检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
出 处:《工业工程与管理》2017年第1期107-114,共8页Industrial Engineering and Management
基 金:国家自然科学基金面上和青年科学基金资助项目(71571051;71101032);广东省自然科学基金资助项目(2015A030313492)
摘 要:应用实验室和心理测量等方法,在高利润环境下研究了理性与经验决策者对于报童问题的订货决策差异及其原因。研究发现:相对于弱理性风格决策者,强理性风格决策者的订货量更接近最优订货量,所获得的期望利润更高,且表现出更低的需求追逐、中心化锚定和过度自信偏好;而相对于弱经验风格决策者,强经验风格决策者的订货量更偏离最优订货量,所获得的期望利润更低,且表现出更高的需求追逐、中心化锚定以及过度自信偏好。这些研究发现可为相关管理人员的选择及其订货决策的改善,提供理论支持和实践指导。The differences of rational and experiential decision-makers in ordering behaviorsunder high profit environment were studied with applied laboratory experiments and psychologicalmetrics approaches. It is found that individuals with high rational decision style can have betterorder quantities, larger profits, and exhibit lower tendencies towards demand-chasing, mean-anchoring and overconfidence than those with low rational decision style. Compared withindividuals with low experiential decision style, individuals with high experiential style have worseorder quantities, smaller profits, and higher tendencies to demand-chasing, mean-anchoring andoverconfidence. These findings shed light on improving decision more efficiently throughrecognizing the differences of decision-making styles.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.30