Outcome Bias in Decision Making on Punishment or Reward

Atsuo Murata, Tomoko Nakamura, Yasunari Matsushita, Makoto Moriwaka

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

We paid attention to one of the cognitive biases, that is, the outcome bias. We explored the evidence of outcome bias in a two-player economic game experiment where reward allocation is made between two players. The outcome bias occurred even when the intention of Player 1 was fair or generous. Thus, we could verify the hypothesis that we are readily led into the outcome bias. The comparative results between the two conditions (intentional and no-intentional conditions) definitely showed that Player 2 punished Player 1 to a larger extent when the outcome was disadvantageous for Player 2 (selfish outcome) irrespective of whether the die was chosen out of three types intentionally or not.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3911-3916
Number of pages6
JournalProcedia Manufacturing
Volume3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Decision making
Economics
Experiments

Keywords

  • Decision making
  • Economic game
  • Intention
  • Outcome
  • Outcome bias
  • Process
  • Safety management

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering

Cite this

Outcome Bias in Decision Making on Punishment or Reward. / Murata, Atsuo; Nakamura, Tomoko; Matsushita, Yasunari; Moriwaka, Makoto.

In: Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 3, 2015, p. 3911-3916.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Murata, Atsuo ; Nakamura, Tomoko ; Matsushita, Yasunari ; Moriwaka, Makoto. / Outcome Bias in Decision Making on Punishment or Reward. In: Procedia Manufacturing. 2015 ; Vol. 3. pp. 3911-3916.
@article{8906802674fb4b5e92bd06b9fc12ecd0,
title = "Outcome Bias in Decision Making on Punishment or Reward",
abstract = "We paid attention to one of the cognitive biases, that is, the outcome bias. We explored the evidence of outcome bias in a two-player economic game experiment where reward allocation is made between two players. The outcome bias occurred even when the intention of Player 1 was fair or generous. Thus, we could verify the hypothesis that we are readily led into the outcome bias. The comparative results between the two conditions (intentional and no-intentional conditions) definitely showed that Player 2 punished Player 1 to a larger extent when the outcome was disadvantageous for Player 2 (selfish outcome) irrespective of whether the die was chosen out of three types intentionally or not.",
keywords = "Decision making, Economic game, Intention, Outcome, Outcome bias, Process, Safety management",
author = "Atsuo Murata and Tomoko Nakamura and Yasunari Matsushita and Makoto Moriwaka",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.914",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
pages = "3911--3916",
journal = "Procedia Manufacturing",
issn = "2351-9789",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Outcome Bias in Decision Making on Punishment or Reward

AU - Murata, Atsuo

AU - Nakamura, Tomoko

AU - Matsushita, Yasunari

AU - Moriwaka, Makoto

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - We paid attention to one of the cognitive biases, that is, the outcome bias. We explored the evidence of outcome bias in a two-player economic game experiment where reward allocation is made between two players. The outcome bias occurred even when the intention of Player 1 was fair or generous. Thus, we could verify the hypothesis that we are readily led into the outcome bias. The comparative results between the two conditions (intentional and no-intentional conditions) definitely showed that Player 2 punished Player 1 to a larger extent when the outcome was disadvantageous for Player 2 (selfish outcome) irrespective of whether the die was chosen out of three types intentionally or not.

AB - We paid attention to one of the cognitive biases, that is, the outcome bias. We explored the evidence of outcome bias in a two-player economic game experiment where reward allocation is made between two players. The outcome bias occurred even when the intention of Player 1 was fair or generous. Thus, we could verify the hypothesis that we are readily led into the outcome bias. The comparative results between the two conditions (intentional and no-intentional conditions) definitely showed that Player 2 punished Player 1 to a larger extent when the outcome was disadvantageous for Player 2 (selfish outcome) irrespective of whether the die was chosen out of three types intentionally or not.

KW - Decision making

KW - Economic game

KW - Intention

KW - Outcome

KW - Outcome bias

KW - Process

KW - Safety management

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85010002570&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85010002570&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.914

DO - 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.914

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 3911

EP - 3916

JO - Procedia Manufacturing

JF - Procedia Manufacturing

SN - 2351-9789

ER -