@misc{UrbigMonsen, author = {Urbig, Diemo and Monsen, Erik}, title = {The structure of optimism: "Controllability affects the extent to which efficacy beliefs shape outcome expectancies"}, series = {Journal of Economic Psychology}, volume = {33}, journal = {Journal of Economic Psychology}, number = {4}, issn = {0167-4870}, doi = {10.1016/j.joep.2012.03.004}, pages = {854 -- 867}, abstract = {In this article we theoretically develop and empirically test an integrative conceptual framework linking dispositional optimism as general outcome expectancy to general efficacy beliefs about internal (self) and external (instrumental social support and chance) factors as well as to general control beliefs (locus-of-control). Bandura (1997, Self-efficacy. The exercise of control (p. 23). New York: Freeman), quoted in title, suggests - at a context-specific level - that controllability moderates the impact of self-efficacy on outcome expectancies and we hypothesize that - at a general level - this also applies to dispositional optimism. We further hypothesize that locus of control moderates the impact of external-efficacy beliefs, but in the opposite direction as self-efficacy. Our survey data of 224 university students provides support for the moderation of self-efficacy and chance-efficacy. Our new conceptualization contributes to clarifying relationships between self- and external-efficacy beliefs, control beliefs, and optimism; and helps to explain why equally optimistic individuals cope very differently with adverse situations.}, language = {en} } @misc{UrbigLorenzHerzberg, author = {Urbig, Diemo and Lorenz, Jan and Herzberg, Heiko}, title = {Opinion dynamics: The effect of number of peers met at once}, series = {Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation}, volume = {11}, journal = {Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation}, number = {2}, issn = {1460-7425}, pages = {1 -- 4}, abstract = {The opinion dynamics model introduced by Deffuant and Weisbuch as well as the one by Hegselmann and Krause are rather similar. In both models individuals are assumed to have opinions about an issue, they meet and discuss, and they may adapt their opinions towards the other agents` opinions or may ignore each other if their positions are too different. Both models differ with respect to the number of peers they meet at once. Furthermore the model by Deffuant and Weisbuch has a convergence parameter that controls how fast agents adapt their opinions. By defining the reversed parameter as self-support we can extend the applicability of this parameter to scenarios with more than one interaction partner. We investigate the effects of changing the number of peers met at once, which is done for different population sizes, and the effects of changing the self-support. For describing the dynamics we look at different statistics, i.e. number of cluster, number of major clusters, and Gini coefficient.}, language = {en} } @incollection{MonsenUrbig, author = {Monsen, Erik and Urbig, Diemo}, title = {Perceptions of Efficacy, Control, and Risk: A Theory of Mixed Control}, series = {Understanding the Entrepreneurial Mind : Opening the Black Box}, booktitle = {Understanding the Entrepreneurial Mind : Opening the Black Box}, editor = {Carsrud, Alan L. and Br{\"a}nnback, Marlin}, publisher = {Springer New York}, address = {New York, NY}, isbn = {9781441904423}, issn = {1572-1922}, doi = {10.1007/978-1-4419-0443-0_12}, pages = {259 -- 281}, abstract = {Entrepreneurship involves the establishment of new organizations and the development of new economic activities. Its consequences have not been experienced before and thus are rife with risk and uncertainty. Those who engage in such activities have consequently been considered as being willing to take on more risk and uncertainty than others. Empirical work, however, has demonstrated that entrepreneurs are not willing to take more risks than non-entrepreneurs (Busenitz and Barney 1997; Miner and Raju 2004; Palich and Bagby 1995; Wu and Knott 2006). Therefore, a corresponding difference in general risk propensity hypothesis is not supported by research findings. Alternatively, a difference in risk perception hypothesis has been suggested. In other words, even if entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs have similar risk preferences, entrepreneurs may perceive less risk by overestimating their chances for success (Baron 1998).}, language = {en} } @misc{LorenzUrbig, author = {Lorenz, Jan and Urbig, Diemo}, title = {About the power to enforce and prevent consensus by manipulating communication rules}, series = {Advances in Complex Systems}, volume = {10}, journal = {Advances in Complex Systems}, number = {02}, issn = {0219-5259}, doi = {10.1142/S0219525907000982}, pages = {251 -- 269}, abstract = {We explore the possibilities of enforcing and preventing consensus in continuous opinion dynamics that result from modifications in the communication rules. We refer to the model of Weisbuch and Deffuant, where n agents adjust their continuous opinions as a result of random pairwise encounters whenever their opinions differ not more than a given bound of confidence ε. A high ε leads to consensus, while a lower ε leads to a fragmentation into several opinion clusters. We drop the random encounter assumption and ask: How small may ε be such that consensus is still possible with a certain communication plan for the entire group? Mathematical analysis shows that ε may be significantly smaller than in the random pairwise case. On the other hand, we ask: How large may ε be such that preventing consensus is still possible? In answering this question, we prove Fortunato's simulation result that consensus cannot be prevented for ε 0.5 for large groups. Next, we consider opinion dynamics under different individual strategies and examine their power to increase the chances of consensus. One result is that balancing agents increase chances of consensus, especially if the agents are cautious in adapting their opinions. However, curious agents increase chances of consensus only if those agents are not cautious in adapting their opinions.}, language = {en} } @misc{ZambranoCurcioUrbigBoenteetal., author = {Zambrano-Curcio, Andr{\´e}s Felipe and Urbig, Diemo and B{\"o}nte, Werner and Schmutzler, Jana}, title = {At the Risk of Loss: Experimental Evidence on the Discriminant Validity of Self-Reported Measures of Risk Preferences}, series = {SSRN eLibrary}, journal = {SSRN eLibrary}, issn = {1556-5068}, doi = {10.2139/ssrn.4371973}, pages = {1 -- 39}, abstract = {In recent years, there has been increasing use of experimentally validated self-reported items to measure individuals' risk preferences, specifically risk aversion. While previous research supports their convergent validity, we argue that self-reported risk preference measures capture a broad spectrum of additional constructs involved in risky decision-making, notably including loss aversion as a potential confound. In broader applications, such as observational studies, associations with other constructs enhance a measurement's ability to predict risk-taking behaviors across diverse natural environments, often arising from the interplay of different constructs better captured by comprehensive self-reported measures than by narrower, construct-specific incentivized measures. Conversely, in focused tests where each construct has unique behavioral implications, using broad self-reported measures as a replacement for construct-specific incentivized measurements can result in significant endogeneity issues. By analyzing three samples from two independent studies, we demonstrate that even after accounting for incentivized risk preference measures that remove latent construct associations and focus on measurement-related confounds, self-reported risk preferences maintain a substantial association with incentivized loss aversion measures, indicating that the measurement captures a mixture of both risk and loss aversion. We also observe that the strength of associations depends on whether individuals interpret risk-taking as accepting higher variances or higher losses. Based on this finding, we propose a simple procedure that utilizes this individual heterogeneity in the confounding effect's strength to enhance the robustness of conclusions drawn from analyses of self-reported risk preference measures}, language = {en} } @misc{KappeUrbigLengsfeld, author = {Kappe, Karina and Urbig, Diemo and Lengsfeld, Stephan}, title = {Not my business! The role of organizational culture in supporting employees with side businesses}, series = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, journal = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, abstract = {Organizations can benefit from their employees doing entrepreneurial side hustles through, e.g., empowerment or innovativeness, but do employers, as the most critical stakeholder for hybrid entrepreneurs, perceive and positively react to entrepreneurial side hustles? Research on the active role of the parental organization in the emergence and operation of entrepreneurial side activities is currently missing. Drawing on a large dataset with 855 managers, we explore the heterogeneity of organizations in responding to such employees. We place the organizational culture of the employers in the spotlight and examine its impact on managerial perceptions and their behavior in this context. We show that organizational characteristics such as flexibility or an internal focus lead to positive expectations of side hustles and claim that recognition is a relevant prerequisite to exploit arising opportunities or mitigate threats effectively. We fur-thermore show that next to indirect effects through outcome expectations, cultural characteris-tics also drive behavioral responses directly. For instance, focusing on flexibility leads to sup-portive behavior, while a strong focus on internal or external factors of an organization impedes supportive organizational behavior. We contribute to research on the emerging phenomenon of side hustles and push theory by revealing employer characteristics that lead to a more or less conducive environment for this type of entrepreneurs.}, language = {en} } @misc{RoederUrbigStoeckmannetal., author = {R{\"o}der, Martin and Urbig, Diemo and St{\"o}ckmann, Christoph and B{\"o}nte, Werner and Procher, Vivien D.}, title = {There's no fox like an old fox: Dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation and venture closure}, series = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, journal = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, abstract = {Only a few scholars examined downsides of EO and suggest it may negatively affect survival. Previous research, which mainly focuses on mature companies, assumes that the relationship between EO and survival is constant. However, because firm characteristics and causal mechanisms change as young venture survive and grow into mature firms, the relationships between EO and survival could also change over time. We extend the EO literature by considering changing EO effects when venture grow into mature firms and by employing a multidimensional view on EO and identify isolating independent mechanisms for the influence of each dimension (i.e. innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking) on the survival of young ventures. While the nature of proactiveness on performance is rathe positive, risk-taking and innovativeness increases the variance of firm performance and thus the chances of failure. However, the latter can be separated according to whether the increase in variance occurs at a single point in time (risk-taking) or over time (innovation) and whether the survivors have more money or more innovations. For young firms, innovativeness and risk-taking inhibit survival, while proactiveness promotes it, so the dimensions have divergent effects. As a consequence of the attrition of young ventures, the associations of innovativeness and risk-taking reverse when they grow older. Our empirical analyses are based on panel data of 8,518 young firms.}, language = {en} } @misc{StoeckmannKensbockUrbig, author = {St{\"o}ckmann, Christoph and Kensbock, Julia and Urbig, Diemo}, title = {Synthesizing a new conceptual and empirical understanding of ambidexterity and its effects on firm performance}, series = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, journal = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, abstract = {Ambidexterity is a wide-established and popular construct that promises to combine two seemingly opposing strategic actions—exploration and exploitation—for higher firm performance. Nevertheless, the (apparently peaceful) coexistence of two different conceptions of ambidexterity hampers a unified theoretical and empirical understanding in the field. This study introduces a new conceptual framework to study ambidexterity and its effects on firm performance. We propose that firms need to overcome two distinct types of trade-off—a trade-off in effects and a trade-off in implementing exploration and exploitation. If firms manage to be ambidextrous in effects and ambidextrous in implementing, they will achieve what we consider a higher-order synergetic ambidexterity. In addition to our theoretical framework, we provide an empirical illustration based on a commonality analysis. Our findings demonstrate how (a) independent effects of exploration and exploitation, (b) interaction effects of exploration and exploitation (representing ambidexterity in effects), and (c) shared effects of exploration and exploitation (representing ambidexterity in implementing) separately and jointly contribute to higher firm performance. We find that the highest effect on firm performance can be observed when firms are both ambidextrous in effects and ambidextrous in implementing.}, language = {en} } @misc{HermannsUrbigBlocketal., author = {Hermanns, Thomas and Urbig, Diemo and Block, J{\"o}rn and M{\"u}hlfeld, Katrin}, title = {Economic adjustment strategies of self-employed individuals during essential crises: The case of complementary paid jobs}, series = {39th EGOS Colloquium. Organizing for the good life: Between legacy and imagination, University of Cagliari July 6-8, 2023, Cagliari, Italy}, journal = {39th EGOS Colloquium. Organizing for the good life: Between legacy and imagination, University of Cagliari July 6-8, 2023, Cagliari, Italy}, abstract = {Research on entrepreneurs combining their own start-ups with wage work—often referred to as hybrid or part-time entrepreneurship—has primarily focused on employees (temporarily) retaining their wage jobs while (gradually) transitioning into entrepreneurship. During crises, however, entrepreneurs seeking to ensure survival of their existing ventures may strive to supplement self-employment with entry into wage jobs. Specifically, we hypothesize that such crisis-coping may facilitate venture survival through two separate pathways, an income-portfolio-driven one and one geared towards business model testing. The latter effect is contingent upon the degree of uncertainty regarding the business model change. We test these hypotheses empirically against the backdrop of the Covid-19 crisis using a sample of more than 10.000 German self-employed individuals. The results largely support our hypotheses and overall offer interesting implications for both future research as well as policymakers seeking to support small businesses during crisis periods.}, language = {en} } @misc{HofmockelProcherUrbigetal., author = {Hofmockel, Alexandra S. and Procher, Vivien D. and Urbig, Diemo and Gottschalk, Sandra}, title = {What drives an entrepreneur to remain in a paid job? Explaining heterogeneityi among hybrid entrepreneurs}, series = {Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 2022: Proceedings of the forty-second annual Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference}, journal = {Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 2022: Proceedings of the forty-second annual Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference}, publisher = {Arthur M. Blank Center for Entrepreneurship}, address = {Babson Park, Massachusetts}, isbn = {978-0-910897-00-6}, pages = {S. 166}, abstract = {Principal Topic: Hybrid entrepreneurs, individuals working in a paid job while simultaneously being self-employed (Folta et al. 2010), seem to receive increasing scholarly attention in entrepreneurship research. Since they tend to be more risk-averse and have less entrepreneurial experience than non-hybrid entrepreneurs (Folta et al. 2010; Raffiee \& Feng, 2014), the general proposition in research remains to view hybrid entrepreneurs as a homogenous group who mainly use hybridity for testing before transitioning into full-time self-employment. However, we show that considering a broad diversity of motives to stay in a paid job will reveal heterogeneity among hybrid entrepreneurs. Furthermore, since different motives tend to be associated with varying performance outcomes (Deci \& Ryan, 2000), we demonstrate that heterogeneity among hybrid entrepreneurs relates to differences in performance and innovativeness. Method: We employed a start-up panel dataset (2013 - 2018) from the Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research to evaluate practically relevant combinations of motives derived from theory to empirically identify natural clusters among hybrid entrepreneurs by estimating a latent class logit model. Secondly, we use panel regression analyses to test whether these three classes compared to full-time entrepreneurs differ concerning their financial and innovative performance measured in profit, sales, and innovativeness as separate dependent variables. Hereby, we control for demographics, experience, and industry. Results and Implications: We were able to identify three dominant types among hybrid entrepreneurs: opportunists, transitioners, and networkers. Moreover, performance differences exist between these three classes as well as compared to full-time entrepreneurs. We observe that opportunists are associated with higher short-term profits than full-time entrepreneurs. At the same time, networkers and transitioners seem to engage in more innovative activities than opportunists and full-time entrepreneurs. We contribute to current research on potential mechanisms causing hybrid entrepreneurship, showing that hybrid entrepreneurs should not be considered a homogeneous group. Furthermore, we contribute to entrepreneurship literature by demonstrating that heterogeneity among hybrids exists when considering motives to remain in a paid job, which is associated with differences in performance and innovativeness.}, language = {en} } @misc{MochkabadiKleinertUrbigetal., author = {Mochkabadi, Kazem and Kleinert, Simon and Urbig, Diemo and Volkmann, Christine}, title = {Turning extreme distinctiveness into an asset? How radically innovative ventures can achieve optimal distinctiveness in early-stage funding contexts}, series = {Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 2022: Proceedings of the forty-second annual Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference}, journal = {Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 2022: Proceedings of the forty-second annual Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference}, publisher = {Arthur M. Blank Center for Entrepreneurship}, address = {Babson Park, Massachusetts}, isbn = {978-0-910897-00-6}, pages = {73 -- 78}, abstract = {This study relies on optimal distinctiveness theory to investigate how radically innovative ventures might attract funding. Conforming with existing norms can help new ventures gain legitimacy from resource providers, yet radically innovative ventures instead feature extreme distinctiveness. The results of three complementary empirical studies affirm that these radically innovative ventures suffer from reduced funding chances among equity crowdfunders. Contributing to optimal distinctiveness theory, the authors show that extremely distinctive ventures can shift to become optimally distinctive. Thus, radically innovative ventures can reverse the negative effect and avoid the downsides of non-conformity by leveraging external legitimacy sources, such as endorsements from alliance partners or professional investors. The optimal level of distinctiveness also varies by audience, such that radically innovative ventures' extreme distinctiveness evokes more negative judgments among equity crowdfunders who expect returns than among reward crowdfunders who seek novelty. Surprisingly though, without external legitimacy sources, radical innovativeness is never favored, even by novelty-seeking audiences. This fresh evidence that radical innovativeness constitutes both a liability and an asset, contingent on new ventures' external endorsements and audience expectations, points to important boundary conditions for optimal distinctiveness theory.}, language = {en} } @misc{KleinUrbig, author = {Klein, Sarah and Urbig, Diemo}, title = {Should I stay or should I go? Die Rolle von Hoffnung in Jobwechseldynamiken}, series = {Krisen meistern, Ressourcen aufbauen, Nachhaltigkeit st{\"a}rken. Abstracts zur 26. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft f{\"u}r angewandte Wirtschaftspsychologie (GWPs)}, journal = {Krisen meistern, Ressourcen aufbauen, Nachhaltigkeit st{\"a}rken. Abstracts zur 26. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft f{\"u}r angewandte Wirtschaftspsychologie (GWPs)}, editor = {Sachse, Katharina and Kurzenh{\"a}user-Carstens, Stephanie}, publisher = {Pabst Science Publishers}, address = {Lengerich/Westfalen}, isbn = {978-3-95853-834-4}, pages = {S. 33}, abstract = {Theoretischer Hintergrund: Hoffnung wirkt als motivationaler Mechanismus auf Handlungsintentionen in Krisensituationen und Situationen unter Unsicherheit (Krafft \& Walker, 2018). Obwohl sich Hoffnung in den vergangenen Jahren als wichtige psychologische Ressource f{\"u}r pers{\"o}nliche Leistung und Zielerreichung in der Forschung etabliert hat, gibt es wenige Studien zum Einfluss auf berufsbezogene Entscheidungen. Diese zeigen jedoch Beziehungen zu wichtigen berufsbezogenen Variablen wie Jobzufriedenheit und Jobwechselabsicht (Reichard et al., 2013). Fragestellung/Hypothesen: {\"U}ber bekannte Effekte hinaus untersucht diese Studie den Einfluss von dispositioneller Hoffnung auf Jobwechseldynamiken. Wir betrachten Hoffnung als kontextunspezifischen, mehrdimensionalen Faktor, bestehend aus internaler selbstbezogener Hoffnung (Snyder, 2002) und ex ternaler Hoffnung auf einflussreiche Dritte sowie Zufall oder Schicksal (Bernardo, 2010). Wir hypothetisieren, dass insbesondere internale Hoffnung Jobwechselprozesse beeinflusst und den negativen Zusammenhang von Jobzufriedenheit und Jobwechselabsicht verst{\"a}rkend moderiert. Methodik/Ergebnisse: Die Hypothesen werden mittels Regressionsanalysen an einer Stichprobe von N=826 Berufst{\"a}tigen gepr{\"u}ft. Internale Hoffnung korreliert negativ mit aktuellen Jobwechselabsichten, unter Kontrolle f{\"u}r Jobzufriedenheit wird dieser Zusammenhang positiv. Wir best{\"a}tigen den verst{\"a}rkenden Effekt internaler Hoffnung auf den negativen Zusammenhang von Jobzufriedenheit und Jobwechselabsicht. Die Effekte sind robust, wenn f{\"u}r dispositionellen Optimismus als Alternativerkl{\"a}rung kontrolliert wird. Internale Hoffnung ist zudem positiv mit fr{\"u}heren Jobwechseln sowie aktueller Jobzufriedenheit assoziiert. Diskussion/Implikationen: Unsere Studie leistet einen Beitrag zur Hoffnungsforschung im betrieblichen Kontext und belegt den Einfluss von Hoffnung auf Jobwechselprozesse. Eine divergente Wirkung von Hoffnung wird durch die Verst{\"a}rkung von Jobwechselabsichten unter Jobunzufriedenheit gezeigt, bei gleichzeitiger Assoziation mit Jobzufriedenheit. Hoffnung sollte als personalpsychologischer Wirkmechanismus st{\"a}rker in den Mittelpunkt innerbetrieblicher Maßnahmen ger{\"u}ckt werden, um diesen gezielt im Personalmanagement einzusetzen.}, language = {en} } @misc{UrbigDostGeiger, author = {Urbig, Diemo and Dost, Florian and Geiger, Ingmar}, title = {Entrepreneurs misdiagnosing their ventures' innovativeness: The roles of causation and effectuation}, series = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, journal = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, abstract = {This text discusses the concept of misdiagnosis in entrepreneurial ventures, where managers' unrealistic optimism can lead to misaligned strategies and late pivots. The study explores the connection between misdiagnosis and decision logics (effectuation and causation) through motivated reasoning and beliefs. The researchers conducted a study with 266 ventures from innovative industries and measured misdiagnosis by comparing managers' judgments with external experts' assessments of venture innovativeness. The results show that causation logic positively influences misdiagnosis, but this effect is reduced when coupled with flexibility. The study highlights the importance of objective performance measures and suggests that motivated reasoning and beliefs explain the link between causation logic and misdiagnosis. Additionally, older and larger ventures with a prevalence of causation logic may experience more misdiagnosis and potential delays in innovation efforts. Flexibility is crucial for older ventures to remain innovative.}, language = {en} } @misc{MochkabadiKleinertUrbigetal., author = {Mochkabadi, Kazem and Kleinert, Simon and Urbig, Diemo and Volkmann, Christine}, title = {From distinctiveness to optimal distinctiveness: External endorsements, innovativeness and new venture funding}, series = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, journal = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, abstract = {To maximize their performance, new ventures should be optimally distinctive, that is, as differentiated from competitors as is legitimately possible. External endorsements, through affiliations with reputable third-parties, might alter the level of optimal distinctiveness for new ventures among different resource-providing audiences. To develop and test this prediction, the authors study new ventures with varying degrees of innovativeness that seek funding from return- and novelty-seeking resource providers. The former expect some distinctiveness but reject too little or too much (e.g., non- or radically innovative new ventures). External endorsements can buffer the legitimacy of these non-innovative and radically innovative ventures, but they lead to different performance implications. For non-innovative ventures, external endorsements function as a shield against low legitimacy, so they are less penalized for their lack of novelty. For radically innovative ventures, external endorsements function as a performance booster; they can become even optimally distinctive and outperform other distinctiveness configurations. In contrast, novelty-seeking audiences already have a higher tolerance for more innovative new ventures, so these effects are less pronounced among these resource providers. Four empirical studies, using observational data and experiments in equity and reward-based crowdfunding, provide strong support for this theory and account for several alternative explanations. In turn, this study sheds new light on the crucial, audience-specific function of external endorsements, namely, as a means to alter optimal distinctiveness levels.}, language = {en} } @misc{HofmockelProcherUrbigetal., author = {Hofmockel, Alexandra S. and Procher, Vivien D. and Urbig, Diemo and Gottschalk, Sandra}, title = {Heterogeneity among hybrid entrepreneurs: Motives and performance}, series = {Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings}, volume = {2023}, journal = {Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings}, number = {1}, issn = {0065-0668}, doi = {10.5465/AMPROC.2023.13956abstract}, abstract = {We draw on a variety of research areas that explain why individuals combine paid employment and self-employment. We provide a comprehensive empirical comparison of the relevance and co-occurrence of multiple motives. Our analysis shows that motives can be meaningfully distinguished according to whether a motive is endogenously transitory or not, and suggests the presence of three dominant classes of hybrid entrepreneurs. In particular, learning and growth constraints, which we refer to as transitory motives resolving over time, play a crucial role in distinguishing between the three classes. Based on an analysis of 3,868 hybrid and pure entrepreneurs, we show that our typology helps better understand the potentially heterogeneous relationships between being a hybrid entrepreneur and entrepreneurial performance and innovation behavior.}, language = {en} } @misc{KleinUrbig, author = {Klein, Sarah and Urbig, Diemo}, title = {The motivational effects of hope on effort: Hope for success with or without effort}, series = {Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings}, volume = {2023}, journal = {Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings}, number = {1}, publisher = {Academy of Management}, issn = {2151-6561}, doi = {10.5465/AMPROC.2023.15106abstract}, abstract = {Existing research focuses on hope as a motivational driver for personal effort. We argue that hope can facilitate individuals' decisions for and against effort, depending on specific conditions. Based on a vignette study with 350 subjects, we test this suggestion with a scenario where a person decides for or against an effortful training that experts consider appropriate for that person, presuming that one could hope for success based on training but also for success without training. We find that hope can leverage individuals' decisions to engage in and avoid effortful behavior. Moreover, ambiguity in a behavioral outcome strengthens the effect of hope on the likelihood of choosing the corresponding behavior. Separating internal from a more general kind of hope, we find that hope for success by training is mainly driven by internal hope but hope without training relates less to internal hope. Carefully separating the effects of hope from the effects of optimism, our study highlights the relevance of hope beyond optimism.}, language = {en} } @misc{HuberDreberHuberetal., author = {Huber, Christoph and Dreber, Anna and Huber, J{\"u}rgen and Johannesson, Magnus and Kirchler, Michael and Weitzel, Utz and Abell{\´a}n, Miguel and Adayeva, Xeniya and Ay, Fehime Ceren and Barron, Kai and Berry, Zachariah and B{\"o}nte, Werner and Br{\"u}tt, Katharina and Bulutay, Muhammed and Campos-Mercade, Pol and Cardella, Eric and Claassen, Maria Almudena and Cornelissen, Gert and Dawson, Ian G. J. and Delnoij, Joyce and Demiral, Elif E. and Dimant, Eugen and Doerflinger, Johannes Theodor and Dold, Malte and Emery, C{\´e}cile and Fiala, Lenka and Fiedler, Susann and Freddi, Eleonora and Fries, Tilman and Gasiorowska, Agata and Glogowsky, Ulrich and Gorny, Paul Matthias and Gretton, Jeremy David and Grohmann, Antonia and Hafenbr{\"a}dl, Sebastian and Handgraaf, Michel and Hanoch, Yaniv and Hart, Einav and Hennig, Max and Hudja, Stanton and H{\"u}tter, Mandy and Hyndman, Kyle and Ioannidis, Konstantinos and Isler, Ozan and Jeworrek, Sabrina and Jolles, Daniel and Juanchich, Marie and Raghabendra, Pratap K.C. and Khadjavi, Menusch and Kugler, Tamar and Li, Shuwen and Lucas, Brian and Mak, Vincent and Mechtel, Mario and Merkle, Christoph and Meyers, Ethan Andrew and Mollerstrom, Johanna and Nesterov, Alexander and Neyse, Levent and Nieken, Petra and Nussberger, Anne-Marie and Palumbo, Helena and Peters, Kim and Pirrone, Angelo and Qin, Xiangdong and Rahal, Rima Maria and Rau, Holger and Rincke, Johannes and Ronzani, Piero and Roth, Yefim and Saral, Ali Seyhun and Schmitz, Jan and Schneider, Florian and Schram, Arthur and Schudy, Simeon and Schweitzer, Maurice E. and Schwieren, Christiane and Scopelliti, Irene and Sirota, Miroslav and Sonnemans, Joep and Soraperra, Ivan and Spantig, Lisa and Steimanis, Ivo and Steinmetz, Janina and Suetens, Sigrid and Theodoropoulou, Andriana and Urbig, Diemo and Vorlaufer, Tobias and Waibel, Joschka and Woods, Daniel and Yakobi, Ofir and Yilmaz, Onurcan and Zaleskiewicz, Tomasz and Zeisberger, Stefan and Holzmeister, Felix}, title = {Competition and moral behavior: A meta-analysis of forty-five crowd-sourced experimental designs}, series = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, volume = {120}, journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, number = {23}, issn = {0027-8424}, doi = {10.1073/pnas.2215572120}, abstract = {Does competition affect moral behavior? This fundamental question has been debated among leading scholars for centuries, and more recently, it has been tested in experimental studies yielding a body of rather inconclusive empirical evidence. A potential source of ambivalent empirical results on the same hypothesis is design heterogeneity—variation in true effect sizes across various reasonable experimental research protocols. To provide further evidence on whether competition affects moral behavior and to examine whether the generalizability of a single experimental study is jeopardized by design heterogeneity, we invited independent research teams to contribute experimental designs to a crowd-sourced project. In a large-scale online data collection, 18,123 experimental participants were randomly allocated to 45 randomly selected experimental designs out of 95 submitted designs. We find a small adverse effect of competition on moral behavior in a meta-analysis of the pooled data. The crowd-sourced design of our study allows for a clean identification and estimation of the variation in effect sizes above and beyond what could be expected due to sampling variance. We find substantial design heterogeneity—estimated to be about 1.6 times as large as the average standard error of effect size estimates of the 45 research designs—indicating that the informativeness and generalizability of results based on a single experimental design are limited. Drawing strong conclusions about the underlying hypotheses in the presence of substantive design heterogeneity requires moving toward much larger data collections on various experimental designs testing the same hypothesis.}, language = {en} } @misc{MochkabadiKleinertUrbigetal., author = {Mochkabadi, Kazem and Kleinert, Simon and Urbig, Diemo and Volkmann, Christine}, title = {From distinctiveness to optimal distinctiveness: External endorsements, innovativeness and new venture funding}, series = {Journal of Business Venturing}, volume = {39}, journal = {Journal of Business Venturing}, number = {1}, issn = {0883-9026}, doi = {10.1016/j.jbusvent.2023.106340}, abstract = {We examine how external endorsements help new ventures with varying degrees of innovativeness to attract funding. According to optimal distinctiveness theory, new ventures should be as different from competitors as legitimately possible. However, initial research suggests that new ventures can also buffer their legitimacy through external endorsements. We clarify that effects of such legitimacy buffers depend critically on an audience's unique legitimacy-distinctiveness relationship. Specifically, external endorsements lead to different predictions about shifts in optimal distinctiveness for return-seeking audiences compared to novelty-seeking audiences as relevant new venture funders. For return-seeking audiences, new ventures are perceived as less legitimate when they are non-innovative or radically innovative so that incrementally innovative new ventures are most attractive without endorsements. External endorsements can thus buffer the legitimacy of non-innovative and radically innovative new ventures, but they lead to different performance implications for a return-seeking audience. While non-innovative new ventures increase their attractiveness, only radically innovative new ventures can become optimally distinctive and outperform other distinctiveness configurations. In contrast, novelty-seeking audiences already have a higher tolerance for radically innovative new ventures, so the effects of external endorsements are less pronounced. Four empirical studies, using observational data and experiments in equity and reward-based crowdfunding, provide strong support for this theory and account for alternative explanations such as risk perceptions. In turn, we shed new light on the crucial, audience-specific function of external endorsements, namely, as a means to alter optimal distinctiveness levels.}, language = {en} } @misc{GeenenMuehlfeldUrbig, author = {Geenen, Noreen Y. R. and M{\"u}hlfeld, Katrin and Urbig, Diemo}, title = {Foundations of innovativeness in the international arena: Foreign language use and creative performance}, series = {European Journal of International Management}, journal = {European Journal of International Management}, issn = {1751-6765}, doi = {10.1504/EJIM.2022.10045539}, abstract = {Individuals' creativity is a key resource underlying an organisation's innovativeness. With workplaces becoming increasingly multilingual, a question of growing relevance concerns whether using a native versus a foreign language affects individuals' creativity. This study integrates research on foreign language in international business and on determinants of individual creativity with cognitive psychological research. Experiments suggest a detrimental effect of foreign versus native language use on creative performance, which is stronger in verbal tasks. Subjectively perceived foreign language proficiency appears to mitigate this negative effect. In tasks framed in figural terms, foreign language use even seems to stimulate creativity compared with a native language setting. This finding implies a potential lever for organisations seeking to stimulate employees' creativity to deliberately use a foreign language context to encourage thinking outside the box, particularly when using nonverbal creativity tools. Important implications arise for future research and practice in international management and creativity and innovation management.}, language = {en} }