Determinants of Risk Taking in a Dynamic Uncertain Context
Abstract
We tested the effects of positive and negative framing on risky decision making in a simulated managerial judgement task. Until now the extensive research on framing effects has been characterized by static contexts, explicit probabilities, and hypothetical gambles. In contrast we simulated a more realistic decision making environment in which individuals chose more or less risky goals in a complex dynamic task that featured uncertain outcomes and meaningful consequences. Decision makers chose a series of performance goals under conditions of either potential losses or gains and also received feedback about their goal attainment. Our results failed to replicateProspect Theory predictions about initial gain vs.loss framing typically found in static decision making contexts. In addition, we tested competing hypotheses derived from Prospect Theory and Quasi-Hedonic Editing (QHE) Theory about the effects of performance outcome feedback on subsequent decisions. Consistent with QHE Theory, decision makers who had failed to reach their goals set lower, less risky goals in subsequent decisions. Our findings illustrate the need for further risk taking research in environments that more closely resemble managerial decision making.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Heuristics are cognitive processes where full information processing requirements are bypassed and mental shortcutting occurs.
“Heuristics are cognitive processes where full information processing requirements are bypassed and mental shortcutting occurs [66,71,73,94].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [94]
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524 · see citing works
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 17,604 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Designing experiments that generalize
Highhouse, S. (2009) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428107300396 · Cited by 353 · see citing works
Williams, D. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2007) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/14639220500484419 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
McCaughey, D., & Bruning, N. S. (2010) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-39 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
- Authors
- Slattery, J. P., & Ganster, D. C.
- Affiliations
- Northeastern State University (US)
- University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
- Corresponding author
- Slattery, Jeffrey P.
- Ganster, Daniel C.
- ORCID
- Ganster, Daniel C.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-02
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 89-106
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W2119583297
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Management (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Keywords
- risk-taking, framing effects, gain and loss framing, risky decision making, prospect theory, goal setting, management decision-making, dynamic uncertain environments, replication failure
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review