Tomada de Decisões Sob Risco: Um Estudo Experimental com Servidores de uma Instituição Pública Federal de Ensino de Alagoas
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.2318-1001.2023v11n3.67765Abstract
Objective: This research aimed to investigate and describe the manifestation of heuristics and behavioral biases among public servants in the Brazilian government, in decision-making scenarios under conditions of risk.
Method: The study was conducted based on Prospect Theory, using an experimental method with intentional interventions in randomized comparison groups. A questionnaire was administered with the participation of 162 employees from a federal public institution in Alagoas.
Results: The results suggest evidence that Brazilian public agents participating in this research are influenced by framing, anchoring, proportional dominance, and asymmetric dominance. It was not statistically possible to confirm the presence of the status quo bias among the employees. Nevertheless, it is concluded that public servants participating in this study make decisions under conditions of risk that are not fully rational.
Contributions: This research advances the understanding of behavioral phenomena in the Brazilian public administration and contributes to fostering discussions to improve the architecture of choices in public management and, consequently, the provision of services to the population.
Keywords: Prospect Theory; heuristics; biases; governance; public sector.
Downloads
References
Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., & Kammoun, H. (2013). Do financial professionals behave according to prospect theory? An experimental study. Theory and Decision, 74(3), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-011-9282-3
Angner, E. (2015). Behavioral Welfare Economics, Libertarian Paternalism, and the Nudge Agenda. SSRN Electronic Journal, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2580523
Ariely, D. (2020). Previsivelmente Irracional (1a ed.). Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Sextante.
Ávila, F., & Bianchi, A. M. (2015). Guia de Economia Comportamental e Experimental (1a ed.). São Paulo, SP: EconomiaComportamental.org.
Ballard, A. (2019). Framing Bias in the Interpretation of Quality Improvement Data: Evidence From an Experiment. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 8(5), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2019.08
Battaglio, R. P., Belardinelli, P., Bellé, N., & Cantarelli, P. (2019). Behavioral Public Administration ad fontes: A Synthesis of Research on Bounded Rationality, Cognitive Biases, and Nudging in Public Organizations. Public Administration Review, 79(3), 304–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12994
Belardinelli, P., Bellé, N., Sicilia, M., & Steccolini, I. (2018). Framing Effects under Different Uses of Performance Information: An Experimental Study on Public Managers. Public Administration Review, 78(6), 841–851. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12969
Belle’, N., Cantarelli, P., & Belardinelli, P. (2017). Cognitive Biases in Performance Appraisal: Experimental Evidence on Anchoring and Halo Effects With Public Sector Managers and Employees. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(3), 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17704891
Belle’, N., Cantarelli, P., & Belardinelli, P. (2018). Prospect Theory Goes Public: Experimental Evidence on Cognitive Biases in Public Policy and Management Decisions. Public Administration Review, 78(6), 828–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12960
Belle, N., Cantarelli, P., & Belardinelli, P. (2017). Cognitive Biases in Performance Appraisal: Experimental Evidence on Anchoring and Halo Effects With Public Sector Managers and Employees. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(3), 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17704891
Bernoulli, D. (1954). Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk. Econometrica, 22(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.2307/1909829
Resolução no 510, de 07 de abril de 2016 - Normas Aplicáveis a Pesquisas em Ciências Humanas e Sociais, (2016). http://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2016/Reso510.pdf
Brito, A. D., & Amaral, M. S. (2020). Teoria dos prospectos: a tomada de decisão do investidor imobiliário à luz das finanças comportamentais. Navus - Revista de Gestão e Tecnologia, 10, 01–16. https://doi.org/10.22279/navus.2020.v10.p01-16.975
Cantarelli, P., Belle’, N., & Belardinelli, P. (2020). Behavioral Public HR: Experimental Evidence on Cognitive Biases and Debiasing Interventions. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(1), 56–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18778090
Dudley, S. E., & Xie, Z. (2020). Designing a Choice Architecture for Regulators. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13112
Erlandsson, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2015). Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.11.003
Fuenzalida, J., Van Ryzin, G. G., & Olsen, A. L. (2021). Are managers susceptible to framing effects? An experimental study of professional judgment of performance metrics. International Public Management Journal, 24(3), 314–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2020.1752338
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Jilke, S., Olsen, A. L., & Tummers, L. (2017). Behavioral Public Administration: Combining Insights from Public Administration and Psychology. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12609
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90. https://doi.org/10.1086/208899
Kahneman, D. (2012). Rápido e Devagar Duas Formas de Pensar (1a). Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Objetiva.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The Psychology of Preferences. Scientific American, 246(1), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0182-160
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
Kimura, H., Basso, L. F. C., & Krauter, E. (2006). Paradoxos em finanças: teoria moderna versus finanças comportamentais. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 46(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902006000100005
Liu, X., Stoutenborough, J., & Vedlitz, A. (2017). Bureaucratic expertise, overconfidence, and policy choice. Governance, 30(4), 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12257
Moseley, A., & Thomann, E. (2021). A behavioural model of heuristics and biases in frontline policy implementation. Policy & Politics, 49(1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320X15967973532891
Nagtegaal, R., Tummers, L., Noordegraaf, M., & Bekkers, V. (2020). Designing to Debias: Measuring and Reducing Public Managers’ Anchoring Bias. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 565–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13211
Paes Müller, L. A. (2020). Utilidade e Racionalidade na Economia Neoclássica. Revista de Filosofia Moderna e Contemporânea, 8(1), 175–200. https://doi.org/10.26512/rfmc.v8i1.29365
Redelmeier, D. A. (1995). Medical Decision Making in Situations That Offer Multiple Alternatives. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 273(4), 302. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03520280048038
Roberts, P. S., & Wernstedt, K. (2019). Decision Biases and Heuristics Among Emergency Managers: Just Like the Public They Manage For? The American Review of Public Administration, 49(3), 292–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018799490
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status Quo Bias in Decision Making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.
Sanders, M., Snijders, V., & Hallsworth, M. (2018). Behavioural science and policy: where are we now and where are we going? Behavioural Public Policy, 2(2), 144–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.17
Simon, H. A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
Simon, H. A. (1979). Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations. The American Economic Review, 69(4), 493–513. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1808698
Simon, H. A. (2000). Bounded rationality in social science: Today and tomorrow. Mind & Society, 1(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02512227
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk. In Societal Risk Assessment (pp. 181–216). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0445-4_9
Souza Queiroz, A. D., Oliveira dos Reis, M., & Silveira da Rocha, J. (2016). Modelo Decisório no Mercado Financeiro: Um Estudo à Luz da Teoria dos Prospectos e da Racionalidade Limitada. Contabilidade, Gestão e Governança, 19(2), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.21714/1984-3925_2016v19n2a3
Strassheim, H. (2021). Behavioural mechanisms and public policy design: Preventing failures in behavioural public policy. Public Policy and Administration, 36(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076719827062
Strassheim, H., & Korinek, R.-L. (2015). Behavioural governance in Europe. In J. Wilsdon & R. Doubleday (Eds.), Future directions for scientific advice in Europe (pp. 155–162). Centre for Science and Policy.
Sürücü, O., Djawadi, B. M., & Recker, S. (2019). The asymmetric dominance effect: Reexamination and extension in risky choice – An experimental study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 73(1999), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2019.05.007
Thaler, R. H. (2015). Misbehaving A construção da economia comportamental (1ª ed.). Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Editora Intrínseca.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: como tomar melhores decisões sobre saúde, dinheiro e felicidades (1a ed.). Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Objetiva.
Tinker, A. M., Merino, B. D., & Neimark, M. D. (1982). The normative origins of positive theories: Ideology and accounting thought. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7(2), 167–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(82)90019-8
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
Yoshinaga, C. E., & Ramalho, T. B. (2014). Finanças comportamentais no Brasil: Uma aplicação da teoria da perspectiva em potenciais investidores. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios,
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Revista Evidenciação Contábil & Finanças
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Autores que publicam na RECFin concordam com os seguintes termos:- Autores mantém os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attribution que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista;
- Em virtude de aparecerem nesta revista de acesso público, os artigos são de uso gratuito, com atribuições próprias, em aplicações educacionais e não-comerciais;
- A revista permitirá o uso dos trabalhos publicados para fins não-comerciais, incluindo direito de enviar o trabalho para bases de dados de acesso público.
