant number) as a starting point. People tend to give disproportionate weight to the initial information they receive. The availability heuristic explains why highly imaginable or vivid information have a disproportionate effect on people's decisions. The representativeness heuristic causes that people rely on highly specific scenarios, ignore base rates, draw conclusions based on small samples and neglect scope. Mentioned phenomena are illustrated and supported by evidence based on the statistical analysis of the results of a questionnaire.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Gál & Miloš Mrva & Matej Meško, 2013. "Heuristics, biases and traps in managerial decision making," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 61(7), pages 2117-2122.
    • Handle: RePEc:mup:actaun:actaun_2013061072117
    DOI: 10.11118/actaun201361072117
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://acta.mendelu.cz/doi/10.11118/actaun201361072117.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://acta.mendelu.cz/doi/10.11118/actaun201361072117.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.11118/actaun201361072117?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. Mussweiler, Thomas & Englich, Birte, 2005. "Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 133-143, November.
    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:41-50 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Chen, Daniel L., 2016. "Priming Ideology: Why Presidential Elections Affect U.S. Judges," TSE Working Papers 16-681, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Aug 2016.
    3. Sangsuk Yoon & Nathan M. Fong & Angelika Dimoka, 2019. "The robustness of anchoring effects on preferential judgments," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 470-487, July.
    4. Thorsteinson, Todd J. & Breier, Jennifer & Atwell, Anna & Hamilton, Catherine & Privette, Monica, 2008. "Anchoring effects on performance judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 29-40, September.
    5. Markus Spiwoks & Zulia Gubaydullina, 2020. "The Magic of Figures: Anchoring and Interferences," Journal of Finance and Investment Analysis, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 9(3), pages 1-2.
    6. William J. Matthews & Neil Stewart, 2009. "Psychophysics and the judgment of price: Judging complex objects on a non-physical dimension elicits sequential effects like those in perceptual tasks," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(1), pages 64-81, February.
    7. Chen, Daniel L. & Prescott, J.J., 2016. "Implicit Egoism in Sentencing Decisions: First Letter Name Effects with Randomly Assigned Defendants," IAST Working Papers 16-56, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    8. Crusius, Jan & van Horen, Femke & Mussweiler, Thomas, 2012. "Why process matters: A social cognition perspective on economic behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 677-685.
    9. Shavin Malhotra & Pengcheng Zhu & Taco H. Reus, 2015. "Anchoring on the acquisition premium decisions of others," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(12), pages 1866-1876, December.
    10. Furnham, Adrian & Boo, Hua Chu, 2011. "A literature review of the anchoring effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 35-42, February.
    11. Ashleigh Shelby Rosette & Shirli Kopelman & JeAnna Lanza Abbott, 2014. "Good Grief! Anxiety Sours the Economic Benefits of First Offers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 629-647, May.
    12. Mukherjee, Sudipta & Pandelaere, Mario, 2023. "The influence of self-decided prices on expected quality," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:470-487 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Gould, Stephen & Goldsmith, Emily & Lee, Michael, 2020. "The choice polarity effect: An investigation of evolutionary-based trait handedness and perceived magnitudes on laterally displayed choices," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 627-637.
    15. Birte Englich & Kirsten Soder, 2009. "Moody experts --- How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(1), pages 41-50, February.
    16. Mochon, Daniel & Frederick, Shane, 2013. "Anchoring in sequential judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 69-79.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:64-81 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:mup:actaun:actaun_2013061072117. 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: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://mendelu.cz/en/ .

    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.