International Journal of Human Capital in Urban Management
Quarterly Publication

Rationalizing managerial judgment: The effectiveness of collective decision-making in bias reduction

Document Type : ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Authors

S.M. Mirbagheri
A. Rafiei Atani
M. R. Parsanejad

Faculty of Management, Economics and Progress Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22034/IJHCUM.2026.03.03
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study explores the influence of collective decision-making on mitigating key cognitive biases—namely, overconfidence, optimism, and anchoring effects—among managers in Iranian state-run organizations. Cognitive biases are systematic errors in thinking that impair judgment and decision quality, often leading to suboptimal outcomes in organizational contexts. Given the high stakes and complexity of managerial decisions in public sector settings, identifying mechanisms to reduce such biases is both practically and theoretically significant. The primary objective of this research is to determine whether collective decision-making, characterized by collaborative deliberation and shared responsibility, can serve as an effective tool for bias reduction.
METHODS: A quantitative survey methodology was employed, utilizing a structured Likert-scale questionnaire distributed among 152 managers at different hierarchical levels in governmental institutions. The instrument's internal consistency was verified with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.857, indicating high reliability. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, mean comparisons against scale midpoints, and significance testing using inferential methods.
FINDINGS: Findings revealed that collective decision-making significantly reduced the levels of overconfidence, unrealistic optimism, and anchoring bias among participants (p < 0.05). These results suggest that involving multiple perspectives in decision processes enhances rationality by exposing individual assumptions to group scrutiny, thus improving the quality and accuracy of managerial judgments.
CONCLUSION: The implications of this study are particularly relevant for organizational leadership and policy-making in public institutions. Encouraging collective decision-making not only minimizes the costs associated with biased decisions but also fosters a culture of collaboration, accountability, and shared learning. This approach can reduce psychological stress related to decision-making responsibilities and improve overall organizational performance. By highlighting the cognitive benefits of group-based decision strategies, the study contributes to the broader literature on decision science, organizational behavior, and public management, offering practical insights for managerial training and institutional reform

Keywords

Collective decision-making
Cognitive bias
Overconfidence
Optimism
Anchoring effect.
Subjects

OPEN ACCESS

©2026 The author(s). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third-party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit: 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 

PUBLISHER NOTE
Tehran Urban Research & Planning Centre (TURPC) takes a neutral position about claims on disputed territories, place names, international boundaries, jurisdiction in published maps, and institutional affiliations. TURPC is committed to retracting a paper after its publication if it becomes apparent that there are serious problems in its content, in terms of research and publication ethics (https://www.ijhcum.net/journal/process?ethics).

CITATION METRICS & CAPTURES

Google Scholar | DOAJ | Scopus | EBSCO | Internet Archive |Twitter |Mendeley  

CURRENT PUBLISHER

 Tehran Urban Research and Planning Center: Tehran Municipality

 

Berg, S.; Paroush, J., (1998). Collective decision making in hierarchies. Math. Soc. Sci., 35(3): 233–244 (12 pages).
Berger, T.; Daumann, F., (2021). Anchoring bias in the evaluation of basketball players: A closer look at NBA draft decision-making. Manag. Decis. Econ., 42(5): 1248–1262 (15 pages).
Bird, C.; Jones, K.; Ballantyne, K., (2025). Cognitive bias and contextual information management: Considerations for forensic handwriting examinations. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Forensic Sci., 7(1): e1530.
Bosel, T.; Reinal, A.; Marshall, J. A. R., (2017). Collective decision-making. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci., 16: 30–34 (5 pages).
Bosse, T.; Hoogendoorn, M.; Klein, M. C. A.; Treur, J.; van der Wal, C. N.; van Wissen, A., (2013). Modelling collective decision making in groups and crowds: Integrating social contagion and interacting emotions, beliefs and intentions. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst., 27(1): 52–84 (33 pages).
Boussaidi, R., (2022). Implications of the overconfidence bias in presence of private information: Evidence from MENA stock markets. Int. J. Finance Econ., 27(3): 3660–3678 (19 pages).
Bonaccio, S.; Dalal, R. S., (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes., 101(2): 127–151 (25 pages).
Bouwmans, M.; Runhaar, P.; Wesselink, R.; Mulder, M., (2017). Fostering teachers’ team learning: An interplay between transformational leadership and participative decision-making? Teach. Teach. Educ., 65: 71–80 (10 pages).
Bracha, A.; Brown, D. J., (2012). Affective decision making: A theory of optimism bias. Games Econ. Behav., 75(1): 67–80 (14 pages).
Bui, T. X., (1987). A group decision support system for cooperative multiple criteria group decision making. In: Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag).
Carbone, G.; Giannoccaro, I. (2015). Model of human collective decision-making in complex environments. Eur. Phys. J. B, 88(12): 348.
Chen, C.; Ishfaq, M.; Ashraf, F.; Sarfaraz, A.; Wang, K., (2022). Mediating role of optimism bias and risk perception between emotional intelligence and decision-making: A serial mediation model. Front. Psychol., 13: 2731.
Cherkes, M.; Ryan, L., (1985). Bias in special education decision making. Acad. Ther., 20(3): 323–329 (7 pages).
Cho, V.; Chan, D., (2019). How social influence through information adoption from online review sites affects collective decision making. Enterp. Inf. Syst.
Cina, G.; Endriss, U., (2016). Proving classical theorems of social choice theory in modal logic. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst., 30(5): 963–989 (27 pages).
Conradt, L., (2012). Models in animal collective decision-making: Information uncertainty and conflicting preferences. Interface Focus, 2(2): 226–240 (15 pages).
Costa, D. F.; de Melo Carvalho, F.; de Melo Moreira, B. C.; do Prado, J. W., (2017). Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias. Scientometrics, 111(3): 1775–1799 (25 pages).
Costa, D. F.; Soares, C. C.; de Melo Moreira, B. C.; Tonelli, A. O., (2025). Construction and validation of an overconfidence scale in investment decisions. Future Bus. J., 11(1): 6.
Damghanian, H.; Ghanbari Ghaleroudkhani, F., (2022). Discretionary workplace behaviors: The effect of communication satisfaction on workplace deviance and OCB with the mediation role of justice sensitivity. Iran. J. Manag. Stud., 15(1): 155–168 (14 pages).
De Oca, M. A.; Ferrante, E.; Scheidler, A.; Pinciroli, C.; Birattari, M.; Dorigo, M., (2011). Majority-rule opinion dynamics with differential latency: A mechanism for self-organized collective decision-making. Swarm Intell., 5(3–4): 305–327 (23 pages).
Deekonda, P.; Bernstein, M., (2011). Decision making, bias, and low grade glioma. Can. J. Neurol. Sci., 38(2): 193–194 (2 pages).
Dhami, S. (2020). The foundations of behavioral economic analysis. Volume V: Bounded rationality (Vol. 7). Oxford University Press, USA.
Dionne, S. D.; Sayama, H.; Yammarino, F. J.. (2019). Diversity and social network structure in collective decision making: Evolutionary perspectives with agent-based simulations. Complexity, Article ID 7591072.
Epley, N.; Gilovich, T., (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science., 17(4): 311–318 (8 pages).
Esser, J. K., (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes., 73(2–3): 116–141 (26 pages).
Fu, Y.; Sui, Y.; Luo, H.; Han, B., (2020). Application of social choice theory to modify the value measure of health systems. Soc. Indic. Res., 148(3): 1005–1019 (15 pages).
Furnham, A.; Boo, H. C., (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics., 40(1): 35–42 (8 pages).
Gerrits, L.; Marks, P., (2017). Understanding collective decision making: A fitness landscape model approach. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Giaume, L.; Lamblin, A.; Pinol, N.; Gignoux-Froment, F.; Trousselard, M., (2025). Evaluating cognitive bias in clinical ethics supports: A scoping review. BMC Med. Ethics, 26(1): 16.
Iaryczower, M.; Shi, X.; Shum, M., (2018). Can words get in the way? The effect of deliberation in collective decision making. J. Polit. Econ., 126(2): 688–734 (47 pages).
Irving, J. A.; Williams, D. I., (1999). Personal growth and personal development: Concepts clarified. Br. J. Guid. Couns., 27(4): 517–526 (10 pages).
Janis, I. L., (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. 1st edition. Boston, Houghton Mifflin.
Jordão, A. R.; Costa, R.; Dias, Á. L.; Pereira, L.; Santos, J. P., (2020). Bounded rationality in decision making: An analysis of the decision-making biases. Bounded Rationality Decis. Making, 2: 654–665 (12 pages).
Karami, H., (2017). A study of problems and problems of group decision making. Q. J. Manag. Account. Stud. (Iran), 3(1): 324–337 (14 pages).
Kaur, N.; Sood, S. K., (2015). Cognitive decision making in smart industry. Comput. Ind., 74: 151–161 (11 pages).
Kaurav, R. P. S.; Gursoy, D.; Chowdhary, N., (2021). An SPSS guide for tourism, hospitality and events researchers. Routledge.
Kerr, N. L.; Tindale, R. S., (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology., 55(1): 623–655 (33 pages).
Khaluf, Y.; Ferrante, E.; Simoens, P.; Huepe, C., (2017). Scale invariance in natural and artificial collective systems: A review. J. R. Soc. Interface, 14(136): 20170662.
Khaluf, Y.; Simoens, P.; Hamann, H., (2019). The neglected pieces of designing collective decision-making processes. Front. Robot. AI, 6: 16.
Kotikalapudi, R.; Dricu, M.; Moser, D. A.; Aue, T., (2022). Brain structure and optimism bias: A voxel-based morphometry approach. Brain Sci., 12(3): 315.
Krejcie, R. V.; Morgan, D. W., (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educ. Psychol. Meas., 30(3): 607–610 (4 pages).
Lauring, J.; Guttormsen, D. S. A.; McNulty, Y. M., (2019). Adult third culture kids: Adjustment and personal development. Cross Cult. Strateg. Manag.
Lee, C.-C.; Lee, H.-Y.; Yeh, W.-C.; Yu, Z., (2022). The impacts of task complexity, overconfidence, confirmation bias, customer influence, and anchoring on variations in real estate valuations. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag., 26(2): 141–155 (15 pages).
Lee, C. Y.; Morewedge, C. K., (2022). Noise increases anchoring effects. Psychol. Sci., 33(1): 60–75 (16 pages).
Liang, X.; Guo, J.; Liu, P., (2024). A consensus model considers managing manipulative and overconfident behaviours in large-scale group decision-making. Inf. Sci., 654: 119848.
Liu, H.; Jiang, C.; Liu, Y.; Hertogh, M.; Lyu, X., (2018). Optimism bias evaluation and decision-making risk forecast on bridge project cost based on reference class forecasting: Evidence from China. Sustainability, 10(11): 3981.
Liu, J.; Shui, T.; Jin, F.; Shao, L.; Zhu, J., (2025). Minimum deviation distribution ranking model and fairness concern-based consensus building for group decision-making. Inf. Sci., 692: 121654.
Loffing, F. (2022). Raw data visualization for common factorial designs using SPSS: A syntax collection and tutorial. Front. Psychol., 13: 808469.
Maheshwari, H.; Samantaray, A. K.; Panigrahi, R. R.; Jena, L. K., (2025). Financial literacy in predicting investment decisions: Do attitude and overconfidence influence? Int. J. Soc. Econ., 52(2): 220–235 (16 pages).
Mann, R. P., (2018). Collective decision making by rational individuals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 115(44): E10387–E10396 (10 pages).
Marks, P.; Gerrits, L.; Marx, J., (2019). How to use fitness landscape models for the analysis of collective decision-making: A case of theory-transfer and its limitations. Biol. Philos., 34(1): 2.
McHugh, K. A.; Yammarino, F. J.; Dionne, S. D.; Serban, A.; Sayama, H.; Chatterjee, S., (2016). Collective decision making, leadership, and collective intelligence: tests with agent‑based simulations and a field study. Leader. Q. 27(2 SI): 218–241 (24 pages).
McShane, M.; Nirenburg, S.; Jarrell, B., (2013). Modeling decision‑making biases. Biol. Insp. Cogn. Archit. 3: 39–50 (12 pages).
Mina, M.; Ruiz‑Fernández, V.; Falcão, J.; Vasquez‑Reina, L.; González‑Agirre, A., (2025). Cognitive biases, task complexity, and result interpretability in large language models. In: Proc. 31st Int. Conf. Comput. Linguist. Pp. 1767–1784, (17 pages).
Mirbagheri, S. M.; Atani, A. R.; Parsanejad, M. R., (2024). Conceptualizing collective decision‑making in organizations: a grounded theory. Int. J. Hum. Cap. Urban Manag. 9(1): 61–75 (14 pages).
Moore, D. A.; Healy, P. J., (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review., 115(2): 502 (1 page).
Myerson, R. B., (2013). Fundamentals of social choice theory. Q. J. Political Sci. 8(3): 305–337 (33 pages).
Planas-Sitjà, I.; Deneubourg, J.-L.; Gibon, C.; Sempo, G., (2015). Group personality during collective decision-making: a multi-level approach. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 282(1802): 20142515.
Pomerol, J.-C., (2003). Decision making biases and context. J. Decis. Syst. 12(3–4): 235–252 (17 pages).
Prigozhin, A. I., (1991). Game methods of collective decision making in management consulting. Sov. Educ. 33(12): 25–45 (21 pages).
Qudrat‑Ullah, H., (2025). Group decision‑making and team collaboration. In: Mastering decision‑making in business and personal life: an interdisciplinary perspective on making better choices, Pp. 313–362, Springer, (49 pages).
Rezaei, J., (2021). Anchoring bias in eliciting attribute weights and values in multi‑attribute decision‑making. J. Decis. Syst. 30(1): 72–96 (25 pages).
Rossi, F., (2014). Collective decision-making: a great opportunity for constraint reasoning. Constraints 19(2): 186–194 (9 pages).
Roy, S., (2016). Decision making and modelling in cognitive science. Springer.
Scholz, R. W., (1983). Decision making under uncertainty: cognitive decision research, social interaction, development and epistemology. Elsevier.
Selim, M., (2021). Anchoring bias in corporate decision making and its effects on net income. In: 2021 Int. Conf. Decis. Aid Sci. Appl. (DASA), Pp. 424–429, (4 pages).
Shaikh, F. A.; Malik, K.; Talpur, M. A. H.; Abro, K. A., (2021). Role of distinct buffers for maintaining urban‑fringes and controlling urbanization: a case study through ANOVA and SPSS. Nonlinear Eng. 10(1): 546–554 (9 pages).
Sharot, T., (2011). The optimism bias. Current Biology., 21(23): R941–R945 (5 pages).
Siegner, M.; Panwar, R.; Kozak, R.; Searcy, C., (2025). Putting the community in community forestry enterprises: overcoming the challenges of collective decision‑making. J. For. 1–20 (20 pages).
Slevin, D. P.; Boone, L. W.; Russo, E. M.; Allen, R. S., (1998). CONFIDE: a collective decision‑making procedure using confidence estimates of individual judgements. Group Decis. Negot. 7(2): 179–194 (16 pages).
Smith, F. L.; Stone, T. H.; Kisamore, J. L.; Jawahar, I. M., (2010). Decision‑making biases and affective states: their potential impact on best practice innovations. Can. J. Adm. Sci. 27(4): 277–291 (15 pages).
Sniezek, J. A., (1992). Groups under uncertainty: An examination of confidence in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes., 52(1): 124–155 (32 pages).
Sniezek, J. A.; Henry, R. A., (1989). Accuracy and confidence in group judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes., 43(1): 1–28 (28 pages).
Song, J. X.; Wassell, J. T., (2003). Sample size for K 2 × 2 tables in equivalence studies using Cochran’s statistic. Control. Clin. Trials 24(4): 378–389 (12 pages).
Sueur, C.; Deneubourg, J.-L.; Petit, O., (2012). From social network (centralized vs. decentralized) to collective decision-making (unshared vs. shared consensus). PLoS One 7(2): e32566 (11 pages).
Sueur, C.; King, A. J.; Conradt, L.; Kerth, G.; Lusseau, D.; Mettke‑Hofmann, C.; … Aureli, F., (2011). Collective decision‑making and fission‑fusion dynamics: a conceptual framework. Oikos 120(11): 1608–1617 (10 pages).
Tobias‑Webb, J.; Limbrick‑Oldfield, E. H.; Vearncombe, S.; Duka, T.; Clark, L., (2020). The effects of alcohol on sequential decision‑making biases during gambling. Psychopharmacology 237(2): 395–407 (13 pages).
Tweed, M. J.; Thompson‑Fawcett, M.; Wilkinson, T. J., (2013). Decision‑making bias in assessment: the effect of aggregating objective information and anecdote. Med. Teach. 35(10): 832–837 (6 pages).
ul Abdin, S. Z.; Qureshi, F.; Iqbal, J.; Sultana, S., (2022). Overconfidence bias and investment performance: a mediating effect of risk propensity. Borsa Istanbul Rev. (4): 780–793 (14 pages).
Van Deemen, A.; Rusinowska, A., (2010). Collective decision-making: views from social choice and game theory. Springer Sci. Bus. Media, Vol. 43.
Van Der Wege, M.; Jacobsen, J.; Magats, N.; Mansour, C. B.; Park, J. H., (2021). Familiarity breeds overconfidence: group membership and shared experience in the closeness-communication bias. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 94: 104097 (10 pages).
Vos, L. M. W.; Nieto, I.; Amanvermez, Y.; Smeets, T.; Everaert, J., (2025). Do cognitive biases prospectively predict anxiety and depression? a multi-level meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 102552.
Wolman, A.; Wolff, A.; Wainio-Theberge, S.; Scalabrini, A.; El Ahmadi, A.; Northoff, G.; et al., (2023). Intrinsic neural timescales mediate the cognitive bias of self—temporal integration as key mechanism. NeuroImage 119896.
Wu, B.; Zhou, X.; Jin, Q.; Lin, F.; Leung, H., (2017). Analyzing social roles based on a hierarchical model and data mining for collective decision-making support. IEEE Syst. J. 11(1): 356–365 (10 pages).
Xu, Y., (2019). Collective decision-making of voters with heterogeneous levels of rationality. Public Choice 178(1–2): 267–287 (21 pages).
Zafeiris, A.; Koman, Z.; Mones, E.; Vicsek, T., (2017). Phenomenological theory of collective decision-making. Physica A 479: 287–298 (12 pages).
Zellner, M.; Watkins, C.; Massey, D.; Westphal, L.; Brooks, J.; Ross, K., (2014). Advancing collective decision-making theory with integrated agent-based modeling and ethnographic data analysis: an example in ecological restoration. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 17(4): Article 12 (18 pages).
 
 

LETTERS TO EDITOR

International Journal of Human Capital in Urban Management (IJHCUM) welcomes letters to the editor for the post-publication discussions and corrections which allows debate post publication on its site, through the Letters to Editor. Letters pertaining to manuscript published in IJHCUM should be sent to the editorial office of IJHCUM within three months of either online publication or before printed publication, except for critiques of original research. Following points are to be considering before sending the letters (comments) to the editor.


[1] Letters that include statements of statistics, facts, research, or theories should include appropriate references, although more than three are discouraged.

[2] Letters that are personal attacks on an author rather than thoughtful criticism of the author’s ideas will not be considered for publication.

[3] Letters can be no more than 300 words in length.

[4] Letter writers should include a statement at the beginning of the letter stating that it is being submitted either for publication or not.

[5] Anonymous letters will not be considered.

[6] Letter writers must include their city and state of residence or work.

[7] Letters will be edited for clarity and length.

Send comment about this article
Enter Name.
Enter a valid email address.
Enter a vaid affiliation.
Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)
CAPTCHA Image
Enter Security Code Correctly.
International Journal of Human Capital in Urban Management
Volume 11, Issue 3
Summer 2026
Pages 467-482

  • Receive Date 08 June 2025
  • Revise Date 18 August 2025
  • Accept Date 30 November 2025

Home

Authorship

Submit Manuscript

Indexing and Abstracting

Editorial Board

Unrestricted Reuse in Compliance with BOAI

Open Access Policy

Self-Archiving Policy

Privacy Statement

Publisher Business Model

Publisher and Sponsor

Contact Us