Advertisement

Review of Managerial Science

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 347–376 | Cite as

Like student like manager? Using student subjects in managerial debiasing research

  • Lorenz Graf-VlachyEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Managerial debiasing studies are rare because it is often challenging to obtain manager samples to perform the required experiments. Student subjects could mitigate this difficulty, but there is widespread uncertainty regarding their implications for a study’s validity. In this paper, I first trace the debate, and structure the literature, on the use of student subjects in business research in general. Next, I propose a conceptual framework of criteria to identify under which circumstances student subjects can be valid surrogates in managerial debiasing research. Finally, I illustrate the use of the framework by repeating an extant debiasing study conducted with management practitioners with a large sample of business students (N = 1423), showing that the student sample replicates the results from the manager sample to the expected degree. I close by discussing the study’s implications, limitations, and opportunities for future research.

Keywords

Debiasing Behavioral strategy Surrogation Student subjects Experiments 

JEL Classification

M10 M12 M53 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge helpful comments from Editor-in-Chief Wolfgang Kürsten and two anonymous reviewers that shaped and improved the paper. Andreas König, Harald Hungenberg, Albrecht Enders, Jan Nopper, Sebastian Kreft, Andreas Fügener, Jan Krämer, Philip Meissner, as well as the participants of the 15th Annual Conference of the European Academy of Management in Warsaw and the 75th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management in Vancouver also contributed valuable insights to this manuscript. Furthermore, Björn Baltzer, Christian Landau, and the local chapter chairpersons of Marketing zwischen Theorie und Praxis (MTP) e.V. greatly supported the data collection effort.

References

  1. Abdel-khalik AR (1974) On the efficiency of subject surrogation in accounting research. Acc Rev 49(4):743–750Google Scholar
  2. Abdellaoui M, Bleichrodt H, Kammoun H (2013) Do financial professionals behave according to prospect theory? An experimental study. Theory Decis 74(3):411–429. doi: 10.1007/s11238-011-9282-3 Google Scholar
  3. Aiman-Smith L, Scullen SE, Barr SH (2002) Conducting studies of decision making in organizational contexts: a tutorial for policy-capturing and other regression-based techniques. Organ Res Methods 5(4):388–414. doi: 10.1177/109442802237117 Google Scholar
  4. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Google Scholar
  5. Alpert B (1967) Non-businessmen as surrogates for businessmen in behavioral experiments. J Bus 40(2):203–207. doi: 10.1086/294956 Google Scholar
  6. Arkes HR (1991) Costs and benefits of judgment errors: implications for debiasing. Psychol Bull 110(3):486–498. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.110.3.486 Google Scholar
  7. Armstrong JS, Collopy F (1996) Competitor orientation: effects of objectives and information on managerial decisions and profitability. J Mark Res 33(2):188–199. doi: 10.2307/3152146 Google Scholar
  8. Armstrong JS, Overton TS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J Mark Res 14(3):396–402. doi: 10.2307/3150783 Google Scholar
  9. Arnett DB, Hunt SD (2002) Competitive irrationality: the influence of moral philosophy. Bus Ethics Q 12(3):279–303. doi: 10.2307/3858018 Google Scholar
  10. Arnott D (2006) Cognitive biases and decision support systems development: a design science approach. Inf Syst J 16(1):55–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2006.00208.x Google Scholar
  11. Ashton RH, Kramer SS (1980) Students as surrogates in behavioral accounting research: some evidence. J Acc Res 18(1):1–15. doi: 10.2307/2490389 Google Scholar
  12. Babcock L, Loewenstein G, Issacharoff S (1997) Creating convergence: debiasing biased litigants. Law Soc Inq 22(4):913–925. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.1997.tb01092.x Google Scholar
  13. Ball SB, Cech P-A (1996) Subject pool choice and treatment effects in economic laboratory research. In: Mark Isaac R (ed) Research in experimental economics. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 239–292Google Scholar
  14. Baron J (2008) Thinking and deciding, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Barr SH, Hitt MA (1986) A comparison of selection decision models in manager versus student samples. Pers Psychol 39(3):599–617. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00955.x Google Scholar
  16. Bateman TS, Zeithaml CP (1989) The psychological context of strategic decisions: a test of relevance to practitioners. Strateg Manag J 10(6):587–592. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250100606 Google Scholar
  17. Beltramini RF (1983) Student surrogates in consumer research. J Acad Mark Sci 11(4):438–443. doi: 10.1177/009207038301100406 Google Scholar
  18. Bettis RA, Helfat CE, Shaver JM (2016) The necessity, logic, and forms of replication. Strateg Manag J 37:2193–2203. doi: 10.1002/smj.2580 Google Scholar
  19. Bhattacharjee S, Moreno K (2002) The impact of affective information on the professional judgments of more experienced and less experienced auditors. J Behav Decis Mak 15(4):361–377. doi: 10.1002/bdm.420 Google Scholar
  20. Bolton GE, Ockenfels A, Thonemann UW (2012) Managers and students as newsvendors. Manag Sci 58(12):2225–2233. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1550 Google Scholar
  21. Brickman P, Bulman RJ (1977) Pleasure and pain in social comparison. In: Suls JM, Miller RL (eds) Social comparison processes: theoretical and empirical perspectives. Hemisphere, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Brouthers L, Lascu DN, Werner S (2008) Competitive irrationality in transitional economies: Are communist managers less irrational? J Bus Ethics 83(3):397–408. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9627-6 Google Scholar
  23. Burnett JJ, Dunne PM (1986) An appraisal of the use of student subjects in marketing research. J Bus Res 14(4):329–343. doi: 10.1016/0148-2963(86)90024-X Google Scholar
  24. Calder BJ, Phillips LW, Tybout AM (1981) Designing research for application. J Consum Res 8(2):197–207. doi: 10.1086/208856 Google Scholar
  25. Campbell DT (1957) Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychol Bull 54(2):297–312. doi: 10.1037/h0040950 Google Scholar
  26. Campbell DT, Stanley JC (1963) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Houghton Mifflin Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  27. Canback S (1998) The logic of management consulting: part 1. J Manag Consult 10(2):3–11Google Scholar
  28. Colquitt JA (2008) Publishing laboratory research in AMJ: a question of when, not if. Acad Manag J 51(4):616–620. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2008.33664717 Google Scholar
  29. Cooper DJ, Kagel JH, Lo W, Gu QL (1999) Gaming against managers in incentive systems: experimental results with Chinese students and Chinese managers. Am Econ Rev 89(4):781–804. doi: 10.1257/aer.89.4.781 Google Scholar
  30. Copeland RM, Francia AJ, Strawser RH (1973) Students as subjects in behavioral business research. Acc Rev 48(2):365–372Google Scholar
  31. Copi IM, Cohen C, McMahon K (2016) Introduction to logic, 14th edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Cornelissen JP (2006) Making sense of theory construction: metaphor and disciplined imagination. Organ Stud 27(11):1579–1597. doi: 10.1177/0170840606068333 Google Scholar
  33. Crant JM, Bateman TS (1990) An experimental test of the impact of drug-testing programs on potential job applicants’ attitudes and intentions. J Appl Psychol 75(2):127–131. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.127 Google Scholar
  34. Croson RTA (2010) The use of students as participants in experimental research. http://experimental-instruments.com/BDOM/2010/students.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2015
  35. Cunningham WH, Anderson WT Jr, Murphy JH (1974) Are students real people? J Bus 47(3):399–409. doi: 10.1086/295654 Google Scholar
  36. Cycyota CS, Harrison DA (2006) What (not) to expect when surveying executives: a meta-analysis of top manager response rates and techniques over time. Organ Res Methods 9(2):133–160. doi: 10.1177/1094428105280770 Google Scholar
  37. Dipboye RL, Fromkin HL, Wiback K (1975) Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes. J Appl Psychol 60(1):39–43. doi: 10.1037/h0076352 Google Scholar
  38. Dobbins GH, Lane IM, Steiner DD (1988a) A note on the role of laboratory methodologies in applied behavioural research: don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. J Organ Behav 9(3):281–286. doi: 10.1002/job.4030090308 Google Scholar
  39. Dobbins GH, Lane IM, Steiner DD (1988b) A further examination of student babies and student bath water: a response to Slade and Gordon. J Organ Behav 9(4):377–378. doi: 10.1002/job.4030090410 Google Scholar
  40. Easley RW, Madden CS, Dunn MG (2000) Conducting marketing science: the role of replication in the research process. J Bus Res 48(1):83–92. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00079-4 Google Scholar
  41. Enis BM, Cox KK, Stafford JE (1972) Students as subjects in consumer behavior experiments. J Mark Res 9(1):71–74. doi: 10.2307/3149612 Google Scholar
  42. Evanschitzky H, Baumgarth C, Hubbard R, Armstrong JS (2007) Replication research’s disturbing trend. J Bus Res 60(4):411–415. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.12.003 Google Scholar
  43. Farber ML (1952) The college student as laboratory animal. Am Psychol 7(3):102. doi: 10.1037/h0059045 Google Scholar
  44. Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat 7(2):117–140. doi: 10.1177/001872675400700202 Google Scholar
  45. Fiedler K (2016) Functional research and cognitive-process research in behavioural science: an unequal but firmly connected pair. Int J Psychol 51:64–71. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12163 Google Scholar
  46. Fischhoff B (1982) Debiasing. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 422–444Google Scholar
  47. Fleming JE (1969) Managers as subjects in business decision research. Acad Manag J 12(1):59–66. doi: 10.2307/254672 Google Scholar
  48. Fox S, Spector PE, Miles D (2001) Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. J Vocat Behav 59(3):291–309. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803 Google Scholar
  49. Fréchette GR (2015) Laboratory experiments: professionals versus students. In: Fréchette GR, Schotter A (eds) Handbook of experimental economic methodology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 360–390Google Scholar
  50. Garcia SM, Tor A (2007) Rankings, standards, and competition: task vs. scale comparisons. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 102(1):95–108. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.10.004 Google Scholar
  51. Garcia SM, Tor A, Gonzalez RD (2006) Ranks and rivals: a theory of competition. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 32(7):970–982. doi: 10.1177/0146167206287640 Google Scholar
  52. Garcia SM, Tor A, Schiff T (2013) The psychology of competition: a social comparison perspective. Perspect Psychol Sci 8(6):634–650. doi: 10.1177/1745691613504114 Google Scholar
  53. Gilovich T, Griffin D (2002) Introduction—heuristics and biases: then and now. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and biases, the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 379–396Google Scholar
  54. Gilpin AR (1993) Table for conversion of Kendall’s Tau to Spearman’s Rho within the context of measures of magnitude of effect for meta-analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 53(1):87–92. doi: 10.1177/0013164493053001007 Google Scholar
  55. Goldstein EB (2011) Cognitive psychology: connecting mind, research, and everyday experience, 3rd edn. Cengage Learning, WadsworthGoogle Scholar
  56. Gordon ME, Slade LA, Schmitt N (1986) The science of the sophomore revisited: from conjecture to empiricism. Acad Manag Rev 11(1):191–207. doi: 10.2307/258340 Google Scholar
  57. Gordon ME, Slade LA, Schmitt N (1987) Student guinea pigs: porcine predictors and particularistic phenomena. Acad Manag Rev 12(1):160–163. doi: 10.2307/258002 Google Scholar
  58. Graf L, König A, Enders A, Hungenberg H (2012) Debiasing competitive irrationality: how managers can be prevented from trading off absolute for relative profit. Eur Manag J 30(4):386–403. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2011.12.001 Google Scholar
  59. Greenberg J (1987) The college sophomore as guinea pig: setting the record straight. Acad Manag Rev 12(1):157–159. doi: 10.2307/258001 Google Scholar
  60. Hambrick DC, Finkelstein S, Mooney AC (2005) Executive job demands: new insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Acad Manag Rev 30(3):472–491. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2005.17293355 Google Scholar
  61. Harris JR, Sutton CD (1995) Unravelling the ethical decision-making process: clues from an empirical study comparing Fortune 1000 executives and MBA students. J Bus Ethics 14(10):805–817. doi: 10.1007/BF00872347 Google Scholar
  62. Hawkins DI, Albaum G, Best R (1977) An investigation of two issues in the use of students as surrogates for housewives in consumer behavior studies. J Bus 50(2):216–222. doi: 10.1086/295932 Google Scholar
  63. Hill SE, Buss DM (2006) Envy and positional bias in the evolutionary psychology of management. Manag Decis Econ 27(2–3):131–143. doi: 10.1002/mde.1288 Google Scholar
  64. Hodgkinson GP, Bown NJ, Maule AJ, Glaister KW, Pearman AD (1999) Breaking the frame: an analysis of strategic cognition and decision making under uncertainty. Strateg Manag J 20(10):977–985. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199910)20:10<977:AID-SMJ58>3.0.CO;2-X Google Scholar
  65. Hofstedt TR (1972) Some behavioral parameters of financial analysis. Acc Rev 47(4):679–692Google Scholar
  66. Hubbard R, Vetter DE, Little EL (1998) Replication in strategic management: scientific testing for validity, generalizability, and usefulness. Strateg Manag J 19(3):243–254. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199803)19:3<243:AID-SMJ951>3.0.CO;2-0 Google Scholar
  67. Hughes CT, Gibson ML (1991) Students as surrogates for managers in a decision-making environment: an experimental study. J Manag Inf Syst 8(2):153–166. doi: 10.1080/07421222.1991.11517925 Google Scholar
  68. Hume D (1999) An enquiry concerning human understanding, Oxford philosophical texts. Oxford University Press, Oxford (Original work published 1739)Google Scholar
  69. Janis IL (1972) Victims of groupthink: a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  70. Jung J (1981) Is it possible to measure generalizability from laboratory to life, and is it really that important? In: Silverman I (ed) Generalizing from laboratory to life. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 39–49Google Scholar
  71. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1973) On the psychology of prediction. Psychol Rev 80(4):237–251. doi: 10.1037/h0034747 Google Scholar
  72. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292. doi: 10.2307/1914185 Google Scholar
  73. Kaufmann L, Carter CR, Buhrmann C (2012) The impact of individual debiasing efforts on financial decision effectiveness in the supplier selection process. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 42(5):411–433. doi: 10.1108/09600031211246492 Google Scholar
  74. Kaustia M, Perttula M (2012) Overconfidence and debiasing in the financial industry. Rev Behav Finance 4(1):46–62. doi: 10.1108/19405971211261100 Google Scholar
  75. Kendall MG (1938) A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30(1/2):81–93. doi: 10.2307/2332226 Google Scholar
  76. Kennedy J (1993) Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: a framework and experimental results. J Acc Res 31(2):231–245. doi: 10.2307/2491272 Google Scholar
  77. Kennedy J (1995) Debiasing the curse of knowledge in audit judgment. Acc Rev 70(2):249–273Google Scholar
  78. Khera IP, Benson JD (1970) Are students really poor substitutes for businessmen in behavioral research? J Mark Res 7(4):529–532. doi: 10.2307/3149650 Google Scholar
  79. Kidd RF (1976) Manipulation checks: advantage or disadvantage? Represent Res Soc Psychol 7(2):160–165Google Scholar
  80. Kohli AK (2011) From the editor: reflections on the review process. J Market 75(6):1–4. doi: 10.1509/jm.75.6.editorial Google Scholar
  81. Kraus S, Meier F, Niemand T, Bouncken RB, Ritala P (2017) In search for the ideal coopetition partner: an experimental study. RMS. doi: 10.1007/s11846-017-0237-0 Google Scholar
  82. Kruglanski AW (1975) The human subject in the psychology experiment: fact and artifact. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press, New York, pp 101–147Google Scholar
  83. Lamb CW, Stern DE (1980) An evaluation of students as surrogates in marketing studies. Adv Consum Res 7(1):796–799Google Scholar
  84. Larrick RP (2004) Debiasing. In: Koehler DJ, Harvey N (eds) Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making. Blackwell, Malden, pp 316–337Google Scholar
  85. Latham GP, Dossett DL (1978) Designing incentive plans for unionized employees: a comparison of continuous and variable ration reinforcement schedules. Pers Psychol 31(1):47–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1978.tb02108.x Google Scholar
  86. LaTour M, Champagne PJ, Rhiel GS, Behling R (1990) Are students a viable source of data for conducting survey research on organizations and their environments? Rev Bus Econ Res 26(1):68–82Google Scholar
  87. Lerner JS, Tetlock PE (1999) Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychol Bull 125(2):255–275. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255 Google Scholar
  88. Libby R, Bloomfield R, Nelson MW (2002) Experimental research in financial accounting. Acc Organ Soc 27(8):775–810. doi: 10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00011-3 Google Scholar
  89. Lilienfeld SO, Ammirati R, Landfield K (2009) Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare? Perspect Psychol Sci 4(4):390–398. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01144.x Google Scholar
  90. Liyanarachchi GA (2007) Feasibility of using student subjects in accounting experiments: a review. Pac Acc Rev 19(1):47–67. doi: 10.1108/01140580710754647 Google Scholar
  91. Liyanarachchi GA, Milne MJ (2005) Comparing the investment decisions of accounting practitioners and students: an empirical study on the adequacy of student surrogates. Acc Forum 29(2):121–135. doi: 10.1016/j.accfor.2004.05.001 Google Scholar
  92. Locke EA (ed) (1986) Generalizing from laboratory to field settings. Lexington Books, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  93. Lord CG, Lepper MR, Preston E (1984) Considering the opposite: a corrective strategy for social judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol 47(6):1231–1243. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.47.6.1231 Google Scholar
  94. Maxwell SE, Kelley K, Rausch JR (2008) Sample size planning for statistical power and accuracy in parameter estimation. Annu Rev Psychol 59(1):537–563. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093735 Google Scholar
  95. McNemar Q (1946) Opinion-attitude methodology. Psychol Bull 43(4):289–374. doi: 10.1037/h0060985 Google Scholar
  96. Meissner P, Wulf T (2013) Cognitive benefits of scenario planning: its impact on biases and decision quality. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 80(4):801–814. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.09.011 Google Scholar
  97. Meissner P, Wulf T (2016) Debiasing illusion of control in individual judgment: the role of internal and external advice seeking. RMS 10:245–263. doi: 10.1007/s11846-014-0144-6 Google Scholar
  98. Milkman KL, Chugh D, Bazerman MH (2009) How can decision making be improved? Perspect Psychol Sci 4(4):379–383. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01142.x Google Scholar
  99. Miller HE (1966) Discussion of the accounting period concept and its effect on management decisions. Empirical research in accounting: selected studies 1966. J Acc Res 4(1):15–17. doi: 10.2307/2490164 Google Scholar
  100. Miller GR, Fontes NE, Boster FJ, Sunnafrank MJ (1983) Methodological issues in legal communication research: what can trial simulations tell us. Commun Monogr 50(1):33–46. doi: 10.1080/03637758309390152 Google Scholar
  101. Mook DG (1983) In defense of external invalidity. Am Psychol 38(4):379–387. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379 Google Scholar
  102. Moskowitz H (1971) Managers as partners in business decision research. Acad Manag J 14(3):317–325. doi: 10.2307/255076 Google Scholar
  103. Murphy KR, Thornton GC, Reynolds DH (1990) College students’ attitudes toward employee drug testing programs. Pers Psychol 43(3):615–631. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.tb02399.x Google Scholar
  104. Neale MA, Northcraft GB (1990) Experience, expertise, and decision bias in negotiation: the role of strategic conceptualization. In: Sheppard BH, Bazerman MH, Lewicki RJ (eds) Research on negotiation in organizations: a biannual research series, vol 2. AI Press, Greenwich, pp 55–75Google Scholar
  105. Oakes W (1972) External validity and the use of real people as subjects. Am Psychol 27(10):959–962. doi: 10.1037/h0033454 Google Scholar
  106. Paolacci G, Chandler J (2014) Inside the Turk: understanding mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 23(3):184–188. doi: 10.1177/0963721414531598 Google Scholar
  107. Peón D, Antelo M, Calvo A (2016) Overconfidence and risk seeking in credit markets: an experimental game. RMS 10(3):511–552. doi: 10.1007/s11846-015-0166-8 Google Scholar
  108. Peterson RA (2001) On the use of college students in social science research: insights from a second-order meta-analysis. J Consum Res 28(3):450–461. doi: 10.1086/323732 Google Scholar
  109. Quoidbach J, Gilbert DT, Wilson TD (2013) The end of history illusion. Science 339(6115):96–98. doi: 10.1126/science.1229294 Google Scholar
  110. Rausch A, Brauneis A (2015) The effect of accountability on management accountants’ selection of information. RMS 9(3):487–521. doi: 10.1007/s11846-014-0126-8 Google Scholar
  111. Remus W (1986) Graduate students as surrogates for managers in experiments on business decision making. J Bus Res 14(1):19–25. doi: 10.1016/0148-2963(86)90053-6 Google Scholar
  112. Roberts BW, Walton KE, Viechtbauer W (2006) Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull 132(1):1–25. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1 Google Scholar
  113. Roth AE (1995) Introduction to experimental economics. In: Kagel JH, Roth AE (eds) The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 3–109Google Scholar
  114. Schoemaker PJH (1993) Multiple scenario development: its conceptual and behavioral foundation. Strateg Manag J 14(3):193–213. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250140304 Google Scholar
  115. Schultz DP (1969) The human subject in psychological research. Psychol Bull 72(3):214–228. doi: 10.1037/h0027880 Google Scholar
  116. Schwenk CR (1982) Why sacrifice rigour for relevance? A proposal for combining laboratory and field research in strategic management. Strateg Manag J 3(3):213–225. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250030304 Google Scholar
  117. Sears DO (1986) College sophomores in the laboratory: influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. J Pers Soc Psychol 51(3):515–530. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515 Google Scholar
  118. Shefrin H, Cervellati EM (2011) BP’s failure to debias: underscoring the importance of behavioral corporate finance. Q J Finance 1(1):127–168. doi: 10.1142/S2010139211000043 Google Scholar
  119. Shuptrine FK (1975) On the validity of using students as subjects in consumer behavior investigations. J Bus 48(3):383–390. doi: 10.1086/295763 Google Scholar
  120. Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 69(1):99–118. doi: 10.2307/1884852 Google Scholar
  121. Simonsohn U (2015) Small telescopes detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychol Sci 26(5):559–569. doi: 10.1177/0956797614567341 Google Scholar
  122. Slade LA, Gordon ME (1988) On the virtues of laboratory babies and student bath water: a reply to Dobbins, Lane, and Steiner. J Organ Behav 9(4):373–376. doi: 10.1002/job.4030090409 Google Scholar
  123. Solomon DH, Samp JA (1998) Power and problem appraisal: perceptual foundations of the chilling effect in dating relationships. J Soc Pers Relat 15(2):191–209. doi: 10.1177/0265407598152004 Google Scholar
  124. South JC (1974) Achievement motivation among managers of small businesses, corporation managers, and business students. J Appl Psychol 59(4):509–510. doi: 10.1037/h0037342 Google Scholar
  125. Stahl MJ, Harrell AM (1982) Evolution and validation of a behavioral decision theory measurement approach to achievement, power, and affiliation. J Appl Psychol 67(6):744–751. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.67.6.744 Google Scholar
  126. Stanovich KE (2009) Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory? In: Evans J, Frankish K (eds) In two minds: dual processes and beyond. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 55–88Google Scholar
  127. Staw BM (1997) The escalation of commitment: an update and appraisal. In: Shapira Z (ed) Organizational decision making. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 191–215Google Scholar
  128. Svenson O, Maule AJ (eds) (1993) Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  129. Taylor SE (1981) The interface of cognitive and social psychology. In: Harvey JH (ed) Cognition, social behavior, and the environment. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 189–211Google Scholar
  130. Thaler RH (1987) The psychology of choice and the assumptions of economics. In: Roth AE (ed) Laboratory experimentation in economics. Six points of view. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 99–130Google Scholar
  131. Trotman KT (1996) Research methods for judgment and decision making studies in auditing. Coopers and Lybrand and Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  132. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 Google Scholar
  133. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1986) Rational choice and the framing of decisions. J Bus 59(4):251–278. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-74919-3_4 Google Scholar
  134. Van de Vijver F, Tanzer NK (2004) Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: an overview. Eur Rev Appl Psychol 54(2):119–135. doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2003.12.004 Google Scholar
  135. Wallis WA, Friedman M (1942) The empirical derivation of indifference functions. In: Lange O, McIntyre F, Yntema TO (eds) Studies in mathematical economics and econometrics. In memory of Henry Schultz. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 175–189Google Scholar
  136. Walters-York M, Curatola AP (2000) Theoretical reflections on the use of students as surrogate subjects in behavioral experimentation. Adv Acc Behav Res 3:243–263Google Scholar
  137. Werner O, Campbell DT (1970) Translation, wording through interpreters, and the problem of decentering. In: Naroll R, Cohen R (eds) A handbook of method in cultural anthropology. Natural History Press, Garden City, pp 398–420Google Scholar
  138. Wilson TD, Gilbert DT (2003) Affective forecasting. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 35:345–411. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(03)01006-2 Google Scholar
  139. Wilson TD, Centerbar DB, Brekke N (2002) Mental contamination and the debiasing problem. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 185–200Google Scholar
  140. Wobker I, Kenning P (2013) Drivers and outcome of destructive envy behavior in an economic game setting. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 65(2):173–194Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PassauPassauGermany

Personalised recommendations