IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/93214.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cognitive stress and learning Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) inventory management: An experimental investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Pan, Jinrui
  • Shachat, Jason
  • Wei, Sijia

Abstract

We use laboratory experiments to evaluate the effects of cognitive stress on inventory management decisions in a finite horizon Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) model. We manipulate two sources of cognitive stress. First, we vary participants' ability to order inventory from any decision period to only when inventory is depleted. This reduces cognitive stress by restricting the policy choice set. Second we vary participants' participation in a competing pin memorization. This increases cognitive load. Participants complete a sequence of five ``annual'' inventory management tasks, with monthly ordering decisions. Both sources of cognitive stress negatively impact earnings, with the bulk of these impacts occurring in the first year. Participants' choices in all treatments exhibit trends to near optimal policy adoption. But only in the most favorable treatment do the majority of choices reach the optimal policy. We estimate the learning dynamics of monthly order decisions using a Markov switching model. Estimates suggest increased cognitive load reduces the probability of switching to more profitable policies, and that more complex policy choice sets leads to a greater policy lock-in. Our results suggests that inexperienced individuals will perform more poorly when called upon to make inventory management situations in cognitively stressfully environments, and that the benefits of providing support and task simplicity is greatest when the task is first assigned.

Suggested Citation

  • Pan, Jinrui & Shachat, Jason & Wei, Sijia, 2018. "Cognitive stress and learning Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) inventory management: An experimental investigation," MPRA Paper 93214, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:93214
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/93214/4/MPRA_paper_93214.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roch, Sylvia G. & Lane, John A. S. & Samuelson, Charles D. & Allison, Scott T. & Dent, Jennifer L., 2000. "Cognitive Load and the Equality Heuristic: A Two-Stage Model of Resource Overconsumption in Small Groups," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 185-212, November.
    2. Jason Shachat & Zhenxuan Zhang, 2017. "The Hayek Hypothesis and Long‐run Competitive Equilibrium: An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(599), pages 199-228, February.
    3. Khaw, Mel Win & Stevens, Luminita & Woodford, Michael, 2017. "Discrete adjustment to a changing environment: Experimental evidence," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 88-103.
    4. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2012. "Revealed Attention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2183-2205, August.
    5. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2011. "Search and Satisficing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2899-2922, December.
    6. Basak Kalkanci & Kay-Yut Chen & Feryal Erhun, 2011. "Contract Complexity and Performance Under Asymmetric Demand Information: An Experimental Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(4), pages 689-704, April.
    7. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    8. Erev, Ido & Roth, Alvin E, 1998. "Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 848-881, September.
    9. Jacopo Magnani & Aspen Gorry & Ryan Oprea, 2016. "Time and State Dependence in an Ss Decision Experiment," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 285-310, January.
    10. Arunachalam Narayanan & Brent B. Moritz, 2015. "Decision Making and Cognition in Multi-Echelon Supply Chains: An Experimental Study," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 24(8), pages 1216-1234, August.
    11. Tianjun Feng & Yinghao Zhang, 2017. "Modeling Strategic Behavior in The Competitive Newsvendor Problem: An Experimental Investigation," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 26(7), pages 1383-1398, July.
    12. Katok, Elena, 2011. "Using Laboratory Experiments to Build Better Operations Management Models," Foundations and Trends(R) in Technology, Information and Operations Management, now publishers, vol. 5(1), pages 1-86, November.
    13. Lleras, Juan Sebastián & Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Nakajima, Daisuke & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2017. "When more is less: Limited consideration," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 70-85.
    14. Johannes Abeler & Simon Jäger, 2015. "Complex Tax Incentives," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 1-28, August.
    15. Wilfred Amaldoss & Sanjay Jain, 2010. "Reference Groups and Product Line Decisions: An Experimental Investigation of Limited Editions and Product Proliferation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 621-644, April.
    16. Shiv, Baba & Fedorikhin, Alexander, 1999. "Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(3), pages 278-292, December.
    17. Deck, Cary & Jahedi, Salar, 2015. "The effect of cognitive load on economic decision making: A survey and new experiments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 97-119.
    18. Jordi Brandts & David J. Cooper & Enrique Fatas & Shi Qi, 2016. "Stand by Me—Experiments on Help and Commitment in Coordination Games," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2916-2936, October.
    19. Tobias Stangl & Ulrich W. Thonemann, 2017. "Equivalent Inventory Metrics: A Behavioral Perspective," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 472-488, July.
    20. Jinrui Pan & Jason Shachat & Sijia Wei, 2020. "Cognitive reflection and economic order quantity inventory management: An experimental investigation," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(6), pages 998-1009, September.
    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. Timo Heinrich, 2019. "Discussion of “Consequences of Unfair Job Promotions in Organizations”," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 71(1), pages 27-33, February.
    2. Jinrui Pan & Jason Shachat & Sijia Wei, 2020. "Cognitive reflection and economic order quantity inventory management: An experimental investigation," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(6), pages 998-1009, September.

    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. Jinrui Pan & Jason Shachat & Sijia Wei, 2022. "Cognitive Stress and Learning Economic Order Quantity Inventory Management: An Experimental Investigation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 229-254, September.
    2. Duffy, Sean & Gussman, Steven & Smith, John, 2019. "Judgments of length in the economics laboratory: Are there brains in choice?," MPRA Paper 93126, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Duffy, Sean & Gussman, Steven & Smith, John, 2021. "Visual judgments of length in the economics laboratory: Are there brains in stochastic choice?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    4. Xavier Gabaix, 2017. "Behavioral Inattention," NBER Working Papers 24096, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Jinrui Pan & Jason Shachat & Sijia Wei, 2020. "Cognitive reflection and economic order quantity inventory management: An experimental investigation," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(6), pages 998-1009, September.
    6. Deck, Cary & Jahedi, Salar & Sheremeta, Roman, 2021. "On the consistency of cognitive load," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    7. Sean Duffy & J. J. Naddeo & David Owens & John Smith, 2024. "Cognitive Load and Mixed Strategies: On Brains and Minimax," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 26(03), pages 1-34, September.
    8. Goudarzi, Fatemeh (Sahar) & Olaru, Doina & Bergey, Paul, 2023. "Beyond risk attitude: Unpacking behavioral drivers of supply chain contracts," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    9. Demirkan, Yusufcan & Kimya, Mert, 2020. "Hazard rate, stochastic choice and consideration sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 142-150.
    10. Timo Henckel & Gordon D. Menzies & Peter G. Moffatt & Daniel J. Zizzo, 2022. "Belief adjustment: a double hurdle model and experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 26-67, February.
    11. Adam Sanjurjo, 2015. "Search, Memory, and Choice Error: An Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Allred, Sarah & Duffy, Sean & Smith, John, 2016. "Cognitive load and strategic sophistication," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 162-178.
    13. Salvador Barberà & Geoffroy de Clippel & Alejandro Neme & Kareen Rozen, 2022. "Order-k rationality," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 73(4), pages 1135-1153, June.
      • Salvador Barberà & Geoffroy De Clippel & Alejandro Neme & Kareen Rozen, 2019. "Order-k Rationality," Working Papers 1130, Barcelona School of Economics.
      • Salvador Barberà & Geoffroy De Cleppel & Alejandro Neme & Kareen Rozeen, 2020. "Order-k Rationality," Working Papers 4, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
      • Salvador Barber‡ & Geoffroy de Clippel & Alejandro Neme & Kareen Rozen, 2020. "Order-k Rationality," Working Papers 2020-10, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    14. Aguiar, Victor H. & Kimya, Mert, 2019. "Adaptive stochastic search," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 74-83.
    15. Anja Achtziger & Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Alexander Ritschel, 2020. "Cognitive load in economic decisions," ECON - Working Papers 354, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    16. Martin, Daniel & Muñoz-Rodriguez, Edwin, 2022. "Cognitive costs and misperceived incentives: Evidence from the BDM mechanism," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    17. Ian Chadd & Emel Filiz-Ozbay & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2021. "The relevance of irrelevant information," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 985-1018, September.
    18. Rochanahastin, Nuttaporn, 2020. "Assessing axioms of theories of limited attention," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    19. Leo Katz & Alvaro Sandroni, 2020. "Limits on power and rationality," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 507-521, March.
    20. Guy Barokas, 2021. "Dynamic choice under familiarity-based attention," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(4), pages 703-720, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economic Order Quantity; Cognitive load; Choice set complexity; Learning;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • M11 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Production Management

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pra:mprapa:93214. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.