سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

کردحیدری, راحیل, قاسمیان صاحبی, علی, اسماعیلی, مصطفی. (1402). شناسایی سوگیری‌های شناختی سیاست‌گذاران در تصمیم‌گیری‌های استراتژیک حکمرانی: با رویکرد فراترکیب. , 22(55), 135-170. doi: 10.48308/jbmp.2024.234972.1584
راحیل کردحیدری; علی قاسمیان صاحبی; مصطفی اسماعیلی. "شناسایی سوگیری‌های شناختی سیاست‌گذاران در تصمیم‌گیری‌های استراتژیک حکمرانی: با رویکرد فراترکیب". , 22, 55, 1402, 135-170. doi: 10.48308/jbmp.2024.234972.1584
کردحیدری, راحیل, قاسمیان صاحبی, علی, اسماعیلی, مصطفی. (1402). 'شناسایی سوگیری‌های شناختی سیاست‌گذاران در تصمیم‌گیری‌های استراتژیک حکمرانی: با رویکرد فراترکیب', , 22(55), pp. 135-170. doi: 10.48308/jbmp.2024.234972.1584
کردحیدری, راحیل, قاسمیان صاحبی, علی, اسماعیلی, مصطفی. شناسایی سوگیری‌های شناختی سیاست‌گذاران در تصمیم‌گیری‌های استراتژیک حکمرانی: با رویکرد فراترکیب. , 1402; 22(55): 135-170. doi: 10.48308/jbmp.2024.234972.1584

شناسایی سوگیری‌های شناختی سیاست‌گذاران در تصمیم‌گیری‌های استراتژیک حکمرانی: با رویکرد فراترکیب

چشم انداز مدیریت بازرگانی
دوره 22، شماره 55 - شماره پیاپی 89، آذر 1402، صفحه 135-170    اصل مقاله (1.42 M)
نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/jbmp.2024.234972.1584
نویسندگان
راحیل کردحیدری1؛ علی قاسمیان صاحبی2؛ مصطفی اسماعیلی* 3
1دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت راهبردی، گروه مهندسی عمران، شهرسازی و مدیریت بحران، دانشگاه صنعتی مالک اشتر، تهران، ایران.
2دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت راهبردی، گروه مهندسی عمران، شهرسازی و مدیریت بحران، مجتمع دانشگاهی پدافندغیرعامل، دانشگاه صنعتی مالک اشتر،
3استادیار، گروه روابط بین‌الملل، دانشگاه عالی دفاع ملی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
هدف: در سال‌های اخیر موضوع حکمرانی به حوزه ملی وارد شده و بر اهمیت تصمیم‌گیری‌های استراتژیک تاکید داشته است. اما اتخاذ این تصمیمات، همواره با خطاها و سوگیری‌هایی شناختی همراه است. پژوهش حاضر با هدف شناسایی سوگیری‌های شناختی سیاست‌گذاران در تصمیم‌گیری‌های استراتژیک حکمرانی انجام شده است.
روش‌شناسی: پژوهش حاضر از نظر هدف کاربردی بوده و از نظر نوع داده‌ها پژوهش کیفی است. با جست‌وجوی کلیدواژه‌های پژوهش در پایگاه‌های اطلاعاتی خارجی مانند امرالد، وب آو ساینس، اسکوپوس، و غیره و داخلی مانند نورمگز، مگیران، سیویلیکا و غیره (پژوهش‌های سال‌های 1980 تا 2024 و 1390 تا 1402) منابع موردنظر پیدا شده و با روش روایی صوری توسط گروه کانون خبرگان و پایایی کاپا برابر 72/0، روایی و پایایی یافته‌ها تایید شد. منابع بدست آمده با استفاده از روش فراترکیب هفت مرحله‌ای سندلوسکی و باروسو (2007) کدگذاری انجام و مؤلفه‌های موردنظر پژوهش شناسایی شده است.
یافته‌ها: با توجه به یافته‌های حاصل از بررسی 22 پژوهش نهایی انتخاب شده، 134 کد منجر به 40 سوگیری شناختی شده و در 5 گروه اصلی شامل سوگیری‌های مرتبط با تصمیم‌گیری و قضاوت، سوگیری‌های پردازش اطلاعات، سوگیری‌های آگاهی و ادراک، سوگیری‌های خودمحوری و سوگیری‌های اجتماعی و گروهی شناسایی شده است.
نتیجه‌گیری: نتایج پژوهش نشان داد که چگونه تصمیم‌گیری تحت تأثیر سوگیری‌های داخلی و خارجی قرار می‌گیرد و فعال می‌شود. این پژوهش تأکید می‌کند که سیاست‌گذاران باید سوگیری‌های شناختی خود را در هر دسته شناخته و مدیریت کنند و اطلاعات مناسب را از مجموعه گسترده ای از داده‌ها انتخاب کنند تا در تحولات محیطی، تصمیمات استراتژیک مناسبی اتخاذ نمایند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
"سوگیری‌های شناختی سیاست‌گذاران"؛ "مدیریت استراتژیک"؛ "برنامه‌ریزی استراتژیک"؛ "تصمیم‌گیری استراتژیک"؛ "حکمرانی"
عنوان مقاله [English]
Identifying policymakers' cognitive biases in governance strategic decision-making: A metasynthesis approach
نویسندگان [English]
Rahil Kordheydari1؛ Ali Ghasemian Sahebi2؛ mostafa esmaeili3
1PhD student of Strategic Management, Civil Engineering, Urban Development, & Crisis Management Faculty, Malek Ashtar University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
2Ph.D. student of Strategic Management, Department of Civil Engineering, Urban Development and Crisis Management, Defense University Complex, Malek Ashtar University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
3Assistant Professor, Department of International Relations, National Defense University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]
Objective: In recent years, the issue of governance has entered the national sphere and emphasized the importance of strategic decisions. But making these decisions is always accompanied by errors and cognitive biases. the aim of identifying the cognitive biases of policy makers in governance strategic decision-making.
Methodology: The current research has a applicative purpose and in terms of the type of data, it is a qualitative research. By searching for research keywords in foreign databases such as Emerald, Web of Science, Scopus, etc. and domestic databases such as Nurmagz, Mogiran , Civilica and... (researches from 1980 to 2024 and 1390 to 1402) the desired sources were found and the validity and reliability of the findings were confirmed by the face validity method by the expert center group and Kappa reliability equal to 0.72. The obtained sources have been identified by using the seven-step metacombination method of Sandelowski and Barroso (2007) coding and the desired components of the research.
Findings: According to the findings of the 22 selected final studies, 134 codes lead to 40 cognitive biases and in 5 main groups, they include biases related to decision making and judgment, information processing biases, awareness and perception biases, self-centered biases, and social biases. and a group has been identified.
Conclusion: The research results showed how decision-making is influenced and activated by internal and external biases. This research emphasizes that policy makers must recognize and manage their cognitive biases in each category and select appropriate information from a wide set of data.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
"Cognitive Biases of Policy Makers", "Strategic Management", "Strategic Planning", "Strategic Decision-Making", "Governance"
مراجع
  1. Abdulhamid, M. (2018). Presenting a typology of cognitive errors in understanding governance issues. The first national governance conference, Tehran (In Persian).
  2. AbdulHosseinzadeh, M., Nowrozi, M., Abdul, M., Mehraban, M., and... (2022) Strategies to reduce cognitive biases in order to improve the quality of decision-making in the Islamic Council. The Research Office of the Islamic Council (In Persian).
  3. Acciarini, C., Federica, B., & Paolo, B. (2021). "Cognitive biases and decision-making strategies in times of change: a systematic literature review." Management Decision 59(3): 638-652.
  4. Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of management journal, 39(1), 123-148.
  5. Arlen, J., Spitzer, M., & Talley, E. (2002). Endowment effects within corporate agency relationships. The Journal of Legal Studies, 31(1), 1-37.
  6. Barberà-Mariné, M. G., Cannavacciuolo, L., Ippolito, A., Ponsiglione, C., & Zollo, G. (2019). The weight of organizational factors on heuristics: Evidence from triage decision-making processes. Management Decision, 57(11), 2890-2910.
  7. Barnes Jr, J. H. (1984). Cognitive biases and their impact on strategic planning. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 129-137.
  8. Baumeister RF, Bushman BJ (2010). Social psychology and human nature: International Edition. Belmont, US: Wadsworth. p. 141.
  9. Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological science, 19(12), 1207-1212.
  10. Bílek, J., Nedoma, J., & Jirásek, M. (2018). Representativeness heuristics: A literature review of its impacts on the quality of decision-making. Scientific papers of the University of Pardubice. Series D, Faculty of Economics and Administration. 43/2018.
  11. Billington, J., Baron-Cohen, S., & Bor, D. (2008). Systemizing influences attentional processes during the Navon task: An fMRI study. Neuropsychologia, 46(2), 511-520.
  12. Bohluli, H., & ghafari, M. (2020). An Introduction to the Relationship between the Biological and the Cognitive Domains of the Policymaker: Brain, Mind, and Decision. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 6(3), 33-57 (In Persian).
  13. Bratnicki, M., & Dyduch, W. (2019, October). Understanding cognitive biases in strategic decisions for value creation and capture. In Contemporary Challenges in Cooperation and Coopetition in the Age of Industry 4.0: 10th Conference on Management of Organizations’ Development (MOD) (pp.359-373). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  14. Brown, J. N., Matear, R. J., Brown, J. R., & Katzfey, J. (2015). Precipitation projections in the tropical Pacific are sensitive to different types of SST bias adjustment. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(24), 10-856.
  15. Brown, K. K., Coleman, H. W., Steele, W. G., & Taylor, R. P. (1996). Evaluation of correlated bias approximations in experimental uncertainty analysis. AIAA journal, 34(5), 1013-1018.
  16. Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of business venturing, 12(1), 9-30.
  17. Castel, A. D., McCabe, D. P., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Illusions of competence and overestimation of associative memory for identical items: Evidence from judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 107-111.
  18. Chemtob, C., Roitblat, H. L., Hamada, R. S., Carlson, J. G., & Twentyman, C. T. (1988). A cognitive action theory of post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of anxiety disorders, 2(3), 253-275.
  19. Chen, B. M., & Libgober, B. (2024). Do Administrative Procedures Fix Cognitive Biases?. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 34(1), 105-121.
  20. Clot, S., Grolleau, G., & Ibanez, L. (2022). A reference point bias in judging cheaters. Journal of Economic Psychology, 89, 102485.
  21. Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (1999). Cognitive biases and strategic decision processes: An integrative perspective. Journal of management studies, 36(6), 757-778.
  22. DeCaro, D. A., Arnol, C. A. T., Boama, E. F., & Garmestani, A. S. (2017). Understanding and applying principles of social cognition and decision making in adaptive environmental governance. Ecology and society: a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability, 22(1), 1.
  23. Eickhoff, C. (2018). Cognitive biases in crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM international conference on web search and data mining (pp. 162-170).
  24. Elaad, E. (2022). Tunnel vision and confirmation bias among police investigators and laypeople in hypothetical criminal contexts. SAGE Open, 12(2), 21582440221095022.
  25. Fares, W. H. (2014). The ‘availability’bias: underappreciated but with major potential implications. Critical Care, 18, 1-2.
  26. Gaviria, C., & Corredor, J. (2021). Illusion of explanatory depth and social desirability of historical knowledge. Metacognition and Learning, 16(3), 801-832.
  27. Gharaei Ashtiani, M., Poursadegh, N., & Ali, M. (2023). An introduction to behavioral governance: a new theory in statecraft. Scientific Quarterly of National Defense Strategic Management Studies, 7(26), 273-310 (In Persian).
  28. Ghasemian Sahibi, A., Kordheidari, R., & Aghaei, M. (2022). A comprehensive look at qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods in marketing research (from data to dissemination: examining concepts, tools and processes). (First Edition). Tehran: Arshadhan Publications (In Persian).
  29. Giroux, M. E., Coburn, P. I., Harley, E. M., Connolly, D. A., & Bernstein, D. M. (2016). Hindsight bias and law. Zeitschrift für Psychologie.
  30. Gouveia, S. O., & Clarke, V. (2001). Optimistic bias for negative and positive events. Health Education, 101(5), 228-234.
  31. Gruen, D. W., & Gizycki, M. C. (1993). Empirical Results| RDP 9307: Explaining Forward Discount Bias: Is it Anchoring? Reserve Bank of Australia Research Discussion Papers, (June).
  32. Hao, C. F., & Clark, K. R. (2023). Measuring the Effectiveness of Cognitive Biases on Climate-Oriented Decision Making: A Novel Consideration for Policy Ideation and Enforcement. Psychology, 14, 1535-1572.
  33. Haselton, M. G. (2003). The sexual overperception bias: Evidence of a systematic bias in men from a survey of naturally occurring events. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 34-47.
  34. Hodgkinson, G. P., Bown, N. J., Maule, A. J., Glaister, K. W., & Pearman, A. D. (1999). Breaking the frame: An analysis of strategic cognition and decision making under uncertainty. Strategic management journal, 20(10), 977-985.
  35. Hoorens, V. (1995). Self‐favoring biases, self‐presentation, and the self‐other asymmetry in social comparison. Journal of Personality, 63(4), 793-817.
  36. Hunt, R. G., Krzystofiak, F. J., Meindl, J. R., & Yousry, A. M. (1989). Cognitive style and decision making. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 44(3), 436-453.
  37. Kahneman D, Frederick S (2002). "Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment". In Gilovich T, Griffin DW, Kahneman D (eds.). Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 51–52. ISBN 978-0-521-79679-8.
  38. Kambi, B. (2014). Status Quo Bias: Is it Human Habit to Prefer the Current Situation and Abhor Changes. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(10), 1-5.
  39. Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organization science, 19(5), 729-752.
  40. Keh, H. T., Der Foo, M., & Lim, B. C. (2002). Opportunity evaluation under risky conditions: The cognitive processes of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 27(2), 125-148.
  41. Khaw, M. W., Li, Z., & Woodford, M. (2017). Risk aversion as a perceptual bias (No. w23294). National Bureau of Economic Research.
  42. Knight, D., Pearce, C. L., Smith, K. G., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., Smith, K. A., & Flood, P. (1999). Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic management journal, 20(5), 445-465.
  43. Kordheydari, R., Mansouri Moayyed, F., & Khodadad Hoseini, H. (2019). Metasynthesis of Factors Affecting to Develop Startups in New Technology-Based Firms in Entrepreneurial Ecosystem. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 12(1), 141-160 (In Persian).
  44. Korteling, J., Paradies, G. L., & Sassen-van Meer, J. P. (2023). Cognitive bias and how to improve sustainable decision making. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1129835.
  45. Le Bras, R., Swayamdipta, S., Bhagavatula, C., Zellers, R., Peters, M., Sabharwal, A., & Choi, Y. (2020, November). Adversarial filters of dataset biases. In International conference on machine learning (pp. 1078-1088). PMLR.
  46. Leman, P. J., & Cinnirella, M. (2007). A major event has a major cause: Evidence for the role of heuristics in reasoning about conspiracy theories. Social Psychological Review, 9(2), 18-28.
  47. Mansouri Moayyed, F., Kordheydari, R., & Ghasemian Sahei, A. The Role of Knowledge Brokers in Developing of technical knowledge marketing model for Knowledge-Intensive Business Service. Management Research in Iran, 24(2), (2021): 35-60 (In Persian).
  48. Marinucci, L., Mazzuca, C., & Gangemi, A. (2023). Exposing implicit biases and stereotypes in human and artificial intelligence: state of the art and challenges with a focus on gender. AI & SOCIETY, 38(2), 747-761.
  49. Measuring the Effectiveness of Cognitive Biases on Climate-Oriented Decision Making: A Novel Consideration for Policy Ideation and Enforcement .
  50. Meissner, P., & Wulf, T. (2017). The effect of cognitive diversity on the illusion of control bias in strategic decisions: An experimental investigation. European Management Journal, 35(4), 430-439.
  51. Miller, D. J. (2004). Firms' technological resources and the performance effects of diversification: a longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 25(11), 1097-1119.
  52. Moore, J. C. (2008). Seam bias in the 2004 SIPP panel: Much improved, but much bias still remains. US Census Bureau Statistical Research Division Survey Methodology Research Report Series, 3, 2008.
  53. Muzaffar, H., Moeini, M., Sobhani Fard, M. (2023). Public policy with a behavioral approach. Strategic Management Studies Quarterly, 13(52), 65-93 (In Persian).
  54. Munoz-Rubke, F., Olson, D., Will, R., & James, K. H. (2018). Functional fixedness in tool use: Learning modality, limitations and individual differences. Acta psychologica, 190, 11-26.
  55. Muntwiler, C. (2023). Cognitive Biases and Debiasing in Strategic Decision Making (Doctoral dissertation, Universität St. Gallen).
  56. Nadeem, M., Bethke, A., & Reddy, S. (2020). StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09456.
  57. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of general psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
  58. Öllinger, M., Jones, G., & Knoblich, G. (2008). Investigating the effect of mental set on insight problem solving. Experimental psychology, 55(4), 269-282.
  59. Ostrom, E. (2008). Tragedy of the commons. The new palgrave dictionary of economics, 2, 1-4.
  60. Overman, S., Ropes, E., & Vandenabeele, W. (2024). Measuring micro-foundations of governance: a behavioral perspective. In Handbook on Measuring Governance (pp. 187-203). Edward Elgar Publishing.
  61. Panahi, Z., Shahnazi, F., Islamlovian, K., & A, Mohsen. (2023) The role of cognitive biases in climate change policymaking using behavioral economics theories. Economic Research (Sustainable Growth and Development), 11(2), 49-65 (In Persian).
  62. Paulus, D., de Vries, G., Janssen, M., & Van de Walle, B. (2022). The influence of cognitive bias on crisis decision-making: Experimental evidence on the comparison of bias effects between crisis decision-maker groups. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 82, 103379.
  63. Pezzo, S. P., Pezzo, M. V., & Stone, E. R. (2006). The social implications of planning: How public predictions bias future plans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 221-227.
  64. Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
  65. Rezaee, Z., & Safarzadeh, M. H. (2023). Corporate governance and earnings quality: the behavioral theory of corporate governance (evidence from Iran). Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 23(1), 189-218.
  66. Schwenk, C. H. (1986). Information, cognitive biases, and commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review, 11(2), 298-310.
  67. Shepherd, D. A., Williams, T. A., & Patzelt, H. (2015). Thinking about entrepreneurial decision making: Review and research agenda. Journal of management, 41(1), 11-46.
  68. Shu, L. L., & Bazerman, M. H. (2010). Cognitive barriers to environmental action: Problems and solutions. Harvard Business School NOM Unit Working Paper, (11-046).
  69. Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Doosje, B. (2001). 14 The (II) legitimacy of Ingroup Bias From Social Reality to Social Resistance. The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations, 332.
  70. Strough, J., Mehta, C. M., McFall, J. P., & Schuller, K. L. (2008). Are older adults less subject to the sunk-cost fallacy than younger adults?. Psychological Science, 19(7), 650-652.
  71. Sulistyawati, K., Wickens, C. D., & Chui, Y. P. (2011). Prediction in situation awareness: Confidence bias and underlying cognitive abilities. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 21(2), 153-174.
  72. Thacher, D. (2009). The cognitive foundations of humanistic governance. International Public Management Journal, 12(2), 261-286.
  73. Tullis, J. G., & Feder, B. (2023). The “curse of knowledge” when predicting others’ knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 51(5), 1214-1234.
  74. Vaezi, S. K., Dargahi, S., Anvari, Z., & Ali Esfahani, Z. (2023). Behavioral Nudges and Public Policy; Implications to Overcome Policy Makers Biases. Journal of Public Administration, 15(1), 41-66 (In Persian).
  75. Van den Steen, E. (2004). Rational overoptimism (and other biases). American Economic Review, 94(4), 1141-1151.
  76. van der Heijden, J. (2020). Urban climate governance informed by behavioural insights: A commentary and research agenda. Urban Studies, 57(9), 1994-2007.
  77. Ward, G., Hastie, T., Barry, S., Elith, J., & Leathwick, J. R. (2009). Presence‐only data and the EM algorithm. Biometrics, 65(2), 554-563.
  78. Williams, R. G., Klamen, D. A., & McGaghie, W. C. (2003). Cognitive, social and environmental sources of bias in clinical performance ratings. Teaching and learning in medicine, 15(4), 270-292.
  79. Wu, W., Zhao, J., Zhang, C., Meng, F., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Y., & Sun, Q. (2017). Improving performance of tensor-based context-aware recommenders using bias tensor factorization with context feature auto-encoding. Knowledge-Based Systems, 128, 71-77.
  80. Xu, T., White, J., Kalkan, S., & Gunes, H. (2020). Investigating bias and fairness in facial expression recognition. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020 Workshops: Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part VI 16 (pp. 506-523). Springer International Publishing.
  81. Yarritu, I., Matute, H., & Vadillo, M. A. (2014). Illusion of control. Experimental psychology.
  82. ZHANG, Z., QI, C., WANG, Y., ZHAO, H., WANG, X., & GAO, X. (2020). In-group favoritism or the black sheep effect? Group bias of fairness norm enforcement during economic games. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(2), 329.
  83. Zuckerman, M., Kernis, M. H., Guarnera, S. M., Murphy, J. F., & Rappoport, L. (1983). The egocentric bias: Seeing oneself as cause and target of others' behavior. Journal of Personality, 51(4), 621-630
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 15,029
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 2,534