Determining inventory ahead of knowing customer demand is a crucial decision for many businesses. Although it is possible to select the ideal order quantity given the costs of over and undersupplying demand, prior research demonstrates that decision‐makers consistently make suboptimal inventory choices. Drawing on construal level theory and psychological distance, this paper explores how differences in the spatial distance (suppliers that are geographically near or far) and temporal distance (short or long lead time from order to receipt) impact newsvendor decision‐making. Across four experiments (N = 663), we find that a far psychological distance increases order quantities, which improves performance for high‐margin products but results in added costs for low‐margin goods. Given that spatial and temporal distances occur naturally in supply chains, our research shows that psychological distance is a cognitive explanation for biased inventory ordering and can be applied to improve decision‐making.
AbdellaouiM.DiecidueE.ÖncülerA. (2011). Risk preferences at different time periods: An experimental investigation. Management Science, 57(5), 975–987. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1324
2.
AgrawalN.TropeY.LibermanN. (2006). Value from highlighting time‐appropriate outcomes. [Unpublished manuscript]. Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University.
3.
AggarwalP.ZhaoM. (2015). Seeing the big picture: The effect of height on the level of construal. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(1), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.12.0067
4.
AllonG.Van MieghemJ. A. (2010). Global dual sourcing: Tailored base‐surge allocation to near‐and offshore production. Management Science, 56(1), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1099
5.
Becker‐PethM.KatokE.ThonemannU. W. (2013). Designing buyback contracts for irrational but predictable newsvendors. Management Science, 59(8), 1800–1816. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1662
6.
Becker‐PethM.ThonemannU. W. (2018). Behavioral inventory decisions: The newsvendor and other inventory settings. In DonohueK.KatokE.LeiderS. (Eds.), The handbook of behavioral operations (pp. 393–432). John Wiley & Sons.
7.
Becker‐PethM.ThonemannU. W.GullyT. (2018). A note on risk aversion of informed newsvendor. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 69(7), 1135–1145. https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2017.1390525
8.
BiçerI.HagspielV.De TrevilleS. (2018). Valuing supply‐chain responsiveness under demand jumps. Journal of Operations Management, 61, 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2018.06.002
9.
BoltonG. E.OckenfelsA.ThonemannU. W. (2012). Managers and students as newsvendors. Management Science, 58(12), 2225–2233. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1550
10.
BoltonG. E.KatokE. (2008). Learning by doing in the newsvendor problem: A laboratory investigation of the role of experience and feedback. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 10(3), 519–538.
11.
BouteR. N.Van MieghemJ. A. (2015). Global dual sourcing and order smoothing: The impact of capacity and lead times. Management Science, 61(9), 2080–2099. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1992
CantorD. E.MacdonaldJ. R. (2009). Decision‐making in the supply chain: Examining problem solving approaches and information availability. Journal of Operations Management, 27(3), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2008.09.002
14.
ChenK. Y.LiS. (2019). The behavioral traps in making multiple, simultaneous, newsvendor decisions. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2817126
15.
ChenL.KökA. G.TongJ. D. (2013). The effect of payment schemes on inventory decisions: The role of mental accounting. Management Science, 59(2), 436–451. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1638
16.
CsermelyT.MinnerS. (2015). Behavioral decisions in inventory systems with dual sourcing option: An experiment. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2573565
17.
CrosonR.DonohueK. (2006). Behavioral causes of the bullwhip effect and the observed value of inventory information. Management Science, 52(3), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0436
18.
CuiT. H.WuY. (2018). Incorporating behavioral factors into operations theory. In DonohueK.KatokE.LeiderS. (Eds.), The handbook of behavioral operations (Vol. 20, pp. 89–119). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119138341.ch3
19.
DavisA. M. (2018). Biases in individual decision‐making. In DonohueK.KatokE.LeiderS. (Eds.), The handbook of behavioral operations (pp. 149–198). John Wiley & Sons.
Denes‐RajV.EpsteinS. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 66, 819–829.
22.
deTrevilleS.BicerI.Chavez‐DemoulinV.HagspielV.SchürhoffN.TasseritC.WagerS. (2014). Valuing lead time. Journal of Operations Management, 32(6), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.06.002
23.
deTrevilleS.SchürhoffN.TrigeorgisL.AvanziB. (2014). Optimal sourcing and lead‐time reduction under evolutionary demand risk. Production and Operations Management, 23(12), 2103–2117. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12223
24.
deTrevilleS.HoffrageU.PettyJ. S. (2009). Managerial decision making and lead times: The impact of cognitive illusions. In G. Reiner (Ed.), Rapid modelling for increasing competitiveness (pp. 3–14). Springer.
25.
deVéricourtF.GrombD. (2018). Financing capacity investment under demand uncertainty: An optimal contracting approach. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 20(1), 85–96.
26.
deVéricourtF.JainK.BeardenJ. N.FilipowiczA. (2013). Sex, risk and the newsvendor. Journal of Operations Management, 31(1‐2), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2012.11.001
27.
DietvorstB. J.SimmonsJ. P.MasseyC. (2018). Overcoming algorithm aversion: People will use imperfect algorithms if they can (even slightly) modify them. Management Science, 64(3), 1155–1170. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2643
28.
DurkinC.HartnettE.ShohamyD.KandelE. R. (2020). An objective evaluation of the beholder's response to abstract and figurative art based on construal level theory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(33), 19809–19815. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001772117
29.
EckelC. C.WilsonR. K. (2004). Is trust a risky decision?Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 55(4), 447–465.
30.
FengT.ZhangY. (2017). Modeling strategic behavior in the competitive newsvendor problem: An experimental investigation. Production and Operations Management, 26(7), 1383–1398. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12683
31.
GilovichT.KerrM.MedvecV. H. (1993). Effect of temporal perspective on subjective confidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.64.4.552
32.
GoodmanJ. K.MalkocS. A. (2012). Choosing here and now versus there and later: The moderating role of psychological distance on assortment size preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 751–768. https://doi.org/10.1086/665047
33.
GravesS. C. (2021). Reflections on the evolution of operations management. Management Science, 67(9), 5379–5388. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3802
34.
GurnaniH.RamachandranK.RayS.XiaY. (2014). Ordering behavior under supply risk: An experimental investigation. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 16(1), 61–75.
35.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression‐based approach. Guilford publications.
36.
HeB.DexterF.MacarioA.ZeniosS. (2012). The timing of staffing decisions in hospital operating rooms: Incorporating workload heterogeneity into the newsvendor problem. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 14(1), 99–114.
37.
HendersonM. D. (2011). Mere physical distance and integrative agreements: When more space improves negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.011
38.
HendersonM. D.FujitaK.TropeY.LibermanN. (2006). Transcending the“ here”: The effect of spatial distance on social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 845. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.91.5.845
39.
HendersonM. D.TropeY.CarnevaleP. J. (2006). Negotiation from a near and distant time perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 712–729. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.91.4.712
40.
HseeC. K.ZengY.LiX.ImasA. (2021). Bounded rationality in strategic decisions: Undershooting in a resource pool‐choice dilemma. Management Science, 67(10), 6553–6567.
41.
HoC. K.KeW.LiuH.ChauP. Y. (2020). Separate versus joint evaluation: The roles of evaluation mode and construal level in technology adoption. MIS Quarterly, 44(2), 725–746. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/14246
42.
HoT.LimN.CuiT. (2010). Reference dependence in multilocation newsvendor models: A structural analysis. Management Science, 56(11), 1891–1910. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1225
43.
HoltC. A.LauryS. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282802762024700
44.
HuangN.BurtchG.HongY.PolmanE. (2016). Effects of multiple psychological distances on construal and consumer evaluation: A field study of online reviews. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(4), 474–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.03.001
KatokE.WuD. Y. (2009). Contracting in supply chains: A laboratory investigation. Management Science, 55(12), 1953–1968. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1089
KirshnerS. N.ShaoL. (2019). The overconfident and optimistic price‐setting newsvendor. European Journal of Operational Research, 277(1), 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.02.023
49.
KocabiyikogluA.GogusC. I.GonulM. S. (2015). Revenue management vs. newsvendor decisions: Does behavioral response mirror normative equivalence?Production and Operations Management, 24(5), 750–761. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12297
50.
KremerM.MinnerS.Van WassenhoveL. (2010). Do random errors explain newsvendor behavior?Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 12(4), 673–681.
51.
KremerM.MinnerS.Van WassenhoveL. (2014). On the preference to avoid ex post inventory errors. Production and Operations Management, 23(5), 773–787. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12071
52.
KremerM.MoritzB.SiemsenE. (2011). Demand forecasting behavior: System neglect and change detection. Management Science, 57(10), 1827–1843. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1382
53.
LeachF. R.PlaksJ. E. (2009). Regret for errors of commission and omission in the distant term versus near term: The role of level of abstraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(2), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208327001
54.
LedgerwoodA.WakslakC. J.WangM. A. (2010). Differential information use for near and distant decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(4), 638–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.001
55.
LeeY. S.SeoY. W.SiemsenE. (2018). Running behavioral operations experiment using amazons mechanical turk. Production and Operations Management, 27(5), 973–989. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12841
56.
LibermanN.FörsterJ. (2009). The effect of psychological distance on perceptual level of construal. Cognitive Science, 33(7), 1330–1341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551‐6709.2009.01061.x
57.
LibermanN.TropeY. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.75.1.5
58.
LibermanN.TropeY. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 21(322), 1201–1205. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161958
59.
LiviatanI.TropeY.LibermanN. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others' actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.007
60.
LochC. H.WuY. (2008). Social preferences and supply chain performance: An experimental study. Management Science, 54(11), 1835–1849. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0910
61.
LongX.NasiryJ. (2015). Prospect theory explains newsvendor behavior: The role of reference points. Management Science, 61(12), 3009–3012. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2050
62.
LönnqvistJ. E.VerkasaloM.WalkowitzG.WichardtP. C. (2015). Measuring individual risk attitudes in the lab: Task or ask? An empirical comparison. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 119, 254–266.
63.
LuJ.XieX.XuJ. (2013). Desirability or feasibility: Self‐other decision‐making differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212470146
64.
LurieN. H.SwaminathanJ. M. (2009). Is timely information always better? The effect of feedback frequency on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 315–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.05.005
65.
MaS.HoferA. R.AloysiusJ. (2021). Supplier dependence asymmetry and investment in innovation: The role of psychological uncertainty. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 27(2), 100674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2021.100674
66.
MaglioS. J.TropeY.LibermanN. (2013). The common currency of psychological distance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(4), 278–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413480172
67.
MaglioS. J. (2020). An agenda for psychological distance apart from construal level. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14(8), e12552. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12552
68.
MoritzB. B.HillA. V.DonohueK. L. (2013). Individual differences in the newsvendor problem: Behavior and cognitive reflection. Journal of Operations Management, 31(1‐2), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2012.11.006
69.
NoussairC.WuP. (2006). Risk tolerance in the present and the future: An experimental study. Managerial and Decision Economics, 27(6), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.1278
70.
ÖncülerA.OnayS. (2009). How do we evaluate future gambles? Experimental evidence on path dependency in risky intertemporal choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22(3), 280–300. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.626
71.
OvchinnikovA.MoritzB.QuirogaB. F. (2015). How to compete against a behavioral newsvendor. Production and Operations Management, 24(11), 1783–1793. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12361
72.
PecherD.BootI. (2011). Numbers in space: Differences between concrete and abstract situations. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00121
73.
PournaderM.KachA.TalluriS. (2020). A review of the existing and emerging topics in the supply chain risk management literature. Decision Sciences, 51(4), 867–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12470
74.
RaueM.StreicherB.LermerE.FreyD. (2015). How far does it feel? Construal level and decisions under risk. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.09.005
75.
ReytJ. N.WiesenfeldB. M.TropeY. (2016). Big picture is better: The social implications of construal level for advice taking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 135, 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.004
76.
RudiN.DrakeD. (2014). Observation bias: The impact of demand censoring on newsvendor level and adjustment behavior. Management Science, 60(5), 1334–1345. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1825
77.
SagristanoM. D.TropeY.LibermanN. (2002). Time‐dependent gambling: Odds now, money later. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(3), 364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096‐3445.131.3.364
78.
SánchezA. M.ColemanC. W.LedgerwoodA. (2021). Does temporal distance influence abstraction? A large pre‐registered experiment. Social Cognition, 39(3), 352–365. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2021.39.3.352
79.
SavadoriL.MittoneL. (2015). Temporal distance reduces the attractiveness of p‐bets compared to $‐bets. Journal of Economic Psychology, 46, 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2014.11.004
80.
SchultzK. L.RobinsonL. W.ThomasL. J.SchultzJ.McClainJ. O. (2018). The use of framing in inventory decisions. Production and Operations Management, 27(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12782
81.
SchweitzerM. E.CachonG. P. (2000). Decision bias in the newsvendor problem with a known demand distribution: Experimental evidence. Management Science, 46(3), 404–420. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.3.404.12070
82.
ShaniY.IgouE. R.ZeelenbergM. (2009). Different ways of looking at unpleasant truths: How construal levels influence information search. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.005
83.
ShihW. C., (2022, March 21). Are the Risks of Global Supply Chains Starting to Outweigh the Rewards?Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/03/are‐the‐risks‐of‐global‐supply‐chains‐starting‐to‐outweigh‐the‐rewards
84.
SimpsonD.SegraveM.QuarshieA.KachA.HandfieldR.PanasG.MooreH. (2021). The role of psychological distance in organizational responses to modern slavery risk in supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 67(8), 989–1016. https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1157
85.
SoderbergC. K.CallahanS. P.KochersbergerA. O.AmitE.LedgerwoodA. (2015). The effects of psychological distance on abstraction: Two meta‐analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 525. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000005
86.
SunQ.LiuY.ZhangH.LuJ. (2017). Increased social distance makes people more risk‐neutral. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157(4), 502–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1242471
87.
ThalerR. H.SunsteinC. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin.
88.
TodorovA.GorenA.TropeY. (2007). Probability as a psychological distance: Construal and preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 473–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.04.002
89.
TokarT.AloysiusJ.WallerM.HawkinsD. L. (2016). Exploring framing effects in inventory control decisions: Violations of procedure invariance. Production and Operations Management, 25(2), 306–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12430
90.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal‐level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
91.
TropeY.LibermanN.WakslakC. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057‐7408(07)70013‐X
92.
UppariB. S.HasijaS. (2019). Modeling newsvendor behavior: A prospect theory approach. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 21(3), 481–500.
93.
VallacherR. R.WegnerD. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 660. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.57.4.660
94.
Van KerckhoveA.GeuensM.VermeirI. (2014). The floor is nearer than the sky: How looking up or down affects construal level. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1358–1371. https://doi.org/10.1086/679309
95.
WakslakC. J. (2012). The where and when of likely and unlikely events. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.10.004
96.
WiesenfeldB. M.ReytJ. N.BrocknerJ.TropeY. (2017). Construal level theory in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 367–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐orgpsych‐032516‐113115
97.
WilsonJ.CrispC. B.MortensenM. (2013). Extending construal‐level theory to distributed groups: Understanding the effects of virtuality. Organization Science, 24(2), 629–644. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0750
98.
YanD.SenguptaJ. (2011). Effects of construal level on the price‐quality relationship. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 376–389. https://doi.org/10.1086/659755
99.
YanD.SenguptaJ.HongJ. (2016). Why does psychological distance influence construal level? The role of processing mode. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 598–613. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw045
100.
YudkinD. A.LibermanN.WakslakC.TropeY. (2020). Better off and far away: Reactions to others’ outcomes depends on their distance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 156, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.10.004
101.
ZhangY.SiemsenE. (2019). A meta‐analysis of newsvendor experiments: Revisiting the pull‐to‐center asymmetry. Production and Operations Management, 28(1), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12899
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
