Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Misperception of Behavioral Operations and Bodies of Knowledge

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Behavioral Operational Research

Abstract

This chapter presents theoretical concepts that explain how bounded rationality arises from misperceptions of feedback structure and feedback dynamics. In particular, we discuss and exemplify how misperception of feedback dynamics can lead to the poor use of heuristics and decision biases. We conclude with some behavioral implications of the misperceptions of feedback dynamics for different managerial operations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Feedback strength refers to the speed and intensity of the feedback processes existing in a system. In System Dynamics models, the strength relates to the change to the variables.

  2. 2.

    The first-order Taylor series is an approximation of a non-linear function using a linear function. The components of the polynomial are calculated from the non-linear function’s derivatives (Note from the editors).

References

  • Anderson, E., and C. Fine. 1999. Business cycles and productivity in capital equipment supply chains. In Quantitative models for supply chain management, ed. S. Tayur, R. Ganshan, and M. Magazine, 381–415. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Arango Aramburo, S., J.A. Castañeda Acevedo, and Y. Olaya Morales. 2012. Laboratory experiments in the system dynamics field. System Dynamics Review 28: 94–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armony, M., and E. Plambeck. 2005. The impact of duplicate orders on demand estimation and capacity investment. Management Science 51: 1505–1518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R. 1976. Structure of decision: The cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlas, Y., and M.G. Özevin. 2004. Analysis of stock management gaming experiments and alternative ordering formulations. System Research and Behavioral Science 21: 439–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendoly, E., R. Croson, P. Goncalves, and K. Schultz. 2010. Bodies of knowledge for research in behavioral operations. Production and Operations Management 19: 434–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croson, R., and K. Donohue. 2002. The impact of POS data sharing on supply chain management: An experimental study. Production and Operations Management 12: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, E., and J.D. Sterman. 1995. Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 62: 198–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dörner, D. 1980. On the difficulties people have in dealing with complexity. Simulations and Games 11(1): 87–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foremski, T. (1999). Intel struggles to meet strong demand for chips. Financial Times (London), November 18, p. 42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J.W. 1969. Urban dynamics. Waltham: Pegasus Communications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, D., and A. Cassar. 2004. Economics lab: An intensive course in experimental economics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, D., and S. Sunder. 1994. Experimental methods: A primer for economists. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gaither, C. 2001. Intel beats forecast; Warns of revenue shortfall. The New York Times, January 17, C1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonçalves, P. 2003. Phantom orders and demand bubbles in supply chains. Ph.D. Dissertation, Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonçalves, P., and S. Arango. 2010. Supplier capacity decisions under retailer competition and delays: Theoretical and experimental results. 28th international conference of the System Dynamics Society, Seoul-Korea.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, J.B. 1974. The Abilene paradox: The management of agreement. Organizational Dynamics 17: 16–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haselton, M.G., D. Nettle, and P.W. Andrews. 2005. The evolution of cognitive bias. In The handbook of evolutionary psychology, ed. D.M. Buss, 724–746. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, P.J., and D.A. Moore. 2007. The trouble with overconfidence. Working Paper. Carnegie-Mellon University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R.M. 1981. Beyond discrete biases: Functional and dysfunctional aspects of judgmental heuristics. Psychological Bulletin 90: 197–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I.L. 1982. Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes, 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1972. Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology 3: 430–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 47: 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kainz, D., and G. Ossimitz. 2002. Can students learn stock-flow-thinking? An empirical investigation. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference of the System Dynamics Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampmann, C.P.E. 1992. Feedback complexity and market adjustment: An experimental approach. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampmann, C., and J.D. Sterman. 1998. Feedback complexity, bounded rationality, and market dynamics. Memo D-4802, System Dynamics Group. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. 2001. A comparative study of the “Abilene paradox” and “Groupthink”. Public Administration Quarterly 25: 168–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinmuntz, D.N. 1993. Information processing and misperceptions of the implications of feedback in dynamic decision making. System Dynamics Review 9: 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinmuntz, D.N., and J.B. Thomas. 1987. The value of action and inference in dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39: 341–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunc, M., and J. Morecroft. 2010. Managerial decision-making and firm performance under a resource-based paradigm. Strategic Management Journal 31: 1164–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latham, G.P., and E.A. Locke. 1991. Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 212–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H., V. Padmanabhan, and W. Seungjin. 1997a. Information distortion in a supply chain: The bullwhip effect. Management Science 43: 546–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H., V. Padmanabhan, and W. Seungjin. 1997b. The bullwhip effect in supply chains. Sloan Management Review 38: 93–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, T.W. 1924. Competitive illusion as a cause of business cycles. Quarterly Journal of Economics 38: 631–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moxnes, E. 2004. Misperceptions of basic dynamics: The case of renewable resource management. System Dynamics Review 20: 139–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moxnes, E., and A.K. Saysel. 2009. Misperceptions of global climate change: Information policies. Climatic Change 93: 15–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paich, M., and J. Sterman. 1993. Boom, bust and learn in experimental markets. Management Science 39: 1439–1458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L. 1977. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 10: 173–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, K., and T.K. Abdel-Hamid. 1993. Alternative conceptions of feedback in dynamic decision environments: An experimental investigation. Management Science 39: 411–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A. 1982. Models of bounded rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J.D., 1987. Testing behavioral simulation models by direct experiment. Management Science 33: 1572–1592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J.D. 1989a. Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management Science 35: 321–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J.D. 1989b. Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Sciences 43: 301–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J.D. 2000. Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J.D., and G. Dogan. 2015. “I’m not hoarding, I’m just stocking up before the hoarders get here”.: Behavioral causes of phantom ordering in supply chains. Journal of Operations Management 39: 6–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, L.B., and J.D. Sterman. 2000. Bathtub dynamics: initial results of a systems thinking inventory. System Dynamics Review 16: 249–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1992. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villa, S., P. Gonçalves, and S. Arango. 2015. Exploring retailers’ ordering decisions under delays. System Dynamics Review 31: 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics, Universita della Svizza italia, Via Buffi 13, 6900, Lugano, Switzerland

    Paulo Gonçalves & Sebastian Villa

Authors
  1. Paulo Gonçalves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastian Villa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    Martin Kunc

  2. BT Technology Service & Operations, Martlesham Heath, UK

    Jonathan Malpass

  3. Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    Leroy White

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gonçalves, P., Villa, S. (2016). Misperception of Behavioral Operations and Bodies of Knowledge. In: Kunc, M., Malpass, J., White, L. (eds) Behavioral Operational Research. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53551-1_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation