Personality Traits as Predictors of Loss Aversion and Status Quo Bias in Public Procurement Professionals
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47941/ijppa.2616Keywords:
Cognitive Biases, Public Procurement, Personality traits, Loss Aversion, Status Quo Bias, Prospect Theory.Abstract
Purpose: This study examines whether personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) predict loss aversion and status quo bias among public procurement professionals. These biases can lead to suboptimal decision-making, including attachment to inefficient systems, vendors, and procurement practices.
Methodology: A personally administered survey was conducted with 350 public procurement professionals. Correlation analyses were used to explore relationships between personality traits and the dependent variables (loss aversion and status quo bias). Multiple regression analysis was employed to determine the predictive power of personality traits on these biases.
Findings: The results indicate that personality traits significantly predict loss aversion and status quo bias among public procurement professionals. Specifically, individuals with high neuroticism and conscientiousness scores are more prone to these biases. However, the study found no significant moderating effect of loss aversion on the relationship between personality traits and status quo bias.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Policy, and Practice: This study contributes to the literature by integrating personality psychology with public procurement decision-making. The findings highlight the need to consider individual personality differences in procurement training and hiring practices. Policymakers can use these insights to design interventions that mitigate cognitive biases, such as tailored training programs and structured evaluation frameworks, promoting more objective procurement decisions. Additionally, organizations can leverage personality assessments to optimize team dynamics and reduce the impact of subconscious biases in bid evaluations.
Downloads
References
Abu Raya, M., Ogunyemi, A. O., Broder, J., Carstensen, V. R., Illanes-Manrique, M., & Rankin, K. P. (2023). The neurobiology of openness as a personality trait. Frontiers in neurology, 14, 1235345.
Aquisition.gov. (2023, March 16). Part 15 - Contracting by negotiation. Retrieved from https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-15 (Accessed February 13, 2023).
Ahmad, F. (2020). Personality traits as predictor of cognitive biases: moderating role of risk-attitude. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 12(4), 465-484.
Amit, R., Muller, E., & Cockburn, I. (1995). Opportunity costs and entrepreneurial activity. Journal of business venturing, 10(2), 95-106.
Balanean, R. (2017). FLAWS AND TRAPS IN THE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT PROCESS OUTPUT QUALITY-“A perception of the SMEs and NGOs from the Centre Region of Romania”. Curentul Juridic, The Juridical Current, Le Courant Juridique, 70, 40-55.
Barak, M., & Levenberg, A. (2016). Flexible thinking in learning: An individual differences measure for learning in technology-enhanced environments. Computers & Education, 99, 39-52.
Barberis, N. C. (2013). Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: A review and assessment. Journal of economic perspectives, 27(1), 173-196.
Bergers, D. (2022). The status quo bias and its individual differences from a price management perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 64, 102793.
Bekir, I., & Doss, F. (2020). Status quo bias and attitude towards risk: an experimental investigation. Managerial and Decision Economics, 41(5), 827-838.
Berthet, V. (2022). The impact of cognitive biases on professionals’ decision-making: A review of four occupational areas. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 802439.
Bozeman, B., & Kingsley, G. (1998). Risk culture in public and private organizations. Public administration review, 109-118.
Busic-Sontic, A., Czap, N. V., & Fuerst, F. (2017). The role of personality traits in green decision-making. Journal of Economic Psychology, 62, 313-328.
Caldwell, N., & Howard, M. (2014). Contracting for complex performance in markets of few buyers and sellers: The case of military procurement. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 34(2), 270-294.
Casier, L. (2018). Three Key Challenges to Innovative Public Procurement.
Changalima, I. A., Ismail, I. J., & Mchopa, A. D. (2024). Effects of supplier selection and supplier monitoring on public procurement efficiency in Tanzania: a cost-reduction perspective. Vilakshan-XIMB Journal of Management, 21(1), 55-65.
Charpentier, C. J., Aylward, J., Roiser, J. P., & Robinson, O. J. (2017). Enhanced risk aversion, but not loss aversion, in unmedicated pathological anxiety. Biological psychiatry, 81(12), 1014-1022.
Chen, L., Wang, Y. M., & Huang, Y. (2020). Cross-efficiency aggregation method based on prospect consensus process. Annals of Operations Research, 288(1), 115-135.
Chiu, A., & Wu, G. (2010). Prospect theory. Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science.
Cihacek, B. (2020). Mitigating Cognitive Bias Proposal. Retrieved from Nation Contract Management Association: https://ncmahq.org/Web/Shared_Content/CM-Magazine/CM-Magazine-November-2020/Mitigating-Cognititve-Bias-Proposal.aspx (Accessed February 13, 2024).
Ciubuc, C., Dascalu, M., Trausan-Matu, S., & Marhan, A. M. (2013, May). Forming Teams by Psychological Traits--An Effective Method of Developing Groups in an Educational Environment. In 2013 19th International Conference on Control Systems and Computer Science (pp. 597-602). IEEE.
Clinebell, S., & Stecher, M. (2003). Teaching Teams to be Teams: An Exercise Using the Myers-Briggs® Type Indicator and the Five-Factor Personality Traits—. Journal of Management Education, 27(3), 362-383.
Coglianese, C. (2023). Procurement and Artificial Intelligence. U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper, (23-33).
Costa Sr, P. X., & McCrae, R. R. NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment.
Costantino, N., Dotoli, M., Falagario, M., Fanti, M. P., Mangini, A. M., & Sciancalepore, F. (2011, June). Supplier selection in the public procurement sector via a data envelopment analysis approach. In 2011 19th Mediterranean Conference on Control & Automation (MED) (pp. 236-241). IEEE.
DeHart‐Davis, L. (2007). The unbureaucratic personality. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 892-903.
Dekel, O., & Dotan, Y. (2018). Will procurement officials be biased to disregard procurement rules in favor of a low-priced, albeit defective, bid?. Review of Law & Economics, 14(2), 20160014.
Dekel, O., & Schurr, A. (2014). Cognitive biases in government procurement–an experimental study. Review of Law & Economics, 10(2), 169-200.
Dufault, A., MacDonald, K. B., & Schermer, J. A. (2023). The public sector personality: The effects of personality on public sector interest for men and women. Administrative Sciences, 13(7), 158.
Eisenberg, N., Duckworth, A. L., Spinrad, T. L., & Valiente, C. (2014). Conscientiousness: Origins in childhood?. Developmental psychology, 50(5), 1331.
Falagario, M., Sciancalepore, F., Costantino, N., & Pietroforte, R. (2012). Using a DEA-cross efficiency approach in public procurement tenders. European Journal of Operational Research, 218(2), 523-529.
Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The journal of socio-economics, 40(1), 35-42.
GAO. (2023). US Government Accountability Office. GAO Bid Protest Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2023 - GAO-24-900538. Washington, DC: Comptroller General of the United States. Retrieved from https://www.GAO/assets/870/862404.pdf
GAO. (2021). US Government Accountability Office. GAO Bid Protest Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2023 - GAO-22-900379. Washington, DC: Comptroller General of the United States. Retrieved from https://www.GAO/products/gao-22-900379
García Rodríguez, M. J., Rodríguez Montequín, V., Ortega Fernández, F., & Villanueva Balsera, J. M. (2020). Bidders recommender for public procurement auctions using machine learning: Data analysis, algorithm, and case study with tenders from Spain. Complexity, 2020(1), 8858258.
Gillom, T. (2023). AI in City Procurement: 5 Pitfalls to Avoid, Retrieved from National League of Cities, 2023. Retrieved from https://www.nlc.org/article/2023/08/31/ai-in-city-procurement-5-pitfalls-to-avoid/
Godefroid, M. E., Plattfaut, R., & Niehaves, B. (2023). How to measure the status quo bias? A review of current literature. Management Review Quarterly, 73(4), 1667-1711.
Goswami, M. P., & Wettstein, D. (2016). Rational bidding in a procurement auction with subjective evaluations. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 44, 60-67.
Gravier, M. J., Hawkins, T. G., & Yoder, E. C. (2015). Federal Bid Protests: Is the Tail Wagging the Dog?. Journal of Public Procurement, 16 (2), 152-190.
Hanspach, P. (2023). The home bias in procurement. Cross-border procurement of medical supplies during the Covid-19 pandemic. International journal of industrial organization, 89, 102976.
Hjeij, M., & Vilks, A. (2023). A brief history of heuristics: how did research on heuristics evolve?. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1-15.
Hoekman, B., & Sanfilippo, M. (2018). Firm performance and participation in public procurement: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS, 16.
Hoffman, Bryce. "Overcoming Confirmation Bias." Forbes, 30 Apr. 2023, www.forbes.com/sites/brycehoffman/2023/04/30/overcoming-confirmation-bias/.
Jensen‐Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of personality, 69(2), 323-362.
Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY, USA: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011.
Kahneman, D. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47, 278.
Kannan, D., & Levitt, H. M. (2013). A review of client self-criticism in psychotherapy. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23(2), 166.
Keulemans, S., & Van de Walle, S. (2017). Cost-effectiveness, domestic favouritism and sustainability in public procurement: A comparative study of public preferences. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 30(4), 328-341.
King, D. R., & Sekerka, L. E. (2017). Managing competing interests: A review of ethics in military procurement. Public Integrity, 19(5), 444-468.
Klein, R. (1991). Steven Kelman, Procurement and Public Management: The Fear of Discretion and the Quality of Government Performance, Washington, DC: The AEI Press, 1990. 213 pp. ISBN 0-8447-3712-7. Journal of Public Policy, 11(3), 345-346.
Korac, S., Lindenmeier, J., & Saliterer, I. (2020). Attractiveness of public sector employment at the pre-entry level–a hierarchical model approach and analysis of gender effects. Public Management Review, 22(2), 206-233.
Kusev, P., Purser, H., Heilman, R., Cooke, A. J., Van Schaik, P., Baranova, V., ... & Ayton, P. (2017). Understanding risky behavior: The influence of cognitive, emotional and hormonal factors on decision-making under risk. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 102.
Lauriola, M., & Weller, J. (2018). Personality and risk: Beyond daredevils—risk taking from a temperament perspective. Psychological perspectives on risk and risk analysis: theory, models, and applications, 3-36.
Levesque, R.J.R. (2011). Agreeableness. In: Levesque, R.J.R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Adolescence. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1695-2_509
Lim, A. G. (2023). Big five personality traits: The 5-factor model of personality. Simply Psychology, 18.
Lommen, M. J., Engelhard, I. M., & van den Hout, M. A. (2010). Neuroticism and avoidance of ambiguous stimuli: Better safe than sorry?. Personality and individual differences, 49(8), 1001-1006.
Love, P. E., Davis, P. R., Edwards, D. J., & Baccarini, D. (2008). Uncertainty avoidance: public sector clients and procurement selection. International journal of public sector management, 21(7), 753-776.
Lowenstein, H. (2011). Economic development through local vendor preference policy: the case of Horry County, South Carolina. The Coastal Business Journal, 10(1), 4.
Lowry, D. (1978). True Colors. Retrieved from https://www.truecolorsintl.com/about (Accessed March 18, 2024).
Marston, W. M. (1928). Emotions of Normal People, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner Co. Ltd.
Maczulskij, T., & Viinikainen, J. (2015). Personality characteristics and long-term labor market outcomes: Evidence from twins (No. 299).
McCue, C. P., Prier, E., & Steinfeld, J. M. (2018). Establishing the foundational elements of a public procurement body of knowledge. Journal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation, 4(4), 233-251.
Metropolis, N., & Ulam, S. (1949). The monte carlo method. Journal of the American statistical association, 44(247), 335-341.
Myers, I. B. (1962). The myers-briggs type indicator (Vol. 34). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Nicholson-Crotty, S., Nicholson-Crotty, J., & Webeck, S. (2019). Are public managers more risk averse? Framing effects and status quo bias across the sectors. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 2(1).
NIGP. (2021). Certified Public Procurement Officer Certification Preparation Guide. Hendon, VA: NIGP: The Institute of Public Procurement.
OECD. (2009). Principles for Integrity in Public Procurement. OECD. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.
OECD. (2016). Preventing corruption in public procurement.
OJEU. (2017). Building an architecture for the professionalization of public procurement. Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/1805. Official Journal of the European Union. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/public-procurement/tools-public-buyers/professionalisat (Accessed February 13, 2023).
Pettinger, T. (2018, March 29). Prospect Theory. Retrieved from Economicshelp.org: www.economicshelp.org
Psychology Today. (2022, April 24). How Age Changes Your Personality. Retrieved from Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/people-unexplained/202204/how-age-changes-your-personality
Reizer, A., Harel, T., & Ben-Shalom, U. (2023). Helping others results in helping yourself: How well-being is shaped by agreeableness and perceived team cohesion. Behavioral sciences, 13(2), 150.
Riddervold, H. O., Riemer-Sørensen, S., Szederjesi, P., & Korpås, M. (2020). A supervised learning approach for optimal selection of bidding strategies in reservoir hydro. Electric Power Systems Research, 187, 106496.
Roberts, B. W., Lejuez, C., Krueger, R. F., Richards, J. M., & Hill, P. L. (2014). What is conscientiousness and how can it be assessed?. Developmental psychology, 50(5), 1315.
Schaefer, P. S., Williams, C. C., Goodie, A. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2004). Overconfidence and the big five. Journal of research in Personality, 38(5), 473-480.
Schapper, P. R., Veiga Malta, J. N., & Gilbert, D. L. (2006). An analytical framework for the management and reform of public procurement. Journal of public procurement, 6(1/2), 1-26.
Shi, B., Dai, D. Y., & Lu, Y. (2016). Openness to experience as a moderator of the relationship between intelligence and creative thinking: A study of Chinese children in urban and rural areas. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 641.
Soheilirad, S., Govindan, K., Mardani, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Nilashi, M., & Zakuan, N. (2018). Application of data envelopment analysis models in supply chain management: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Operations Research, 271, 915-969.
Theodos, B., Mcmanus, S., Rajninger, T. (2024) Government Procurement from Small Businesses: Advancing Racial Equity and Removing Barriers to Participation. Urban Institute. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/SpeakerBios-GovProcurement.pdf (Accessed July 14, 2024).
Thomas, K. J., & Loughran, T. A. (2014). Rational choice and prospect theory. Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice, 4298-4315.
Toofany, S. (2007). Team building and leadership: The key to recruitment and retention. Nursing Management, 14(1).
Torres-Berru, Y., Lopez-Batista, V. F., & Zhingre, L. C. (2023). A Data Mining Approach to Detecting Bias and Favoritism in Public Procurement. Intelligent Automation & Soft Computing, 36(3).
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1990). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
Uyarra, E., Edler, J., Garcia-Estevez, J., Georghiou, L., & Yeow, J. (2014). Barriers to innovation through public procurement: A supplier perspective. Technovation, 34(10), 631-645.
Wehner, C., de Grip, A., & Pfeifer, H. (2022). Do recruiters select workers with different personality traits for different tasks? A discrete choice experiment. Labour Economics, 78, 102186.
Williams, A. M. (2014). Local preferencing for local suppliers: Examining the use of locality in public procurement. Public Money & Management, 34(3), 165-172.
Xu, H. (2020). Big five personality traits and ambiguity management in career decision‐making. The Career Development Quarterly, 68(2), 158-172.
Xu, G., Mihaylova, T., Li, D., Tian, F., Farrehi, P. M., Parent, J. M., ... & Borjigin, J. (2023). Surge of neurophysiological coupling and connectivity of gamma oscillations in the dying human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(19), e2216268120.
Xue, X., Zhang, R., Yang, R., & Dai, J. (2014). Innovation in construction: a critical review and future research. International journal of innovation science, 6(2), 111-126.
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of risk and uncertainty, 1, 7-59.
Zhang, Z., & Liao, H. (2024). A stochastic cross-efficiency DEA approach based on the prospect theory and its application in winner determination in public procurement tenders. Annals of Operations Research, 341(1), 509-537.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Thomas Kamara, DBA, Scott E. Dunbar
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.
