Stickier Priors: The Effects of Nonanalytic versus Analytic Thinking in New Product Forecasting

Bolton, Lisa E.

doi:10.1509/jmkr.40.1.65.19129

Cited by 39 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 63 publications

(78 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Sanbonmatsu and Fazio (1990) demonstrated that increasing accountability increases the likelihood that individuals will use attribute information (versus a simpler strategy of relying on overall attitudes) when making memory-based decisions. In a similar vein, Bolton (2003) found that increasing accountability leads individuals to work harder and create more elaborate scenarios when forecasting future events.…”

Section: Overview Of the Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Whither the alternatives: Determinants and consequences of selective versus comparative judgemental processing

Sanbonmatsu

Vanous

Hook

et al. 2011

Thinking & Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judgements of the value or likelihood of a focal object or outcome have been shown to vary dramatically as a function of whether judgement is based on selective or comparative processing. This article explores the question of when selective versus comparative processing is likely, and demonstrates that as motivation and opportunity to process information carefully (operationalised as accountability and time pressure, respectively) decrease, the likelihood of selective processing increases. Moreover, we document how individuals manage to render judgements when in selective processing mode by relying on categorical knowledge.

show abstract

Section: Overview Of the Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Whither the alternatives: Determinants and consequences of selective versus comparative judgemental processing

Sanbonmatsu

Vanous

Hook

et al. 2011

Thinking & Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, considering counter-explanations that are implausible or diYcult to generate strengthens the bias towards prior beliefs (Hirt and Markman 1995;Dougherty et al 1997;Kadous et al 2006). Scenario anchoring eVects appear to be less prominent in multiple explanation research than in the forecasting studies reviewed above (Schnaars and Topol 1987;Kuhn and Sniezek 1996;Bolton 2003). This is perhaps because in multiple explanation studies participants do not themselves explicitly generate the kind of detailed narrative scenarios that require signiWcant cognitive eVort and encourage the development of elaborate schemas that act as anchors on judgments, which are evidently not so easy to shift.…”

Section: Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, in a study of new product forecasting Bolton (2003) found that participants who Wrst generated a scenario depicting a successful outcome then generated an opposing failure scenario were signiWcantly more optimistic about the product's future than those who generated scenarios in the opposite order. Moreover, when the researchers attempted to debias participants' judgments by presenting information conXicting the scenarios generated, participants actually shifted their judgments further in the direction of the Wrst scenario considered; that is, debiasing eVorts exacerbated the primacy bias.…”

Section: Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Troubling Futures: Scenarios and Scenario Planning for Organizational Decision Making

Healey

Hodgkinson

2009

The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on research in the psychological sciences that has largely been overlooked in the scenario planning literature, this article argues that when used unskillfully scenarios can anchor and confine, rather than stretch and expand, strategic thinking and that constructing scenarios can itself be a biased activity, one that can induce new and amplify extant biases rather than remove them. Furthermore, unless skillfully introduced, scenario techniques can reduce or increase disproportionately the confidence and uncertainty of decision makers, leading correspondingly to misplaced optimism and threat rigidity among decision makers. In addition, the article highlights how, in some circumstances, the negative emotional impact of scenario analysis can override the potentially positive cognitive effects. Guidelines for using scenarios in organizational decision making are offered throughout.

show abstract

“…The observation that most theoretical insights in management cognition stem from controlled environments (Oliver and Roos, 2005) is valid also with respect to analogising, although the agent-simulation approach of complements earlier experimental studies (Isenberg, 1988;Dahl and Moreau, 2002;Bolton, 2003). examine competitive positioning based on analogising across industries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Walking between decision models: analogising in strategic decision making

Nilsson

2008

Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the characteristics of situations where managers analogise, and when they change to a different decision model; examine how the analogies are evoked, what characteristics they have and how they are used, and add to the understanding through taking a qualitative approach.Design/methodology/approachThis is an illustrative case study of a new market entry attempt by a medium‐sized manufacturing firm based on interviews and analytical dialogues with management team members.FindingsThe paper finds that decision makers analogise when cause/effect‐relationships are unclear, and change decision models when the analogy has helped to formulate a theory of the nature of the problem or a recipe for handling the situation. They evoke analogies by automatic recognition, using internal and external sources, for transfer within and between domains. The use of analogy occurs in problem setting, problem solving, action and sensemaking modes.Research limitations/implicationsMisunderstandings can occur in dialogue between researchers and decision makers. Future interpretive research should consider participant observation and conceptual modelling. A computational study might incorporate situational differences, roles, and the issues identified in this study.Practical implicationsAwareness of the prevalence of analogy in decision making can help practitioners critically evaluate the analogies used and consider multiple perspectives on problematic situations.Originality/valueThe paper adds to the literature by taking a qualitative approach to analogising. The findings offer some support to prior research using laboratory and analytical approaches, while suggesting reconsiderations and offering new insights.

show abstract

Stickier Priors: The Effects of Nonanalytic versus Analytic Thinking in New Product Forecasting

Cited by 39 publications

References 63 publications

Whither the alternatives: Determinants and consequences of selective versus comparative judgemental processing

Whither the alternatives: Determinants and consequences of selective versus comparative judgemental processing

Troubling Futures: Scenarios and Scenario Planning for Organizational Decision Making

Walking between decision models: analogising in strategic decision making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About