1999Journal of Management StudiesRequires access

Cognitive Biases and Strategic Decision Processes: An Integrative Perspective

T. K. Das, Bing‐Sheng Teng

Open publisher page 390 citations

Abstract

Previous studies have not adequately addressed the role of cognitive biases in strategic decision processes. In this article we suggest that cognitive biases are systematically associated with strategic decision processes. Different decision processes tend to accentuate particular types of cognitive bias. We develop an integrative framework to explore the presence of four basic types of cognitive bias under five different modes of decision making. The cognitive biases include prior hypotheses and focusing on limited targets, exposure to limited alternatives, insensitivity to outcome probabilities and illusion of manageability. The five modes of strategic decision making are rational, avoidance, logical incrementalist, political and garbage can. We suggest a number of key propositions to facilitate empirical testing of the various contingent relationships implicit in the framework. Lastly, we discuss the implications of this framework for research and managerial practice.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Previous studies have not adequately addressed the role of cognitive biases in strategic decision processes. In this article we suggest that cognitive biases are systematically associated with strategic decision processes. Different decision processes tend to accentuate particular types of cognitive bias. We develop an integrative framework to explore the presence of four basic types of cognitive bias under five different modes of decision making. The cognitive biases include prior hypotheses and focusing on limited targets, exposure to limited alternatives, insensitivity to outcome probabilities and illusion of manageability. The five modes of strategic decision making are rational, avoidance, logical incrementalist, political and garbage can. We suggest a number of key propositions to facilitate empirical testing of the various contingent relationships implicit in the framework. Lastly, we discuss the implications of this framework for research and managerial practice.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 390 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Previous studies have not adequately addressed the role of cognitive biases in strategic decision processes. In this article we suggest that cognitive biases are systematically associated with strategic decision processes. Different decision processes tend to accentuate particular types of cognitive bias. We develop an integrative framework to explore the presence of four basic types of cognitive bias under five different modes of decision making. The cognitive biases include prior hypotheses and focusing on limited targets, exposure to limited alternatives, insensitivity to outcome probabilities and illusion of manageability. The five modes of strategic decision making are rational, avoidance, logical incrementalist, political and garbage can. We suggest a number of key propositions to facilitate empirical testing of the various contingent relationships implicit in the framework. Lastly, we discuss the implications of this framework for research and managerial practice.

Key concepts: Cognitive bias, Perspective (graphical), Cognition, Outcome (game theory), Cognitive psychology, Psychology, Management science, Computer science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Cognitive Biases and Strategic Decision Processes: An Integrative Perspective — Research Paper | ScholarLens