What type of study is this?

This is a Quantitative Study study (also classified as: Cross-Sectional Study).

September 17, 2025Open Access

Direct effects of overconfidence, herding and decision avoidance biases on evaluating and searching information in Singaporean workplace decision-making

Key Points

Overconfidence bias significantly increases both evaluating information and searching information in decision-making.
Herding bias positively correlates with effective information evaluation and searching, supporting group dynamics in decision-making.
Decision avoidance bias negatively impacts evaluating information and searching information, highlighting the challenges in decision-making.
Study based on a cross-sectional survey of 365 employees from Singapore, providing relevant insights into workplace decision-making.

Abstract

Purpose: This study empirically investigates the direct relationships between three prominent cognitive biases (i.e. overconfidence bias OB, herding bias HB and decision avoidance bias AB) and two crucial stages of workplace decision-making (i.e. evaluating information EI and searching information SI). Design/methodology/approach: A mono-quantitative, cross-sectional survey was conducted amongst 365 employees in Singapore. Statistical techniques such as paired sample t-tests, correlation analysis and multiple regression were employed.Findings: Results indicated that OB significantly and positively correlates with EI (r = 0.582, p 0.001) and SI (r = 0.537, p 0.001). Similarly, HB exhibits a significant positive relationship with EI (r = 0.340, p 0.001) and SI (r = 0.418, p 0.001). By contrast, AB demonstrates a significant negative relationship with EI (r = −0.209, p 0.001) and SI (r = −0.171, p 0.001).Originality: This work extends research on decision-making biases beyond financial and investment contexts by examining their role in workplace settings. It contributes to behavioural economics and organisational studies by offering empirical evidence from Singapore, a context underrepresented in existing literature.Research limitations/implications: This study focused on only three biases within a cross-sectional quantitative design, which may be affected by survey errors and outliers. Future research should test additional biases, stages and moderating factors across industries, regions and disciplines to build a more comprehensive understanding of workplace decision-making.Practical implications: The research contributes to a better understanding of organisational decision-making practices for employees in the workplace when heuristics and biases are present. It raises awareness among organisations and provides a foundation for future research to strengthen decision-making practices.

AI से पूछें

Bookmark

View Full Paper