本研究以行為經濟學理論為基礎，探討家族企業在不同治理階段中決策偏誤的形成與演化，研究核心聚焦於兩條偏誤鏈結：「情感依附強化沉沒成本」與「錨定效應促進風險趨避」，旨在揭示情感與認知因素如何分別透過上述兩條鏈結機制影響家族企業的資源配置與策略選擇，研究以鑄鐵鍋 OEM／ODM 製造為主的 B 公司為個案，透過深度訪談九位關鍵決策者，並輔以公司內部文件與歷史資料，以質性主題分析法(Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2021)進行開放與軸心編碼，對照三項決策情境（重大投資、策略轉型、組織變革）與三種治理型態（家族主導、混合治理、專業經理人治理）。
研究結果顯示，家族企業的心理偏誤呈現階段性演化特徵：（1）在創辦期，「情感依附強化沉沒成本」鏈結最為強烈，創辦人將投資視為家族榮譽象徵，即使中國設廠效益不彰，仍延後撤資；（2）於混合治理階段，情感依附轉化為「品牌傳承」的象徵意義，使自創品牌投資帶有道德與情感負擔；（3）進入專業經理人治理後，偏誤逐漸制度化與可控化，沉沒成本透過階段性導入與績效評估被有效界定，另一方面，「錨定效應促進風險趨避」鏈結顯示，創辦期決策者錨於早期成功經驗，導致防衛性風險文化；隨專業治理成熟，企業逐步以數據與制度為決策錨點，轉向理性風險管理，整體而言，偏誤並未消失，而是隨治理結構轉變，由個人心理現象轉化為組織性學習與制度調適。
本研究的理論貢獻在於將行為偏誤由單一效應擴展至鏈結形成與演化機制，補充家族企業在治理轉型過程中偏誤馴化的動態觀察；實務意涵則指出，家族企業可透過設立外部顧問、專業審查機制與制度化風險指標，於情感與理性之間取得平衡，提升決策品質與組織韌性。
基於上述背景，本研究並非意圖否定家族企業的經營優勢，而是在其長期導向與情感價值的脈絡下，理解治理轉換過程中決策偏誤的形成機制，研究選擇「情感依附」與「錨定效應」作為分析焦點，係因前者為家族企業的重要特徵，而後者雖普遍存在，卻在家族企業的世代傳承與治理階段轉換中，常因組織記憶與過往成功經驗而被放大，具體而言，情感依附易於在重大投資決策中強化沉沒成本，而錨定效應則嵌入治理傳承歷程，形塑防衛性風險文化與策略保守傾向，有助於解釋偏誤如何隨治理結構變化而演化。

Family firms play a crucial role in global economies, yet their decision-making processes often reflect both rational analysis and emotional or cognitive biases. Drawing on behavioral economics and family-business governance theory, this study examines how psychological biases emerge, interact, and evolve across governance stages in a multigenerational manufacturing enterprise. Focusing on two core bias linkages—Emotional Attachment → Sunk Cost and Anchoring Effect → Risk Aversion—the research argues that biases in family firms are not isolated phenomena but interconnected mechanisms shaped by governance transitions and intergenerational dynamics.
Using B Company, a Taiwanese cast-iron cookware OEM/ODM manufacturer, as the focal case, this study adopts a qualitative approach involving nine in-depth interviews with the founder, second-generation members, and professional managers, supplemented by internal documents and historical records. Following Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis, the study applies open and axial coding to identify how psychological biases influence major investment choices, strategic transformation, and organizational reforms across three governance stages: founding, hybrid, and professionalized governance.
The findings show that the Emotional Attachment → Sunk Cost linkage is strongest in the founding stage, when investment decisions carry symbolic meanings of family honor and commitment, leading to delayed divestment despite poor performance. In the hybrid stage, emotional attachment transforms into the symbolic idea of “brand heritage,” making strategic adjustments more difficult. Under professional governance, sunk-cost tendencies become moderated through performance evaluation and institutional boundaries, illustrating how biases can shift from personal sentiment to organizational routines.
The Anchoring Effect → Risk Aversion linkage similarly evolves over time. The founder’s reliance on early success experiences anchors decision-making and creates defensive risk attitudes. As governance professionalizes, anchoring gradually shifts toward data and systems, enabling more rational risk management and reducing excessive conservatism. Overall, the study finds that biases do not disappear but become reinterpreted and embedded within institutional processes, transitioning from individual cognition to collective organizational behavior.
Theoretically, this research expands behavioral-economics insights by shifting the focus from single-bias effects to interactive bias linkage mechanisms, highlighting how emotional and cognitive forces jointly influence decision patterns in family firms. Practically, the study suggests that family businesses can strengthen decision quality and organizational resilience by establishing external advisory mechanisms, formalizing risk indicators, and enhancing cross-functional governance to balance emotional continuity with rational discipline.

一、中文文獻
許宇鵬, & 徐龍炳. (2023). 代際傳承與家族企業併購行為: 基於傳承多階段演進視角. 財經研究, 49(7).
吳易得. (2019). 家族企業職業經理人離職問題研究 國立臺灣大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 臺北市. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/b8b37r
李佳蓉, 李振宇, & 吳學良. (2017). 家族企業之興業行為: 探究忠僕型經理人, 開創性導向以及新產品開發之關係. 臺大管理論叢.
紀又綺. (2015). 臺灣家族企業特色之探討 逢甲大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 台中市. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/6bkrf2
常振怡. (2019). 家族企業傳承之研究--創辦人,二代,員工之觀點 國立中山大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 高雄市. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/bke3cq
張惠晴, 林昆立, & 張元. (2022). 家族傳承與公司績效-企業社會責任的調節作用. 應用經濟論叢 (111), 121-178.
曹慧君. (2016). 台灣家族企業傳承模式探討-企業主觀點之交班決策 中原大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 桃園縣. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/w72g8s
許育瑄. (2021). 為何要撤離？探討子公司績效、寬裕資源與沉沒成本在撤離決策中之影響 銘傳大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 臺北市. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/78y5gg
羅琳珍. (2011). 家族企業、代理問題與公司績效之實證研究 (Publication Number 2011年) 健行科技大學]. AiritiLibrary.
二、英文文獻
Alguera Kleine, R., Ge, B., & De Massis, A. (2024). Look in to look out: Strategy and family business identity during COVID-19. Small Business Economics, 63(3), 993-1018.
Almansour, B. Y., Elkrghli, S., & Almansour, A. Y. (2023). Behavioral finance factors and investment decisions: A mediating role of risk perception. Cogent Economics & Finance, 11(2), 2239032.
Andrieu, E., Toubal, F., & Villanueva, P. (2024). Family Firms in France: Macro Impact and Micro Insights.
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 35(1), 124-140.
Baltazar, J. R., Fernandes, C. I., Ramadani, V., & Hughes, M. (2023). Family business succession and innovation: a systematic literature review. Review of Managerial Science, 17(8), 2897-2920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00607-8
Bendig, D., Foege, J. N., Endriß, S., & Brettel, M. (2020). The effect of family involvement on innovation outcomes: the moderating role of board social capital. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(3), 249-272.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less? Administrative science quarterly, 55(1), 82-113.
Birdthistle, N., & Hales, R. (2023). The meaning of a family business and why they are important to economies. In Attaining the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal of Gender Equality (pp. 13-24). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Random House.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. In: sage.
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19-39.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
Cordoba, I., Iturralde, T., & Maseda, A. (2024). Family firms unveiled: Navigating their distinctive investment and financing decisions. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 30(2), 100247.
De Massis, A., & Kotlar, J. (2014). The case study method in family business research: Guidelines for qualitative scholarship. Journal of family business strategy, 5(1), 15-29.
Dijkstra, K. A., & Hong, Y.-y. (2019). The feeling of throwing good money after bad: The role of affective reaction in the sunk-cost fallacy. PloS one, 14(1), e0209900.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International journal of qualitative methods, 5(1), 80-92.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative science quarterly, 52(1), 106-137.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Nunez-Nickel, M., & Gutierrez, I. (2001). The role of family ties in agency contracts. Academy of management Journal, 44(1), 81-95.
Guenzel, M. (2019). In too deep: The effect of sunk costs on corporate investment. The Journal of Finance, forthcoming.
Handler, W. C. (1989). Methodological issues and considerations in studying family businesses. Family business review, 2(3), 257-276.
Kabbach de Castro, L. R., Aguilera, R. V., & Crespí-Cladera, R. (2017). Family firms and compliance: Reconciling the conflicting predictions within the socioemotional wealth perspective. Family business review, 30(2), 137-159.
Kahneman, D. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47, 278.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. macmillan.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias.
Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2011). Before you make that big decision. Harvard business review, 89(6), 50-60.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2013). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I (pp. 99-127). World Scientific.
Khan, M. U., & Tariq, Y. B. (2022). Sunk Cost Bias in Decision Making: Empirical Evidence on CapitalExpenditure in Mergers and Acquisitions Deals. International Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 3(2), 80-95.
König, A., Kammerlander, N., & Enders, A. (2013). The family innovator's dilemma: How family influence affects the adoption of discontinuous technologies by incumbent firms. Academy of management review, 38(3), 418-441.
Ma, D., Mattingly, E. S., Kushev, T. N., Ahuja, M. K., & Manikas, A. S. (2022). The role of socioemotional wealth in entrepreneurial persistence decisions for family businesses. Journal of Small Business Strategy.
March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management science, 33(11), 1404-1418.
Migliori, S., De Massis, A., Maturo, F., & Paolone, F. (2020). How does family management affect innovation investment propensity? The key role of innovation impulses. Journal of Business Research, 113, 243-256.
Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2006). Family governance and firm performance: Agency, stewardship, and capabilities. Family business review, 19(1), 73-87.
Miroshnychenko, I., Torres de Oliveira, R., De Massis, A., & Überbacher, R. (2024). Family involvement and firm performance: A worldwide study unveiling key mechanisms. Family business review, 37(4), 449-475.
Negrini, M., Riedl, A., & Wibral, M. (2022). Sunk cost in investment decisions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 200, 1105-1135.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International journal of qualitative methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of management review, 26(2), 298-310.
Razzak, M. R. (2023). Emotions, identity, social bonds and commitment to the family business: moderating role of controlling generation. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 15(6), 1392-1415.
Shen, X. (2023). Firm heterogeneity and innovation intensity in family business University of Otago].
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. In: Sage.
Tait, V., & Miller Jr, H. L. (2019). Loss aversion as a potential factor in the sunk-cost fallacy. International journal of psychological research, 12(2), 8-16.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.
Werner, A., Schröder, C., & Chlosta, S. (2018). Driving factors of innovation in family and non-family SMEs. Small Business Economics, 50(1), 201-218.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (Vol. 6). Sage Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zhang, M., Nazir, M. S., Farooqi, R., & Ishfaq, M. (2022). Moderating role of information asymmetry between cognitive biases and investment decisions: A mediating effect of risk perception. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 828956.