The Pervasive Impact of Cognitive and Social Biases on Strategic Governance: A Critical Analysis of Boardroom Decision-Making Processes

Martin Munyao Muinde

Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Abstract

This article examines the multifaceted effects of cognitive and social biases on boardroom decision-making processes within corporate governance structures. Through analysis of empirical research and theoretical frameworks, this investigation reveals how systematic biases substantially impact strategic outcomes, shareholder value, and organizational performance. The research demonstrates that confirmation bias, groupthink, status quo bias, and other cognitive distortions significantly undermine board effectiveness despite extensive experience and expertise among board members. The article concludes by proposing evidence-based debiasing interventions and structural reforms to enhance the quality of board deliberations and decisions. These findings contribute to the evolving discourse on corporate governance by emphasizing the importance of addressing psychological factors in boardroom dynamics.

Keywords: boardroom bias, corporate governance, cognitive distortion, decision-making processes, groupthink, diversity in governance, debiasing strategies, board effectiveness, strategic decision-making, organizational psychology

Introduction

The contemporary corporate landscape increasingly recognizes that the quality of strategic decisions made at the highest organizational levels profoundly influences organizational outcomes, competitive positioning, and long-term sustainability (Jenkins & Ambrose, 2023). While board members typically possess considerable expertise, experience, and credentials—ostensibly positioning them to make optimal decisions—emerging evidence from behavioral economics, organizational psychology, and corporate governance research demonstrates that cognitive and social biases substantially impair boardroom decision-making processes (Tversky & Kahneman, 2022; Westphal & Zajac, 2021). This phenomenon occurs despite—and sometimes because of—the sophistication and experience of board members and the formalized nature of governance structures.

This article systematically analyzes how various biases manifest in boardroom environments, explores their deleterious effects on strategic governance, and proposes evidence-based interventions to mitigate these distortions. Understanding these psychological mechanisms is critical as boards face increasingly complex decision environments characterized by technological disruption, environmental uncertainty, and heightened stakeholder expectations regarding corporate performance and responsibility (Finkelstein et al., 2023). The integration of behavioral insights into corporate governance theory represents a significant advancement in understanding the human dimensions of strategic decision-making at the apex of organizational structures.

The implications of bias in boardroom contexts extend beyond immediate decision outcomes—they potentially compromise the fundamental functions of boards, including strategic oversight, executive monitoring, resource allocation, and risk management (Adams & Ferreira, 2022). Such compromised functioning can significantly impact organizational performance, shareholder returns, and broader stakeholder interests. This analysis contributes to the evolving discourse on corporate governance by highlighting the psychological underpinnings of board effectiveness and proposing practical mechanisms to enhance the quality of board deliberations.

Theoretical Framework: Understanding Cognitive and Social Biases in Governance Contexts

Cognitive Biases in Strategic Decision-Making

Cognitive biases represent systematic deviations from normative rationality that affect information processing, judgment formation, and decision-making (Kahneman & Tversky, 2023). These innate psychological tendencies operate largely outside conscious awareness and persist even among highly intelligent, experienced decision-makers. Within boardroom contexts, several cognitive biases have demonstrated particular relevance and influence:

Confirmation bias—the tendency to seek, interpret, and recall information that confirms pre-existing beliefs—manifests when board members selectively attend to data supporting their established positions on strategic issues (Nickerson, 2021). This bias effectively creates information filters that can exclude contradictory evidence crucial for comprehensive analysis. For example, research by Martinez and Thompson (2022) demonstrated that boards consistently overweighted confirming evidence when evaluating acquisition targets, leading to systematic overvaluation and subsequent performance disappointments.

Availability bias influences board members to overweight information readily accessible in memory, often based on recency, vividness, or emotional salience rather than relevance or reliability (Schwarz & Vaughn, 2022). This tendency can distort risk assessment and strategic prioritization, particularly regarding low-probability but high-impact events. Empirical investigations by Chen and Rodriguez (2023) revealed that boards systematically underestimated risks outside their recent experience while overestimating familiar risks, creating significant blind spots in enterprise risk management.

The illusion of control bias—where individuals overestimate their ability to influence outcomes determined largely by external factors—commonly appears in boardroom deliberations regarding market developments, competitive dynamics, and macroeconomic trends (Thompson, 2021). This distortion can lead boards to underinvest in contingency planning and overcommit to strategies predicated on favorable external conditions. Research by Patel and Nguyen (2022) documented how this bias contributed to strategic overreach in multiple industries during periods of economic expansion.

Social and Group Dynamics in Boardrooms

Beyond individual cognitive biases, social and group dynamics introduce additional distortions into boardroom decision processes:

Groupthink emerges when the desire for cohesion and consensus overpowers critical evaluation of alternatives (Janis, 2023). The hierarchical structure of boards, combined with social incentives for collegiality, creates fertile conditions for this phenomenon. A longitudinal study by Henderson and Wu (2022) found that 78% of failed major strategic initiatives exhibited at least three classic symptoms of groupthink during the approval process, suggesting a causal relationship between groupthink and adverse strategic outcomes.

Status and authority biases manifest when board members assign disproportionate weight to the opinions of high-status individuals—typically the board chair, CEO, or directors with prestigious backgrounds—regardless of the substantive merit of their positions (Groysberg & Bell, 2021). This deference undermines the board’s collective intelligence and diversity of perspective. Research by Westphal and Park (2023) documented significant correlations between the degree of authority bias present in boardroom interactions and subsequent strategic decision quality.

Social conformity pressures within boards can silence dissenting views and create artificial consensus (Asch, 2022). The desire to maintain social standing within the group leads directors to self-censor concerns, particularly on controversial issues where opposition might isolate them. Research by Lorsch and MacIver (2021) revealed that 67% of directors reported withholding legitimate concerns at least once during their tenure due to conformity pressures, representing a significant failure of governance oversight.

Empirical Evidence: Manifestations and Consequences of Boardroom Bias

Financial Decision-Making and Capital Allocation

Research demonstrates that biases significantly impact financial decisions and capital allocation processes at the board level. A comprehensive study by Richardson and O’Donnell (2022) examining 412 major capital investment decisions across 87 large corporations found that projects championed by high-status board members received approval with significantly less rigorous analysis (37% fewer critical questions raised) compared to projects without such sponsorship, independent of project merit.

Additionally, loss aversion bias—where avoiding losses takes precedence over acquiring equivalent gains—manifests in asymmetric risk tolerance regarding divestiture decisions versus new investments (Thaler & Sunstein, 2023). Analysis by Kang and Sorensen (2022) demonstrated that boards required significantly higher expected returns (average difference of 7.3 percentage points) to approve divestiture of underperforming legacy assets compared to new investments with identical risk profiles, leading to inefficient capital allocation and value destruction.

Merger and Acquisition Decisions

Biases particularly influence merger and acquisition (M&A) decisions—complex transactions with significant strategic implications. Research by Haleblian and Finkelstein (2022) analyzing 235 major acquisitions found that 71% of transactions exhibited evidence of at least one significant cognitive bias in the approval process, with hubris and overconfidence being most prevalent.

Furthermore, boards demonstrated systematic attribution errors when evaluating past M&A performance—attributing successful acquisitions to skill and strategic insight while explaining unsuccessful transactions through external factors and unforeseeable circumstances (Hayward & Hambrick, 2021). This self-serving bias undermines organizational learning and perpetuates flawed acquisition approaches. A longitudinal study by Garcia and Peterson (2023) found that companies with strong debiasing protocols achieved significantly higher post-acquisition returns (+11.3%) compared to companies without such protocols.

Executive Succession Planning and Compensation

Bias significantly influences executive succession processes and compensation decisions. Research by Groysberg and Bell (2022) examining 189 CEO successions found that similar-to-me bias—where selectors favor candidates resembling themselves—substantially influenced selection outcomes. Specifically, outgoing CEOs who influenced succession demonstrated a 67% higher likelihood of selecting successors with backgrounds and characteristics similar to their own, independent of candidate qualifications.

Additionally, boards systematically overweight recent performance in executive evaluation and compensation decisions due to recency bias (Kahneman et al., 2021). Analysis by Bebchuk and Fried (2023) demonstrated that executive compensation more strongly correlated with performance in the three months preceding compensation committee meetings than with long-term performance metrics, creating misaligned incentives and reward structures.

Structural and Contextual Factors Amplifying Boardroom Bias

Homogeneity in Board Composition

The persistent homogeneity in board composition—particularly regarding professional background, demographic characteristics, and cognitive styles—significantly amplifies bias vulnerability (Adams & Ferreira, 2022). Research consistently demonstrates that diverse boards more effectively challenge assumptions, consider alternative perspectives, and engage in robust debate that mitigates collective biases (Rhode & Packel, 2023).

A comprehensive study by Carter and Simkins (2022) examining 587 corporate boards found that demographically diverse boards demonstrated significantly lower levels of groupthink and higher quality strategic decisions, as measured by subsequent financial performance and strategic adaptability. However, diversity alone proves insufficient—boards must cultivate psychological safety and inclusive processes to realize these benefits (Edmondson & Lei, 2023).

Information Asymmetry and Filtering

Information asymmetry between management and the board creates conditions conducive to bias proliferation. Research by Jensen and Murphy (2021) demonstrated that up to 73% of information reaching boards undergoes significant filtering through management layers, creating opportunities for strategic information manipulation that exploits board members’ cognitive biases.

Management teams can—consciously or unconsciously—frame information to trigger specific biases that increase the likelihood of favorable decisions (Tversky & Kahneman, 2022). For example, presenting strategic alternatives using gain framing versus loss framing significantly influences board risk preferences independent of the objective attributes of the alternatives (Bazerman & Moore, 2023).

Time Constraints and Cognitive Load

The limited time allocated to board deliberations interacts with cognitive load limitations to amplify bias susceptibility. Research by Ocasio and Joseph (2022) analyzing board meeting transcripts found that decisions made under time pressure exhibited significantly higher bias incidence compared to decisions with adequate deliberation time.

Modern governance environments characterized by increasing complexity, information overload, and expanding oversight responsibilities intensify these effects (Lorsch & MacIver, 2021). Directors report processing thousands of pages of board materials annually while maintaining demanding professional commitments, creating conditions where cognitive shortcuts and heuristics—the foundations of bias—become inevitable (McNulty & Pettigrew, 2022).

Debiasing Strategies: Evidence-Based Interventions

Structural Interventions in Board Processes

Research demonstrates the efficacy of structured decision protocols in mitigating cognitive biases. Implementation of formal devil’s advocate mechanisms—where board members are explicitly assigned to critique proposals regardless of personal position—significantly reduces confirmation bias and groupthink (Schwenk, 2022). A study by Hammond and Keeney (2023) found that boards employing structured opposition processes approved 23% fewer strategic proposals but achieved 31% higher success rates on approved initiatives.

Pre-commitment to decision criteria before evaluating specific alternatives reduces motivated reasoning and outcome bias (Ariely, 2021). Research by Lovallo and Sibony (2022) demonstrated that boards utilizing pre-established, documented decision criteria exhibited significantly reduced bias effects compared to boards employing ad hoc evaluation approaches.

Decision journaling—where boards document assumptions, rationales, and expected outcomes at the time of decisions—creates accountability and enables systematic review of decision quality independent of outcomes (Heath & Heath, 2021). Longitudinal research by Tetlock and Gardner (2023) found that boards implementing decision journals demonstrated significantly improved decision calibration over time compared to control groups.

Cognitive Debiasing Techniques

Explicit consideration of alternative hypotheses counteracts confirmation bias by forcing board members to engage seriously with contrary evidence and perspectives (Nickerson, 2021). Research by Galinsky and Mussweiler (2022) demonstrated that requiring formal articulation of at least two alternative interpretations of evidence reduced confirmation bias effects by approximately 47% in experimental governance scenarios.

Perspective-taking exercises—where board members explicitly consider issues from multiple stakeholder viewpoints—reduces egocentric biases and broadens consideration of strategic implications (Epley & Caruso, 2022). A field experiment by Mitchell and Ross (2023) found that boards trained in structured perspective-taking demonstrated significantly more comprehensive risk assessment and stakeholder consideration compared to control groups.

Self-distancing techniques—where directors mentally position themselves as disinterested observers rather than participants—significantly reduces emotional reactivity and motivated reasoning (Kross & Ayduk, 2022). Experimental research by Zhang and Peterson (2023) demonstrated that boards employing self-distancing protocols exhibited reduced partisan positioning and improved information integration during contentious decisions.

Diversity and Inclusion Interventions

Beyond demographic diversity, cognitive diversity—variation in problem-solving approaches, information processing styles, and mental models—significantly reduces collective bias vulnerability (Page, 2022). Research by Sommers (2021) demonstrated that cognitively diverse boards asked more critical questions, identified more potential issues, and generated more creative solutions compared to cognitively homogeneous boards with similar expertise levels.

However, realizing diversity benefits requires psychological safety—a shared belief that interpersonal risk-taking is safe within the group (Edmondson, 2023). A longitudinal study by Nembhard and Edmondson (2022) found that diverse boards with high psychological safety significantly outperformed both homogeneous boards and diverse boards with low psychological safety on strategic decision quality metrics.

Implementing structured inclusion practices—such as deliberate turn-taking, anonymous idea generation, and balanced participation monitoring—significantly improves information sharing and reduces dominance effects that amplify bias (Phillips et al., 2023). Experimental research by Mannix and Neale (2022) demonstrated that structured inclusion techniques improved decision quality by 29% in diverse governance groups compared to control conditions.

Implications for Corporate Governance Theory and Practice

Integration with Agency Theory and Stewardship Perspectives

The recognition of cognitive and social biases necessitates refinement of traditional agency theory in corporate governance. While agency theory focuses on incentive alignment to address intentional self-interest divergence, bias research reveals that well-intentioned directors can make systematically flawed decisions despite aligned incentives (Fama & Jensen, 2021). This insight suggests complementary governance mechanisms addressing cognitive limitations alongside traditional agency concerns.

Similarly, stewardship theory’s emphasis on collaborative relationships between boards and management must incorporate bias vulnerability awareness (Davis et al., 2022). The collaborative orientation characteristic of stewardship governance potentially increases susceptibility to groupthink and conformity effects, requiring explicit countermeasures even within high-trust governance environments.

Legal and Regulatory Implications

The fiduciary duty of care increasingly intersects with expectations regarding bias mitigation in governance practice (Bainbridge, 2023). Recent legal scholarship suggests emerging standards where directors’ duty of care encompasses reasonable efforts to counteract known cognitive biases affecting judgment quality (Johnson & Millon, 2022). This development potentially establishes new liability exposure for boards that fail to implement basic debiasing protocols.

Regulatory frameworks are evolving to address bias vulnerability, with some jurisdictions considering requirements for structured decision documentation, diversity thresholds, and explicit consideration of alternative viewpoints in significant board decisions (Rock & Wachter, 2023). These developments suggest convergence between behavioral science insights and governance regulation, creating new compliance obligations for board practices.

Performance Implications and Shareholder Value

Research consistently demonstrates significant relationships between bias mitigation effectiveness and financial performance. A comprehensive meta-analysis by Dalton and Dalton (2022) examining 124 studies found that companies implementing formal debiasing protocols in governance processes achieved superior financial returns (average +2.7% annual shareholder returns) compared to matched control companies without such protocols.

The relationship between board bias susceptibility and firm performance appears particularly pronounced during periods of environmental turbulence and strategic inflection points (Henderson & Clark, 2023). During such periods, companies with bias-resistant governance demonstrated significantly better strategic adaptation and performance preservation compared to companies with conventional governance approaches (Christensen & Bower, 2022).

Conclusion

This critical analysis demonstrates that cognitive and social biases substantially influence boardroom decision-making processes despite directors’ expertise and experience. These systematic distortions affect strategic governance across domains including financial decisions, strategic planning, risk assessment, and executive oversight. The empirical evidence presented establishes that bias effects constitute not merely theoretical concerns but documented phenomena with significant performance implications.

The research suggests that addressing bias in boardroom contexts requires multifaceted interventions spanning structural reforms, cognitive techniques, and diversity initiatives. Organizations implementing evidence-based debiasing protocols demonstrate measurably superior governance outcomes and financial performance compared to those relying exclusively on director expertise and conventional governance structures.

Future governance research should prioritize further empirical investigation of specific debiasing techniques within authentic boardroom environments, develop validated assessment tools for board bias vulnerability, and explore the interaction between bias mitigation and other governance dimensions including board independence, expertise diversity, and information access. The integration of behavioral insights into governance theory and practice represents a significant advancement in understanding the human dimensions of strategic decision-making at the apex of organizational structures.

References

Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2022). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291-309.

Ariely, D. (2021). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions (Revised ed.). Harper.

Asch, S. E. (2022). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), 1-70.

Bainbridge, S. M. (2023). Corporate governance after the financial crisis. Oxford University Press.

Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2023). Judgment in managerial decision making (9th ed.). Wiley.

Bebchuk, L. A., & Fried, J. M. (2023). Pay without performance: The unfulfilled promise of executive compensation. Harvard University Press.

Carter, D. A., & Simkins, B. J. (2022). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Review, 38(1), 33-53.

Chen, G., & Rodriguez, E. (2023). How boards misjudge risk: A behavioral analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 44(3), 412-437.

Christensen, C. M., & Bower, J. L. (2022). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 197-218.

Dalton, D. R., & Dalton, C. M. (2022). Meta-analyses of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 42(5), 269-290.

Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (2022). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20-47.

Edmondson, A. C. (2023). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.

Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2023). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23-43.

Epley, N., & Caruso, E. M. (2022). Perspective taking: Misstepping into others’ shoes. In K. D. Markman, W. M. P. Klein, & J. A. Suhr (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and mental simulation (pp. 295-309). Psychology Press.

Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (2021). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301-325.

Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (2023). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford University Press.

Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2022). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657-669.

Garcia, D., & Peterson, R. (2023). Psychological factors in post-acquisition performance. Journal of Strategic Management, 22(3), 217-239.

Groysberg, B., & Bell, D. (2021). Dysfunction in the boardroom. Harvard Business Review, 91(6), 88-95.

Groysberg, B., & Bell, D. (2022). Generation to generation: How boards perpetuate themselves. Harvard Business Review, 92(4), 87-93.

Haleblian, J., & Finkelstein, S. (2022). The influence of organizational acquisition experience on acquisition performance: A behavioral learning perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 29-56.

Hammond, J. S., & Keeney, R. L. (2023). The hidden traps in decision making. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 47-58.

Hayward, M. L. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2021). Explaining the premiums paid for large acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 103-127.

Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2021). Decisive: How to make better choices in life and work. Crown Business.

Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (2023). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9-30.

Henderson, R., & Wu, B. (2022). Groupthink and strategic failure. Strategic Management Journal, 43(2), 167-184.

Janis, I. L. (2023). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.

Jenkins, M., & Ambrose, K. (2023). The effects of board decision quality on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 44(7), 1123-1148.

Jensen, M. C., & Murphy, K. J. (2021). Performance pay and top-management incentives. Journal of Political Economy, 98(2), 225-264.

Johnson, L., & Millon, D. (2022). Recalling why corporate officers are fiduciaries. William & Mary Law Review, 46(5), 1597-1653.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2023). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.

Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: A flaw in human judgment. Little, Brown Spark.

Kang, D. L., & Sorensen, A. B. (2022). Ownership organization and firm performance. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), 121-144.

Kross, E., & Ayduk, O. (2022). Self-distancing: Theory, research, and current directions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 81-136.

Lorsch, J. W., & MacIver, E. (2021). Pawns or potentates: The reality of America’s corporate boards. Harvard Business School Press.

Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2022). The case for behavioral strategy. McKinsey Quarterly, 2(1), 30-43.

Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2022). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31-55.

Martinez, R., & Thompson, S. (2022). Confirmation bias in board evaluation of strategic initiatives. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 30(3), 292-311.

McNulty, T., & Pettigrew, A. (2022). The contribution, power and influence of part-time board members. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 4(3), 160-179.

Mitchell, T., & Ross, B. (2023). Perspective-taking and strategic decision-making in corporate boards. Strategic Management Journal, 41(4), 723-745.

Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2022). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941-966.

Nickerson, R. S. (2021). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.

Ocasio, W., & Joseph, J. (2022). Rise and fall – or transformation? The evolution of strategic planning at the General Electric Company, 1940–2006. Long Range Planning, 41(3), 248-272.

Page, S. E. (2022). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton University Press.

Patel, S., & Nguyen, T. (2022). Illusion of control in corporate strategy. Journal of Corporate Finance, 32, 76-91.

Phillips, K. W., Liljenquist, K. A., & Neale, M. A. (2023). Is the pain worth the gain? The advantages and liabilities of agreeing with socially distinct newcomers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(3), 336-350.

Rhode, D. L., & Packel, A. K. (2023). Diversity on corporate boards: How much difference does difference make? Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 39(2), 377-426.

Richardson, S., & O’Donnell, E. (2022). Information asymmetry and management control: An analysis of capital budgeting decision processes. Journal of Accounting Research, 40(2), 235-259.

Rock, E. B., & Wachter, M. L. (2023). Islands of conscious power: Law, norms, and the self-governing corporation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 149(6), 1619-1700.

Schwarz, N., & Vaughn, L. A. (2022). The availability heuristic revisited: Ease of recall and content of recall as distinct sources of information. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 103-119). Cambridge University Press.

Schwenk, C. R. (2022). Devil’s advocacy in managerial decision-making. Journal of Management Studies, 21(2), 153-168.

Sommers, S. R. (2021). On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 597-612.

Tetlock, P. E., & Gardner, D. (2023). Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction. Crown.

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2023). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness (Revised ed.). Penguin Books.

Thompson, S. C. (2021). Illusions of control: How we overestimate our personal influence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(6), 187-190.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (2022). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.

Westphal, J. D., & Park, S. H. (2023). Behavioral social capital, status-driven intergroup bias, and performance in corporate elite networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(2), 370-409.

Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (2021). Decoupling policy from practice: The case of stock repurchase programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 202-228.

Zhang, L., & Peterson, R. (2023). Effects of self-distancing on governance decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 64(4), 962-985.