Download pdf
The Influence of Cognitive Bias on Risk Decision-making under Uncertain Conditions: A Case Study of 1986 Challenger
- 1 Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Decision-making is full of our lives, but any decision is risky. Every single decision-making mistake may bring losses that are unpredictable. How to make rational decisions and reduce the decision loss is the hot topic in dis-cussion. Although the cognitive biases have been widely studied in many fields, the mechanism of each cognitive bias’s impact on risk decision-making has not been fully researched. In addition, the relevant risk decision research is mainly focused on the financial management, and the relevant theories have not been applied to the risk decision in daily life. Therefore, this paper will focus on 3 types of cognitive biases including confirmation bias, overconfidence and frame effect. After researching related theories, ex-pected return and risk perception are considered as two main intermediates between cognitive biases and risk decision-making. And then the paper will apply relative theories and analyze 1986 Challenger launch decision case to explain the way cognitive biases acting on risk-decision making behaviors. Finally, the paper will give reasonable suggestions for both individuals and groups to make better risk decision and reduce decision errors.
Keywords
risk decision-making, cognitive bias, 1986 challenger launch decision
[1]. Simon, A.: Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment [J]. Psychological Review63(2), 129-138(1956).
[2]. Acciarini, C. Brunetta, F., Paolo Boccardelli.: “Cognitive biases and decision-making strategies in times of change: a systematic literature review. “Management Decision ahead-of-print (2020).
[3]. Wren, P.: “Cognitive bias, decision styles, and risk attitudes in decision making and DSS.” Journal of Decision Systems 28. 2(2019).
[4]. Meng BL.: “Literature review of cognitive bias in behavioral finance.” Public Investment Guide19, 146-147(2021).
[5]. Zheng YM.: Cognitive Deviation and Its Intervention Strategy Statistics and Decision Making (10),48-50(2007).
[6]. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability [J]. Cognitive Psychology38(5) ,207–232(1974).
[7]. Zhang ZH, He Y, Li Yang.: The formation and coping strategies of the public risk awareness deviation in the Three Gorges Project. Engineering Research —— Engineering in an interdisciplinary perspective 14. 04,350-360(2022).
[8]. Tan CM, et al.: “Research on the application of cognitive bias method in automobile sales. Time Automobile02,172-174 (2023).
[9]. Zhu HG, Zeng XD.: Research on crisis decision-making based on the individual perspective of emergency audience (1),125-128(2009).
[10]. Meng T.: Analysis of impromptu decision cognitive bias and empirical study. Taiyuan University of Science and Technology, MA thesis (2014).
[11]. Meng Y.: Research on the influence of manager overconfidence on risk decision-making in different frameworks. Shanxi Normal University, MA thesis (2016).
[12]. Stone, E. R., Yates.: A. Risk taking in decision making for others versus he self. Journal of Applied Social Psychology32, 1797-1824(1976).
[13]. Shang L.: The impact of sensory seeking on adolescent multi-domain risk perception and expected benefits [D]. Ningxia University (2010).
[14]. Liu HC.: The attributes of risk and its implications for the social risk assessment of major government decision-making [J]. The Journal of the Shanghai University of Administration12(6),96-97(2011).
[15]. Kahneman, D.: Judgment under uncertainty: heuristic Sand biases. Cambridge University Press. Slovie, P. & Tversky, A. (eds) (1982).
[16]. Zhang JH.: “Is it a technical error or a management error? Review the explosion of the Challenger vessel from the relationship between technology and management. “Management modernization01,62-63(2001).
[17]. Yang J.: We knew what would happen:15 years later, engineers told the Challenger explosion. Huaxia Spark06, 65-66 (2001).
[18]. Russo, J. E. & Sehoemaker, P. J. H. Managing over confidence. Sloan Management Review33(2),7-27(1992).
[19]. Rachel, M, M.: The Man Who Tried to Stop the Space Shuttle Challenger’s Launch Executives overruled the advice of engineer Roger Boisjoly, who suffered a classic moral injury. New York Times (2023), last accessed 2023/4/26.
[20]. Dan, L., Daniel, K.: Delusions of Success: How Optimism Undermines Executives’ Decisions. https://hbr.org/2003/07/delusions-of-success-how-optimism-undermines-executives-decisions(2003), last accessed 2023/5/3.
Cite this article
Zhu,R. (2023). The Influence of Cognitive Bias on Risk Decision-making under Uncertain Conditions: A Case Study of 1986 Challenger. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,18,8-15.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Innovation and Philosophical Inquiries
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).