The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Modeling Managerial Behavior: Misperceptions of Feedback in a Dynamic Decision Making Experiment
Abstract
Studies in the psychology of individual choice have identified numerous cognitive and other bounds on human rationality, often producing systematic errors and biases. Yet for the most part models of aggregate phenomena in management science and economics are not consistent with such micro-empirical knowledge of individual decision-making. One explanation has been the difficulty of extending the experimental methods used to study individual decisions to aggregate, dynamic settings. This paper reports an experiment on the generation of macrodynamics from microstructure in a common managerial context. Subjects manage a simulated inventory distribution system which contains multiple actors, feedbacks, nonlinearities, and time delays. The interaction of individual decisions with the structure of the simulated firm produces aggregate dynamics which systematically diverge from optimal behavior. An anchoring and adjustment heuristic for stock management is proposed as a model of the subjects' decision processes. Econometric tests show the rule explains the subjects' behavior well. The estimation results identify several ‘misperceptions of feedback’ which account for the poor performance of the subjects. In particular, subjects are shown to be insensitive to the feedbacks from their decisions to the environment. Finally, the generality of the results is considered and implications for behavioral theories of aggregate social and economic dynamics are explored.
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
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Cited by
The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration
Cramton, C. D. (2001) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.12.3.346.10098 · Cited by 1,916
Learning in and about complex systems
Sterman, J. D. (1994) · System Dynamics Review · doi:10.1002/sdr.4260100214 · Cited by 1,279
Self-citationDecision Bias in the Newsvendor Problem with a Known Demand Distribution: Experimental Evidence
Schweitzer, M. E., & Cachon, G. P. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.3.404.12070 · Cited by 1,083
The bullwhip effect in supply chains
Lee, H. L., Padmanabhan, V., & Whang, S. (2015) · IEEE Engineering Management Review · doi:10.1109/emr.2015.7123235 · Cited by 889
Bathtub dynamics: initial results of a systems thinking inventory
Sweeney, L. B., & Sterman, J. D. (2000) · System Dynamics Review · doi:10.1002/sdr.198 · Cited by 763
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Sterman, J. D.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1989-03
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 321-339
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W1991642024
- Cited by
- 2,500
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.39
- 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: Modeling Managerial Behavior: Misperceptions of Feedback in a Dynamic Decision Making Experiment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.35.3.321
- The paper
- Sterman, J. D. (1989). Modeling Managerial Behavior: Misperceptions of Feedback in a Dynamic Decision Making Experiment. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.3.321
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.