The impact of combination of decision makers’ heuristics on the supply chain performance

References

• Christopher M. Logistics and supply chain management: strategies for reducing costs and improving services. London: Financial Times; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards W. The theory of decision making. Psychol Bull. 1954;51:380–417.10.1037/h0053870
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Swamidass PM. Empirical science: new frontier in operations management research. Acad Manage Rev. 1991;16:793–814.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gino F, Pisano G. Toward a theory of behavioral operations. Manuf Serv Oper Manag. 2008;10:676–691.10.1287/msom.1070.0205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185:1124–1131.10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eeckhoudt L, Gollier C, Schlesinger H. The risk-averse (and prudent) newsboy. Manage Sci. 1995;41:786–794.10.1287/mnsc.41.5.786
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratt JW. Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica. 1964;32:122–136.
   Google Scholar
• Schweitzer ME, Cachon GP. Decision bias in the newsvendor problem with a known demand distribution: Experimental evidence. Manage Sci. 2000;46:404–420.10.1287/mnsc.46.3.404.12070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moon SA, Seok SB, Park JH, Kim LS. Decision maker’s mean anchoring heuristic on the supply chain. Logistics Studies. 2012;20:72–82. Korean.
   Google Scholar
• de Véricourt F, Jain K, Bearden J, Filipowicz A. Sex, risk and the newsvendor. J Oper Manag. 2013;31:86–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gingerenzer G, Gaissmaier W. Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:451–482.10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter CR, Kaufmann L, Michel A. Behavioral supply management: a taxonomy of judgment and decision-making biases. Int J of Phys Distrib and Logis Manag. 2007;37:631–669.10.1108/09600030710825694
   Google Scholar
• Norio D. Behavioral economics. Lee MH, translator. Gyeonggi-do: Jihyung; 2007. Korean.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D. Rational choice and the framing of decision. J Bus. 1986;S251–S278.10.1086/jb.1986.59.issue-S4
   Google Scholar
• Dawes RM, Corrigan B. Linear models in decision making. Psychol Bull. 1974;81:95–106.10.1037/h0037613
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Einhorn HJ, Hogarth RM. Unit weighting schemes for decision making. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1975;13:171–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Behavioral decision theory. Annu Rev Psychol. 1977;28:1–39.10.1146/annurev.ps.28.020177.000245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Einhorn HJ, Hogarth RM. Behavioral decision theory: processes of judgment and choice. J Account Res. 1981;19:1–31.10.2307/2490959
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitz GF, Sachs NJ. Judgment and decision. Annu Rev Psychol. 1984;35:139–164.10.1146/annurev.ps.35.020184.001035
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sage AP. Behavioral and organizational considerations in the design of information systems and processes for planning and decision support. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Sys. 1981;11:640–678.10.1109/TSMC.1981.4308761
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hambrick DC. Taxonomic approaches to studying strategy: some conceptual and methodological issues. J Manag. 1984;10:27–41.10.1177/014920638401000104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isenberg DJ. How senior managers think. Harvard Business Review, 1984 Nov/Dec; 81–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Remus W, Kottemann J. Toward intelligent decision support systems: an artificially intelligent statistician. Manag Inf Syst Q. 1986;10:403–418.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogarth R. Judgment and choice: The psychology of decision. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Doty DH, Glick WH. Typologies as a unique form of theory building: toward improved understanding and modeling. Acad Manage Rev. 1994;19:230–251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keren G. Cognitive aids and debiasing methods: can cognitive pills cure cognitive ills? Adv Psychol. 1990;68:523–552.10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61341-2
   Google Scholar
• Arnott D. A taxonomy of decision biases. Caulfield: Monash University; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Bazerman M. Judgment in managerial decision making. New York, NY: Wiley; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol. 1973;5:207–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumeister RF, Bushman B. Social psychology and human nature, brief version. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Dube-Rioux L, Russo JE. An availability bias in professional judgment. J Behav Decis Mak. 1988;1:223–237.10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz N, Bless H, Strack F, Klumpp G, Rittenauer-Schatka H, Simons A. Ease of retrieval as information: another look at the availability heuristic. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;61:195–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberto MA. The interaction of cognitive bias, psychological safety, and system complexity. Calif Manage Rev. 2002;45:136–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor SE, Thompson SC. Stalking the elusive vividness effect. Psychol Rev. 1982;89:155–181.10.1037/0033-295X.89.2.155
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman LJ, Chapman JP. Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid psychodiagnostic signs. J Abnorm Psychol. 1969;74:271–280.10.1037/h0027592
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golding SL, Rorer LG. Illusory correlation and subjective judgment. J Abnorm Psychol. 1972;80:249–260.10.1037/h0033711
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alloy LB, Tabachnick N. Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: the joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. Psychol Rev. 1984;91:112–149.10.1037/0033-295X.91.1.112
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman L. Illusory correlation in observational report. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav. 1967;6:151–155.10.1016/S0022-5371(67)80066-5
   Google Scholar
• Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D. Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2002.10.1017/CBO9780511808098
   Google Scholar
• Budescu DV. A Markov model for generation of random binary sequences. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1987;13:25–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuringer A. Can people behave randomly: The role of feedback. J Exp Psychol. 1986;115:62–72.10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.62
   Google Scholar
• Casscells W, Schoenberger A, Grayboys T. Interpretation by physicians of clinical laboratory results. N Engl J Med. 1987;299:999–1001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A. On the psychology of prediction. Psychol Rev. 1973;80:237–251.10.1037/h0034747
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joyce EJ, Biddle GC. Anchoring and adjustment in probabilistic inference in auditing. J Account Res. 1981;19:120.10.2307/2490965
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinney WR Jr, Uecker WC. Mitigating the consequences of anchoring in auditor judgment. Account Rev. 1982;57:55–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Einhorn HJ, Hogarth RM. A contrast/surprise model for updating belief. Working Paper. Chicago: University of Chicago; 1985.
   Google Scholar
• Wright WF, Anderson U. Effects of situation familiarity and financial incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic for probability assessment. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1989;44:68–82.10.1016/0749-5978(89)90035-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman GB, Johnson EJ. The limits of anchoring. J Behav Decis Mak. 1994;7:223–242.10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Czaczkes B, Hanzach Y. The natural selection of prediction heuristics: anchoring and adjustment versus representativeness. J Decis Mak. 1996;9:125–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden D, Machina MJ, Baron J. Rationality for economists? In: Fischhoff B, Manski CF, editors. Elicitation of preferences. Dordrecht: Springer; 2000. p. 73–110.
   Google Scholar
• Northcraft GB, Neale MA. Experts, amateurs, and real estate: an anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1987;39:84–97.10.1016/0749-5978(87)90046-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keser C. Paleologo GA. Experimental investigation of supplier retailer contracts: The wholesale price contract. Cirano; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Rudi N, Drake D. Level, adjustment and observation biases in the newsvendor model. Insead: Fontainebleau; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Bolton GE, Ockenfels A, Thonemann UW. Managers and students as newsvendors: how out-of-task experience matters. Cologne: Department of Economics, University of Cologne; 2010. Working Paper No. 39.
   Google Scholar
• Chhristensen-Szalanski JJ, Bushyhead JB. Physicians’ use of probabilistic information in a real clinical setting. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1981;7:928–935.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D. Evidential impact of base rate. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, editors. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. England: Cambridge University Press; 1982. p. 153–160.
   Google Scholar
• Bar-Hillel M. Back to base rates. In: Hogarth RM, editor. Insights in decision making: a tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1990. p. 200–216.
   Google Scholar
• Kleiter GD, Krebs M, Doherty ME, Garavan H, Chadwick R, Brake G. Do subjects understand base rates? Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1997;72:25–61.10.1006/obhd.1997.2727
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbett RE, Krantz DH, Jepson C, Kunda Z. The use of statistical heruistics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychol Rev. 1983;90:339–352.10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joram E, Read D. Two faces of representativeness: the effects of response format on beliefs about random sampling. J Behav Decis Mak. 1996;9:249–264.10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sedlmeier P, Gigerenzer G. Intuitions about sampling size: The empirical law of large numbers. J Behav Decis Mak. 1997;10:33–51.10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopes LL, Oden GC. Distinguishing between random and nonrandom events. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1987;13:392–404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayton P, Hunt AJ, Wright G. Randomness and reality. J Behav Decis Mak. 1991;4:222–226.10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771
   Google Scholar
• Terrell D. A test of gambler’s fallacy: Evidence from pari-mutuel games. J Risk Uncertain. 1994;8:309–317.10.1007/BF01064047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayton P, Fischer I. The hot band fallacy and gambler’s fallacy: two faces of subjective randomness? Mem Cogn. 2004;32:1369–1378.10.3758/BF03206327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papachristou G. The British gambler’s fallacy. Appl Econ. 2004;36:2073–2077.10.1080/0003684042000295629
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B, Philips LD. Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art. Dordrecht: Springer; 1977.
   Google Scholar
• Russo JE, Shoemaker PJ. Managing overconfidence. Sloan Manage Rev. 1992;33:7–17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yates JF, Lee JW, Shinotsuka H. Belief about overconfidence, including its corss-national variations. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1996;62:138–147.10.1006/obhd.1996.0012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bar-Hill M. On the subjective probability of compound events. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1973;9:396–406.10.1016/0030-5073(73)90061-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J, Chesnick EI, Haran D. A confirmation of the INERTIAL‐ψ effect in sequential choice and decision. Br J Psychol. 1972;63:41–46.10.1111/bjop.1972.63.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teigen KH, Martinussen M. Linda versus World Cup: conjunctive Probabilities in Three-event Fictional and Real-life Predictions. J Behav Decis Mak. 1996;9:77–93.10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hastie R, Dawes RM. Rational choice in an uncertain world: the psychology of judgment and decision making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Bolton GE, Katok E. Learning by doing in the newsvendor problem: a laboratory investigation of the role of experience and feedback. Manuf Serv Oper Manag. 2008;10:519–538.10.1287/msom.1060.0190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishara AJ. Control and accessibility bias in single and multiple anchoring effects. Seatle (WA): Washington University; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Arkes HR, Wortmann RL, Saville PD, Harkness AR. Hindsight bias among physicians weighing the likelihood of diagnoses. J Appl Psychol. 1981;66:252–275.10.1037/0021-9010.66.2.252
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Mak. 2000;13:1–17.10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitin TM. Inventory control and price theory. Manage Sci. 1955;2:61–80.10.1287/mnsc.2.1.61
   Google Scholar
• Cachon G, Terwiesch C. Matching supply with demand. Singapore: McGraw-Hill; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Benzion U, Choen C, Peled R, Shavit T. Decision-making and the newsvendor problem: An experimental study. J Oper Res Soc. 2008;59:1281–1287.10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602470
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moon SA, Park YI, Seok SB. Gambler’s fallacy bias on the supply chain. Korean System Dynamics Studies. 2011;12:157–175. Korean.
   Google Scholar
• Sterman J. Business Dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston, MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan RS, Norton DP, Horvoth P. The balanced scorecard. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Vermorel E. Inventory costs (ordering costs, carrying costs): definition and formula. 2013 September; [1 screen]. Available from: http://www.lokad.com/definition-inventory-costs.
   Google Scholar