Business Research

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 67–84

Path Dependence in Decision-Making Processes: Exploring the Impact of Complexity under Increasing Returns

  • Jochen Koch
  • Martin Eisend
  • Arne Petermann
Open Access
Article

Abstract

The development of path-dependent processes basically refers to positive feedback in terms of increasing returns as the main driving forces of such processes. Furthermore, path dependence can be affected by context factors, such as different degrees of complexity. Up to now, it has been unclear whether and how different settings of complexity impact path-dependent processes and the probability of lock-in. In this paper we investigate the relationship between environmental complexity and path dependence by means of an experimental study. By focusing on the mode of information load and decision quality in chronological sequences, the study explores the impact of complexity on decision-making processes. The results contribute to both the development of path-dependence theory and a better understanding of decision-making behavior under conditions of positive feedback. Since previous path research has mostly applied qualitative case-study research and (to a minor part) simulations, this paper makes a further contribution by establishing an experimental approach for research on path dependence.

Keywords

Complexity Decision-making Path dependence Lock-in 

References

  1. Ackermann, Rolf (2001): Pfadabhängigkeit, Institutionen und Regelreform, Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, Graham T. and Philip Zelikow (1971): Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis, Little, Brown and Co.: Boston.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, Philip, Gérard P. Cachon, and Paul H. Zipkin (1999): Complexity theory and organization science, Organization Science, 10 (3): 216–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arthur, Brian W. (1983): Competing technologies and lock-in by historical events: The dynamics of allocation under increasing returns, International Institute for Applied Sciences: Laxenburg.Google Scholar
  5. Arthur, Brian W. (1989): Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events, The Economic Journal, 99 (394): 116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arthur, Brian W. (1994): Increasing returns and path dependency in the economy, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  7. Åstebro, Thomas and Samir Elhedhli (2006): The effectiveness of simple decision heuristics: Forecasting commercial success for early-stage ventures, Management Science, 52 (3): 395–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986): The moderatormediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6): 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bassanini, Andrea P. and Giovanni Dosi (2000): Heterogeneous agents, complementarities, and diffusion. Do increasing returns imply convergence to international technological monopolies?, in: Domenico Dalli Gatti (ed.): Market structures, aggregation and heterogeneity, Springer: Berlin, New York, 185–206.Google Scholar
  10. Bazerman, Max H. (2006): Judgment in managerial decisionmaking, Wiley and Sons: New York.Google Scholar
  11. Betsch, Tilmann and Susanne Haberstroh (2005): Current research on routine decision making, in: Tilmann Betsch and Susanne Haberstroh (eds.): The routines of decision making, Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J., 359–376.Google Scholar
  12. Beyer, Jürgen (2005): Pfadabhängigkeit ist nicht gleich Pfadabhängigkeit! Wider den impliziten Konservatismus eines gängigen Konzepts, Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 34 (1): 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Beyer, Janice. M. (1981): Ideologies, values, and decision-making in organizations, in: Paul C. Nystrom and William H. Starbuck (eds.): Handbook of organizational design, Oxford, 166–202.Google Scholar
  14. Billings, Ralf S. and Simon A. Marcus (1983): Measures of compensatory and noncompensatory models of decision behavior: Process tracing versus policy capturing, Organizational behavior and Decision Processes, 31: 331–352.Google Scholar
  15. Boeker, Warren (1988): Organizational origins: Entrepreneurial and environmental imprinting at the time of founding, in: Glenn Carroll (ed.): Ecological models of organizations, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 33–51.Google Scholar
  16. Brunsson, Nils (1982): The irrationality of action and action rationality: Decisions ideologies and organizational actions, Journal of Management Studies, 19 (1): 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen, Michael D., James G. March, and Johan P. Olsen (1972): A garbage can model of organizational choice, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Collier, Ruht B. and David Collier (1991): Shaping the political arena: Critical junctures, the labor movement, and regime dynamics in Latin America, Princeton University Press: Princeton, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  19. Crozier, Michel (1995): Bounded rationality, hyper-rationalization and the use of social science knowledge, in: Massimo Warglien and Michael Masuch (eds.): The Logic of Organizational Disorder, de Gruyter: Berlin, New York, 193–198.Google Scholar
  20. Cusumano, Michael A., Yiorgos Mylonadis, and Richard S. Rosenbloom (1992): Strategic Maneuvering and Mass-Market Dynamics: The Triumph of VHS over Beta. Business History Review, 66 (1): 51–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. David, Paul A. (1985): Clio and the economics of QWERTY, The American Economic Review, 75 (2): 332–337.Google Scholar
  22. David, Paul A. (1986): Understanding the economics of QWERTY: The necessity of history, in: William N. Parker (ed.): Economic history and the modern economist, Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, 30–49.Google Scholar
  23. David, Paul A. (1993): Path-dependence and predictability in dynamic systems with local network externalities: A paradigm for historical economics, in: Dominique Foray and Christopher Freeman (eds.): Technology and the wealth of nations: The dynamics of constructed advantage, Printer Publishers: London, 208–231.Google Scholar
  24. David, Paul A. (2001): Path dependence, its critics and the quest for “historical economics”, in: Patrick Garrouste (ed.): Evolution and path dependence in economic ideas: Past and present, Edgar Elgar Publishing limited: Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, USA, 15–40.Google Scholar
  25. Einhorn, Hillel J. and Robin M. Hogarth (1981): Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgement and choice, Journal of Accounting Research, 19 (1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Festinger, Leon (1957): A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press: Stanford.Google Scholar
  27. Ford, J. Kevin, Neal Schmitt, Susan L. Schechtman, Brian M. Hults, and Mary L. Doherty (1989): Process tracing methods: Contributions, problems, and neglected research questions, Organisational Behaviour and Decision Processes, 43 (1): 75–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gigerenzer, Gerd and Peter M. Todd (1999): Fast and frugal heuristics. The adaptive toolbox, in: Gerd Gigerenzer, Peter M. Todd, and ABC Research Group (eds.): Simple heuristics that makes us smart, Oxford University Press: New York, 3–34.Google Scholar
  29. Gini, Corrado (1921): Measurement of inequality and incomes, The Economic Journal, 31: 124–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goldstein, Daniel G. and Gerd Gigerenzer (2002): Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic, Psychological Review, 109: 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greif, Avner (1994): Cultural beliefs and the organization of society: A historical and theoretical reflection on collectivist and individualist societies, Journal of Political Economy, 102 (5): 912–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harvey, Nigel (2007): Use of heuristics: Insights from forecasting research, Thinking and Reasoning, 13 (1): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harvey, Nigel and Ilan Fischer (2005): Development of experience- based judgement and decision making: The role of outcome feedback. In: Tilmann Betsch and Susanne Haberstroh (eds.): The routines of decision making, Erlbaum: Mahwah, N. J., 119–137.Google Scholar
  34. Hendry, John (2000): Strategic decision-making, discourse and strategy as social practice, Journal of Management Studies, 37 (7): 955–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hogarth, Robin M., Brian J. Gibbs, Craig R. M. McKenzie, and Margaret A. Marquis (1991): Learning from feedback: Exactingness and incentives, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17 (4): 734–752.Google Scholar
  36. Jonas, Eva, Stefan Schulz-Hardt, Dieter Frey, and Norman Thelen (2001): Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (4): 557–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Koch, Jochen (2008): Strategic paths and media management, Schmalenbach Business Review, 60: 50–73.Google Scholar
  38. Liebowitz, Stan J. and Stephan E. Margolis (1990): The fable of the keys, Journal of Law an Economics, 33 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liebowitz Stan J. and Stephan E. Margolis (1994): Network externality: An uncommon tragedy, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 86(2): 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liebowitz, Stan J. and Stephan E. Margolis (1995): Path dependence, lock-in, and history. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 11(1): 205–226.Google Scholar
  41. Luhmann, Niklas. (1995): Social systems, Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  42. MacKinnon, David P., Amanda J. Fairchild, and Matthew S. Fritz (2007): Mediation analysis, Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 593–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mahoney, James (2000): Path dependence in historical sociology, Theory and Society, 29: 507–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. March, James G. (1994): A primer on decision-making, New York.Google Scholar
  45. Miller, Danny (1993): The architecture of simplicity, Academy of Management Review, 18 (1): 116–138.Google Scholar
  46. Miller, Kent D. (2002): Knowledge inventories and managerial myopia, Strategic Management Journal, 23 (8): 689–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mintzberg, Henry, Duru Raisinghani, and Andre Théorêt (1976): The structure of “unstructured” decision processes, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 246–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. North, Douglass. C. (1990): Institutions, institutional change and economic performance, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Payne, John W. (1976): Task complexity and contingent processing in decision-making: An information search and protocol analysis, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 366–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pettigrew, Andrew M. (1973): The politics of organizational decision-making, Tavistock: London.Google Scholar
  51. Pierson, Paul (2000): Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics, American Political Science Review, 94: 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pierson, Paul (2004): Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis, Princeton University Press: Princeton.Google Scholar
  53. Rieskamp, Jörg and Ulrich Hoffrage (1999): When do people use simple heuristics and how can we tell? In: Gerd Gigerenzer, Peter M. Todd, and ABC Research Group (eds.): Simple heuristics that makes us smart, Oxford University Press: New York, 141–167.Google Scholar
  54. Regibeau, Pierre (1995): Defending the concept of network externalities: A discussion of Liebowitz and Margolis, Research in Law and Economics, 17: 33–39.Google Scholar
  55. Roethlisberger, Fritz J. and William J. Dickson (1939): Management and the worker: An account of a research program conducted by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works: Chicago.Google Scholar
  56. Sevdalis, Nick and Nigel Harvey (2007): “Investing” versus “investing for a reason”: Context effects in investment decisions, The Journal of Behavioral Finance, 8 (3): 172–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Simon, Herbert A. (1987): Rational decision-making in business organizations, in: Leonard Green and John H. Kagel (eds.): Advances in behavioral economics 1, Ablex: Norwood, 18–47.Google Scholar
  58. Simon, Herbert A. (1990): Invariants of human behaviour, Annual Review of Psychology, 41: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Simon, Herbert A. (1991): Cognitive architectures and rational analysis: Comment, in: Kurt Van Lehn (ed.): Architectures of intelligence, Erlbaum: Hillsdale, 25–39.Google Scholar
  60. Staw, Barry M. (1997): The escalation of commitment: An update and appraisal, in: Zur Shapira (ed.): Organizational decisionmaking, Cambridge University Press: New York, 191–215.Google Scholar
  61. Sydow, Jörg, Georg Schreyögg, and Jochen Koch (2005): Organizational paths: Path dependency and beyond, Working Paper, Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  62. Sydow, Jörg, Georg Schreyögg, and Jochen Koch (2009): Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34: forthcoming.Google Scholar
  63. Thelen, Kathleen (2003): How institutions evolve. Insights from Comparative Historical Analyses, in: James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (eds.): Comparative Historical Analyses in the Social Sciences, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 208–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Timmermans, Danielle (1993): The impact of task complexity on information use in multi-attribute decision-making, Journal of Behavioral Decision-making, 6: 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Todd, Peter M. (2007): How much information do we need? European Journal of Operational Research, 177 (3): 1317–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tripsas, Mary and Giovanni Gavetti (2000): Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging, Strategic Management Journal, 21, Special Issue 10/11): 1147–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1974): Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185: 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Weick, Karl E. and Kathleen M. Sutcliff (2001): Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jochen Koch
    • 1
  • Martin Eisend
    • 2
  • Arne Petermann
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Management and OrganizationEuropean University ViadrinaFrankfurt (Oder)Germany
  2. 2.Department of International MarketingEuropean University ViadrinaFrankfurt (Oder)Germany
  3. 3.Institute of ManagementFreie Universität BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations