@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{MuehlfeldUrbigWeitzel, author = {Muehlfeld, Katrin and Urbig, Diemo and Weitzel, Utz}, title = {Entrepreneurs' exploratory perseverance in learning settings}, series = {Entrepreneurship, Theory \& Practice}, volume = {41}, journal = {Entrepreneurship, Theory \& Practice}, number = {4}, issn = {1540-6520}, doi = {10.1111/etp.12224}, pages = {533 -- 565}, abstract = {We introduce "exploratory perseverance" as a novel construct that captures perseverant behavior in settings in which several alternatives can be explored and evaluated. We suggest that entrepreneurs display exploratory perseverance reflected by a tendency to keep exploring broader sets of alternatives, to adopt a parallel rather than sequential approach to trial-and-error learning, and, after negative experiences with some alternatives, to be more inclined to give them a second chance. The results from an experimental study of 449 individuals participating in the Iowa Gambling Task indicate that more entrepreneurially experienced individuals display greater exploratory perseverance than those with little to no entrepreneurial experience.}, language = {en} } @misc{WeitzelUrbigDesaietal., author = {Weitzel, Utz and Urbig, Diemo and Desai, Sameeksha and Sanders, Mark and Acs, Zoltan}, title = {The good, the bad, and the talented: Entrepreneurial talent and selfish behavior}, series = {Journal of Economic Behavior \& Organization}, volume = {76}, journal = {Journal of Economic Behavior \& Organization}, number = {1}, issn = {0167-2681}, doi = {10.1016/j.jebo.2010.02.013}, pages = {64 -- 81}, language = {en} } @misc{UrbigWeitzelRosenkranzetal., author = {Urbig, Diemo and Weitzel, Utz and Rosenkranz, Stephanie and Witteloostuijn, Arjen van}, title = {Exploiting opportunities at all cost? Entrepreneurial intent and externalities}, series = {Journal of Economic Psychology}, volume = {33}, journal = {Journal of Economic Psychology}, number = {2}, issn = {0167-4870}, doi = {10.1016/j.joep.2011.03.003}, pages = {379 -- 393}, abstract = {Do potential entrepreneurs exploit welfare-destroying opportunities as much as they exploit welfare-enhancing opportunities as it is assumed in several normative models? Do we need to prevent potential entrepreneurs from being destructive or are there intrinsic limits to harm others? We experimentally investigate how people with different entrepreneurial intent exploit risky investment opportunities that are associated with negative and positive externalities. We find that participants who consider entrepreneurship as a future occupation invest significantly less than others in destructive opportunities. Nevertheless, our results support prior evidence that the entrepreneurially talented invest more in destructive opportunities. The latter effect seems to be entrepreneurship-specific, because the investment behavior of the generally more talented does not differ from that of other participants. Taken together, our results suggest that people who are willing to exploit destructive opportunities do not only do this in private ventures, but also - and maybe even more so - in wage employment.}, language = {en} }