Improving Contractors' Bids Using Preference Reversal Phenomenon
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 120, Issue 4
Abstract
Owners of projects have the opportunity to improve the bids obtained from bidders by using a well‐known psychological phenomenon called “preference reversal.” This is a systematic tendency of people, to pay more than they should for less attractive choices in specific situations—a phenomenon that has been extensively documented by psychologists. In the present research this effect was demonstrated experimentally for the field of construction in several series of structured interviews with professionals in construction management and real estate development regarding realistic bidding situations. The strength of the effect was found to depend on two factors recently shown to have a strong influence on contractors' behavior: the risk of the project and the contractor's need‐for‐work. The pervasiveness of the preference reversal phenomenon in the construction industry has implications for owners of projects to help reduce their costs: owners should structure the design process as a construction management project and then shift to a lump sum contract for the construction phase.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Ahmed, I., and Minkarah, I. (1988). “Questionnaire survey on bidding in construction.” J. Mgmt. in Engrg., ASCE, 114(3), 229–243.
2.
Berg, J. E., Dickhaut, J. W., and O'Brien, J. R. (1985). “Preference reversal and arbitrage.” Res. in Exp. Econ., 3, 31–72.
3.
de Neufville, R. (1990). Applied systems analysis: engineering planning and technology management. McGraw‐Hill, New York, N.Y.
4.
de Neufville, R., Hani, E. H., and Lesage, Y. (1977). “Bidding models: effect of bidders' risk aversion.” J. Constr. Div., ASCE, 103(1), 57–70.
5.
de Neufville, R., and King, D. (1991). “Risk and need‐for‐work premiums in contractor bidding.” J. Const. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 117(4), 659–673.
6.
Casey, J. (1991). “Reversal of the preference reversal phenomenon.” Org. Behav. and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 48, 224–251.
7.
Delquie, P. (1986). “Statistical exploration of ‘certainty effects’ on utility assessments,” MSc thesis, Massachusetts Inst. of Technol., Cambridge, Mass.
8.
Friedman, L. (1956). “A competitive bidding strategy.” Oper. Res., Vol. 4, 104–112.
9.
Gates, M. (1967). “Bidding strategies and probabilities.” J. Constr. Div., ASCE, 93(1), 75–107.
10.
Grether, D. M., and Plott, C. R. (1979). “Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon.” Am. Econ. Rev., Vol. 69, 623–648.
11.
Hogarth, R. (1987). Judgement and choice, 2nd Ed., John Wiley and Sons, Tiptree, England.
12.
Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. (1982). D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky, eds., Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, N.Y.
13.
Lichtenstein, S., and Slovic, P. (1971). “Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions.” J. of Exp. Psych., 89, 46–55.
14.
Mowen, J., and Gentry, J. (1980). “Investigation of the preference‐reversal phenomenon in a new project introduction task.” J. of Appl. Psych., Vol. 75, 715–722.
15.
Peitrzyk, V. (1985). “Effectiveness of an interactive computer program for utility assessment using certainty and lottery equivalents: an application to medical decision‐making,” PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Inst. of Technol., Cambridge, Mass.
16.
Pommerehne, W., Schneider, F., and Zweifel, P. (1982). “Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon: a reexamination.” Am. Econ. Rev., Vol. 72, 569–584.
17.
Reilly, R. J. (1982). “Preference reversal: further evidence and some suggested modifications in experimental design.” Am. Econ. Rev., Vol. 72, 576–584.
18.
Skitmore, M. (1989). Contract bidding in construction. Longman Scientific and Techn., Harlow, England.
19.
Smith, J. T. (1992). “The Impact of the “preference reversal” phenomenon on construction bid decision‐making under varying risk and need for work constraints: an empirical analysis,” BSc thesis, Massachusetts Inst. of Technol., Cambridge, Mass.
20.
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1987). “Rational choice and the framing of decisions.” Rational choice, R. Hogarth and M. Reder, eds., Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill., 67–94.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 120 • Issue 4 • December 1994
Pages: 706 - 719
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jan 25, 1993
Published online: Dec 1, 1994
Published in print: Dec 1994
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.