Effect of Intention on Outcome Bias in Decision Making—Implications for Safety Management
- 1 Department of Intelligent Mechanical Systems, Graduate School of Natural Science and Technology, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan
- 2 Department of Intelligent Mechanical Systems, Graduate School of Natural Science and Technology, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan
Abstract
The evidence of outcome bias was explored in a two-player (Player 1: allocator and Player 2: evaluator) economic game experiment where the reward allocation was made between two players. The experimental factors were the intention of an allocator (Player 1), the type of chosen dice (selfish, fair, and generous), and the outcome (selfish, fair, and generous). The outcome bias occurred when the type of dice chosen by the allocator (Player 1) was not only a selfish one but also a generous one. The comparison between the two conditions (intentional and no-intentional conditions) definitely showed that Player 2 punished Player 1 to a larger extent when the outcome was disadvantageous for Player 2 (selfish outcome) and Player 2 rewarded Player 1 when the outcome was advantageous (generous outcome) irrespective of whether the die was chosen out of the three types intentionally or not. Moreover, the outcome bias was not observed when the outcome was fair. Thus, we could verify the hypothesis that we are readily got trapped in the outcome bias. Some implications were given for safety management that put more emphasis on the process than on the outcome.
- Reason, J. (1990) Human Error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139062367
- Dekker, S. (2006) The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham.
- Fischhoff, B. (1975) Hindsight ≠ Foresight: The Effect of Outcome Knowledge on Judgment under Uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288-299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.1.3.288
- Mackie, D.M., Worth, L.T., and Allison, S.T. (1990) Outcome-Biased Inferences and Perception of Change in Groups. Social Cognition, 8, 325-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.1990.8.4.325
- Lipe, M. (1993) Analyzing the Variance Investigation Decision: The Effects of Outcomes, Mental Accounting, and Framing. The Accounting Review, 68, 748-764.
- Marshall, G.D. and Mowen, J.D. (1993) An Experimental Investigation of the Outcome Bias in Salesperson Performance Evaluations. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 13, 31-47.
- Reimers, J. and Butler, S. (1992) The Effect of Outcome Knowledge on Auditors’ Judgmental Evaluations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 185-194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(92)90010-P
- Dekker, S. (2012) Just Culture. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham.
- Dekker, S. (2015) Safety Differently. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham.
- Boles, T.L. and Messick, D.M. (1995) A Reverse Outcome Bias: The Influence of Multiple Reference Points on the Evaluation of Outcomes and Decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 262-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1021
- Brown, C.E. and Solomon, I. (1987) Effects of Outcome Information on Evaluations of Managerial Decisions. The Accounting Review, 62, 564-577.
- Seta, C.E., Seta, J.J., Petrocelli, J.V. and McCormick, M. (2015) Even Better than the Real Thing: Alternative Outcome Bias Affects Decision Judgments and Decision Regret. Thinking & Reasoning, 21, 446-472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2015.1034779
- Hawkins, S. and Hastie, R. (1990) Hindsight: Biased Judgments of Past Events after the Outcomes Are Known. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 311-327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.3.311
- Hershey, J. and Baron, J. (1992) Judgments by Outcomes: When Is It Justified? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 89-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(92)90056-D