Identifying the impact that an individual’s peers have on his or her own performance outcomes is difficult to do in practice. Examining data from professional golf tournaments provides a unique opportunity to produce such estimates in that players compete in a high stakes setting, completing tasks in a discrete order with a group of randomly assigned peers. In a previous study, Guryan, Kroft, and Notowidigdo (2009) focus on how the ability of one’s playing partner impacts one’s own score in each round, finding little to no evidence of peer effects. We make use of detailed shot-level data, and focus on how putts taken by peers on a given hole impact the outcomes for an individual. There are at least two potential effects experienced by observing the performance of a peer. One is that a player learns about the features of the green: slope, speed or other relevant factors. The second effect is that a player experiences a psychological impact by seeing another player succeed or fail on a given shot. We find that the learning effect from simply observing other players has a positive impact on a player’s success. We also find evidence that a player’s success is negatively related to how successful his peers have been to that point.
{"title":"Learning and Psychological Effects from Peers in a Competitive Environment: Evidence from the PGA Tour","authors":"D. Hickman, Neil Metz","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2682817","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2682817","url":null,"abstract":"Identifying the impact that an individual’s peers have on his or her own performance outcomes is difficult to do in practice. Examining data from professional golf tournaments provides a unique opportunity to produce such estimates in that players compete in a high stakes setting, completing tasks in a discrete order with a group of randomly assigned peers. In a previous study, Guryan, Kroft, and Notowidigdo (2009) focus on how the ability of one’s playing partner impacts one’s own score in each round, finding little to no evidence of peer effects. We make use of detailed shot-level data, and focus on how putts taken by peers on a given hole impact the outcomes for an individual. There are at least two potential effects experienced by observing the performance of a peer. One is that a player learns about the features of the green: slope, speed or other relevant factors. The second effect is that a player experiences a psychological impact by seeing another player succeed or fail on a given shot. We find that the learning effect from simply observing other players has a positive impact on a player’s success. We also find evidence that a player’s success is negatively related to how successful his peers have been to that point.","PeriodicalId":276560,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115496312","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We investigate the effect of different interactive technologies on the decision-making process in an information search laboratory experiment. In our experiment, the participant makes a selection from a list of differently-valued objects with multiple attributes. We compare presenting information in static form to two methods of interactive presentation. In the first, the participant can manually sort objects by attribute, a capability similar to that found in spreadsheet software. In the second, we present an interactive visual tool that (1) automatically sorts all objects by attribute and (2) uses visual cues for comparisons. Manual sorting capability does not cause an improvement in decisions in this context. On the other hand, the visual tool increases the value of the objects selected by the participant and decreases time spent deliberating. We also find that our interactive presentations affect the decision-making process of participants by changing the number of intermediate options considered. Our results highlight the importance of investigating the effect of technology on information search, and suggest that appropriate interactive visual displays may improve search in practice.
{"title":"An Experimental Study of Decision Process with Interactive Technology","authors":"A. Samek, Inkyoung Hur, Sung-Hee Kim, Ji Soo Yi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2347698","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2347698","url":null,"abstract":"We investigate the effect of different interactive technologies on the decision-making process in an information search laboratory experiment. In our experiment, the participant makes a selection from a list of differently-valued objects with multiple attributes. We compare presenting information in static form to two methods of interactive presentation. In the first, the participant can manually sort objects by attribute, a capability similar to that found in spreadsheet software. In the second, we present an interactive visual tool that (1) automatically sorts all objects by attribute and (2) uses visual cues for comparisons. Manual sorting capability does not cause an improvement in decisions in this context. On the other hand, the visual tool increases the value of the objects selected by the participant and decreases time spent deliberating. We also find that our interactive presentations affect the decision-making process of participants by changing the number of intermediate options considered. Our results highlight the importance of investigating the effect of technology on information search, and suggest that appropriate interactive visual displays may improve search in practice.","PeriodicalId":276560,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131536595","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Patent law has tried to find a middle ground between a vision of invention as a mental act and a competing vision that focuses on the actual building of a working product. The definition of invention in the 1952 Patent Act incorporates both conception and reduction to practice, sometimes choosing the first to conceive as the inventor and at other times choosing the first to reduce an invention to practice. But in trying to walk that middle ground, patent law has actually discouraged inventors from getting their inventions to work in practice, rewarding those who run to the patent office before they are fully done with the invention and giving them precedence over those who take the time to make sure their invention works by building and testing it. The problem is even worse under the new America Invents Act passed in 2011, which encourages patentees to file their applications as soon as possible. The fact that the law encourages inventors to file first and figure out later how (or even if) the invention works for its intended purpose is unfortunate. It produces underdeveloped patent applications that do not communicate useful information to the world. It facilitates the rise of patent trolls who obtain patents but never bother to produce a product, instead making a business of suing those who do. And it pushes people to patent things just in case, adding more patents into a system already overburdened with them.I reject proposals to go to the opposite extreme, requiring patentees to make products. But we should not be in the position in which we currently find ourselves: treating inventors less favorably if they try to build and test their inventions In this paper, I offer some thoughts on ways we might seek to protect inventors who actually decide to build and test their products.
{"title":"Ready for Patenting","authors":"Mark A. Lemley","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2613696","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2613696","url":null,"abstract":"Patent law has tried to find a middle ground between a vision of invention as a mental act and a competing vision that focuses on the actual building of a working product. The definition of invention in the 1952 Patent Act incorporates both conception and reduction to practice, sometimes choosing the first to conceive as the inventor and at other times choosing the first to reduce an invention to practice. But in trying to walk that middle ground, patent law has actually discouraged inventors from getting their inventions to work in practice, rewarding those who run to the patent office before they are fully done with the invention and giving them precedence over those who take the time to make sure their invention works by building and testing it. The problem is even worse under the new America Invents Act passed in 2011, which encourages patentees to file their applications as soon as possible. The fact that the law encourages inventors to file first and figure out later how (or even if) the invention works for its intended purpose is unfortunate. It produces underdeveloped patent applications that do not communicate useful information to the world. It facilitates the rise of patent trolls who obtain patents but never bother to produce a product, instead making a business of suing those who do. And it pushes people to patent things just in case, adding more patents into a system already overburdened with them.I reject proposals to go to the opposite extreme, requiring patentees to make products. But we should not be in the position in which we currently find ourselves: treating inventors less favorably if they try to build and test their inventions In this paper, I offer some thoughts on ways we might seek to protect inventors who actually decide to build and test their products.","PeriodicalId":276560,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128235387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Long before Gardner proposed his model of multiple intelligences, an important question has been constantly fueled by both management theorists and practitioners: “Is the quality of the decision making process linked with the genetic heritage that managers have in terms of intellectual potential?”
{"title":"Managerial Fractal Intelligences. Psychometric Evidence for Empowering the Theory of Multiple Intelligences","authors":"Dumitru Grigore, M. Talpos, Ioan G. Pop","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2984834","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2984834","url":null,"abstract":"Long before Gardner proposed his model of multiple intelligences, an important question has been constantly fueled by both management theorists and practitioners: “Is the quality of the decision making process linked with the genetic heritage that managers have in terms of intellectual potential?”","PeriodicalId":276560,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133152574","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
textabstractTheoretical “necessary but not sufficient” statements are common in the organizational sciences. Traditional data analyses approaches (e.g., correlation or multiple regression) are not appropriate for testing or inducing such statements. This article proposes necessary condition analysis (NCA) as a general and straightforward methodology for identifying necessary conditions in data sets. The article presents the logic and methodology of necessary but not sufficient contributions of organizational determinants (e.g., events, characteristics, resources, efforts) to a desired outcome (e.g., good performance). A necessary determinant must be present for achieving an outcome, but its presence is not sufficient to obtain that outcome. Without the necessary condition, there is guaranteed failure, which cannot be compensated by other determinants of the outcome. This logic and its related methodology are fundamentally different from the traditional sufficiency-based logic and methodology. Practical recommendations and free software are offered to support researchers to apply NCA.
{"title":"Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA): Logic and Methodology of 'Necessary But Not Sufficient' Causality","authors":"J. Dul","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2588480","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2588480","url":null,"abstract":"textabstractTheoretical “necessary but not sufficient” statements are common in the organizational sciences. Traditional data analyses approaches (e.g., correlation or multiple regression) are not appropriate for testing or inducing such statements. This article proposes necessary condition analysis (NCA) as a general and straightforward methodology for identifying necessary conditions in data sets. The article presents the logic and methodology of necessary but not sufficient contributions of organizational determinants (e.g., events, characteristics, resources, efforts) to a desired outcome (e.g., good performance). A necessary determinant must be present for achieving an outcome, but its presence is not sufficient to obtain that outcome. Without the necessary condition, there is guaranteed failure, which cannot be compensated by other determinants of the outcome. This logic and its related methodology are fundamentally different from the traditional sufficiency-based logic and methodology. Practical recommendations and free software are offered to support researchers to apply NCA.","PeriodicalId":276560,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131920243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In his article on Creating Around Copyright, Joseph Fishman argues that the constraints imposed by copyright law promote the creativity of subsequent follow-on authors. He suggests that by limiting creative choices, copyright exclusivity may actually enhances the output of follow-on authors by requiring them to “create around” existing works. Yet embedded in Professor Fishman’s theory is a paradox that threatens to disable the putative benefits of creating around. Specifically, the conditions that are necessary for creating around are the same conditions that we would expect to lead to licensing of previously existing works, rather than to the creation of new ones. In other words, it appears that creating around can only occur when we would expect it not to occur. In this essay I illuminate this problem, showing how the logic of Fishman’s argument leads inevitably to this paradox, and I offer several suggestions as to how one might escape the creating around paradox.
{"title":"The 'Creating Around' Paradox","authors":"D. Burk","doi":"10.31235/osf.io/s5ymw","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/s5ymw","url":null,"abstract":"In his article on Creating Around Copyright, Joseph Fishman argues that the constraints imposed by copyright law promote the creativity of subsequent follow-on authors. He suggests that by limiting creative choices, copyright exclusivity may actually enhances the output of follow-on authors by requiring them to “create around” existing works. Yet embedded in Professor Fishman’s theory is a paradox that threatens to disable the putative benefits of creating around. Specifically, the conditions that are necessary for creating around are the same conditions that we would expect to lead to licensing of previously existing works, rather than to the creation of new ones. In other words, it appears that creating around can only occur when we would expect it not to occur. In this essay I illuminate this problem, showing how the logic of Fishman’s argument leads inevitably to this paradox, and I offer several suggestions as to how one might escape the creating around paradox.","PeriodicalId":276560,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125005633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Contests have a long history of driving innovation, and web-based information technology has opened up new possibilities for managing tournaments. One such possibility is the visibility of entries – some web-based platforms now allow participants to observe others’ submissions while the contest is live. Seeing other entries could broaden or limit idea exploration, redirect or anchor searches, or inspire or stifle creativity. Using a unique data set from a series of field experiments, we examine whether entry visibility helps or hurts innovation contest outcomes and (in the process) also address the common problem of how to deal with opt-in participation. Our eight contests resulted in 665 contest entries for which we have 11,380 quality ratings. Based on analysis of this data set and additional observational data, we provide evidence that entry visibility influences the outcome of tournaments via two pathways: (1) changing the likelihood of entry from an agent and (2) shifting the quality characteristics of entries. For the first, we show that entry visibility generates more entries by increasing the number of participants. For the second, we find the effect of entry visibility depends on the setting. Seeing other entries results in more similar submissions early in a contest. For single-entry participants, entry quality “ratchets up” with the best entry previously submitted by other contestants if that entry is visible, while moving in the opposite direction if it’s not. However, for participants who submit more than once, those with better prior submissions improve more when they cannot see the work of others. The variance in quality of entries also increases when entries are not visible, usually a desirable property of tournament submissions.
{"title":"The Impact of Visibility in Innovation Tournaments: Evidence from Field Experiments","authors":"Joel O. Wooten, K. Ulrich","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2214952","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2214952","url":null,"abstract":"Contests have a long history of driving innovation, and web-based information technology has opened up new possibilities for managing tournaments. One such possibility is the visibility of entries – some web-based platforms now allow participants to observe others’ submissions while the contest is live. Seeing other entries could broaden or limit idea exploration, redirect or anchor searches, or inspire or stifle creativity. Using a unique data set from a series of field experiments, we examine whether entry visibility helps or hurts innovation contest outcomes and (in the process) also address the common problem of how to deal with opt-in participation. Our eight contests resulted in 665 contest entries for which we have 11,380 quality ratings. Based on analysis of this data set and additional observational data, we provide evidence that entry visibility influences the outcome of tournaments via two pathways: (1) changing the likelihood of entry from an agent and (2) shifting the quality characteristics of entries. For the first, we show that entry visibility generates more entries by increasing the number of participants. For the second, we find the effect of entry visibility depends on the setting. Seeing other entries results in more similar submissions early in a contest. For single-entry participants, entry quality “ratchets up” with the best entry previously submitted by other contestants if that entry is visible, while moving in the opposite direction if it’s not. However, for participants who submit more than once, those with better prior submissions improve more when they cannot see the work of others. The variance in quality of entries also increases when entries are not visible, usually a desirable property of tournament submissions.","PeriodicalId":276560,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"125 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123393893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Some factors influencing personality creativity are being examined. Various points of view, contributed by the scientists who have done a research in this field, are being analyzed; empirical and statistical measures are stated. The factors influencing personality creativity in positive and negative ways have been defined as well as the factors that have no influence at all.
{"title":"Improving the Efficiency of Innovation","authors":"Elena Panova","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2553064","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2553064","url":null,"abstract":"Some factors influencing personality creativity are being examined. Various points of view, contributed by the scientists who have done a research in this field, are being analyzed; empirical and statistical measures are stated. The factors influencing personality creativity in positive and negative ways have been defined as well as the factors that have no influence at all.","PeriodicalId":276560,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130485623","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Understanding the impact of individual desirability and perceived feasibility on individual intention to take action is an important issue that few studies have examined it in the context of technology acceptance. Not considering attitude and self-efficacy as direct determinants of intention is considered as a limitation of the UTAUT model as well. Perceived self-efficacy is concerned “not with the number of skills individual have but with what they believe they can do with what they have under a variety of circumstances”. People with a low sense of self-efficacy tend to have low aspirations and weak commitment to pursuing their goals, and feeble adherence to their values. To address these gaps, we integrate the UTAUT and EPM to develop a robust model which is able to measure the determinants that may influence entrepreneurs to adopt and use IT innovation. We collected data in a two-stage survey of 412 Malaysian entrepreneurs. The new model was tested and accounted for 78.4% of the variance in usage intention. The results indicated that perceived desirability, performance expectancy, perceived feasibility, and effort expectancy are determinants of intention to use IT innovation. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications for governments and academics.
{"title":"Impact of Perceived Self-Efficacy and Capability to Use IT Innovation on Individual Use Behaviour","authors":"S. Moghavvemi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2561739","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2561739","url":null,"abstract":"Understanding the impact of individual desirability and perceived feasibility on individual intention to take action is an important issue that few studies have examined it in the context of technology acceptance. Not considering attitude and self-efficacy as direct determinants of intention is considered as a limitation of the UTAUT model as well. Perceived self-efficacy is concerned “not with the number of skills individual have but with what they believe they can do with what they have under a variety of circumstances”. People with a low sense of self-efficacy tend to have low aspirations and weak commitment to pursuing their goals, and feeble adherence to their values. To address these gaps, we integrate the UTAUT and EPM to develop a robust model which is able to measure the determinants that may influence entrepreneurs to adopt and use IT innovation. We collected data in a two-stage survey of 412 Malaysian entrepreneurs. The new model was tested and accounted for 78.4% of the variance in usage intention. The results indicated that perceived desirability, performance expectancy, perceived feasibility, and effort expectancy are determinants of intention to use IT innovation. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications for governments and academics.","PeriodicalId":276560,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114181075","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Controlled experiments with chess engines may be used to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative continuation lines of chess openings. The proposed methodology is demonstrated by evaluating a selection of continuations by White after the Sicilian Defense Najdorf Variation has been played by Black. The results suggest that the nine continuations tested represent a wide range of effectiveness that are mostly consistent with expert opinion.
{"title":"Evaluation of Alternative Continuations of Chess Openings","authors":"Jamal Munshi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2553614","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2553614","url":null,"abstract":"Controlled experiments with chess engines may be used to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative continuation lines of chess openings. The proposed methodology is demonstrated by evaluating a selection of continuations by White after the Sicilian Defense Najdorf Variation has been played by Black. The results suggest that the nine continuations tested represent a wide range of effectiveness that are mostly consistent with expert opinion.","PeriodicalId":276560,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125788467","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：