ABSTRACT Date: 2020-06-09   Level: Bachelor thesis in Business Administration, 15 cr    Institution: School of Business, Society and Engineering, Mälardalen University    Authors:                   Axel Andrén                                  Linus Mild                                  (93/09/24)                                   (93/10/19)   Title: “What's in motion, remains in motion” - Why losing projects aren’t terminated                                                       Tutor: Johan Grinbergs   Keywords: Behavioral biases, losing projects, terminate, permissive climate, rationalization   Research questions: How does behavioral biases contribute to the continuation of losing projects? What is the general consciousness about the biases within larger organizations and is there any signs of post rationalization of irrational actions?   Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify and examine in what ways behavioral biases cause irrational decision making in larger companies. The study also intends to examine project managers consciousness about these biases and weather any deficiency indicates post-rationalization.   Method: This study is based on a qualitative method with a deductive approach where the primary data was collected via semi-structured interviews. The theoretical framework with relevance to the purpose of the study formed an interview guide as well as formed the analysis chapter together with the collected empirical data. The analysis made the basis for the study's conclusion.   Conclusion: The behavioral biases are mainly consistent of prestige and sunk costs. The reason for this is can be related to the size of the organization. Other biases are not as evident within larger organizations as these are more apparent in individuals. The consciousness about what impact the behavioral biases have on decisions is found to be low among the respondents. They would like to think of their decisions as rational while we can distinguish behavioral biases causing post rationalization of irrational actions.

Frequently in MMORPGs, players will encounter something known to players as farming or grinding. Grinding is a controversial matter in the gaming community, as many do not enjoy it and see it as a sign of lazy and poor game design. However, it is a difficult topic to argue as whatever is a grind, differs for each person. To elevate the discussion about grinds in the gaming community, this paper aims to give a definition of grinds and answer how they are perceived by players and designers alike. Grinds are argued to be dull, tedious and monotonous, but they are ever prevalent in games today.  To find what differentiates between a satisfying or waste of time grinding, this paper also aims to discover what makes a grind enjoyable, and when they are appropriate.  The results of this paper are built upon previous works and media on game design and grinds. Interviews were held with players that grind to get a deeper understanding of what drives players to grind. The results define grinds as the act of doing something repeatedly for one's own gain. Seven sub-grinds that are found in different games were defined, each with varying characteristics. Grinds are not inherently bad, despite the negative connotations. They are like any other aspect of a game, they can be executed well or poorly. The developers' responsibility is to design a well-balanced grind that does not hinder players from doing what they like and deliver a satisfying experience.

No description available.

本研究經由兩個系列的實驗設計以探討套票的使用行為與續購行為。其中，實驗一是以虛擬情境檢視套票型式影響消費者的使用意圖，並以受測者的規範導向做為調節變數；實驗二則更進一步地以較接近真實生活的情境來進行操弄，更明確地檢測了消費者對套票的實際使用情形以及續購行為，除仍以受測者的生理規範導向做為調節變數，另探討了套票持有的前期與後期對使用行為的調節效果。 實驗一的結果顯示透過不同套票類型所引發持有者沉入成本上的差異，可能導致受測者在套票的使用意願不同。具體來說，愈是能讓受測者感受到不使用便等同於虧損的套票，受測者的使用意願便會更高。此外，不同規範導向的受測者所重視的目標不同。積極導向動機較強的受測者，行為較易受到努力得到想要結果的動機驅策，所以比較在意結果是否能獲得之前欠缺的東西；反過來說，保守導向動機較強的受測者，行為較易受到努力保持現有結果的動機引導，所以比較在意結果是否會失去之前擁有的東西。以不同動機系統為主的不同類型受測者的行為會有很大的差異。積極導向者比較容易追尋更完美的結果，所以當競爭者推出可能是較佳的替代品時，轉換意願較高；至於保守導向者則較在意持有現有可接受的結果，所以發現可能是較佳的替代品時，則寧願使用手中持有的套票。 至於實驗二的結果則顯示受測者在套票持有的前期較易於使用套票，換言之，隨著套票持有的時間愈久，對未使用完畢套票的沉入成本感受會隨著時間降低，使用套票的可能性也就因此愈低。此外，不同的套票型式對保守導向者的影響比較大，對保守導向動機較強的受測者而言，若所持有的套票型式是較容易感受到當未使用套票時，就意謂著沉入成本無法回收時，使用套票的意願會較高。而當持有的型式是較不容易感受到套票成本的型式時，使用此套票的可能性就相對降低了。但是積極導向動機系統為主的受測者來說，套票的實體型式對使用行為的差異就不太明顯了。不同型式的套票，並不會對積極導向者產生太大使用行為上的差異。 若保守導向者持有的是較容易感受到此套票成本的型式時，在套票持有的前期與後期間的使用差距不太會有明顯的改變，也就是說，他們比較不會因為套票持有的時間較久就明顯地降低使用行為，但若持有的是比較不容易感受到成本的套票時，在套票持有的後期會比前期容易不去使用套票。至於對積極導向者來說，這項因為套票型式上的差別造成在持有套票的前期與後期使用套票上的變化就不太明顯，事實上，積極導向者無論持有何種型式的套票，在後期都會明顯的降低使用套票的行為。 當套票使用完畢後，原持有的是較不容易感受到成本的套票型式受測者，續購意願比較高。而原持有的是較容易感受到套票成本的型式時，相對上的續購意願會較低。這項影響僅對保守導向者有影響，至於對積極導向者來說，就沒有什麼明顯的差異。 研究的結果大致與研究假說一致，因此，對於理論與實務上亦據本研究的結論提一些的建議。 關鍵詞: 沉入成本效果、規範導向論、動機系統、價格組合、套票、認知評估論 / This study utilized two experimental designs in testing consumer behavior in the usage and repurchase of bundled tickets (price bundling). In the first experiment, a traditional context was employed by using respondent regulatory focus as the moderator to test the impact of bundled ticket types on consumer usage intention. In the second experiment, a more realistic context was employed to examine consumers’ real usage and repurchase behavior with the bundle. Here in addition to using respondents’ regulatory focus as pure-moderator, study two also included bundling quasi-moderator—possession phases. The results of the first study showed that the difference in sunk cost effects caused by the two types of bundling would result in different bundling utilization intentions. Moreover, respondents within different motivation systems showed significantly different behavior patterns—promotion focus respondents were more likely to seek better gains, thus when competitors provided better alternatives, these respondents were more likely to make the switch. Prevention focus respondents, on the other hand, cared more about losses, making them more likely to remain with the original service provider. The result of the second study showed that compared with the later phase, bundling usage propensity was higher in the earlier holding phase. Moreover, different forms of bundled tickets had different extent influences on prevention focus respondents. Prevention focus respondents held that separate types caused them to have higher intentions in using bundling, but they would be relatively less likely to use bundling when they were in possession of an integrated one. However, the effect of different types of bundling on the usage behavior of promotion focus respondents was not significant. Among prevention focus respondents who were more sensitive to bundled ticket costs, there is no significant difference in their utilization of bundling from earlier to later phases. However, if the bundled tickets in possession were the integrated type, they were less likely to use the tickets in the later phase than in the earlier one. Regarding promotion focus respondents, the effect of bundled ticket form in the usage of said tickets in the two phases was not significant. In fact, no matter what form the bundling took, promotion focus respondents displayed significantly less use for the bundling in the later phase. Bundling possession forms had the direct impact on repurchasing behavior. In this regard, respondents holding integrated bundling types displayed a higher incidence of repurchase behavior. This was, however, only effective when it came to prevention focus respondents; no significant difference was found regarding promotion focus respondents. The results of this study yielded suggestions for both theoretical and practical areas. Key Words: Sunk Cost Effect, Regulatory Focus Theory, Motivation Systems, Price Bundling, Bundled Ticket, Cognitive Evaluation Theory