Research indicates that we often unconsciously justify decisions we’ve already made—a phenomenon well-documented in decision psychology known as “confirmation bias.”
Confirmation Bias
Confirmation bias refers to our inherent tendency to seek out information that supports our existing beliefs and choices, while disregarding or undervaluing information that contradicts them. This often occurs subconsciously and is particularly relevant in procurement. When a decision-maker has a preference for a specific product or supplier, they are more likely to notice and emphasize the positive aspects of that option, while ignoring potential drawbacks or the advantages of competitors.
Pioneers in decision psychology, such as Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, have documented how human decision-making processes are influenced by cognitive biases. Kahneman, a Nobel laureate in economics, describes in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow how we often make quick, intuitive decisions that we later rationalize with analytical arguments.
The IKEA Effect
Another psychological mechanism relevant here is the “IKEA Effect,” which describes how people place higher value on products they’ve helped create themselves. In procurement, decision-makers involved in drafting specifications or requirements may feel a stronger attachment to suppliers that best match their criteria, reinforcing an existing preference.
Read more about the IKEA Effect here (external site – opens in new tab)
Research on Decision Justification
Studies on post-hoc justification show that we often construct arguments to support decisions we’ve already made, rather than objectively evaluating all options from the outset. This applies to large, complex purchasing decisions, where emotions and personal preferences can influence outcomes as much as objective facts. Research also indicates that we tend to favor the first product or service we consider, subsequently seeking information that supports this preference.
Application in Procurement
In procurement processes, these psychological mechanisms can lead those drafting requirements or specifications to have a preferred supplier or solution in mind. Unconsciously, they may tailor requirements to favor this preference, even if the process appears “neutral.” This creates a competitive environment where outcomes are heavily influenced by cognitive biases rather than objective assessments. While this may occur unintentionally and without legal violations, it can still undermine the fairness of the decision-making process.
Understanding decision psychology provides deeper insight into how our choices may not be as rational as we believe. By being aware of these mechanisms, we can better structure procurement and other critical decision-making processes to ensure more objective and fair evaluations.
Have you encountered situations where cognitive biases influenced procurement decisions? Share your experiences in the comments below to foster a discussion on improving objectivity in procurement processes.
