Islamic Politics Research

Islamic Politics Research

The Mechanisms and Outcomes of Optimism Bias in Governance Decisions from the Perspective of the Holy Quran and Nahj al-Balagha

Document Type : Original Article

Author
PhD in Islamic Theology, Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, University of Qom, Qom..
10.22034/ipr.2025.521816.2264
Abstract
De-biasing governors' decisions is crucial. However, this debiasing requires a complete understanding of the biases. Optimism bias is a type of unconscious cognitive bias. It refers to an unrealistically favorable attitude that people have towards themselves and people who are close to them. Optimism bias is defined as the difference between a person's expectation and the outcome that follows. Accordingly, this study, by examining optimism in Islamic governance decisions, answers the question of what the mechanisms and contextual factors of optimism bias in Muslim governors' decisions are and what their outcomes are. Therefore, with a comparative approach and a realist systematic review method of optimism bias in two valuable Islamic sources in the field of governance, namely the Holy Quran and Nahjul Balagha, it was concluded that optimism bias provides the basis for disruption in the decisions of rulers, both in the field of theoretical reason and in the field of practical reason. Therefore, the mechanisms of this bias are not limited to a lack of awareness, but rather a lack of implementation of Islamic teachings, which has a significant impact on the emergence of optimism bias, which is realized in the behavior of governors in governance justice, which can be recognized by the people.
Keywords

 
Acciarini, Chiara; Brunetta, Federica; & Boccardelli, Paolo. (2020). Cognitive biases and decision-making strategies in times of change: a systematic literature review. Management Decision. Ahead-of-print. 10.1108/MD-07-2019-1006.
Alejandro, A. & Zhao, L. (2023). Multi-Method Qualitative Text and Discourse Analysis: A Methodological Framework. Qualitative Inquiry, 30(6), 461-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004231184421
Athota, Vidya; Pereira, Vijay; Hasan, Mohammad; Vaz, Daicy; Laker, Benjamin & Reppas, Dimitrios. (2023). Overcoming financial planners’ cognitive biases through digitalization: A qualitative study. Journal of Business Research. 154. 113291. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.08.055.
Bazerman, M.H; & Moore, D. (2009), Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, Wiley, New
Bearman, M; & Dawson P. (2013). Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education. Med Educ. Mar; 47(3):252-60. doi: 10.1111/medu.12092. PMID: 23398011.
Douglas, Scott; & Overmans, Tom. (2024). Buyer beware! How cognitive biases can influence the hiring of consultants by public servants. Public Money & Management. 1-6. 10.1080/09540962.2024.2351120.
Forbes, D.P. (2005), “Are some entrepreneurs more overconfident than others? Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 623-640.
Fung, Archon; & Wright, Erik. (2001). Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. Politics & Society - POLIT SOC. 29. 5-41. 10.1177/0032329201029001002.
Heikkila, Tanya; Gerlak, Andrea K; & Naurin, Daniel. (2022). Learning, in Christopher Ansell, Jacob Torfing (eds), Handbook on Theories of Governance, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp. 244-253.
Hendriks, Carolyn. (2009). ‘Deliberative governance in the context of power’, Policy and Society, 28 (3), 173–184
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D; & Tversky, A. (1982). Subjective probability: a judgment of representativeness, Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, in Kahneman, D. Slovic, P; & Tversky, A. (Eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 25-48.
Korteling, J. E; & Toet, A. (2022). Cognitive biases, in Encyclopedia of Behavioural Neuroscience. ed. S. Della Sala. 2nd Edn. (Elsevier), 610–619.
Kramer, R.M; Newton, E; & Pommerenke, P.L. (1993). Self-enhancement biases and negotiator judgment: effects of self-esteem and mood, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 110-133.
Li, K; & Cheung, S.O. (2020). Alleviating bias to enhance sustainable construction dispute management, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 249, p. 119311, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119311.
Mayer, R.C; Davis, J.H; & Schoorman, D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust, Academy of Management Review 20, 709–734.
Mishra, K. C; & Metilda, M. J. (2015). A study on the impact of investment experience, gender, and level of education on overconfidence and self-attribution bias. IIMB Management Review, 27(4), 228-239.
Modic, D; & Lea, S. E. G. (2013). Scam compliance and the psychology of persuasion. Soc. Sci. Res. Network 34. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2364464
Neale, M.A; & Bazerman, M. (1985). The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 34-47.
Nooteboom, Bart. (2022). Trust, in Christopher Ansell, Jacob Torfing (eds), Handbook on Theories of Governance, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited
Ozawa, Connie P. (2012). Planning resilient communities: Insights from experiences with risky technologies, in Bruce Evan Goldstein (ed.), Collaborative Resilience: Moving through Crisis to Opportunity, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 19–38
Park, J; Konana, P; Gu, B; Kumar, A; & Raghunathan, R. (2010). Confirmation bias, overconfidence, and investment performance: Evidence from stock message boards. McCombs Research Paper Series No. IROM-07-10, 1-56.
Pawson, R; Greenhalgh, T; Harvey, G; & Walshe, K. (2005). Realist review – a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy.10 (Suppl 1):21–34.
Quick, Kathryn. S; & Bryson, John, M. (2022). Public participation, in Christopher Ansell, Jacob Torfing (eds), Handbook on Theories of Governance, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited
Ricciardi, V; & Simon, H. (2000). The case for behavioral finance: A new frontier. The Northeast Business & Economics Association. 27th Annual Conference, Islandia, New York.
Sabatier, P.A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein, Policy Sciences, 21 (2–3), 129–168.
Shiller, R (2015). Irrational Exuberance. Princeton: Princeton, University Press.
Skala, D. (2008). Overconfidence in psychology and finance-an interdisciplinary literature review. Bank I kredyt, (4), 33-50.
Strøm, Kaare. (2000). Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies, European Journal of Political Research, 37 (3), 261–289
Tan, L. S; Audrey, L. C. L; & Cheah, Y. Y. (2021). The Moderating Effect of Mental Health in Familiarity Bias and Self-Attribution of Financial Planning Behaviour among Malaysians. Studies of Applied Economics, 39(4), 1-12.
Tetlock, Philip. (2000). Cognitive Biases and Organizational Correctives: Do Both Disease and Cure Depend on the Politics of the Beholder? Administrative Science Quarterly - ADMIN SCI QUART. 45. 293-326. 10.2307/2667073.
Thaler, R.H; & Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge: improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Torfing, J; Peters, B.G; Pierre, J; & Sørensen, E. (2012). Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Tversky, A; & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1738360
 
Wong, G; Greenhalgh, T; Pawson, R. (2010). Internet-based medical education: a realist review of what works, for whom and in what circumstances. BMC Med Educ, 10:12.
Wong, G; Greenhalgh, T; Westhorp, G. (2013). RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews. BMC Med 11, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-20
Volume 13, Issue 27 - Serial Number 27
September 2025
Pages 90-121

  • Receive Date 06 May 2025
  • Revise Date 15 September 2025
  • Accept Date 18 October 2025