Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Review of Law & Economics

Editor-in-Chief: Parisi, Francesco

Ed. by Cooter, Robert D. / Gómez Pomar, Fernando / Kornhauser, Lewis A. / Parchomovsky, Gideon / Engel, Christoph

3 Issues per year


CiteScore 2017: 0.30

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.195
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.410

Online
ISSN
1555-5879
See all formats and pricing
Online
Institutional Subscription
€ [D] 216.00 / US$ 290.00 / GBP 177.00*
Individual Subscription
€ [D] 49.00 / US$ 74.00 / GBP 40.00*
*Prices in US$ apply to orders placed in the Americas only. Prices in GBP apply to orders placed in Great Britain only. Prices in € represent the retail prices valid in Germany (unless otherwise indicated). Prices are subject to change without notice. Prices do not include postage and handling if applicable. RRP: Recommended Retail Price.
More options …
Volume 10, Issue 2

Issues

Volume 14 (2018)

Volume 13 (2017)

Volume 12 (2016)

Volume 11 (2015)

Volume 10 (2014)

Volume 9 (2013)

Volume 8 (2012)

Volume 7 (2011)

Volume 6 (2010)

Volume 5 (2009)

Volume 4 (2008)

Volume 3 (2007)

Volume 2 (2006)

Volume 1 (2005)

Cognitive Biases in Government Procurement – An Experimental Study

Omer Dekel / Amos Schurr
Published Online: 2014-07-02 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2014-0019

30,00 € / $42.00 / £23.00

Get Access to Full Text

Abstract

Competitive bidding (CB) is the dominant governmental contracting mechanism by which hundreds of billions of dollars are allocated annually. We claim that when bid evaluators assess the qualitative components of competing bids while being exposed to the bid prices, a systematic bias occurs that gives an unjust advantage to the lower bidder. We term this the Lower-Bid Bias. It is then shown that this bias can be neutralized by splitting the evaluation process into two stages, whereby bid price is revealed only after the evaluation process has culminated (two-stage CB). This is demonstrated through the findings of a survey and three controlled experiments, the first to be conducted with procurement officials. We also explain why this bias is undesirable and suggest a mandatory rule, requiring two-stage CB for any competitive public procurement based on evaluation criteria other than price. Further applications of the experiments’ findings are also discussed.

Keywords: behavioral economics; public procurement; cognitive bias

References

  • Ask, K., and P. A. Granhag. 2007. “Motivational Bias in Criminal Investigators’ Judgments of Witness Reliability,” 37 Journal of Applied Social Psychology 561–591.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Backwith, N. E., and D. R. Lehmann. 1975. “The Importance of Halo Effects in Multi-Attribute Attitude Models,” 12 Journal of Marketing Research 265–275.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bazerman, M., D. A. Moore, A. E. Tenbrunsel, K. Wade-Benzoni, and S. Blount. 1999. “Explaining How Preferences Change Across Joint Versus Separate Evaluation,” 39 Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 41–58.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bertrand, M., and S. Mullainathan. 2004. “Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination,” 94 The American Economic Review 991–1013.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Blank, R. M. 1991. “The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence From the American Economic Review,” 81 The American Economic Review 1041–1067.Google Scholar

  • Blume, J. H. 2008. “The Dilemma of the Criminal Defendant with a Prior Record – Lessons from the Wrongfully Convicted,” 5 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 477–505.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bornmann, L., and H.-D. Daniel. 2006. “Potential Sources of Bias in Research Fellowship Assessments: Effects of University Prestige and Field of Study,” 15 Research Evaluation 209–219.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bornmann, L., R. Mutz, and H.-D. Daniel. 2007. “Gender Differences in Grant Peer Review: A Meta-Analysis,” 1 Journal of Informetrics 226–238.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brucks, M., V. A. Zeithaml, and G. Naylor. 2000. “Price and Brand Name as Indicators of Quality Dimensions for Consumer Durables,” 28 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 359–374.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Carlson, K. A., and J. E. Russo. 2001. “Biased Interpretation of Evidence by Mock Jurors,” 7 Journal of Experimental Psychology 91–103.Google Scholar

  • Cramton, P. C. 1995. “Money Out of Thin Air: The Nationwide Narrowband PCS Auction,” 4 Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 267–343.Google Scholar

  • Danziger, S., J. Levav, and L. Avnaim-Pesso. 2011. “Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions,” 108 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 6889–6892.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Edwards, K., and E. E. Smith. 1996. “A Disconfirmation Bias in the Evaluation of Arguments,” 71 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 5–24.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eerland, A., and E. Rassin. 2012. “Biased Evaluation of Incriminating and Exonerating (Non)Evidence,” 18 Psychology, Crime and Law 351–358.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eisenberg, T., and V. P. Hans. 2009. “Taking a Stand on Taking the Stand: The Effect of a Prior Criminal Record on the Decision to Testify and on Trial Outcomes,” 94 Cornell Law Review 1353–1390.Google Scholar

  • Federal Procurement Data System – Next Generation. https://www.fpds.gov/Reports/manage/jsp/myReportsController.jsp (last updated June 2013).

  • Feldblum, C. R. 1991. “Medical Examinations and Inquiries Under the Americans with Disabilities Act: A View From the Inside,” 64 Temple Law Review 521–549.Google Scholar

  • Felton, J., J. B. Mitchell, and M. Stinson. 2004. “Web-Based Student Evaluations of Professors: The Relations Between Perceived Quality, Easiness, and Sexiness,” 29 Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 91–108.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Goldin, C., and C. Rouse. 2000. “Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of ‘Blind’ Auditions on Female Musicians,” 90 The American Economic Review 715–741.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Guthrie, C., J. J. Rachlinski, and A. J. Wistrich. 2009. “The ‘Hidden Judiciary’: An Empirical Examination of Executive Branch Justice,” 58 Duke Law Journal 1477–1530.Google Scholar

  • Hans, V. P., and A. N. Doob. 1976. “Section 12 of the Canada Evidence Act and the Deliberations of Simulated Juries,” 18 Criminal Law Quarterly 235–253.Google Scholar

  • Hsee, C. K. 1996. “The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives,” 67 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 247–257.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hsee, C. K., G. F. Loewenstein, S. Blount, and M. H. Bazerman. 1999. “Preference Reversals Between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis,” 125 Psychological Bulletin 576–590.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hsee, C. K., and J. Zhang. 2010. “General Evaluability Theory,” 5 Perspectives of Psychological Science 343–355.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jayasinghe, U. W., W. H. Marsh, and N. W. Bond. 2006. “A New Reader Trial Approach to Peer Review in Funding Research Grants: An Australian Experiment,” 69 Scientometrics 591–606.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jolls, C., and C. R. Sunstein. 2006. “Debiasing Through Law,” 35 Journal of Legal Studies 199–241.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar

  • Klemperer, P. 2002. “What Really Matters in Auction Design,” 16 Journal of Economic Perspectives 169–189.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kunda, Z. 1987. “Motivation and Inference: Self-Serving Generation and Evaluation of Evidence,” 53 J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 636–647.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kunda, Z. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,” 108 Psychological Bulletin 480–498.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Kwerel, E. R., and G. L. Rosston. 2000. “An Insider’s View of FCC Spectrum Auctions,” 17 Journal of Regulatory Economics 253–289.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lichtenstein, S., and P. Slovic. 1971. “Reversal of Preferences Between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decisions,” 89 Journal of Experimental Psychology 46–55.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lord, C. G., L. Ross, and M. R. Lepper. 1979. “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence,” 37 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2098–2019.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Marsh, H. W., U. W. Jayasinghe, and N. W. Bond. 2008. “Improving the Peer-Review Process for Grant Applications: Reliability, Validity, Bias, and Generalizability,” 63 American Psychologist 160–168.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McAfee, P. R., and J. McMillan. 1996. “Analyzing the Airwaves Auction,” 10 Journal of Economic Perspectives 159–175.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Milgrom, P. 2004. Putting Auction Theory to Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Newman, J. M. 1978. “Discrimination in Recruitment: An Empirical Analysis,” 32 Industrial and Labor Relations Review 15–23.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nickerson, R. S. 1998. “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises,” 2 Review of General Psychology 175–220.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nisbett, R. E., and T. D. Wilson. 1977. “The Halo Effect: Evidence for Unconscious Alteration of Judgments,” 35 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 250–256.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nowlis, S. M., B. E. Kahn, and R. Dhar. 2002. “Coping with Ambivalence: The Effect of Removing a Neutral Option on Consumer Attitude and Preference Judgments,” 29 Journal of Consumer Research 319–334.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nowlis, S. M., and I. Simonson. 1997. “Attribute-Task Compatibility as a Determinant of Consumer Preference Reversals,” 34 Journal of Marketing Research 205–218.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • O’Brian, B. 2009. “Prime Suspect: An Examination of Factors That Aggravate and Counteract Confirmation Bias in Criminal Investigations,” 15 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 315–334.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pronin, E., and M. B. Kugler. 2007. “Valuing Thoughts, Ignoring Behavior: The Introspection Illusion as a Source of the Bias Blind Spot,” 43 Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 565–578.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rachlinski, J. J. 2012. “Judicial Psychology,” 2 Rechtstreeks 15–34.Google Scholar

  • Rachlinski, J. J., C. Guthrie, and A. J. Wistrich. 2006. “Inside the Bankruptcy Judge’s Mind,” 86 Boston University Law Review 1227–1265.Google Scholar

  • Rao, A. R., and K. B. Monroe. 1989. “The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and Store Name on Buyers Perceptions of Product Quality: An Integrative Review,” 26 Journal of Marketing Research 351–357.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rassin, E., A. Eerland, and I. Kuijpers. 2010. “Let’s Find the Evidence: An Analogue Study of Confirmation Bias in Criminal Investigations,” 7 Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 231–246.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ross, L., M. R. Lepper, and M. Hubbard. 1975. “Perseverance in Self Perception and Social Perception: Biased Attributional Processes in the Debriefing Paradigm,” 32 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 880–892.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Shafir, E. 1993. “Choosing Versus Rejecting: Why Some Options Are Both Better and Worse Than Others,” 21 Memory & Cognition 546–556.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Shanteau, J. 1988. “Psychological Characteristics and Strategies of Expert Decision Makers,” 68 Acta Psychologica 203–215.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Shiv, B., Z. Carmon, and D. Ariely. 2005. “Placebo Effects of Marketing Actions: Consumers May Get What They Pay for,” 42 Journal of Marketing Research 383–393.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Simonson, I. 2008. “Will I Like a ‘Medium’ Pillow? Another Look at Constructed and Inherent Preferences,” 18 Journal of Consumer Psychology 155–169.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Smith, N. C., D. Read, and S. López-Rodríguez. 2010. “Consumer Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: The CSR Halo Effect.” INSEAD Working Paper No. 2010/16/INSEAD Social Innovation Centre, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1577000 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1577000.

  • Taylor, C. R., and H. Yildirim. 2011. “Subjective Performance and the Value of Blind Evaluation,” 78 The Review of Economic Studies 762–794.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Thorndike, E. L. 1920. “A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings,” IV Journal of Applied Psychology 25–29.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1983. “Extensional Versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment,” 90 Psychological Review 293–315.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1986. “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions,” 59 The Journal of Business 251–278.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tversky, A., S. Sattath, and P. Slovic. 1988. “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice,” 95 Psycological Review 371–384.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tversky, A., P. Slovic, and D. Kahneman. 1990. “The Causes for Preference Reversal,” 80 The American Economic Review 204–217.Google Scholar

  • Tversky, A., and R. H. Thaler. 1990. “Anomalies: Preference Reversals,” 4 The Journal of Economic Perspectives 201–211.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wistrich, A. J., C. Gutherie, and J. J. Rachlinski. 2005. “Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty of Deliberately Disregarding,” 153 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1251–1345.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2014-07-02

Published in Print: 2014-07-01

Citation Information: Review of Law & Economics, Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 169–200, ISSN (Online) 1555-5879, ISSN (Print) 2194-6000, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2014-0019.

Export Citation

©2014 by De Gruyter.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in