Where do I go from here? Motivated reasoning in construction decisions

Fellows, R F and Liu, A M M (2018) Where do I go from here? Motivated reasoning in construction decisions. Construction Management and Economics, 36(11), pp. 623-634. ISSN 01446193

Abstract

Early stage decisions have the greatest impact on construction projects and so, attention at conception and realization of projects is imperative. Decisions are influenced by actors' interdependencies, thus, it is important to understand how actors determine meanings of their situations and actions. Meaning is derived from situational cues that are contextually bounded and, through actions, determines decisions' outcomes via sensemaking. The objectives of this critical essay are to examine the impact of motivated reasoning on sensemaking and, thus, decision-making through scrutinising how actors make sense of projects and contexts to yield meanings. The focus of the discussion is on the human interactional aspects of decisions to examine potential bias, effected through the vague goals held by the actors, and the assumption of rationality, extending to bounded rationality, and how that leads to traps/pitfalls in decision-making. The discussion encompasses the concepts of sensemaking and of motivated reasoning in construction decisions from the perspectives of the dominant logic and the dynamic states of flux in the construction environment–in particular, the aspects of open-mindedness and directional bias, over-optimism, and attitudinal predispositions which impact on motivated reasoning of decision-makers in construction projects. This essay concludes that motivated reasoning, as a bias vector, operates to influence how actors arrive at understandings, reach decisions and behave to generate outcomes. The motivated reasoning perspective gives insight into the nature of decision-making in many project processes and the outcomes achieved.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: bias; decision-making; goals; projects; rationality; sensemaking
Index terms: construction project, bias, decision-making, sensemaking, reasoning, rationality, meaning, bounded rationality
Subjects: cognitive psychology, sociology, decision analysis, probability and distributions, production management, decision-making and reasoning
Topics: Risk Management, Research Practice, Project Management
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

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