Prospective outcome bias: Incurring (unnecessary) costs to achieve outcomes that are already likely.

2020 ◽  
Vol 149 (5) ◽  
pp. 870-888
Author(s):  
Joshua Lewis ◽  
Joseph P. Simmons
Keyword(s):  
2002 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Clarkson ◽  
Craig Emby ◽  
Vanessa W.-S. Watt

The outcome effect occurs where an evaluator, who has knowledge of the outcome of a judge's decision, assesses the quality of the judgment of that decision maker. If the evaluator has knowledge of a negative outcome, then that knowledge negatively influences his or her assessment of the ex ante judgment. For instance, jurors in a lawsuit brought against an auditor for alleged negligence are informed of an undetected fraud, even though an unqualified opinion was issued. This paper reports the results of an experiment in an applied audit judgment setting that examined methods of mitigating the outcome effect by means of instructions. The results showed that simply instructing or warning the evaluator about the potential biasing effects of outcome information was only weakly effective. However, instructions that stressed either (1) the cognitive nonnormativeness of the outcome effect or (2) the seriousness and gravity of the evaluation ameliorated the effect significantly. From a theoretical perspective, the results suggest that there may both motivational and cognitive components to the outcome effect. In all, the findings suggest awareness of the outcome effect and use of relatively nonintrusive instructions to evaluators may effectively counteract the potential for the outcome bias.


2004 ◽  
Vol 183 (3) ◽  
pp. 557-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard Berlin
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Merz ◽  
Raphael Flepp ◽  
Egon P. Franck

2011 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 323-328.e9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malkeet Gupta ◽  
David L. Schriger ◽  
Jeffrey A. Tabas

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 292-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick S. Roberts ◽  
Kris Wernstedt

We present evidence that emergency managers exhibit some of the same decision biases, sensitivity to framing, and heuristics found in studies of the general public, even when making decisions in their area of expertise. Our national survey of county-level emergency managers finds that managers appear more risk averse when the outcomes of actions are framed as gains than when equivalent outcomes are framed as losses, a finding that is consistent with prospect theory. We also find evidence that the perceived actions of emergency managers in neighboring jurisdictions affect the choices a manager makes. In addition, our managers show evidence of attribution bias, outcome bias, and difficulties processing numerical information, particularly probabilities compared to frequencies. Each of these departures from perfect rationality points to potential shortfalls in public managers’ decision making. We suggest opportunities to improve decision making through reframing problems, providing training in structured decision-making processes, and employing different choice architectures to nudge behavior in a beneficial direction.


Author(s):  
Xiu Qing Lee
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document