Cognitive Antecedents of Family Business Bias in Investment Decisions: A Commentary on “Risky Decisions and the Family Firm Bias: An Experimental Study based on Prospect Theory”
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2019
Cognitive Antecedents of Family Business Bias in Investment Decisions: A Commentary on “Risky Decisions and the Family Firm Bias: An Experimental Study based on Prospect Theory”
Lude and Prügl explored “family business bias,” a cognitive tendency where the family nature of a firm can often reduce investors’ perceived risk in investments. As a result, investors would display lower risk-avoidance in the gain domain and reinforced risk-seeking in the loss domain. We expanded the authors’ work by introducing four cognitive factors (anchoring, representativeness, stereotype heuristic, and information availability) that can explain the underlying mechanisms behind the prevalence of “family business bias” and other cognitive misperceptions surrounding family businesses when it comes to investment decisions.
BowenM. (1993) Family therapy in clinical practice, Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson.
2.
ChuaJ. H.ChrismanJ. J.SteierL. P.RauS. B. (2012) Sources of heterogeneity in family firms: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice36(6): 1103–1113.
3.
DuranP.KammerlanderN.Van EssenM.ZellwegerT. (2016) Doing more with less: Innovation input and output in family firms. Academy of Management Journal59(4): 1224–1264.
4.
GigerenzerG.GaissmaierW. (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology62: 451–482.
5.
HammondJ. S.KeeneyR. L.RaiffaH. (1998) The hidden traps in decision making. Harvard Business Review76(5): 47–58.
6.
HauswaldH.HackA. (2013) Impact of family control/influence on stakeholders’ perceptions of benevolence. Family Business Review26(4): 356–373.
7.
IyerG. R. (1999) The impact of religion and reputation in the organization of Indian merchant communities. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing14(2): 102–121.
8.
KahnemanD. (2003) Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review93(5): 1449–1475.
9.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1972) Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology3(3): 430–454.
10.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society47(2): 263–291.
11.
LiH. (2010) Reputation, accounting information and debt contracts in Chinese family firms. China Journal of Accounting Research3: 95–129.
12.
Lude, M., & Prügl, R. (2019). Risky decisions and the family firm bias: An experimental study based on prospect theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice43(2), 386–408.
13.
MorckR.YeungB. (2004) Family control and the rent-seeking society. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice28(4): 391–409.
14.
NadeauR.CloutierE.GuayJ. H. (1993) New evidence about the existence of a bandwagon effect in the opinion formation process. International Political Science Review14(2): 203–213.
15.
SagederM.MitterC.Feldbauer-DurstmüllerB. (2016) Image and reputation of family firms: A systematic literature review of the state of research. Review of Managerial Science12(1): 335–377.
16.
SiauK.WandY.BenbasatI. (1997) The relative importance of structural constraints and surface semantics in information modeling. Information Systems22(2&3): 155–170.
17.
SimonH. A. (1990) Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology41(1): 1–20.
18.
SteinfeldJ. (2015) Little emperors and material girls: Youth and sex in Modern China, London: IB Tauris.
19.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science185: 1124–1131.
20.
ZellwegerT.KammerlanderN. (2015) Family, wealth, and governance: An agency account. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice39(6): 1281–1303.
