Experiments on
Entrepreneurial
Decision Making:
A Different Lens Through
Which to Look at
Entrepreneurship
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
Experiments on
Entrepreneurial
Decision Making:
A Different Lens Through
Which to Look at
Entrepreneurship
Christian Schade
Humboldt-Universitat zu BerlinGermany
Katrin Burmeister-Lamp
Humboldt-Universitat zu BerlinGermany
Boston â Delft
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
Foundations and Trends R© inEntrepreneurship
Published, sold and distributed by:now Publishers Inc.PO Box 1024Hanover, MA 02339USATel. [email protected]
Outside North America:now Publishers Inc.PO Box 1792600 AD DelftThe NetherlandsTel. +31-6-51115274
The preferred citation for this publication is C. Schade and K. Burmeister-Lamp,Experiments on Entrepreneurial Decision Making: A Different Lens Through Which
to Look at Entrepreneurship, Foundations and Trends R© in Entrepreneurship, vol 5,no 2, pp 81â134, 2009
ISBN: 978-1-60198-198-1c© 2009 C. Schade and K. Burmeister-Lamp
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recordingor otherwise, without prior written permission of the publishers.
Photocopying. In the USA: This journal is registered at the Copyright Clearance Cen-ter, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. Authorization to photocopy items forinternal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted bynow Publishers Inc for users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC). Theâservicesâ for users can be found on the internet at: www.copyright.com
For those organizations that have been granted a photocopy license, a separate systemof payment has been arranged. Authorization does not extend to other kinds of copy-ing, such as that for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, forcreating new collective works, or for resale. In the rest of the world: Permission to pho-tocopy must be obtained from the copyright owner. Please apply to now Publishers Inc.,PO Box 1024, Hanover, MA 02339, USA; Tel. +1-781-871-0245; www.nowpublishers.com;[email protected]
now Publishers Inc. has an exclusive license to publish this material worldwide. Permissionto use this content must be obtained from the copyright license holder. Please apply to nowPublishers, PO Box 179, 2600 AD Delft, The Netherlands, www.nowpublishers.com; e-mail:[email protected]
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
Foundations and Trends R© inEntrepreneurship
Volume 5 Issue 2, 2009
Editorial Board
Editors-in-Chief:Zoltan J. AcsGeorge Mason [email protected]
David B. AudretschMax Planck [email protected] [email protected]
EditorsHoward Aldrich, University of North CarolinaSharon Alvarez, Ohio State UniversityMark Casson, University of ReadingPer Davidsson, Queensland University of TechnologyWilliam B. Gartner, Clemson UniversitySharon Gifford, Rutgers UniversityMagnus Henrekson, The Research Institute of Industrial EconomicsMichael A. Hitt, Texas A&M UniversityJoshua Lerner, Harvard UniversitySimon Parker, University of DurhamPaul Reynolds, Florida International UniversityKelly G. Shaver, College of William and MaryDavid Storey, University of WarwickPatricia Thornton, Duke UniversityRoy Thurik, Erasmus UniversityGregory Udell, Indiana UniversitySankaran Venkataraman, Batten InstitutePaul Westhead, Nottingham University Business SchoolShaker Zahra, University of Minnesota
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
Editorial Scope
Foundations and Trends R© in Entrepreneurship will publish sur-vey and tutorial articles in the following topics:
âą Nascent and start-upentrepreneurs
âą Opportunity recognition
âą New venture creation process
âą Business formation
âą Firm ownership
âą Market value and firm growth
âą Franchising
âą Managerial characteristics andbehavior of entrepreneurs
âą Strategic alliances and networks
âą Government programs and publicpolicy
âą Gender and ethnicity
âą New business financing:
âą Business angels
âą Bank financing, debt, and tradecredit
âą Venture capital and private equitycapital
âą Public equity and IPOâs
âą Family-owned firms
âą Management structure, governanceand performance
âą Corporate entrepreneurship
âą High technology
âą Technology-based new firms
âą High-tech clusters
âą Small business and economicgrowth
Information for LibrariansFoundations and Trends R© in Entrepreneurship, 2009, Volume 5, 8 issues. ISSNpaper version 1551-3114. ISSN online version 1551-3122. Also available as acombined paper and online subscription.
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
Foundations and Trends R© inEntrepreneurship
Vol. 5, No. 2 (2009) 81â134c© 2009 C. Schade and K. Burmeister-Lamp
DOI: 10.1561/0300000019
Experiments on Entrepreneurial DecisionMaking: A Different Lens Through Which
to Look at Entrepreneurship
Christian Schade1 and Katrin Burmeister-Lamp2
1 Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany, [email protected] Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany,
Abstract
In this paper, we propose that researchers might analyze key ques-tions in entrepreneurship as problems of decision making. We believethat this allows for new insights. Experiments are especially suited toempirically test hypotheses derived within such a framework. In thispaper, we thus introduce the decision-making perspective as well asgeneral characteristics of the experimental method. We also discussexisting experimental studies in entrepreneurship with respect to theuse of a decision-making perspective and specifics of their experimentaldesigns. Finally, we present âresearch casesâ that demonstrate the shiftin perspective that occurs when common questions in entrepreneurshipare analyzed through the lens of decision making. We conclude thatentrepreneurial decision making (EDM) bears the potential of a scien-tific paradigm. This paper is intended to stimulate theory developmentto establish such a paradigm and (experimental) research within theperspective of EDM.
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Characterizing the EDM Lens: TheoreticalDefinition and Example 7
3 Experiments as a Research Method 11
4 Experiments 15
4.1 Experimental Designs 154.2 Quality Criteria 174.3 Experimental Subjects 184.4 Actual vs Hypothetical Decisions 20
5 Experimental Studies on Entrepreneurial DecisionMaking 23
5.1 Quasi-experimental Papers 235.2 Experimental Papers with a Within-Group Manipulation 265.3 Experimental Papers with a Between-Group
Manipulation 295.4 Economic Experiments on Strategic Decisions 325.5 Intermediate Summary 36
ix
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
6 âScientific Casesâ: How EDM Might Changethe Way We Look at Things 39
6.1 The Dispersed Knowledge View of the EntrepreneurialFirm 39
6.2 Entrepreneurial Cognition Research 416.3 Time Allocation of Entrepreneurs 42
7 EDM: Potentially a New Paradigm forEntrepreneurship Research? 45
References 49
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
1
Introduction
A number of authors in entrepreneurship have used the termentrepreneurial decision making (EDM) to label their contributions(e.g., Busenitz and Barney (1997), Levesque and MacCrimmon (1997),Forlani and Mullins (2000), Simon and Houghton (2002), Mullins andForlani (2005), Levesque and Schade (2005), Gustafsson (2006)). Bythe use of this term, each author may have had something slightlydifferent in mind, but the general idea always traces back to decisiontheory: sometimes of the kind more rooted in economics and sometimesof the kind more rooted in psychology. Despite subtle differences, thejoint perspective of economic and psychological approaches is to lookat individualsâ choices among alternatives as the object of investiga-tion (Schade and Koellinger, 2007). For a psychologist a decision isa rich phenomenon involving all kinds of cognitive, emotional, moti-vational, judgmental, perceptual, personal, and environmental factors(Kunreuther and Krantz, 2007).1 For a mainstream economist, factors
1 Common distinctions are made between normative decision theory and descriptive decisiontheory (the latter having much in common with cognitive psychology) as well as normative
and descriptive game theory (the latter having much in common with social psychology).Whereas the two normative theories try to answer the question how one should behave
1
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
2 Introduction
such as emotions and perceptions are typically not dealt with in detail(or not at all).
Investigating entrepreneurial decision making might imply havinga specific perspective on entrepreneurship. It implies the analysisof key questions in entrepreneurship research as decision making ofentrepreneurs and of other individuals in entrepreneurial contexts. Thisis different from general research on decision making because it looksat specific individuals in a specific context. Entrepreneurs have beendemonstrated already to decide differently than others (see, Busenitzand Barney (1997) and Burmeister and Schade (2007)), and there arecontexts specific to entrepreneurship. This makes it necessary to studyentrepreneurship as a separate management discipline. According toBaron (1998), the behavior of entrepreneurs differs from that of otherindividuals because entrepreneurs either self-select into this career pathor are shaped by the specifics of the environment: uncertainty, high-stakes decisions, short windows of opportunity, etc.
Why is the investigation of decision making a specific âlensâ? Withthe word lens we refer to the fact that every individual and specif-ically every researcher has an idiosyncratic way of looking at thesame research object. The idiosyncratic perspective is formed by theresearcherâs original training, knowledge, and his or her openness fordifferent perspectives. Let us demonstrate the effect of applying theEDM lens by looking at âclassicâ questions in entrepreneurship. Weuse those questions that were covered in the first issue of the Journal ofBusiness Venturing in 1985 (see also Alvarez (2007)) because they arestill reflective of a vast majority of research endeavors in entrepreneur-ship. The first question, âwho is the entrepreneur?â has been analyzedearlier in the so-called trait approach and has also been dealt with incognitive psychology.
What is the specific EDM take on this question? An example is thestudy of Burmeister and Schade (2007). In this research, entrepreneurs,bankers, and students are confronted with exactly the same decisionsituations. However, entrepreneurs appear to exhibit a so-called status
(if he or she intends to be rational â how difficult a convincing definition of rationalitymight be!), the descriptive parts deal with the question how people actually behave.
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
3
quo bias to a lesser extent in their decisions than bankers. Therefore,the authors can safely conjecture that entrepreneurs make decisionsdifferently than other individuals. Unlike psychological questionnaireson individual characteristics that have been used in the trait approach,2
these differences are established somewhat closer to the actual âplayingground,â than everyday decisions that individuals make.
The second question, âhow do entrepreneurs raise capital?â can bedealt with as a decision process too; however, not only the entrepreneursbut also the venture capitalists (VCs), bankers, etc. are relevant deci-sion makers, here. In contrast to the first question, a decision-makingperspective has been adopted earlier for this question, e.g., in conjointexperiments.
With the third question, âhow do entrepreneurs manage rapidgrowth?â literature mostly adopted a fairly aggregated (i.e., orga-nization level) perspective, whereas a decision-making perspectivewould imply analyzing these problems more directly, e.g., by havingentrepreneurs making decisions on growth related investments, organi-zational changes, etc.
âWhat impact do networks have on entrepreneurial phenomena?â isthe fourth question. Here a sociological perspective is adopted in mostof the literature. Namely, the structure of networks between organiza-tions is the level of analysis. A decision-making perspective would focuson the decision of an entrepreneur whether or not to contact a specificperson and whether to maintain this relationship or simply on howmuch to invest into networking rather than problem-solving activities.
The fifth question is âwhat role does corporate entrepreneurshiphave?â Different methods are employed that are more or less focusedon individuals or higher units of aggregation. Sometimes, the focus ison decisions of individuals or groups, and sometimes on companies orproducts. While the view on aggregated units is not consistent with anEDM perspective, the view on the decision making of individuals orgroups is.
2 The trait approach refers to an extensive body of literature that tried to identify a specific
entrepreneurial personality in the 70s and 80s of the last century (see, e.g., Brockhaus(1982)).
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
4 Introduction
Summing up, EDM is a perspective bearing the potential of beingapplied to many research questions in entrepreneurship. Apparently,this perspective has specific requirements regarding the informationneeded to analyze a research question and it might lead to a shift infocus. For example, a network analysis from the perspective of EDMwould partially shift the focus away from the resulting social networkstructure and draw attention to the determinants of the entrepreneurâsdecision, whom and how to contact in order to establish a businessrelationship. The information needed is much more detailed than theinformation required to understand the structure of the network. Theresearcher would have to know the information the entrepreneur pos-sesses about the potential partners, her goals and restrictions, and herlong-term strategy. In many cases, additional information on her riskpropensity, professional background, and social skills would be help-ful. Since such detailed information requires controlling, measuring, ormanipulating a variety of factors with each individual, experiments areoften a method of choice.
This paper tries to make the point that EDM opens an importantperspective on entrepreneurship that contributes to our knowledge andis complementary to other perspectives. It might have the potential tobecome a research paradigm. When the researcher decides to adopt thisperspective, it is important to understand which of the different kindsof experiments is appropriate in each situation.
The experiments we are going to propose are often different fromthose currently used to analyze entrepreneurial cognition or heuris-tics and biases. An example is a quasi-experiment analyzing whetherentrepreneurs are more overconfident than managers, e.g., Busenitz andBarney (1997) propose a test of overconfidence where, instead of makingdecisions, individuals are asked general knowledge questions. Busenitzand Barney (1997) also conduct a test of the representativeness bias inthe same publication â a decision experiment of the type we are goingto propose. Here, subjects are given scenarios representing various typesof what the authors call real-to-life strategic decisions.
This paper continues with a characterization of the decision-makingperspective: it defines the structure of a decision-making process andanalyzes an example. We then suggest a classification of experiments,
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
5
explain different experimental designs, describe quality criteria ofexperiments and address the differences between economic and psycho-logical experiments. The subsequent section discusses existing experi-mental work on entrepreneurial decision making. In the next section,we develop three âscientific casesâ where we start with existing theory,we then delineate the decision-making take on the respective problems,and finally we develop experimental designs to analyze the resultingquestions. The final section addresses the question whether EDM mighthave the potential for becoming a research paradigm and how applyingthis perspective might contribute to the development of knowledge inentrepreneurship.
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
References
Abbink, K. and B. Rockenback (2006), âOption pricing by studentsand professional traders: A behavioural investigationâ. Managerialand Decision Economics 27, 497â510.
Allais, M. (1953), âLe comportement de lâhomme rationnel devant lerisque: Critique des postulats et axioms de lâecole americaineâ. Econo-metrica 21, 503â546.
Alpert, B. (1967), âNon-businessmen as surrogates for businessmen inbehavioral experimentsâ. The Journal of Business 40(2), 203â207.
Alvarez, S. (2007), âEntrepreneurial rents and the theory of the firmâ.Journal of Business Venturing 22(6), 427â442.
Amit, R., K. MacGrimmon, C. Zietsma, and J. Oesch (2000), âDoesmoney matter? Wealth attainment as the motive for initiatinggrowth-oriented technology venturesâ. Journal of Business Ventur-ing 16(2), 119â143.
Baron, R. A. (1998), âCognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Whyand when entrepreneurs think differently than other peopleâ. Journalof Business Venturing 13, 275â294.
Baron, R. A. (1999), âCounterfactual thinking and venture formation:The potential effects of thinking about âwhat might have beenââ.Journal of Business Venturing 15(1), 79â91.
49
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
50 References
Baron, R. A. and M. D. Ensley (2006), âOpportunity recognition asthe detection of meaningful patterns: Evidence from comparisons ofnovice and experienced entrepreneursâ. Management Science 52(9),1331â1344.
Baron, R. A. and G. D. Markman (2003), âBeyond social capital: Therole of entrepreneursâ social competence in their financial successâ.Journal of Business Venturing 18(1), 41â60.
Baron, R. A., G. D. Markman, and M. Bollinger (2006), âExportingsocial psychology: Effects of attractiveness on perceptions ofentrepreneurs, their ideas for new products, and their financialsuccessâ. Journal of Applied Psychology 36, 467â492.
Baron, R. A., G. D. Markman, and A. Hirsa (2001), âPerceptions ofwomen and men as entrepreneurs: Evidence for differential effectsof attributional augmentingâ. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(5),923â929.
Bass, F. M. (1969), âA new product growth model for consumerdurablesâ. Management Science 15(5), 215â227.
Begley, T. M. and D. P. Boyd (1987), âA comparison of entrepreneursand managers of small business firmsâ. Journal of Management 13(1),99â108.
Bernoulli, D. (1954), âExposition of a new theory on the measurementof riskâ. Econometrica 2(1), 23â36.
Blavatskyy, P. and G. Pogrebna (2008), âRisk aversion when gains arelikely and unlikely: Evidence from a natural experiment with largestakesâ. Theory and Decision 64(2-3), 395â420.
Boewe, S., C. Schade, D. Krantz, and A. Kostanovskaya (2009), âHowstrategic are entrepreneurs? Experimental findings for the exampleof R&D investments with spilloversâ. Mimeo.
Bolle, F. (1990). âHigh reward experiments without high expenditurefor the experimenter?â Journal of Economic Psychology 11, 157â167.
Bouckaert, J. and G. Dhaene (2004), âInter-ethnic trust and reciprocity:Results of an experiment with small businessmenâ. European Journalof Political Economy 20(4), 869â886.
Brockhaus, R. H. (1982), âThe psychology of entrepreneurâ. In: C. A.Kent, D. L. Sexton, and K. H. Vesper (eds.): Encyclopedia ofEntrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 39â71.
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
References 51
Brundin, E., H. Patzelt, and D. Shepherd (2008), âManagersâ emotionaldisplays and employeesâ willingness to act entrepreneuriallyâ. Journalof Business Venturing 23(2), 221â243.
Burks, S., J. Carpenter, L. Goette, K. Monaco, A. Rustichini,and K. Porter (2007), âUsing behavioral economic field experi-ments at a large motor carrier: The context and design of thetruckers and turnover projectâ. NBER Working Paper, accessed athttp://www.nber.org/papers/w12976.
Burmeister, K. and C. Schade (2007), âAre entrepreneursâ decisionsmore biased? An experimental investigation of the susceptibility tostatus quo biasâ. Journal of Business Venturing 22, 340â362.
Burns, P. (1985), âExperience and decision making: A comparison ofstudents and businessman in a simulated progressive auctionâ. In:L. V. Smith (ed.): Research in Experimental Economics. Greenwich,Conn.: JAI Press, pp. 139â157.
Busenitz, L. W. and J. B. Barney (1997), âDifferences betweenentrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases andheuristics in strategic decision-makingâ. Journal of BusinessVenturing 12(1), 9â30.
Busenitz, L. W. and C.-M. Lau (1996), âA cross-cultural cogni-tive model of new venture creationâ. Entrepreneurship, Theory andPractice 20(4), 25â39.
Camerer, C. F. (1995), âIndividual decision makingâ. In: J. H. Kageland A. E. Roth (eds.): The Handbook of Experimental Economics.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 587â703.
Camerer, C. F. (1998), âCan asset markets be manipulated? A fieldexperiment with racetrack bettingâ. Journal of Political Economy106(3), 457â482.
Camerer, C. F. and D. Lovallo (1999), âOverconfidence and excessentry: An experimental approachâ. American Economic Review89(1), 306â318.
Campbell, D. T. and J. C. Stanley (1963), Experimental andquasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton MifflinCompany.
Carrington, W. J., K. McCue, and B. Pierce (1996), âThe role ofemployer/employee interactions in labor market cycles: Evidence
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
52 References
from the self-employedâ. Journal of labor Economics 14(4),571â601.
Connolly, T., R. A. Hal, and K. R. Hammond (2000), Judgmentand Decision Making â An Interdisciplinary Reader. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
Cooper, A., C. Woo, and W. Dunkelberg (1988), âEntrepreneursâperceived chance of successâ. Journal of Business Venturing 3(3),97â108.
Cunningham, W. H., T. Anderson, and J. H. Murphy (1974). âArestudents real people?â Journal of Business 47, 399â409.
Dew, N., S. R. Velamuri, and S. Venkataraman (2004), âDispersedknowledge and an entrepreneurial theory of the firmâ. Journal ofBusiness Venturing 19(5), 659â679.
Elston, J. A., G. W. Harrison, and E. E. Rutstrom (2005), âCharacter-izing the entrepreneur using field experimentsâ. University of CentralFlorida working paper 05-30.
Elston, J. A., G. W. Harrison, and E. E. Rutstrom (2006), âExperi-mental economics, entrepreneurs and the entry decisionâ. Universityof Central Florida working paper 06-06.
Enis, B. E., K. Cox, and J. Stafford (1972), âStudents as subjects inconsumer behavior experimentsâ. Journal of Marketing Research 9,72â74.
Fiet, J. O. and P. C. Patel (2008), âEntrepreneurial discovery asconstrained, systematic searchâ. Small Business Economics 30(3),215â229.
Fleming, J. E. (1969), âManagers as subjects in business decisionresearchâ. The Academy of Management Journal 12(1), 59â66.
Forbes, D. P. (2005), âAre some entrepreneurs more overconfident thanothers?â. Journal of Business Venturing 20(5), 623â640.
Forlani, D. and J. W. Mullins (2000), âPerceived risks and choices inentrepreneursâ new venture decisionsâ. Journal of Business Venturing15, 305â322.
Franke, N., M. Gruber, D. Harhoff, and J. Henkel (2006), âWhat youare, is what you like â similarity biases in the venture capitalistsâevaluations of start-up teamsâ. Journal of Business Venturing 21,802â826.
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
References 53
Friedman, D. and S. Sunder (1994), Experimental Methods: A Primerfor Economists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gatewood, E. J., K. G. Shaver, J. B. Powers, and W. B. Gartner(2002), âEntrepreneurial expectancy, task effort, and performanceâ.Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice 28(2), 187â206.
Green, P. and V. Srinivasan (1978), âConjoint analysis in consumerresearch: Issues and outlookâ. Journal of Consumer Research 5,102â123.
Green, P. E. and D. S. Tull (1988), Research for Marketing Decisions.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gustafsson, V. (2006), Entrepreneurial Decision-making: Individuals,Tasks and Cognitions. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Hamilton, B. H. (2000), âDoes entrepreneurship pay? An empirical anal-ysis of the returns to self-employmentâ. Journal of Political Economy108(3), 604â631.
Harrison, G., M. Lau, and E. Rutstrom (2007), âEstimating riskattitudes in Denmark: A field experimentâ. Scandinavian Journal ofEconomics 109(2), 341â368.
Harrison, G., M. Lau, and M. B. Williams (2002), âEstimating indi-vidual discount rates in Denmark: A field experimentâ. AmericanEconomic Review 92(5), 1606â1617.
Harrison, G. W. and J. A. List (2004), âField experimentsâ. Journal ofEconomic Literature 42(4), 1009â1055.
Kagel, J. H. and A. Roth (1995), The Handbook of Experimental Eco-nomics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kahnemann, D. (1988), âExperimental economics: A psychological per-spectiveâ. In: R. Tietz, W. Albers, and R. Selten (eds.): BoundedRational Behaviour in Experimental Games and Markets. New York:Springer-Verlag.
Kaish, S. and B. Gilad (1991), âCharacteristics of opportunitiessearch of entrepreneurs versus executives: Sources, interests, generalalertnessâ. Journal of Business Venturing 6(1), 45â61.
Krahnen, J. P., C. Rieck, and E. Theissen (1997), âInferring risk atti-tudes from certainty equivalents: Some lessons from an experimentalstudyâ. Journal of Economic Psychology 18(5), 469â486.
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
54 References
Krueger, N. and P. Dickson (1993), âPerceived self-efficacy andperception of opportunity and threatâ. Psychological Report 72,1235â1240.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 3rd edition.
Kunreuther, H. and D. Krantz (2007), âGoals and plans in decisionmakingâ. Judgment and Decision Making 2(3), 137â168.
Levesque, M. and K. R. MacCrimmon (1997), âOn the interaction oftime and money invested in new venturesâ. Entrepreneurship, Theoryand Practice 22(2), 89â110.
Levesque, M. and C. Schade (2005), âIntuitive optimizing: Experimentalfindings on time allocation decisions with newly formed venturesâ.Journal of Business Venturing 20(3), 313â342.
Levine, G. and S. Parkinson (1994), Experimental Methods inPsychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Maurer, M. I. and C. Schade (2006), âStrategiepraktiker versus Strategi-etheoretiker: Verhalten von Unternehmern im Vergleichsexperimentâ.ZfB Zeitschrift fur Betriebswirtschaft 4, 69â91.
McMullen, J. S. and D. A. Shepherd (2006), âEntrepreneurial actionand the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneurâ.Academy of Management Review 31(1), 132â152.
Minniti, M. (2005), âEntrepreneurship and network externalitiesâ. Jour-nal of Economic Behavior and Organization 57, 1â27.
Mitchell, R. K., L. W. Busenitz, B. Bird, C. M. Gaglio, J. S.McMullen, E. Morse, and J. Smith (2007), âThe central question inentrepreneurial cognition research 2007â. Entrepreneurship, Theoryand Practice 31(1), 1â27.
Mitchell, R. K., B. Smith, E. Morse, K. Seawright, and A. Peredo andB. McKenzie (2002), âAre entrepreneurial cognitions universal?Assessing entrepreneurial cognitions across culturesâ. Entrepreneur-ship, Theory and Practice 26(4), 9â32.
Mitchell, R. K., B. Smith, K. Seawright, and E. Morse (2000), âCross-cultural cognitions and the venture creation decisionâ. The Academyof Management Journal 43(5), 974â993.
Moore, D. A. and D. M. Cain (2007), âOverconfidence and undercon-fidence: When and why people underestimate (and overestimate)
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
References 55
the competitionâ. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses 103(2), 197â213.
Mullins, J. W. and D. Forlani (2005), âMissing the boat or sinking theboat: A study of new venture decision makingâ. Journal of BusinessVenturing 20(1), 47â69.
Muzyka, D., S. Birley, and B. Leleux (1996), âTrade-offs in the invest-ment decisions of European venture capitalistsâ. Journal of BusinessVenturing 11(4), 273â287.
Nunnally, J. C. and I. H. Bernstein (1994), Psychometric Theory. NewYork, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Palich, L. and D. Bagby (1995), âUsing cognitive theory to explainentrepreneurial risk-taking: Challenging conventional wisdomâ.Journal of Business Venturing 10(6), 425â438.
Parker, S. C., Y. Belghitar, and T. Barmby (2005), âWage uncertaintyand the labour supply of self-employed workersâ. The Economic Jour-nal 115(502), C190âC207.
Peterman, N. E. and J. Kennedy (2003), âEnterprise education: Influ-encing studentsâ perceptions of entrepreneurshipâ. Entrepreneurship,Theory and Practice 28(2), 129â144.
Pogrebna, G. (2007), âNatural experiments in television showsâ.Doctoral dissertation, Leopold-Franzens-Universitat Innsbruck,Austria.
Riquelme, H. and T. Rickards (1992), âHybrid conjoint analysis: Anestimation probe in new venture deicisonsâ. Journal of BusinessVenturing 7(6), 505â518.
Sarasvathy, D. K., H. A. Simon, and L. Laver (1998), âPerceivingand managing business risks: Differences between entrepreneursand bankersâ. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 33,207â225.
Schade, C. (2005), âDynamics, experimental economics, and entre-preneurshipâ. Journal of Technology Transfer 30(4), 409â431.
Schade, C. (2009), âEntrepreneurial decision making: A paradigmrather than a set of questionsâ. Journal of Business Venturing,forthcoming.
Schade, C. and P. Koellinger (2007), âHeuristics, biases, and the behav-ior of entrepreneursâ. In: M. Minniti et al. (eds.): Entrepreneurship:
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
56 References
The Engin of Growth. Westport, Connecticut, London, USA:Praeger, vol. 1, pp. 41â63.
Schade, C., H. Kunreuther, and K. P. Kaas (2002), âLow-probabilityinsurance decisions: The role of concernâ. Discussion Paper Nr. 23,SFB 373, Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin/Wharton Risk CenterWorking Paper Nr. 02-10-HK, Wharton School, University of Penn-sylvania, USA.
Shane, S. and S. Venkataraman (2000), âThe promise of entrepreneur-ship as a field of researchâ. Academy of Management Review 25(1),217â226.
Shaver, K. G., W. B. Gartner, E. J. Gatewood, and L. H. Vos (1996),âPsychological factors in success at getting into businessâ. In: P. D.Reynolds, S. Birley, J. E. Butler, W. D. Bygrave, P. Davidson, W. B.Gartner, and P. P. McDougall (eds.): In Frontiers of Entrepreneur-ship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College, pp. 77â90.
Shaver, K. G. and L. R. Scott (1991), âPerson, process, choice: Thepsychology of new venture creationâ. Entrepreneurship, Theory andPractice 16(2), 23â45.
Shepherd, D. A. (1999), âVenture capitalistsâ assessment of new venturesurvivalâ. Management Science 45, 621â632.
Shepherd, D. A. and A. Zacharakis (1999), âConjoint analysis: A newmethodological approach for researching the decision policies of ven-ture capitalistsâ. Venture Capital 1(3), 197â217.
Shepherd, D. A., A. Zacharakis, and R. A. Baron (2003), âVCâs decisionprocesses: Evidence suggesting more experience may not always bebetterâ. Journal of Business Venturing 18(3), 381â401.
Simon, M. and S. M. Houghton (2002), âThe relationship among biases,misperceptions, and the introduction of pioneering products: Exam-ining differences in venture decision contextsâ. Entrepreneurship,Theory and Practice 27(2), 105â124.
Smith, V. L. (1976), âExperimental economics: Induced value theoryâ.American Economic Review 66(2), 274â279.
Smith, V. L. (1982), âMicroeconomics systems as an experimentalscienceâ. American Economic Review 72(5), 923â955.
Smith, V. L. (1994), âEconomics in the laboratoryâ. The Journal ofEconomic Perspectives 8(1), 113â131.
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019
References 57
Sorensen, R. A. (1992), Thought Experiments. NY: Oxford UniversityPress.
Souitaris, V., S. Zerbinati, and A. Al-Laham (2007), âDo entrepreneur-ship programs raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engi-neering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resourcesâ.Journal of Business Venturing 22(4), 566â591.
Tversky, A. and D. Kahnemann (1981), âThe framing of decisions andthe psychology of Choiceâ. Science, New Series 211(4481), 453â458.
Tversky, A. and D. Kahnemann (1986), âRational choice and the fram-ing of decisionsâ. The Journal of Business 59(2), S251âS287.
Tversky, A., S. Sattah, and P. Slovic (1988), âContingent weighting injudgment and choiceâ. Psychological Review 95(3), 371â384.
Tversky, A., P. Slovic, and D. Kahneman (1990), âThe causes of pref-erence reversalâ. American Economic Review 80(1), 204â217.
Weber, M. and H. Zuchel (2005), âHow do prior outcomes affect riskattitude? Comparing escalation of commitment and the house moneyeffectâ. Decision Analysis 2, 30â43.
Zacharakis, A. L. and G. D. Meyer (2000). âThe potential of actuarialdecision models: Can they improve the venture capital investmentdecision?â Journal of Business Venturing 25(4), 323â346.
Zacharakis, A. L. and D. A. Shepherd (2001), âThe nature of infor-mation and overconfidence on venture capitalistsâ decision makingâ.Journal of Business Venturing 16(4), 311â332.
Zopounidis, C. (1994), âVenture capital modeling: Evaluation criteriafor the appraisal of investmentsâ. The Financier ACMT 1(1), 54â64.
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000019