Tufah, G D (2020) Building for the common good: the impact of loss aversion and availability error on decision-making in construction projects. Unpublished PhD thesis, Leeds Beckett University, UK.
Abstract
"Decision-making is considered an essential element for socio-cultural development and economic emancipation. Research from the field of human behavioural economics has established that the human brain is wired intrinsically to make biased decisions that affect the physiological, social and corporate needs of individuals in the global community. Likewise, many decisions reached in various organizations either increase or decrease the chances of project success and most times these decisions are characterized by different types of cognitive biases. This study emphasizes loss aversion and availability error, which are two kinds of biases that lack critical investigation in the project management literature. Therefore, this research evaluates the extent that loss aversion and availability error impact on decision-making in projects. Using a deductive study that sampled an online survey with quantitative closed questions, this research collected and collated high-level primary data from project managers at the managerial level of different organizations. The findings from the study are indicative that loss aversion and availability error influence decision-making in projects. Recommendations are made for further research that includes the sensitization of project practitioners to the effect of cognitive bias in decision-making in the construction industry and the inclusion of cognitive bias awareness modules in the curriculum of secondary/tertiary institutions and is a reference for other researchers."
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | availability error; cognitive bias; decision making; loss aversion; project manager; rationality |
| Index terms: | module, project manager, construction project, survey, practitioner, tertiary, project management, construction industry, bias, rationality, investigation, behavioural economics, decision-making, project success |
| Subjects: | production management, curriculum development, architectural elements, project management theory and practice, profession, economic models, data collection methods, industry analysis, decision analysis, practitioner, probability and distributions, decision-making and reasoning |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Design Practice, Risk Management, Education, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here