Cognitive bias in defense acquisition decision-making: insights from the Armed Forces of the Philippines

Abstract

Purpose This research examines the role of cognitive biases in defense acquisition decision-making within the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). It focuses on five such biases – loss aversion, overconfidence, anchoring, confirmation bias and groupthink – and their effects on acquisition decisions aimed at supporting AFP modernization goals. The study also investigates contextual constraints that heighten susceptibility to these biases and hinder optimal decision-making. Design/methodology/approach The study used a mixed-methods approach combining document analysis, key informant interviews and a survey questionnaire. Data were collected from nine key informants – chief planning, procurement and contracting officers from each AFP service – and six survey respondents with acquisition team experience. Triangulation across these sources enhanced validity and reliability. Findings Loss aversion emerged as the most frequently cited bias among key informants, while survey respondents identified groupthink as the most prevalent. Participants reported difficulty recognizing the onset of biases, noting that their effects were often realized only after decisions had been made. Leadership-organizational weaknesses and limited research capacity were identified as contextual factors that increased susceptibility. Proposed mitigation strategies included debiasing interventions, establishing a dedicated R&D command and implementing continuing education reforms. Originality/value This study addresses a significant research gap by empirically examining cognitive biases in defense acquisition within the AFP. It contributes original insights into how such biases affect decision-making and modernization outcomes, and it proposes defense-specific strategies for mitigation.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.