The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Adaptation as Information Restriction: The Hot Stove Effect
Abstract
Individuals and social systems are often portrayed as risk averse and resistant to change. Such propensities are characteristically attributed to individual, organizational, and cultural traits such as risk aversion, uncertainty-avoidance, discounting, and an unwillingness to change. This paper explores an alternative interpretation of such phenomena. We show how the reproduction of successful actions inherent in adaptive processes, such as learning and competitive selection and reproduction, results in a bias against alternatives that initially may appear to be worse than they actually are. In particular, learning and selection are biased against both risky and novel alternatives. Because the biases are products of the tendency to reproduce success that is inherent in the sequential sampling of adaptation, they are reduced whenever the reproduction of success is attenuated. In particular, when adaptation is slowed, made imprecise, or recalled less reliably, the propensity to engage in risky and new activities is increased. These protections against the error of rejecting potentially good alternatives on inadequate experiential evidence are costly, however. They increase the likelihood of persisting with alternatives that are poor in the long run as well as in the short run.
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
Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/tnn.1998.712192 · Cited by 27,225
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
Self-citationOrganizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures
Huber, G. P. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.88 · Cited by 8,072
The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0086 · Cited by 7,770
Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258607 · Cited by 835
A two-armed bandit theory of market pricing
Rothschild, M. (1974) · Journal of Economic Theory · doi:10.1016/0022-0531(74)90066-0 · Cited by 618
Cited by
Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge
Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0621 · Cited by 1,917
Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., & Wiltbank, R. (2009) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.02.002 · Cited by 829
Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework
Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.009 · Cited by 767
Rationality, foolishness, and adaptive intelligence
March, J. G. (2006) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.515 · Cited by 663
Self-citationVicarious Learning, Undersampling of Failure, and the Myths of Management
Denrell, J. (2003) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.2.227.15164 · Cited by 520
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Denrell, J., & March, J. G.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2001-10
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 523-538
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2165357065
- Cited by
- 715
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 2.49
- 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: Adaptation as Information Restriction: The Hot Stove Effect. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.12.5.523.10092
- The paper
- Denrell, J., & March, J. G. (2001). Adaptation as Information Restriction: The Hot Stove Effect. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.5.523.10092
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.