Impact of Cognitive Biases on Environmental Compliance Risk Perceptions in International Construction Projects

Overview

Journal Front Psychol

Date 2024 Dec 6

PMID 39640039

Authors

Tengyuan Chang

Yuxuan Du

Xiaopeng Deng

Xianru Wang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: This research explores the complex interplay between cognitive biases and Environmental Compliance Risk Perception (ECRP) in international construction projects. Understanding such a relationship is essential as it can have significant implications for the success and environmental sustainability of these projects.

Methods: This study analyzed a scenario-based questionnaire survey conducted with 270 international construction practitioners. It employed Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to identify the influencing factors of cognitive biases and their impact on ECRP. The factors considered included individual, organizational, and project-specific aspects.

Results: The analysis revealed that Cultural Bias (CuB), Confirmation Bias (CoB), and Short-Termism (ST) significantly influence ECRP. These biases are affected by a complex interplay of the aforementioned antecedents.

Discussion: Based on the results, an innovative framework for evaluating ECRP was proposed. Additionally, a management strategy was developed to recognize and mitigate the cognitive biases of professionals during the bidding and execution phases of international construction projects. By clarifying the factors influencing cognitive biases and their complex relationship with ECRP, this research emphasizes the importance of addressing employee cognitive biases in conjunction with improving environmental awareness in environmental compliance management. It fills a crucial gap in the existing literature and offers international contractors strategies to reduce these biases, thereby enhancing their environmental protection capabilities and minimizing potential negative environmental impacts from international construction projects, which is vital for advancing sustainable development.

References

Chang T, Wu Y, Deng X, Wang X, Yan Y . The impact of environmental stimuli on the psychological and behavioral compliance of international construction employees. Front Psychol. 2024; 15:1395400. PMC: 11196848. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1395400. View

Kitayama S, Park J . Cultural neuroscience of the self: understanding the social grounding of the brain. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010; 5(2-3):111-29. PMC: 2894676. DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsq052. View

Sorqvist P, Langeborg L . Why People Harm the Environment Although They Try to Treat It Well: An Evolutionary-Cognitive Perspective on Climate Compensation. Front Psychol. 2019; 10:348. PMC: 6409851. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00348. View

Blackstock K, Ingram J, Burton R, Brown K, Slee B . Understanding and influencing behaviour change by farmers to improve water quality. Sci Total Environ. 2009; 408(23):5631-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.04.029. View

van der Gaag M, Schutz C, Ten Napel A, Landa Y, Delespaul P, Bak M . Development of the Davos assessment of cognitive biases scale (DACOBS). Schizophr Res. 2013; 144(1-3):63-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2012.12.010. View

Joslyn S, Sinatra G, Morrow D . Risk perception, decision-making, and risk communication in the time of COVID-19. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2022; 27(4):579-583. DOI: 10.1037/xap0000407. View

Johnson B, Swedlow B . Cultural Theory's Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research. Risk Anal. 2019; 41(3):429-455. DOI: 10.1111/risa.13299. View

Wen X, Xu L, Wang J, Gao Y, Shi J, Zhao K . Mental States: A Key Point in Scam Compliance and Warning Compliance in Real Life. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(14). PMC: 9317489. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19148294. View

Baron J . Individual Mental Abiities vs. the World's Problems. J Intell. 2019; 6(2). PMC: 6480718. DOI: 10.3390/jintelligence6020023. View

10.

Hart W, Albarracin D, Eagly A, Brechan I, Lindberg M, Merrill L . Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychol Bull. 2009; 135(4):555-88. PMC: 4797953. DOI: 10.1037/a0015701. View

11.

Wu T, Wang Y, Ruan R, Zheng J . Divergent effects of transformational leadership on safety compliance: A dual-path moderated mediation model. PLoS One. 2022; 17(1):e0262394. PMC: 8786187. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262394. View

12.

Ji L, Nisbett R, Su Y . Culture, change, and prediction. Psychol Sci. 2002; 12(6):450-6. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00384. View

13.

Jonas E, Frey D, Thelen N . Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: an expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001; 80(4):557-71. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.80.4.557. View

14.

Joffe H . Risk: from perception to social representation. Br J Soc Psychol. 2003; 42(Pt 1):55-73. DOI: 10.1348/014466603763276126. View

15.

dos Santos R, Guevara A, Amorim M, Ferraz-Neto B . Compliance and leadership: the susceptibility of leaders to the risk of corruption in organizations. Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2012; 10(1):1-10. DOI: 10.1590/s1679-45082012000100003. View

16.

Philander K . Meme asset wagering: Perceptions of risk, overconfidence, and gambling problems. Addict Behav. 2022; 137:107532. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2022.107532. View

17.

Aberegg S, Haponik E, Terry P . Omission bias and decision making in pulmonary and critical care medicine. Chest. 2005; 128(3):1497-505. DOI: 10.1378/chest.128.3.1497. View

18.

Broom A . Virtually he@lthy: the impact of internet use on disease experience and the doctor-patient relationship. Qual Health Res. 2005; 15(3):325-45. DOI: 10.1177/1049732304272916. View

19.

Young D, Goodie A, Hall D, Wu E . Decision making under time pressure, modeled in a prospect theory framework. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2012; 118(2):179-188. PMC: 3375992. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.005. View

20.

Tversky A, Kahneman D . Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 1974; 185(4157):1124-31. DOI: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. View