Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
Way of publication
- Open Access (2)
Keywords
- Entrepreneurship (20)
- Crowdfunding (6)
- Innovation (5)
- Competitiveness (4)
- Experiment (4)
- Legitimacy (4)
- Gender (3)
- Personality (3)
- Enjoyment of competition (2)
- Entreprenuership (2)
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.
Previous research investigating base rate neglect as a bias in human information processing has focused on isolated individuals. This study complements this research by showing that in settings of interacting individuals, especially in settings of social learning, where individuals can learn from one another, base rate neglect can increase a population's welfare. This study further supports the research arguing that a population with members biased by neglecting base rates does not need to perform worse than a population with unbiased members. Adapting the model of social learning suggested by Bikhchandani, Hirshleifer and Welch (The Journal of Political Economy100 (1992) 992–1026) and including base rates that differ from generic cases such as 50–50, conditions are identified that make underweighting base rate information increasing the population's welfare. The base rate neglect can start a social learning process that otherwise had not been started and thus base rate neglect can generate positive externalities improving a population's welfare.
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.
The authors develop a model of investor reactions to new product development (NPD) failures in high technology firms. They propose that a firm’s financial and managerial capabilities, and its strategic focus on R&D, influence investors’ perceptions of the firm’s market value after NPD failure and that these effects are contingent on the development stage of the failed product. Using data on 148 NPD failures of publicly traded biopharmaceutical firms and an event study methodology the authors find support for their hypotheses. They show that the relationships between a firm’s (a) financial capabilities, (b) managerial capabilities, and (c) strategic focus on R&D, respectively, and the decline of firm market value after NPD failure are more negative for products that fail in late development stages than for products that fail in early development stages. The authors’ results highlight the importance of a conjoint consideration of product-level and organizational-level effects in explaining investor reactions to NPD outcomes.
This article offers a new perspective for research on opinion dynamics. It demonstrates the importance of the distinction of opinion and attitude, which originally has been discussed in literature on consumer behaviour. As opinions are verbalised attitudes not only biases in interpretation and adoption processes have to be considered but also verbalisation biases should be addressed. Such biases can be caused by language deficits or social norms. The model presented in this article captures the basic features of common opinion dynamic models and additionally biases in the verbalisation process. Further, the article gives a first analysis of this model and shows that precision as bias in the verbalisation process can influence the dynamics significantly. Presenting and applying the concept of area of influential attitudes the impact of each parameter (selective attitude, selective interpretation, and precision) is analysed independently. Some preliminary results for combined effects are presented.
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.
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.
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.
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.