IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v21y2012i4p837-869.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Almost identical experience biases in vicarious learning

Author

Listed:
  • Hitoshi Mitsuhashi

Abstract

While previous research on vicarious learning assumes that managers pay adequate attention to any event in an environment, boundedly rational managers can only pay selective attention to salient events. This study proposes the hypothesis that managers pay disproportionately less attention to and learn less from an external event if it has attributes almost identical to those that they have encountered in the past in either a direct or an indirect manner. An analysis of errors by Japanese firms operating nuclear power plants supports this theory and presents an explanation about why an organization repeats an error that others have made in the past. Copyright 2012 The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Associazione ICC. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Hitoshi Mitsuhashi, 2012. "Almost identical experience biases in vicarious learning," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 21(4), pages 837-869, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:21:y:2012:i:4:p:837-869
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/icc/dtr068
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Min, Jungwon, 2019. "No pain, yet gain?: Learning from vicarious crises in an international context," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 227-234.
    2. Dahlin, Kristina & Chuang, You-Ta & Roulet, Thomas J, 2018. "Opportunity, Motivation, and Ability to Learn from Failures and Errors: Review, Synthesis, and Ways to Move Forward," SocArXiv 4qwzh, Center for Open Science.

    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:oup:indcch:v:21:y:2012:i:4:p:837-869. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    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.