The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Near-Misses Influence Decision Making Under Risk: A Missed Opportunity for Learning
Abstract
Although organizations appear to learn from obvious failures, we argue that it is harder for them to learn from “near-misses”—events in which chance played a role in averting failure. In this paper, we formalize the concept of near-misses and hypothesize that organizations and managers fail to learn from near-misses because they evaluate such events as successes and thus feel safer about the situation. We distinguish perceived (“felt”) risk from calculated statistical risk and propose that lower levels of perceived risk encourage people with near-miss information to make riskier subsequent decisions compared to people without near-miss information. In our first study, we confirm the tendency to evaluate near-misses as successes by having participants rate a project manager whose decisions result in either (a) mission success, (b) near-miss, or (c) failure. Participants (both students and NASA employees and contractors) give similar ratings to managers whose decisions produced near-misses and to managers whose decisions resulted in successes, and both ratings are significantly different from ratings of managers who experienced failures. We suggest that the failure to hold managers accountable for near-misses is a foregone learning opportunity for both the manager and the organization. In our second set of studies, we confirm that near-miss information leads people to choose a riskier alternative because of a lower perceived risk following near-miss events. We explore several alternative explanations for these findings, including the role of Bayesian updating in processing near-miss data. Ultimately, the analysis suggests that managers and organizations are reducing their perception of the risk, although not necessarily updating (lowering) the statistical probability of the failure event. We speculate that this divergence arises because perceived risk is the product of associative processing, whereas statistical risk arises from rule-based processing.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Timid choices and bold forecasts: a cognitive perspective on risk taking.
Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D. (1993) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.39.1.17 · Cited by 2,043
Extended Work Shifts and the Risk of Motor Vehicle Crashes among Interns
Barger, L. K., Cade, B. E., Ayas, N. T., Cronin, J. W., Rosner, B., Speizer, F. E., & Czeisler, C. A. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa041401 · Cited by 928
The Organizational and Interorganizational Development of Disasters
Turner, B. A. (1976) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2391850 · Cited by 876 · cited 1×
“Prior research has argued that organizational systems emit warning events that should be viewed as opportunities to evaluate the resilience of the system so as to avoid future failure (Carroll 2003, Turner 1976, March et al. 1991).”
BackgroundOutcome Bias in Decision Evaluation
Baron, J., & Hershey, J. C. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.569 · Cited by 873 · cited 4×
“However, consistent with outcome bias (Baron and Hershey 1988), we believe that decision makers will evaluate a near-miss like a success based on the ultimate outcome .”
BackgroundInfluential
Cited by
Pandemics and Supply Chain Management Research: Toward a Theoretical Toolbox*
Craighead, C. W., Ketchen, D. J., & Darby, J. L. (2020) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/deci.12468 · Cited by 445
Who Leaves and Who Stays? A Review and Statistical Meta-Analysis of Hurricane Evacuation Studies
Huang, S.-K., Lindell, M. K., & Prater, C. S. (2016) · Environment and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0013916515578485 · Cited by 417
Dahlin, K. B., Chuang, Y.-T., & Roulet, T. J. (2018) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0049 · Cited by 304
Risk attitudes to low-probability climate change risks: WTP for flood insurance
Botzen, W. J. W., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2012) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2012.01.005 · Cited by 280
Metadata
- Authors
- Dillon, R. L., & Tinsley, C. H.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2008-08
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1425-1440
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2100865809
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 2.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How Near-Misses Influence Decision Making Under Risk: A Missed Opportunity for Learning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0869
- The paper
- Dillon, R. L., & Tinsley, C. H. (2008). How Near-Misses Influence Decision Making Under Risk: A Missed Opportunity for Learning. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0869
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.