The Effect of Cognitive Style and Sponsorship Bias on the
Treatment of Opportunity Costs in Resources Allocation Decisions
(Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Lambung Mangkurat, Banjarmasin)
The current research seeks to identify factors that may potentially influence the way managers respond to opportunity costs when relevant data are not explicitly provided. Identification of such factors should enhance our understanding of why some managers respond to opportunity costs in ways that may be inconsistent with normative economic theory. This information could then be used to identify those situations in which structural and procedural precautions are necessary to correct limitations and biases in human information processing and so ensure the correct treatment of opportunity costs.
Disability of individual processes of perception dimension of Jungs’ typology on research of Chenhall & Morris (1991) to explain difference of managers’ way to making decision, lead us to research questions are: first, which cognitive style combination have a proclivity to incorporate implicit opportunity costs in their economic analysis? Second, used of two dimensions of cognitive style, will project sponsorship encourage managers to ignore negative economic signals derived from opportunity costs that are nevertheless relevant to the resource allocation decision?
A laboratory experiment with 2x4 factorial designs was used to investigating the effect of cognitive style on the managers’ decision of opportunity costs in situation of absence sponsorship or not. The results indicated that intuitive managers tended to incorporate opportunity costs in their decisions whereas sensation individuals appeared to focus more on the directness of the relationship between expenditure and a project to determine the relevance of the cost. Opportunity cost implications tended not to be identified by the sensation group. Evidence was found that sponsorship moderated the influence of cognitive style on decision to include opportunity costs.
Keywords: Cognitive style, sponsorship bias, and opportunity cost