Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Countering Biases in Risk Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Enterprise Risk Management

  • 4444 Accesses

Abstract

Many risk management programmes in companies are not as effective as they could or should be. This is due to a number of frequently overlooked factors, such as motivational and cognitive biases. The topic of biases, although much theoretical and empirical literature exists, is still rarely addressed in relation to enterprise risk management. Many studies explicitly show that mistakes made in risk identification and risk assessment significantly distort results and decisions drawn from the risk management process. In the following, some of the most important biases in risk analysis and corresponding debiasing strategies are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Al-Shammari, M., & Masri, H. (2016). Ethical and Social Perspectives on Global Business Interaction in Emerging Markets. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70 (9), 1–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, T., Heiligtag, S., & Samandari, H. (2017). The business logic in debiasing. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/risk/our-insights/the-business-logic-in-debiasing. Accessed 17 December 2018.

  • Barnes, J. H. (1984). Cognitive Biases and Their Impact on Strategic Planning. Strategic Management Journal, 5 (2), 129–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J., Gowda, R., & Kunreuther, H. (1993). Attitudes toward managing hazardous waste: What should be cleaned up and who should pay for it? Risk Analysis, 13, 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01068.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassotti, M., Habib, M., Poirel, N., Aïte, A., Houdé, O., & Moutier, S. (2012). Positive emotional context eliminates the framing effect in decision-making. Emotion, 12 (5), 926–931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Celati, L. (2004). The Dark Side of Risk Management: How People Frame Decisions in Financial Markets. London: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherry, K. (2018a). Understanding the Optimism Bias. AKA the Illusion of Invulnerability. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-optimism-bias-2795031. Accessed 11 December 2018.

  • Cherry, K. (2018b). How the Status Quo Bias Affects Your Decisions. https://www.verywellmind.com/status-quo-bias-psychological-definition-4065385. Accessed 11 December 2018.

  • Clayton, M. (2011). Risk Happen: Managing risk and avoiding failure in buisness projects. London: Marshall Cavendish International.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bono, E. (1999). Six thinking hats. Boston: Back Bay Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobelli, R. (2018). Die Kunst des klaren Denkens. 52 Denkfehler, die Sie besser anderen überlassen. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1982). Conservatism in Human Information Processing (excerpted). In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmons, D. L., Mazzuchi, T. A., Sarkani, S., & Larsen, C. E. (2018). Mitigating cognitive biases in risk identification: Practitioner checklist for the aerospace sector. Defense Acquisition Research Journal, 25 (1), 52–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13 (1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1978). Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 330–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, H. H. (2017). Cognitive Biases that Interfere with Critical Thinking and Scientific Reasoning: A Course Module. SSRN Electronic Journal.http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2958800.

  • Gleißner, W. (2017). Grundlagen des Risikomanagements. Mit fundierten Informationen zu besseren Entscheidungen (3rd Ed.). München: Verlag Franz Vahlen.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grinnell, R. M., & Unrau, Y. A. (2018). Social Work Research and Evaluation. Foundations of Evidence-Based Practice (11th Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hossain, T., & Li, K. K. (2013). Crowding Out in the Labor Market: A Prosocial Setting Is Necessary. Management Science, 60 (5), 1148–1160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, D. W. (2009). The failure of risk management. Why it’s broken and how to fix it. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaba, A., Wishart, I., Fraser, K., Coderre, S., & McLaughlin, K. (2016). Are we at risk of groupthink in our approach to teamwork interventions in health care? Medical Education, 50 (4), 400–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2007). Short Course in Thinking About Thinking. https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kahneman07/kahneman07_index.html.

  • Kahneman, D. (2012). Schnelles Denken, langsames Denken (3rd Ed.). München: Siedler Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgement. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kamal, P. (2018). How To Spot These Cognitive Biases To Make You Smarter. And Strategies To Make It Work For You. https://medium.com/@piyush2911/how-to-spot-these-cognitive-biases-to-make-you-smarter-4649a82b5a6c. Accessed 22 November 2018.

  • Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1997). The effects of group cohesiveness on social loafing and social compensation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 156–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent Baker, H., & Puttonen, V. (2017). Investment Traps Exposed: Navigating Investor Mistakes and Behavioral Biases. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leitl, M. (2007). Social Loafing? Harvard Business Manager. http://www.harvardbusinessmanager.de/heft/artikel/a-622728.html. Accessed 20 November 2018.

  • Lermer, E., Streicher, B., & Sachs, R. (2014). Psychologische Einflüsse II: Risikoeinschätzung in Gruppen. https://www.munichre.com/site/corpo-rate/get/documents_E399088179/mr/assetpool.shared/Documents/0_Corporate_Webs-ite/1_The_Group/Focus/Emerging-Risks/2013-09-emerging-risk-discussion-paper-de.pdf. Accessed 20 November 2018.

  • Manktelow, J. (2005). Mind Tools. Essential skills for an excellent career (4th Ed.). Swindon, UK: Mind Tools Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCann, D. (2014). 10 cognitive biases that can trip up finance. CFO.com. http://ww2.cfo.com/forecasting/2014/05/10-cognitive-biases-can-trip-finance. Accessed 20 November 2018.

  • Memon, A. A., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2003). Psychology and Law: Truthfulness, Accuracy and Credibility (2nd Ed.). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1965). Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority. Human Relations, 18 (1), 57–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montibeller, G., & von Winterfeldt, D. (2015). Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 35 (7), 1230–1251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12 (2), 125–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moskaliuk, J. (2013). Warum Gruppen falsch entscheiden. https://www.wissensdialoge.de/hidden_profile. Accessed 20 November 2018.

  • Murata, A. (2017). Cultural Difference and Cognitive Biases as a Trigger of Critical Crashes or Disasters – Evidence from Case Studies of Human Factors Analysis. Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science, 7, 399–415. https://doi.org/10.4236/jbbs.2017.79029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redman, T. C. (2017). Root Out Bias from Your Decision-Making Process. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/03/root-out-bias-from-your-decision-making-process. Accessed 11 December 2018.

  • Rees, M. (2015). Business Risk and Simulation Modelling in Practice: Using Excel, VBA and @RISK. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scherrer, M. (2018). Menschlicher Faktor im Risikomanagement. Bachelor Thesis, Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharot, T. (2011). The optimism bias. Current Biology, 21 (23), R941–R945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shefrin, H. (2016). Behavioral Risk Management. Managing the Psychology That Drives Decisions and Influences Operational Risk. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sing, R., Ryvola R. (2018). Cognitive Biases in Climate Risk Management. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/RCRCCC%2Bcognitive%2Bbiases_5%2Bshortcuts.ppd. Accessed 18 January 2019.

  • Smith, E. D., & Bahill, A. T. (2009). Attribute Substitution in Systems Engineering. Systems Engineering (January 2009), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stangor, C. (2014). Principles of Social Psychology – 1st International Edition. https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/. Accessed 29 January 2019.

  • Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (6), 1467–1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Y., & Wang, H. (2010). Gambler’s fallacy, hot hand belief, and the time of patterns. Judgment and Decision Making, 5 (2), 124–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tentori, K., Crupi, V., & Russo, S. (2013). On the determinants of the conjunction fallacy: probability versus inductive confirmation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 142 (1), 235–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E., & Gardner, D. (2015). Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction. New York: Crown Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Decision Lab (n. d.). Affect Heuristic. https://thedecisionlab.com/bias/affect-heuristic/. Accessed 11 December 2018.

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5 (2), 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, R. F. (2012). How to Minimize Your Biases When Making Decisions. https://hbr.org/2012/09/how-to-minimize-your-biases-when. Accessed 21 November 2018.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rotkreuz, Switzerland

    Stefan Hunziker

Authors
  1. Stefan Hunziker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Hunziker .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hunziker, S. (2019). Countering Biases in Risk Analysis. In: Enterprise Risk Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25357-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25357-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-25356-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-25357-8

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation