VIÉS DE CONFIRMAÇÃO NA TOMADA DE DECISÕES DE INOVAÇÃO

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47820/recima21.v3i7.1744

Keywords:

Neuroeconomia, viés da confirmação

Abstract

Potential innovators need to overcome many challenges. One such challenge is confirmation bias in decision-making. Human evolution has programmed the brain to act quickly in the face of a threat in the environment. In this way, thinking and (instantaneously) acting rationally is almost impossible for most people. This causes several negative effects on decision-making, notably cognitive biases. For example, an entrepreneur who wants to launch a new product on the market tends to convince herself/himself that her/his product is innovative, ignoring evidence to the contrary, this being a confirmation bias. An innovative analysis of the causes and consequences of the confirmation bias in innovation decision-making is the main goal of this article.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

José Chavaglia Neto, Fundação Getúlio Vargas

Economista, professor de empreendedorismo e inovação na Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV Management). Professor convidado no programa de doutorado em Neuromarketing da Flórida Christian University (EUA), pesquisador no Observatório de Liderança FGV-NEOP, consultor de empresas, membro do conselho editorial do International Journal of Latest Trends in Finance and Economic Sciences, no Reino Unido e do International Journal of Innovation Studies, na Suíça. Professor auxiliar de marketing turístico na Universidade Europeia (Portugal). Doutor em Métodos Quantitativos e Mestre em Gestão Empresarial pelo Instituto Universitário de Lisboa ISCTE/IUL. M.B.A – em Gestão de Empresas pela Fundação Getúlio Vargas – FGV. Especialista em Controladoria e Finanças pela FCETM-MG. 

José António Candeias Bonito Filipe

Graduated in Economics by Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Master in Management Sciences by ISCTE-IUL, PhD in Quantitative Methods (Operations Research) by ISCTE-IUL; Aggregated in Quantitative Methods by ISCTE-IUL. He is Assistant Professor with Habilitation in ISCTE-IUL, former subdirector of Department of Mathematics. Member of ISTAR-IUL and BRU-IUL research groups. Research interests: Mathematics; Statistics; Stochastic Processes - Queues and Applied Probabilities; Game Theory; Applications to Economics, Management, Finance and Social Problems; Tourism; Environmental and Natural Resource Economics.

António Bento Ratão Caleiro

Doctor of Philosophy in Economics on 5/19/2001 from the European University Institute. He is Assistant Professor at the University of Évora, Assistant Professor at the University of Évora and Assistant Professor at the University of Évora School of Social Sciences. 

Anderson de Souza Sant'Anna, Fundação Getúlio Vargas

Adjunct Professor at the Department of General Administration and Human Resources at FGV EAESP. Visiting Professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette (USA). Researcher at the Security and Defense Observatory of the Escola Superior de Guerra (ESG). Head of the Future of Work Chair (WeMe). Brazilian Ambassador at the Management Executive Education Division (Academy of Management). Postdoctoral fellow at the Postgraduate Program in Psychoanalytic Theory at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). Doctor in Administration, Doctor in Architecture and Urbanism, Master in Administration, Specialist in Strategic Management and Graduate in Administration from the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG). Psychoanalyst Partner of the Círculo Psicanalítico de Minas Gerais (CPMG). Founding Member of the Lusophone Forum on Administration and Management (FLAG), Associate Member of the Sephora Institute for Lacanian Orientation Studies (UFRJ) and of the University Association for Research in Fundamental Psychopathology (AUPPF). Researcher at the Research Center for Work, Health and Organizational Effectiveness - CRITEOS (HEC Montreal), at the Center for Organizational Studies, Society and Subjectivity - NOSS (CEFET-MG), at the Center for Studies in Human Resources and Labor Relations - NERHURT (Pucminas ), of the Study Group on Entrepreneurial University (UNIFEMM/EMBRAPA).

References

Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 157–183.

Andrew, J. P. & Sirkin, H. L. (2006). Payback. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

Ariely, D. (2009). The end of rational Economics. Harvard Business Review. Available at https://hbr.org/2009/07/the-end-of-rational-economics, (Accessed on 28 June 2020).

Ariely, D. & Berns, G. (2010). Neuromarketing: the hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11 (4), 284–292.

Berns (2009). Iconoclast. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

Beshears, J. & Gino, F. (2015). Leaders as decision architects. Harvard Business Review. Available at https://hbr.org/2015/05/leaders-as-decision-architects, (Acessed on 22 November 2021).

Carter, R. (2009). Brain. London: DK.

Chavaglia, J., Filipe, J. A. & Caleiro, A. B. (2019). Creativity and innovation: a contribution of behavioral economics. International Journal of Innovation Studies. 3 (1), 12 - 21.

Chavaglia, J., Filipe, J. A., Ferreira, M. A. & Calliari, I. B. (2014). Motivation at work of Brazilian executives. International Journal of Latest Trends in Finance & Economic Sciences. 4 (2), 717 - 724.

Chavaglia, J., Filipe, J. A. & Ramalheiro, B. (2013). Neuroeconomics: the effect of context in decisions relating to the Brazilian electric sector. IIOAB Journal, 4 (3), pp 38 - 44.

Epstein, S.; Pacini, R.; Denes-Raj, V.; Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytic- rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390–405.

Evans, J.; Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.

Fox, J. (2015). From economic man to behavioral economics. Harvard Business Review, 93 (5), 79 – 85.

Frazzeto, G. (2013). How we feel – what science can – and can´t – tell us about our Emotions. New York: Doubleday.

Gary, L. (2006). Fighting cognitive deviations. Making Smart Decisions. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 109 – 116.

Gaudeul, A., Crossetto, P. & Riener, G. (2017). Better stuck together or free to go? Of the stability of cooperation when individuals have outside options. Journal of Economic Psychology, 59, 99 - 112.

Hippel, E. V., Thomke, S. & Sonnack, M. (1999). Creating breakthroughs at 3M. Harvard Business Review. Available at https://hbr.org/1999/09/creating-breakthroughs-at-3m, (Accessed on 20 January 2022).

Hodgkinson, G. P., & Healey, M. P. (2014). Coming in from the cold: The psychological foundations of radical innovation revisited. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(8), 1306–1313.

Kim, W. C. & Mauborgne, R. (1997). Value Innovation: The Strategic Logic of High Growth. Harvard Business Review. 103 - 112.

Kounios, J. & Beeman, M. (2015). The eureka factor: aha moments, creative insight, and the brain. Independently Published.

Krstić, M. (2012). The role of rules in the evolution of the market system: Hayek’s concept of evolutionary epistemology. Economic annals, 57(194), 123-140.

Krstić, M. (2014). Rational choice theory and addiction behaviour. Market-Tržište, 26(2), 163-177.

LeDoux, J. (1996). The emotional brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Social cognitive neuroscience: A review of core processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 259–289.

Lindstrom, M. (2008). Buyology: Truth and lies about why we buy. Sidney: Currency Press.

Loewenstein, G., Rick, S. & Cohen, J. D. (2008). Neuroeconomics. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 647 - 672.

Luca, M. (2021). Leaders: stop confusing correlation with causation. Harvard Business Review. Available at https://hbr.org/2021/11/leaders-stop-confusing-correlation-with-causation, (Accessed on 20 January 2022).

Sandroni, P. (2007). Dicionário de economia do século XXI. Rio de Janeiro: Record.

Schopenhauer, A. (2013). The art of literature. Star Publishing, e-book Kindle.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1983). The theory of economic development. Transaction Publishers, e-book Kindle.

Silva, R. & Filipe, J. A. (2013). The homo neuroeconomicus: a window for the future. IIOAB Journal, 4 (3), 31 - 37.

Soll, J. B., Milkman, K. L. & Payne, J. W. (2014). Outsmart your own biases, Harvard Business Review. Available at https://hbr.org/2015/05/outsmart-your-own-biases, (Accessed on 4 November 2021).

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

Thaler, R. & Sunstein, C. (2009). Nudge Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New York: Penguin Books.

Vergara, S. (2004). Projetos e relatórios de pesquisa em administração. São Paulo: Atlas.

Weinhold, B. (2006). Epigenetics: the science of change. Environmental Health Perspective. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392256/, (Accessed on 18 April 2021).

Downloads

Published

27/07/2022

How to Cite

Chavaglia Neto, J., Filipe, J. A. C. B., Bento Ratão Caleiro, A. ., & Sant’Anna, A. de S. (2022). VIÉS DE CONFIRMAÇÃO NA TOMADA DE DECISÕES DE INOVAÇÃO. RECIMA21 - Revista Científica Multidisciplinar - ISSN 2675-6218, 3(7), e371744. https://doi.org/10.47820/recima21.v3i7.1744

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 7 (2022): EDITORIAL - CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE ARTICLES

Section

ARTIGOS

Categories

License

Copyright (c) 2022 RECIMA21 - Revista Científica Multidisciplinar - ISSN 2675-6218

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Os direitos autorais dos artigos/resenhas/TCCs publicados pertecem à revista RECIMA21, e seguem o padrão Creative Commons (CC BY 4.0), permitindo a cópia ou reprodução, desde que cite a fonte e respeite os direitos dos autores  e contenham menção aos mesmos nos créditos. Toda e qualquer obra publicada na revista, seu conteúdo é de responsabilidade dos autores, cabendo a RECIMA21 apenas ser o veículo de divulgação, seguindo os padrões nacionais e internacionais de publicação.