Theories of decision-making have long been important foundations for information systems research and much of the information system is concerned with information processing for decision-making. The discipline of behavioral economics provides the dominant contemporary approach for understanding human decision-making. Therefore, it is logical that information systems research that involves decision-making should consider behavioral economics as a foundation or reference theory. Surprisingly, and despite calls for greater use of behavioral economics in information systems research, it seems that information systems has been slow to adopt contemporary behavioral economics as reference theory. This article reports a critical analysis of behavioral economics in all fields of information systems based on an intensive investigation of quality information systems research using bibliometric content analysis. The analysis shows that information systems researchers have a general understanding of behavioral economics, but their use of the theories has an ad hoc feel where only a narrow range of behavioral economic concepts and theories tend to form the foundation of information systems research. The factors constraining the adoption of behavioral economic theories in information systems are discussed and strategies for the use of this influential foundation theory are proposed. Guidance is provided on how behavioral economics could be used in various aspects of information systems. The article concludes with the view that behavioral economic reference theory has the potential to transform significant areas of information systems research.
AbdolmohammadiM (1987) Decision support and expert systems in auditing: A review and research directions. Accounting and Business Research17(66): 173–185.
2.
AdamFMurphyC (1995) Information flows amongst executives: Their implications for systems development. Journal of Strategic Information Systems4(4): 341–355.
3.
*AdjeridIPeerEAcquistiA (2018) Beyond the privacy paradox: Objective versus relative risk in privacy decision making. MIS Quarterly42(2): 465–488.
4.
*AdomaviciusGBockstedtJCCurleySP, et al. (2018) Effects of online recommendations on consumers’ willingness to pay. Information Systems Research29(1): 84–102.
5.
AgostoDE (2002) Bounded rationality and satisficing in young people’s Web-based decision making. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology53(1): 16–27.
6.
AjzenIFishbeinM (1973) Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology27(1): 41–57.
7.
AkerlofGA (1970) The market for lemons: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics84(3): 488–500.
8.
AliasM (1953) Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risqué: Critique des postulats et axioms de l’ecole americaine. Econometrica21(4): 503–546.
9.
AllenGParsonsJ (2010) Is query reuse potentially harmful? Anchoring and adjustment in adapting existing database queries. Information Systems Research21(1): 56–77.
10.
AlloyLBTabachnikN (1984) Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: Joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. Psychological Review91: 112–149.
11.
AngehrnAAJelassiT (1994) DSS research and practice in perspective. Decision Support Systems12: 257–275.
12.
AnthonyRN (1965) Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
*ArazyOKopakRHadarI (2017) Heuristic principles and differential judgments in the assessment of information quality. Journal of the Association for Information Systems18(5): 403–432.
14.
ArielyD (2013) The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty. New York: Harper Perennial.
15.
ArielyDSimonsonI (2003) Buying, bidding, playing, or competing? Value assessment and decision dynamics in online auctions. Journal of Consumer Psychology13(1–2): 113–123.
16.
ArkesHFaustDGuilmetteTJ, et al. (1988) Eliminating the hindsight bias. Journal of Applied Psychology73(2): 305–307.
17.
ArkesHRHackettCBoehmL (1989) The generality of the relation between familiarity and judged validity. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making2: 81–94.
18.
ArnottD (2006) Cognitive biases and decision support systems development: A design science approach. Information Systems Journal16(1): 55–78.
19.
ArnottD (2010) Senior executive information behaviors and decision support. Journal of Decision Systems19(4): 465–480.
20.
ArnottDGaoS (2019) Behavioral economics for decision support systems. Decision Support Systems122: 113063.
21.
ArnottDO’DonnellP (2008) A note on an experimental study of DSS and forecasting exponential growth. Decision Support Systems45(1): 180–186.
22.
ArnottDPervanG (2014) A critical analysis of decision support systems research revisited: The rise of design science. Journal of Information Technology29: 269–293.
23.
ArnottDLizamaFSongY (2017) Patterns of business intelligence systems use in organizations. Decision Support Systems97: 58–68.
24.
ArrowKJ (1950) A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. Journal of Political Economy58(4): 328–346.
25.
AvisonDMalaurentJ (2014) Is theory king?: Questioning the theory fetish in information systems. Information Systems Journal29(4): 358–361.
26.
AytonPHuntAJWrightG (1989) Psychological conceptions of randomness. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making2(4): 221–238.
27.
BarfarAPadmanabhanBHevnerA (2017) Applying behavioral economics in predictive analytics for B2B churn. Decision Support Systems101: 115–127.
28.
Bar-HillelM (1973) On the subjective probability of compound events. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance9: 396–406.
29.
*BarteltVLDennisAR (2014) Nature and nurture: The impact of automaticity and the structuration of communication on virtual team behavior and performance. MIS Quarterly38(2): 521–538.
30.
BazermanMMooreD (2009) Judgment in Managerial Decision Making (7th edn). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
31.
BazermanMMooreD (2013) Judgment in Managerial Decision Making (8th edn). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
32.
BhandariGHassaneinKDeavesR (2008) Debiasing investors with decision support systems: An experimental investigation. Decision Support Systems46: 399–410.
33.
BhattacherjeeASanfordC (2006) Influence processes for information technology acceptance: An elaboration likelihood model. MIS Quarterly30(4): 805–825.
34.
*BockstedtJCGohKH (2014) Customized bundling and consumption variety of digital information goods. Journal of Management Information Systems31(2): 105–132.
35.
BrennerLAKoehlerDJLibermanV, et al. (1996) Overconfidence in probability and frequency judgments: A critical examination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes65(3): 212–219.
36.
BriggsLKKrantzDH (1992) Judging the strength of designated evidence. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making5: 77–106.
37.
BrowneGJParsonsJ (2012) More enduring questions in cognitive IS research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems13(12): 1000–1011.
38.
BuehlerRGriffinDRossM (2002) Inside the planning fallacy: The causes and consequences of optimistic time predictions. In: GilovichTGriffinDKahnemanD (eds) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 250–270.
39.
CamererCFLoewensteinG (2003) Behavioral economics: Past, present, future. In: CamererCFLoewensteinGRabinM (eds) Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 3–51.
40.
CarpenterMAGelatkanyczMASaundersWG (2004) Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management30: 749–778.
41.
ChaikenS (1980) Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39(5): 752–766.
42.
ChaikenSMaheswaranD (1994) Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology66(3): 460–473.
43.
ChapmanGBJohnsonEJ (1994) The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making7: 223–242.
44.
ChapmanKPikeLE (2013) Literature on behavioral economics, Part 1: Introduction and books. Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian32(4): 205–223.
45.
*ChenC-WKoufarisM (2015) The impact of decision support system features on user overconfidence and risky behavior. European Journal of Information Systems24: 607–623.
46.
ChenJQLeeSM (2003) An exploratory cognitive DSS for strategic decision making. Decision Support Systems36(2): 147–160.
47.
ChenW-SHirschheimR (2004) A pragmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001. Information Systems Journal14: 197–235.
48.
ChengFWuC (2010) Debiasing the framing effect: The effect of warning and involvement. Decision Support Systems49(3): 328–334.
49.
*ChiuC-MWangETGFangY-H, et al. (2014) Understanding customers’ repeat purchase intentions in B2C e-commerce: The roles of utilitarian value, hedonic value and perceived risk. Information Systems Journal24(1): 85–114.
50.
ChiuVLiuQMuehlmannB, et al. (2019) A bibliometric analysis of accounting information systems journals and their emerging technologies contributions. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems32: 24–43.
51.
ChoudhuryVSamplerJL (1997) Information specificity and environmental scanning: An economic perspective. MIS Quarterly21(1): 25–53.
52.
Christensen-SzalanskiJJBushyheadJB (1981) Physicians use of probabilistic judgement in a real clinical setting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance7: 928–935.
53.
CialdiniRB (2009) Influence: Science and Practice. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
54.
*ConstantiouIDLehrerCHessT (2014) Changing information retrieval behaviours: An empirical investigation of users’ cognitive processes in the choice of location-based services. European Journal of Information Systems23(5): 513–528.
55.
CorrPPlagnolA (2019) Behavioral Economics: The Basics. Oxford: Routledge.
CyertRMarchJG (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall.
58.
DavidsonE (2002) Technology frames and faming: A socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination. MIS Quarterly26(4): 329–358.
59.
DavisFD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–339.
60.
DeweyJ (1933 [1910]) How We Think. New York: Health.
61.
*DinevTMcConnellARSmithHJ (2015) Research commentary–Informing privacy research through information systems, psychology, and behavioral economics: Thinking outside the “APCO” box. Information Systems Research26(4): 639–655.
62.
DudezertALeidnerDE (2011) Illusions of control and social domination strategies in knowledge mapping system use. European Journal of Information Systems20(5): 574–588.
63.
DunningDHeathCSulsJM (2004) Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest5(3): 69–106.
64.
DusenburyRFennmaMG (1996) Linguistic-numeric presentation mode effects on risky option preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes68: 109–122.
65.
EdwardsW (1954) The theory of decision making. Psychological Review51(4): 380–417.
66.
EdwardsW (1961) Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology12: 473–498.
67.
ElamJJJarvenpaaSLSchkadeDA (1992) Behavioral decision theory and DSS: New opportunities for collaborative research. In: StohrEAKonsynskiBR (eds) Information Systems and Decision Processes. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 51–74.
68.
EllsbergD (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics75(4): 643–669.
69.
EpleyNGilovichT (2006) The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science17(4): 311–318.
70.
Evans JStBT (1989) Bias in Human Reasoning: Causes and Consequences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
71.
Evans JStBT (2003) In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences7(10): 454–459.
72.
Evans JStBT (2008) Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology59: 255–278.
73.
*FadelKJMeservyTOJensenML (2015) Exploring knowledge filtering processes in electronic networks of practice. Journal of Management Information Systems31(4): 158–181.
74.
*FehrenbacherDD (2017) Affect infusion and detection through faces in computer-mediated knowledge-sharing decisions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems18(10): 703–726.
75.
*FerrattTWPrasadJDunneEJ (2018) Fast and flow processes underlying theories of information technology use. Journal of the Association for Information Systems19(1): 1–22.
76.
FischhoffB (1982) Debiasing. In: KahnemanDSlovicPTverskyA (eds) Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 422–444.
77.
FischhoffB (2007) An early history of hindsight research. Social Cognition25: 10–13.
78.
FischhoffBSlovicPLichtensteinS (1978) Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance4: 330–344.
79.
FleischmannMAmirpurMBenlianA, et al. (2014) Cognitive biases in information systems research: A scientometric analysis. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2014), Tel Aviv, 9–11 June.
80.
FoxJ (2015) A short history of modern decision making: From “economic man” to behavioral economics. Harvard Business Review93: 79–85.
81.
*FriskJELindgrenRMathiassenL (2014) Design matters for decision makers: Discovering IT investment alternatives. European Journal of Information Systems23(4): 442–461.
82.
FurnhamABooHC (2011) A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics40(1): 35–42.
83.
GalbraithJK (1952) American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
84.
GeorgeJFDuffyKAhujaM (2000) Countering the anchoring and adjustment bias with decision support systems. Decision Support Systems29(2): 195–206.
85.
GigerenzerG (2000) Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World. New York: Oxford University Press.
86.
GigerenzerG (2014) Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions. London: Allen Lane.
87.
GigerenzerGBrightonH (2009) Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Sciences1: 107–143.
88.
GigerenzerGSeltenR (eds) (2001) Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
89.
GigerenzerGToddPM (1999) Fast and frugal heuristics: The adaptive toolbox. In: GigerenzerGToddPM and The ABC Research Group (eds) Evolution and Cognition. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–34.
90.
GilbertD (1991) How mental systems believe. American Psychologist46(2): 107–119.
91.
GilovichTGriffinDKahnemanD (eds) (2002) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
92.
*GoelSWilliamsKDincelliE (2017) Got phished? Internet security and human vulnerability. Journal of the Association for Information Systems18(1): 22–44.
93.
GoesPB (2013) Editor’s Comments: Information systems research and behavioral economics. MIS Quarterly37(3): iii–viii.
94.
GoldsteinDGGigerenzerG (2002) Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review109(1): 75–90.
95.
GorryGAScott MortonMS (1971) A framework for management information systems. Sloan Management Review13(1): 55–70.
96.
*GrangeCBenbasatI (2018) Opinion seeking in a social network-enabled product review website: A study of word-of-mouth in the era of digital social networks. European Journal of Information Systems27(6): 629–653.
97.
*GregoryRWMuntermannJ (2014) Research note–Heuristic theorizing: Proactively generating design theories. Information Systems Research25(3): 639–653.
98.
*GuptaAKannanKSanyalP (2018) Economic experiments in information systems. MIS Quarterly42(2): 595–606.
99.
GwebuKWangJGuoL (2014) Continued usage intention of multifunctional friend networking services: A test of a dual-process model using Facebook. Decision Support Systems67: 66–77.
100.
HaddaraMHetlevikT (2016) Investigating the effectiveness of traditional support structures & self-organizing entities within the ERP shakedown phase. Procedia Computer Science100: 507–516.
101.
HallDJParadiceD (2005) Philosophical foundations for a learning-oriented knowledge management system for decision support. Decision Support Systems39(3): 445–461.
102.
HalpernD (2015) Inside the Nudge Unit. London: WH Allen.
103.
HarinckFVan DijkEVan BeestI, et al. (2007) When gains loom larger than losses: Reversed loss aversion for small amounts of money. Psychological Science18(12): 1099–1105.
104.
HastieRDawesRM (2001) Rational Choice in an Uncertain World. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.
105.
HertwigRFenselowCHoffrageU (2003) Hindsight bias: Knowledge and heuristics affect our reconstruction of the Past. Memory11(4–5): 357–377.
106.
HirschheimR (2019) Against theory: With apologies to Feyerabend. Journal of the Association for Information Systems20(9): 1338–1355.
107.
*HoefnagelROerlemansLGoedeeJ (2014) How anchoring and adjusting influence citizens’ acceptance of video-mediated crime reporting: A narrative approach. Journal of Strategic Information Systems23(4): 305–322.
108.
HogarthR (1987) Judgement and Choice: The Psychology of Decision (2nd edn). Chichester: Wiley.
109.
HogarthRMEinhornHJ (1992) Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology24(1): 1–55.
110.
HortonDLMillsCB (1984) Human learning and memory. Annual Review of Psychology35: 361–394.
111.
HuangH-HHsuJS-CKuC-Y (2012) Understanding the role of computer-mediated counter-argument in countering confirmation bias. Decision Support Systems53: 438–447.
112.
*HuangNHongYBurtchG (2017) Social network integration and user content generation: Evidence from natural experiments. MIS Quarterly41(4): 1035–1058.
113.
JaswalVKCroftACSetiaAR, et al. (2010) Young children have a specific, highly robust bias to trust testimony. Psychological Science21(10): 1541–1547.
114.
JoramEReedD (1996) Two faces of representativeness: The effects of response format on beliefs about random sampling. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making9(4): 249–264.
115.
JorgensonMIndahlUSjobergD (2003) Software effort estimation by analogy and regression toward the mean. Journal of System Software68: 253–262.
116.
KahnemanD (1973) Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
117.
KahnemanD (2003) Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. In: FrangsmyrT (ed.) Les Prix Nobel: The Nobel Prizes 2002. Stockholm: The Nobel Foundation, pp. 449–489.
118.
KahnemanD (2011) Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
119.
KahnemanDFrederickS (2002) Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: GilovichTGriffinDKahnemanD (eds) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–81.
120.
KahnemanDKleinG (2009) Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist64: 515–526.
121.
KahnemanDLovalloD (1993) Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Science39: 17–31.
122.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1972) Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology3(3): 430–454.
123.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1979a) Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. TIMS Studies in Management Science12: 313–327.
124.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1979b) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica47: 263–291.
125.
KahnemanDTverskyA (eds) (2000) Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
126.
KahnemanDKnetschJLThalerRH (1990) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy98(6): 1325–1348.
127.
KahnemanDKnetschJLThalerRH (1991) Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives5(1): 193–206.
128.
KahnemanDSlovicPTverskyA (eds) (1982) Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
129.
*KehrFKowatschTWentzelD, et al. (2015) Blissfully ignorant: The effects of general privacy concerns, general institutional trust, and affect in the privacy calculus. Information Systems Journal25(6): 607–635.
130.
KeilMMannJRaiA (2000) Why software projects escalate: An empirical analysis and test of four empirical models. MIS Quarterly24(4): 631–664.
131.
KerenG (1990) Cognitive aids and debiasing methods: Can cognitive pills cure cognitive ills. In: CaverniJPFabreJMGonzalezM (eds) Cognitive Biases. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 523–555.
132.
*KhanSSKumarRZhaoK, et al. (2017) Examining real options exercise decisions in information technology investments. Journal of the Association for Information Systems18(5): 372–402.
133.
KleinG (1999) Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
134.
KleinG (2004) The Power of Intuition: How to Use Your Gut Feelings to Make Better Decisions at Work. New York: Currency-Doubleday.
135.
KleinGCalderwoodRClinton-CiroccoA (2010) Rapid decision making on the fire ground: The original study plus a postscript. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making4(3): 186–209.
136.
*KloörBMonhofMBeverungenD, et al. (2018) Design and evaluation of a model-driven decision support system for repurposing electric vehicle batteries. European Journal of Information Systems27(2): 171–188.
137.
KoellingerPMinnitiMSchadeC (2007) “I think I can, I think I can”: Overconfidence and entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology28: 502–527.
138.
KottemannJEDavisFDRemusWE (1994) Computer-assisted decision making: Performance, beliefs, and the illusion of control. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes57(1): 26–37.
139.
KotterJP (1982) The General Managers. New York: The Free Press.
140.
*KretzerMMaedcheA (2018) Designing social nudges for enterprise recommendation agents: An investigation in the business intelligence systems context. Journal of the Association for Information Systems19(12): 1145–1186.
141.
KrugerJWirtzDBovenL, et al. (2004) The effort heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology40: 91–98.
142.
*KuanKKYHuiK-LPrasarnphanichP, et al. (2015) What makes a review voted? An empirical investigation of review voting in online review systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems16(1): 48–71.
143.
KuoFHsuCDayR (2009) An exploratory study of cognitive effort involved in decision under framing—An application of the eye-tracking technology. Decision Support Systems48(1): 81–91.
144.
LangerEJ (1975) The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology32(2): 311–328.
145.
*LeeHKLeeJSKeilM (2018) Using perspective-taking to de-escalate launch date commitment for products with known software defects. Journal of Management Information Systems35(4): 1251–1276.
146.
*LeeJSKeilM (2018) The effects of relative and criticism-based performance appraisals on task-level escalation in an IT project: A laboratory experiment. European Journal of Information Systems27(5): 551–569.
147.
*LeeKJoshiK (2017) Examining the use of status quo bias perspective in IS research: Need for reconceptualizing and incorporating biases. Information Systems Journal27(6): 733–752.
148.
*LegouxRLegerP-MRobertJ, et al. (2014) Confirmation biases in the financial analysis of IT investments. Journal of the Association for Information Systems15(1): 33–52.
149.
*LiMTanC-HWeiK-K, et al. (2017) Sequentially of product review information provision: An information foraging perspective. MIS Quarterly41(3): 867–892.
150.
*LiangHXueYZhangZ (2017) Understanding online health information use: The case of people with physical disabilities. Journal of the Association for Information Systems18(6): 433–460.
151.
LimKHBenbasatIWardLM (2000) The role of multimedia in changing first impression bias. Information Systems Research11(2): 115–136.
152.
LimL-HBenbasatI (1997) The debiasing role of group support systems: An experimental investigation of the representativeness bias. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies47: 453–471.
153.
LipschitzRBar-IlanO (1996) How problems are solved: Reconsidering the phase theorem. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes65(1): 48–60.
154.
*LiuQBKarahannaE (2017) The dark side of reviews: The swaying effects of online product reviews on attribute preference construction. MIS Quarterly41(2): 427–448.
155.
LovalloDKahnemanD (2003) Delusions of success: How optimism undermines executives’ decisions. Harvard Business Review81: 56–63.
*MaXKimSHKimSS (2014) Online gambling behavior: The impacts of cumulative outcomes, recent outcomes, and prior use. Information Systems Research25(3): 511–527.
158.
MackA (2003) Inattentional blindness: Looking without seeing. Current Directions in Psychological Science12(5): 180–184.
159.
McKenzieCRMLierschMJYanivI (2008) Overconfidence in interval estimates: What does expertise buy you?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes107: 179–191.
160.
MackinnonAJWearingAJ (1991) Feedback and the forecasting of exponential change. Acta Psychologica76: 177–191.
161.
MarchJG (1994) A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. New York: The Free Press.
162.
MarshallA (1890) Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.
163.
MauleAJEdlandAC (1997) The effects of time pressure on human judgement and decision making. In: RanyardRCrozierWRSvensonO (eds) Decision Making: Cognitive Models and Explanations. London: Routledge, pp. 189–204.
164.
*MeservyTOJensenMLFadelKJ (2014) Evaluation of competing candidate solutions in electronic networks of practice. Information Systems Research25(1): 15–34.
165.
*MinasRKPotterRFDennisAR, et al. (2014) Putting on the thinking cap: Using NeuroIS to understand information processing biases in virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems30(4): 49–82.
166.
MintzbergH (1973) The Nature of Managerial Work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
167.
MintzbergH (2009) Managing. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
168.
MintzbergHRaisinghaniDTheoretA (1976) The structure of “unstructured” decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly21(2): 246–275.
169.
MitroffSRSimonsDJFranconeriSL (2002) The Siren Song of implicit change detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance28: 798–815.
170.
MoodyGDGallettaDF (2015) Lost in cyberspace: The impact of information scent and time constraints on stress, performance, and attitudes online. Journal of Management Information Systems32(1): 192–244.
171.
MooreDACainDM (2007) Overconfidence and underconfidence: When and why people underestimate (and overestimate) the competition. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes103: 197–213.
172.
MooreDAHealyPJ (2008) The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review115(2): 502–517.
173.
MooreDAOeschJMZietsmaC (2007) What competition? Myopic self interest in market entry decisions. Organization Science18(3): 440–454.
174.
NiFArnottDGaoS (2019) The anchoring effect in business intelligence supported decision-making. Journal of Decision Systems28: 67–81.
175.
*NiculescuMFWuDJ (2014) Economics of free under perpetual licensing: Implications for the software industry. Information Systems Research25(1): 173–199.
176.
NisbettRRossL (1980) Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
177.
NisbettREWilsonTD (1977) The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology35(4): 250–256.
178.
*NuijtenAKeilMCommandeurH (2016) Collaborative partner or opponent: How the messenger influences the deaf effect in IT projects. European Journal of Information Systems25(6): 534–552.
179.
OdnorMOinas-KukkonenH (2017) Behavioral economics in information systems research: A persuasion context analysis. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICIES 2017), vol. 3. Setúbal: SCITEPRESS, pp. 17–28.
180.
OlsenRA (1997) Desirability bias among professional investment managers: Some evidence from experts. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making10: 65–72.
181.
OppenheimerDMMoninB (2009) The retrospective gambler’s fallacy: Unlikely events, constructing the past, and multiple universes. Judgment and Decision Making4(5): 326–334.
182.
OrdonezLBensonLIII (1997) Decisions under time pressure: How time constraint affects risky decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes71: 121–140.
183.
OzdemirZDSmithHJBenamatiJH (2017) Antecedents and outcomes of information privacy concerns in a peer context: An exploratory study. European Journal of Information Systems26(6): 642–660.
184.
*ParkEHRameshBCaoL (2016a) Emotion in IT investment decision making with a real options perspective: The intertwining of cognition and regret. Journal of Management Information Systems33(3): 652–683.
185.
*ParkSCKeilMBockG-W, et al. (2016b) Winner’s regret in online C2C auctions: An automatic thinking perspective. Information Systems Journal26(6): 613–640.
186.
PayneJW (1976) Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes16(2): 366–387.
PayneJWBettmanJRJohnsonEJ (1993) The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
189.
PiramuthuSKapoorGZhouW, et al. (2012) Input online review data and related bias in recommender systems. Decision Support Systems53: 418–424.
190.
PolitesGLKarahannaE (2012) Shackled to the status quo: The inhibiting effects of incumbent system habit, switching costs, and inertia on new system acceptance. MIS Quarterly36(1): 21–42.
191.
PratNComyn-WattiauIAkokaJ (2015) A taxonomy of evaluation methods for information systems artifacts. Journal of Management Information Systems32(3): 229–267.
192.
RafaeliSRabanD (2003) Experimental investigation of the subjective value of information in trading. Journal of the Association for Information Systems4(5): 119–139.
193.
ReadDLowensteinG (1995) Diversification bias: Explaining the discrepancy in variety seeking between combined and separated choices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied1: 34–49.
194.
ReadDAntonidesGVan den OudenL, et al. (2001) Which is better: Simultaneous or sequential choice?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes84: 54–70.
195.
RemusWE (1984) An empirical investigation of the impact of graphical and tabular data presentations on decision making. Management Science30: 533–542.
196.
RemusWEKottemannJ (1995) Anchor-and-adjustment behavior in a dynamic decision environment. Decision Support Systems15: 63–74.
197.
ReynaVF (2004) How people make decisions that involve risk: A dual-processes approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science13(2): 60–66.
198.
RicchiuteDN (1997) Effects of judgement on memory: Experiments in recognition bias and process dissociation in a professional judgement task. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes70: 27–39.
199.
RickettsJA (1990) Powers-of-ten information biases. MIS Quarterly14: 63–77.
200.
RoseJMRoseAMNormanCS (2004) The evaluation of risky information technology investment decisions. Journal of Information Systems18(1): 53–66.
201.
RossD (2014) Psychological versus economic models of bounded rationality. Journal of Economic Methodology21(4): 411–427.
202.
RoyMCLerchFJ (1996) Overcoming ineffective mental representations in base-rate problems. Information Systems Research7(2): 233–247.
203.
RussoJEMedvecVHMeloyMG (1996) The distortion of information during decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes66: 102–110.
204.
SageAP (1981) Behavioral and organizational considerations in the design of information systems and processes for planning and decision support. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-11(9): 640–678.
205.
SaldanaJ (2013) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.
206.
*SalgeTOKohliRBarrettM (2015) Investing in information systems: On the behavioral and institutional search mechanisms underpinning hospitals’ IS investment decisions. MIS Quarterly39(1): 61–89.
207.
SamuelsonPNorhausW (2009) Economics (19th edn). New York: McGraw Hill Education.
208.
SamuelsonWZeckhauserR (1988) Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty1(1): 7–59.
209.
SavageLJ (1954) The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley.
210.
SchadeDAKahnemanD (1998) Does living in California make people happy? A focusing illusion in judgments of life satisfaction. Psychological Science9(5): 340–346.
211.
SchriftRYKivetzRNetzerO (2016) Complicating decisions: The work heuristic and the construction of effortful decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General145(7): 807–829.
212.
SchwarzNVaughnLA (2002) The availability heuristic revisited: Ease of recall and content of recall as distinct sources of information. In: GilovichTGriffinDKahnemanD (eds) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 103–119.
213.
SedikidesCGreggAP (2008) Self-enhancement: Food for thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science3(2): 102–116.
214.
SedlmeierPGigerenzerG (1997) Intuitions about sample size: The empirical law of large numbers. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making10: 33–51.
215.
ShillerRJ (1978) Rational expectations and the dynamic structure of macroeconomic models: A critical review. Journal of Monetary Economics4: 1–44.
216.
*ShmueliOPliskinNFinkL (2016a) Can the outside-view approach improve planning decisions in software development projects?Information Systems Journal26(4): 395–418.
217.
ShmueliOPliskinNFinkL (2016b) Explaining over-requirement in software development projects: An experimental investigation of behavioral effects. International Journal of Project Management33(2): 380–394.
218.
SimonHA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics69: 99–118.
219.
SimonHA (1956) Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review63(2): 129–138.
220.
SimonHA (1959) Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. The American Economic Review49(3): 253–283.
221.
SimonHA (1960) The New Science of Management Decision. New York: Harper.
222.
SimonHA (1973) The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence4: 181–201.
223.
SimonHA (1997 [1945]) Administrative Behavior (4th edn). New York: The Free Press.
224.
*SinghHAggarwalRCojuharencoI (2015) Strike a happy medium: The effect of IT knowledge on venture capitalists’ overconfidence in IT investments. MIS Quarterly39(4): 887–908.
225.
SivarajahUKamalMMIraniZ, et al. (2017) Critical analysis of big data challenges and analytical methods. Journal of Business Research70: 263–286.
226.
SlomanSA (1996) The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin119(1): 3–22.
227.
SlovicPFinucaneMPetersE, et al. (2002) The affect heuristic. In: GilovichTGriffinDKahnemanD (eds) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 397–420.
228.
SlovicPFischoffBLichtensteinS (1982) Response mode framing and information processing effects in risk assessment. In: HogarthRM (ed.) New Directions for Methodology and Social and Behavioral Science: Question Framing and Response ConsistencySan Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 21–36.
229.
SmithA (1776) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell.
230.
SmithGF (1988) Towards a heuristic theory of problem structuring. Management Science34(12): 1489–1506.
231.
StanovichKEWestRF (2000) Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences23(5): 645–665.
232.
StawBM (1981) The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review6(4): 577–587.
233.
StreetCWardKW (2019) Cognitive bias in the peer review process: Understanding a source of friction between reviewers and researchers. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems50(4): 52–70.
234.
TanW-KTanC-HTeoH-H (2012) Consumer-based decision aid that explains which to buy: Decision confirmation or overconfidence bias?Decision Support Systems53: 127–141.
235.
TarafdarMDavisonRM (2018) Research in information systems: Intra-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approaches. Journal of the Association for Information Systems19(6): 523–551.
236.
TaylorHDillonSVan WingenM (2010) Focus and diversity in information systems research: Meeting the dual demands of a healthy applied discipline. MIS Quarterly34(4): 647–668.
237.
TegerA (1980) Too Much Invested to Quit. New York: Pergamon.
238.
TeigenKHMartinussenMLundT (1996) Linda versus World Cup: Conjunctive probabilities in three-event fictional and real-life predictions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making9: 77–93.
239.
TenbrunselAEMessickDM (2004) Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in unethical behaviour. Social Justice Research17(2): 223–236.
240.
*TeubnerTAdamMRiordanR (2015) The impact of computerized agents on immediate emotions, overall arousal and bidding behavior in electronic auctions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems16(10): 838–879.
241.
ThalerRH (1980) Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization1(1): 39–60.
242.
ThalerRH (2015) Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics. New York: W.W. Norton.
243.
ThalerRHSunsteinCR (2008) Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. London: Penguin Books.
244.
ThalerRHSunsteinCR (2009) Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Rev. edn). London: Penguin Books.
ThuringMJungermannH (1990) The conjunction fallacy: Causality vs. event probability. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making3(1): 51–74.
247.
TrieuV-H (2017) Getting value from business intelligence systems: A review and research agenda. Decision Support Systems93: 111–124.
248.
TummersJKassahunATekinerdoganB (2019) Obstacles and features of farm management information systems: A systematic literature review. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture157: 189–204.
249.
*TurelOQahri-SaremiH (2016) Problematic use of social networking sites: Antecedents and consequence from a dual-system theory perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems33(4): 1087–1116.
250.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1971) Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin76(2): 105–111.
251.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1973) Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology5: 207–232.
252.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science185: 1124–1131.
253.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science211: 453–458.
254.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty5(4): 297–323.
255.
VenkateshVDavisFDMorrisMG (2010) Dead or alive? The development, trajectory and future of technology adoption research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems8(4): 2567–2286.
256.
Von NeumannJMorgensternO (1944) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
257.
*WangJLiYRaoHR (2016) Overconfidence in phishing email detection. Journal of the Association for Information Systems17(11): 759–783.
WilsonTDWheatleyTMeyersJM, et al. (2000) Focalism: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology78(5): 821–836.
260.
WinterE (2014) Feeling Smart: Why Our Emotions Are More Rational Than We Think. New York: Public Affairs.
261.
*XuDJBenbasatICenfetelliRT (2017) A two-stage model of generating product advice: Proposing and testing the complementarity principle. Journal of Management Information Systems34(3): 826–862.
262.
XueYLiangHBoultonWR (2008) Information technology governance in information technology investment decision processes: The impact of investment characteristics, external environment, and internal context. MIS Quarterly32(1): 67–96.
263.
*YuJHuPJ-HChengT-H (2015) Role of affect in self-disclosure on social network websites: A test of two completing models. Journal of Management Information Systems32(2): 239–277.
264.
*ZhengHXuBHaoL, et al. (2018) Reversed loss aversion in crowdsourcing contest. European Journal of Information Systems27(4): 434–448.
