JBBS  Vol.5 No.13 , December 2015
Effect of Intention on Outcome Bias in Decision Making—Implications for Safety Management
Abstract: The evidence of outcome bias was explored in a two-player (Player 1: allocator and Player 2: evaluator) economic game experiment where the reward allocation was made between two players. The experimental factors were the intention of an allocator (Player 1), the type of chosen dice (selfish, fair, and generous), and the outcome (selfish, fair, and generous). The outcome bias occurred when the type of dice chosen by the allocator (Player 1) was not only a selfish one but also a generous one. The comparison 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) and Player 2 rewarded Player 1 when the outcome was advantageous (generous outcome) irrespective of whether the die was chosen out of the three types intentionally or not. Moreover, the outcome bias was not observed when the outcome was fair. Thus, we could verify the hypothesis that we are readily got trapped in the outcome bias. Some implications were given for safety management that put more emphasis on the process than on the outcome.
Cite this paper: Murata, A. and Nakamura, T. (2015) Effect of Intention on Outcome Bias in Decision Making—Implications for Safety Management. Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science, 5, 561-569. doi: 10.4236/jbbs.2015.513053.

[1]   Reason, J. (1990) Human Error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

[2]   Dekker, S. (2006) The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham.

[3]   Fischhoff, B. (1975) Hindsight ≠ Foresight: The Effect of Outcome Knowledge on Judgment under Uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288-299.

[4]   Mackie, D.M., Worth, L.T., and Allison, S.T. (1990) Outcome-Biased Inferences and Perception of Change in Groups. Social Cognition, 8, 325-342.

[5]   Lipe, M. (1993) Analyzing the Variance Investigation Decision: The Effects of Outcomes, Mental Accounting, and Framing. The Accounting Review, 68, 748-764.

[6]   Marshall, G.D. and Mowen, J.D. (1993) An Experimental Investigation of the Outcome Bias in Salesperson Performance Evaluations. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 13, 31-47.

[7]   Reimers, J. and Butler, S. (1992) The Effect of Outcome Knowledge on Auditors’ Judgmental Evaluations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 185-194.

[8]   Dekker, S. (2012) Just Culture. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham.

[9]   Dekker, S. (2015) Safety Differently. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham.

[10]   Boles, T.L. and Messick, D.M. (1995) A Reverse Outcome Bias: The Influence of Multiple Reference Points on the Evaluation of Outcomes and Decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 262-275.

[11]   Brown, C.E. and Solomon, I. (1987) Effects of Outcome Information on Evaluations of Managerial Decisions. The Accounting Review, 62, 564-577.

[12]   Seta, C.E., Seta, J.J., Petrocelli, J.V. and McCormick, M. (2015) Even Better than the Real Thing: Alternative Outcome Bias Affects Decision Judgments and Decision Regret. Thinking & Reasoning, 21, 446-472.

[13]   Hawkins, S. and Hastie, R. (1990) Hindsight: Biased Judgments of Past Events after the Outcomes Are Known. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 311-327.

[14]   Hershey, J. and Baron, J. (1992) Judgments by Outcomes: When Is It Justified? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 89-93.

[15]   Peecher, M.E. and Piercey, M.D. (2008) Judging Audit Quality in Light of Adverse Outcomes: Evidence of Outcome Bias and Reverse Outcome Bias. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25, 243-274.

[16]   Tan, H. and Lipe, M. (1997) Outcome Effects: The Impact of Decision Process and Outcome Controllability. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 315-325.<315::AID-BDM257>3.0.CO;2-L

[17]   Baron, J. and Hershey, J.C. (1988) Outcome Bias in Decision Evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 569-579.

[18]   Chiles, J.R. (2002) Inviting Disaster: Lessons from the Edge of Technology. Harper, New York.

[19]   Young, L., Cushman, F., Hauser, M. and Sax, R. (2007) The Neural Basis of the Interaction between Theory of Mind and Moral Judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 8235-8240.

[20]   Falk, A., Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. (2003) On the Nature of Fair Behavior. Economic Inquiry, 41, 20-26.

[21]   Cushman, F. (2008) Crime and Punishment: Distinguishing the Roles of Causal and Intentional Analyses in Moral Judgment. Cognition, 108, 353-380.

[22]   Cushman, F., Dreber, A., Wang, Y. and Costa, J. (2009) Accidental Outcomes Guide Punishment in a “Trembling Hand” Game. PLoS ONE, 4, e6699.

[23]   Zakay, D. (1984) The Evaluation of Managerial Decisions’ Quality by Managers. Acta Psychologica, 56, 49-57.

[24]   Mitchell, T.R. and Kalb, L.S. (1981) Effects of Outcome Knowledge and Outcome Valence on Supervisors’ Evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 604-612.

[25]   Murata, A., Nakamura, T. and Karwowski, W. (2015) Influence of Cognitive Biases in Distorting Decision Making and Leading to Crucial Unfavorable Incidents. Safety, 1, 44-58.