IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jmgtco/v26y2015i1p51-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beating the base-rate fallacy: an experimental approach on the effectiveness of different information presentation formats

Author

Listed:
  • Christine Ohlert
  • Barbara Weißenberger

Abstract

Cognitive biases such as the base-rate fallacy are well known in theory, but until recently there exists only limited research how to cope with those biases in managerial decision-making. Hence, the aim of our study is to examine how management accountants should prepare information in order to reduce the phenomenon of base-rate neglect in probability judgments to guide rational managerial decision-making. To address this research question, we use an experimental design. Empirical evidence suggests that a visual-based information format, especially in comparison to a tabular representation, significantly reduces the fallacy of neglecting base-rates. In addition, we integrate user’s cognitive style and other personal characteristics as possible factors influencing the base-rate fallacy. Underlying mechanism and individual differences are discussed. Based on our findings, we offer advice to management accountants and guidance for future research directions. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Christine Ohlert & Barbara Weißenberger, 2015. "Beating the base-rate fallacy: an experimental approach on the effectiveness of different information presentation formats," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 51-80, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jmgtco:v:26:y:2015:i:1:p:51-80
    DOI: 10.1007/s00187-015-0205-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00187-015-0205-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00187-015-0205-2?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. Gigerenzer, Gerd & Todd, Peter M. & ABC Research Group,, 2000. "Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195143812.
    2. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    3. Dohmen, T.J. & Falk, A. & Huffman, D. & Marklein, F. & Sunde, U., 2009. "The non-use of Bayes rule: representative evidence on bounded rationality," ROA Research Memorandum 001, Maastricht University, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA).
    4. Sloman, Steven A. & Over, David & Slovak, Lila & Stibel, Jeffrey M., 2003. "Frequency illusions and other fallacies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 296-309, July.
    5. Libby, Robert & Lewis, Barry L., 1977. "Human information processing research in accounting: The state of the art," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 245-268, June.
    6. Henry Kaiser, 1974. "An index of factorial simplicity," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 39(1), pages 31-36, March.
    7. Katherine Lyford Milkman & Dolly Chugh & Max H. Bazerman, 2008. "How Can Decision Making Be Improved?," Harvard Business School Working Papers 08-102, Harvard Business School, revised Jul 2008.
    8. Cardinaels, Eddy, 2008. "The interplay between cost accounting knowledge and presentation formats in cost-based decision-making," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 582-602, August.
    9. Bonner, Sarah E., 1994. "A model of the effects of audit task complexity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 213-234, April.
    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. Nicola Capolupo & Zuzana Virglerova & Angelo Rosa & Dario Natale Palmucci, 2024. "The relationship between biases and entrepreneurial Decision-Making. Evidence from Italian and Czech SMEs," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 3323-3348, December.
    2. Ewgenij Besuglov & Nils Crasselt, 2021. "The effect of readability and language choice in management accounting reports on risk-taking: an experimental study," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 5-33, February.
    3. Lisa Perkhofer & Conny Walchshofer & Peter Hofer, 2020. "Does design matter when visualizing Big Data? An empirical study to investigate the effect of visualization type and interaction use," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 55-95, April.
    4. David Bourdin & Rudolf Vetschera, 2018. "Factors influencing the ratio bias," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 6(3), pages 321-342, November.

    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. Magni, Carlo Alberto, 2007. "Investment decisions, equivalent risk and bounded rationality," MPRA Paper 6073, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Dilla, William N. & Raschke, Robyn L., 2015. "Data visualization for fraud detection: Practice implications and a call for future research," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 1-22.
    3. David M. Ramsey, 2020. "A Game Theoretic Model of Choosing a Valuable Good via a Short List Heuristic," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-20, February.
    4. Patrick Ifergan, 2011. "Interprétativisme et complexité des normes d'audit françaises," Post-Print hal-00650464, HAL.
    5. Caroline C. Brock & Bradford L. Barham, 2013. "‘Milk is Milk’: Organic Dairy Adoption Decisions and Bounded Rationality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(12), pages 1-26, December.
    6. Lutz Bornmann & Julian N. Marewski, 2019. "Heuristics as conceptual lens for understanding and studying the usage of bibliometrics in research evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 419-459, August.
    7. Dohmen, Thomas, 2014. "Behavioral labor economics: Advances and future directions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 71-85.
    8. Thomas Holtfort & Andreas Horsch, 2023. "Social science goes quantum: explaining human decision-making, cognitive biases and Darwinian selection from a quantum perspective," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 99-116, August.
    9. Frank Huettner, & Tamer Boyaci, & Yalcin Akcay, 2016. "Consumer choice under limited attention when alternatives have different information costs," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-16-04_R2, ESMT European School of Management and Technology, revised 28 Feb 2018.
    10. 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.
    11. Frank Huettner & Tamer Boyacı & Yalçın Akçay, 2019. "Consumer Choice Under Limited Attention When Alternatives Have Different Information Costs," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 671-699, May.
    12. Frank Huettner, & Tamer Boyaci, & Yalcin Akcay, 2016. "Consumer choice under limited attention when alternatives have different information costs," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-16-04_R3, ESMT European School of Management and Technology, revised 26 Sep 2018.
    13. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    14. Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2003. "Experimental judgment and decision research in auditing: the first 25 years of AOS," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 395-412, May.
    15. Frank Huettner, & Tamer Boyaci, & Yalcin Akcay, 2016. "Consumer choice under limited attention when options have different information costs," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-16-04, ESMT European School of Management and Technology, revised 04 Oct 2016.
    16. Robin Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2006. "On heuristic and linear models of judgment: Mapping the demand for knowledge," Economics Working Papers 974, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    17. Krzysztof Zieliński, 2012. "Błędy popełniane w procesie podejmowania decyzji w świetle behawioralnej ekonomii finansowej," Ekonomia journal, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, vol. 31.
    18. Patrick Ifergan & Pierre-Laurent Bescos, 2010. "Les Facteurs Objectifs De La Complexité De La Tâche En Audit Légal," Post-Print hal-00477398, HAL.
    19. Asindu, Marsy & Abdulai, Awudu & Bett, Bernard & Roesel, Kristina & Ouma, Emily, 2024. "Choice heuristics and livestock farmers' preference heterogeneity for Rift Valley fever vaccines in Uganda," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    20. Todd, Peter M. & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2003. "Bounding rationality to the world," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 143-165, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Base-rate fallacy; Debiasing; Behavioral accounting; Management reporting; Information presentation ; Visualization; Individual differences; Cognitive style; M10; M40;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - General
    • M40 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - General

    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:spr:jmgtco:v:26:y:2015:i:1:p:51-80. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.