Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Review of Managerial Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-6486/homepage/ForAuthors.html. Accessed 1 October 2016.

  2. The number of students in the marketing club pool cannot be precisely determined because the invitation e-mail was manually forwarded to members by their respective local chapter chairpersons. The approximation builds on the club’s member database and is hence likely to be conservative as the chairpersons partially only e-mailed members that frequently attended chapter meetings. Similarly, the number of students on the mailing list at one of the universities could not be determined exactly and was conservatively estimated by the mailing list administrator, an employee of the university. Hence, the reported response rate represents a lower bound on the actual response rate.

  3. Hodgkinson et al. (1999) report findings for students and managers, but they use different stimulus materials for the two samples. Kennedy (1993, 1995) also reports debiasing results for managers and students. However, her student sample is largely comprised of managers with more than five years of experience that were enrolled in an executive program. The sample therefore represents actual managers more than student surrogate subjects.

References

  • Abdel-khalik AR (1974) On the efficiency of subject surrogation in accounting research. Acc Rev 49(4):743–750

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Alpert B (1967) Non-businessmen as surrogates for businessmen in behavioral experiments. J Bus 40(2):203–207. doi:10.1086/294956

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Armstrong JS, Overton TS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J Mark Res 14(3):396–402. doi:10.2307/3150783

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 239–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron J (2008) Thinking and deciding, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Beltramini RF (1983) Student surrogates in consumer research. J Acad Mark Sci 11(4):438–443. doi:10.1177/009207038301100406

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Calder BJ, Phillips LW, Tybout AM (1981) Designing research for application. J Consum Res 8(2):197–207. doi:10.1086/208856

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Campbell DT, Stanley JC (1963) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Canback S (1998) The logic of management consulting: part 1. J Manag Consult 10(2):3–11

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Copeland RM, Francia AJ, Strawser RH (1973) Students as subjects in behavioral business research. Acc Rev 48(2):365–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Copi IM, Cohen C, McMahon K (2016) Introduction to logic, 14th edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelissen JP (2006) Making sense of theory construction: metaphor and disciplined imagination. Organ Stud 27(11):1579–1597. doi:10.1177/0170840606068333

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Croson RTA (2010) The use of students as participants in experimental research. http://experimental-instruments.com/BDOM/2010/students.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  • Cunningham WH, Anderson WT Jr, Murphy JH (1974) Are students real people? J Bus 47(3):399–409. doi:10.1086/295654

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Farber ML (1952) The college student as laboratory animal. Am Psychol 7(3):102. doi:10.1037/h0059045

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat 7(2):117–140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Fischhoff B (1982) Debiasing. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 422–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming JE (1969) Managers as subjects in business decision research. Acad Manag J 12(1):59–66. doi:10.2307/254672

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Fréchette GR (2015) Laboratory experiments: professionals versus students. In: Fréchette GR, Schotter A (eds) Handbook of experimental economic methodology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 360–390

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 379–396

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Goldstein EB (2011) Cognitive psychology: connecting mind, research, and everyday experience, 3rd edn. Cengage Learning, Wadsworth

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hofstedt TR (1972) Some behavioral parameters of financial analysis. Acc Rev 47(4):679–692

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hume D (1999) An enquiry concerning human understanding, Oxford philosophical texts. Oxford University Press, Oxford (Original work published 1739)

  • Janis IL (1972) Victims of groupthink: a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 39–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1973) On the psychology of prediction. Psychol Rev 80(4):237–251. doi:10.1037/h0034747

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292. doi:10.2307/1914185

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Kendall MG (1938) A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30(1/2):81–93. doi:10.2307/2332226

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kennedy J (1995) Debiasing the curse of knowledge in audit judgment. Acc Rev 70(2):249–273

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kidd RF (1976) Manipulation checks: advantage or disadvantage? Represent Res Soc Psychol 7(2):160–165

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 101–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb CW, Stern DE (1980) An evaluation of students as surrogates in marketing studies. Adv Consum Res 7(1):796–799

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrick RP (2004) Debiasing. In: Koehler DJ, Harvey N (eds) Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making. Blackwell, Malden, pp 316–337

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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):68–82

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Locke EA (ed) (1986) Generalizing from laboratory to field settings. Lexington Books, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • McNemar Q (1946) Opinion-attitude methodology. Psychol Bull 43(4):289–374. doi:10.1037/h0060985

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Mook DG (1983) In defense of external invalidity. Am Psychol 38(4):379–387. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz H (1971) Managers as partners in business decision research. Acad Manag J 14(3):317–325. doi:10.2307/255076

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 55–75

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Quoidbach J, Gilbert DT, Wilson TD (2013) The end of history illusion. Science 339(6115):96–98. doi:10.1126/science.1229294

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Roth AE (1995) Introduction to experimental economics. In: Kagel JH, Roth AE (eds) The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 3–109

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Schultz DP (1969) The human subject in psychological research. Psychol Bull 72(3):214–228. doi:10.1037/h0027880

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 69(1):99–118. doi:10.2307/1884852

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonsohn U (2015) Small telescopes detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychol Sci 26(5):559–569. doi:10.1177/0956797614567341

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 55–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Staw BM (1997) The escalation of commitment: an update and appraisal. In: Shapira Z (ed) Organizational decision making. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 191–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenson O, Maule AJ (eds) (1993) Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making. Plenum Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor SE (1981) The interface of cognitive and social psychology. In: Harvey JH (ed) Cognition, social behavior, and the environment. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 189–211

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 99–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Trotman KT (1996) Research methods for judgment and decision making studies in auditing. Coopers and Lybrand and Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 175–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters-York M, Curatola AP (2000) Theoretical reflections on the use of students as surrogate subjects in behavioral experimentation. Adv Acc Behav Res 3:243–263

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 398–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson TD, Gilbert DT (2003) Affective forecasting. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 35:345–411. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(03)01006-2

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 185–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Wobker I, Kenning P (2013) Drivers and outcome of destructive envy behavior in an economic game setting. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 65(2):173–194

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Passau, Passau, Germany

    Lorenz Graf-Vlachy

Authors
  1. Lorenz Graf-Vlachy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lorenz Graf-Vlachy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Graf-Vlachy, L. Like student like manager? Using student subjects in managerial debiasing research. Rev Manag Sci 13, 347–376 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0250-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0250-3

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation