Impact of Information Provision on Decision-Making
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47941/ijecop.1765Keywords:
Information Provision, Decision-Making, Stakeholders, Ethical ConsiderationsAbstract
Purpose: The general purpose of the study was to explore the impact of information provision on decision making.
Methodology: The study adopted a desktop research methodology. Desk research refers to secondary data or that which can be collected without fieldwork. Desk research is basically involved in collecting data from existing resources hence it is often considered a low cost technique as compared to field research, as the main cost is involved in executive's time, telephone charges and directories. Thus, the study relied on already published studies, reports and statistics. This secondary data was easily accessed through the online journals and library.
Findings: The findings reveal that there exists a contextual and methodological gap relating to information provision on decision making. The study offered significant insights into how information provision impacts decision-making across various domains. Through comprehensive review and synthesis of empirical evidence, it emphasized the crucial role of information quality and accessibility in shaping decision outcomes. Tailoring information provision strategies to diverse stakeholders' needs was highlighted, alongside the bidirectional relationship between information processing and decision outcomes. Ethical considerations, such as transparency and privacy, were stressed to ensure equitable decision outcomes. The findings underscored the transformative potential of effective information provision, offering actionable insights for stakeholders. Interdisciplinary collaborations and evidence-based interventions were advocated for driving positive societal change.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: The Information Processing theory, Theory of Planned Behaviour and Social Exchange theory may be used to anchor future studies on information provision on decision making. The study offers comprehensive recommendations across theoretical, practical, and policy domains. It calls for further theoretical exploration into cognitive processes underlying decision-making and interdisciplinary collaboration. Practically, it advocates for tailored information provision interventions that match diverse decision contexts and user preferences, alongside transparent and accessible information dissemination practices. Policy-wise, the study urges evidence-based communication strategies, regulatory frameworks promoting transparency and accountability, and educational initiatives fostering information literacy. These recommendations aim to empower individuals, organizations, and policymakers to navigate information landscapes effectively, promote informed decision-making, and address information inequalities.
Keywords: Information Provision, Decision-Making, Stakeholders, Ethical Considerations
Downloads
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Akerlof, G. A. (2015). The market for "lemons": Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488-500. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431
Bapna, R., Goes, P., Gupta, A., & Jin, Y. (2013). User-generated content, social media, and social commerce: A survey of research agenda. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2010818
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001
Chen, H., & Rao, A. R. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018
Choo, C. W., Detlor, B., & Turnbull, D. (2015). Information seeking in social media: A review of the literature. International Journal of Information Management, 35(3), 354-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.02.004
Floridi, L. (2017). The logic of information: A theory of philosophy as conceptual design. Oxford University Press.
Garcia, M., & Rodriguez, L. (2018). Information provision and political decision-making: A multi-method approach. Journal of Public Policy, 39(2), 261-279.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597-606.
Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2015). Why we Twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities. In Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis (pp. 56-65). https://doi.org/10.1145/1348549.1348556
Johnson, A., & Smith, K. (2019). Promoting sustainable consumption through information provision: Longitudinal evidence from behavioral experiments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 45-53.
Johnson, A., & Walker, S. (2019). Brexit, uncertainty, and economic outcomes in the United Kingdom: Evidence from business investment and hiring decisions. Economic Policy, 34(100), 301-346. https://doi.org/10.1093/epolic/eiz007
Johnson, A., & Walker, S. (2020). Enhancing consumer decision making through information provision: Evidence from online experiments. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102178.
Jones, M. D., Peterson, H. H., & La Pira, T. M. (2020). Information provision and educational decision-making: Insights from qualitative research. Educational Policy, 34(2), 245-264.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2013). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I (pp. 99-127). World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814417358_0006
McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2017). Big data: The management revolution. Harvard Business Review, 90(10), 60-68.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.
Nkosi, M., Mafini, C., & Phiri, M. (2018). Determinants of agricultural investment decisions in sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from panel data analysis. African Development Review, 30(4), 363-377. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8268.12341
Oliveira, F. R., & Silva, L. A. (2020). Determinants of household savings behavior in Brazil: Evidence from microdata analysis. Brazilian Review of Econometrics, 40(3), 571-590. https://doi.org/10.12660/bre.v40n3.2020.13102
Pew Research Center. (2020). Americans' attitudes about the news media deeply divided along partisan lines. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/05/28/americans-attitudes-about-the-news-media-deeply-divided-along-partisan-lines/
Smith, J. D., Johnson, R. W., & Williams, E. A. (2018). Information provision and financial decision making: Evidence from a survey. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 19(3), 286-301.
Smith, J. D., Johnson, R. W., & Williams, E. A. (2018). Regulatory reform and business investment decisions: Evidence from U.S. manufacturing industries. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 54(1), 67-89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11149-018-9355-z
Smith, J. D., Johnson, R. W., & Williams, E. A. (2019). Patient-centered information provision and healthcare decision making: A qualitative study. Patient Education and Counseling, 102(2), 287-294.
Takahashi, Y., Ikegami, N., & Yamauchi, K. (2017). Aging population dynamics and healthcare expenditure decisions in Japan: A population-based cohort study. BMC Health Services Research, 17(1), 575. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2506-2
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (2013). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 3-20). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809477.002
Wang, Y., Xing, W., & Miao, Y. (2016). The impact of data quality on the accuracy of corporate default prediction models. Information Processing & Management, 52(4), 577-589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2015.11.008
Wang, Y., Xing, W., & Miao, Y. (2016). The impact of data quality on the accuracy of corporate default prediction models. Information Processing & Management, 52(4), 577-589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2015.11.008
Xu, Y., & Ye, Q. (2016). Influence of online consumer reviews on purchasing decision: A cognitive explanation. Information Processing & Management, 52(1), 37-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2015.06.004
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Jade Okello
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
