Salience Bias in Crowdsourcing Contests

References

• Abu-Mostafa YS, Magdon-Ismail M, Lin HT (2012) Learning from Data (Self-published, AMLbook.com).Google Scholar
• Adamczyk S, Haller J, Bullinger AC, Moslein KM (2011) Knowing is silver, listening is gold: On the importance and impact of feedback in IT-based innovation contests. Bernstein A, Schwabe G, eds., Proc. 10th Internat. Conf. Wirtschaftsinformatik, Vol. 1 (AIS, Atlanta), 221–230.Google Scholar
• Alevy JE, Haigh MS, List JA (2007) Information cascades: Evidence from a field experiment with financial market professionals. J. Finance 62(1):151–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ba S (2001) Establishing online trust through a community responsibility system. Decision Support Systems 31(3):323–336.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ba S, Stallaert J, Whinston AB (2001) Research commentary: Introducing a third dimension in information systems design—The case for incentive alignment. Inform. Systems Res. 12(3):225–239.Link, Google Scholar
• Basu R, Green SG (1997) Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. 27(6):477–499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bayus BL (2013) Crowdsourcing new product ideas over time: An analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm community. Management Sci. 59(1):226–244.Link, Google Scholar
• Becker BE, Huselid MA (1992) The incentive effects of tournament compensation systems. Admin. Sci. Quart. 37(2):336–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berger J, Pope D (2011) Can losing lead to winning? Management Sci. 57(5):817–827.Link, Google Scholar
• Blohm I, Riedl C, Füller J, Leimeister JM (2016) Rate or trade? Identifying winning ideas in open idea sourcing. Inform. Systems Res. 27(1):27–48.Link, Google Scholar
• Bockstedt JC, Druehl C, Mishra A (2016) Heterogeneous submission behavior and its implications in innovation contests with public submissions. Production Oper. Management 25(7):1157–1176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ (2012) Let a thousand flowers bloom? An earlier look at large numbers of software app developers and patterns of innovation. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1409–1427.Link, Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ, Lakhani KR (2013) Using the crowd as an innovation partner. Harvard Bus. Rev. 91(4):60–69.Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ, Lacetera N, Lakhani KR (2011) Incentives and problem uncertainty in innovation contests: An empirical analysis. Management Sci. 57(5):843–863.Link, Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ, Helfat CE, Lakhani KR, Menietti M (2016) Performance responses to competition across skill-levels in rank order tournaments: Field evidence and implications for tournament design. RAND J. Econom. 47(1):140–165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burtch G, Ghose A, Wattal S (2014) Cultural differences and geography as determinants of online prosocial lending. MIS Quart. 38(3):773–794.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Butler B, Bateman P, Gray P, Diamant E (2014) An attraction-selection-attrition theory of online community size and resilience. MIS Quart. 38(3):699–728.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camacho N, Donkers B, Stremersch S (2011) Predictably non-Bayesian: Quantifying salience effects in physician learning about drug quality. Marketing Sci. 30(2):305–320.Link, Google Scholar
• Connelly BL, Tihanyi L, Crook TR, Gangloff KA (2014) Tournament theory: Thirty years of contests and competitions. J. Management 40(1):16–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dellarocas C (2003) The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Management Sci. 49(10):1407–1424.Link, Google Scholar
• Dissanayake I, Zhang J, Gu B (2015) Task division for team success in crowdsourcing contests: Resource allocation and alignment effects. J. Management Inform. Systems 32(2):8–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gelman A, Hill J (2007) Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greene W (2008) Econometric Analysis (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).Google Scholar
• Griffin D, Tversky A (1992) The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psych. 24(3):411–435.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henfridsson O, Bygstad B (2013) The generative mechanisms of digital infrastructure evolution. MIS Quart. 37(3):907–931.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX (2013) Applied Logistic Regression, 3rd ed. (Wiley, Chichester, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang Y, Singh PV, Srinivasan K (2014) Crowdsourcing new product ideas under consumer learning. Management Sci. 60(9):2138–2159.Link, Google Scholar
• Jeppesen LB, Lakhani KR (2010) Marginality and problem solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organ. Sci. 21(5):1016–1033.Link, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1972) Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psych. 3(3):430–454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz ML, Shapiro C (1985) Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. Amer. Econom. Rev. 75(3):424–440.Google Scholar
• Lin M, Viswanathan S (2016) Home bias in online investments: An empirical study of an online crowdfunding market. Management Sci. 62(5):1393–1414.Link, Google Scholar
• List JA (2003) Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? Quart. J. Econom. 118(1):41–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA (2011) Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? The case of exogenous market experience. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(3):313–317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu TX, Yang J, Adamic LA, Chen Y (2014) Crowdsourcing with all-pay auctions: A field experiment on Taskcn. Management Sci. 60(8):2020–2037.Link, Google Scholar
• Parker GG, Van Alstyne MW (2005) Two-sided network effects: A theory of information product design. Management Sci. 51(10):1494–1504.Link, Google Scholar
• Pope DG, Schweitzer ME (2011) Is Tiger Woods loss averse? Persistent bias in the face of experience, competition, and high stakes. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(1):129–157.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ren Y, Chen J, Riedl J (2015) The impact and evolution of group diversity in online open collaboration. Management Sci. 62(6):1–19.Google Scholar
• Rochet J, Tirole J (2006) Two-sided markets: A progress report. RAND J. Econom. 37(3):645–667.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rudi N, Drake D (2014) Observation bias: The impact of demand censoring on newsvendor level and adjustment behavior. Management Sci. 60(5):1334–1345.Link, Google Scholar
• Ruscio AM, Amabile TM (1999) Effects of instructional style on problem-solving creativity. Creativity Res. J. 12(4):251–266.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shin SJ, Kim TY, Lee JY, Bian L (2012) Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: A cross-level interaction. Acad. Management J. 55(1):197–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sismanis Y (2010) How I won the “Chess Ratings–Elo vs. the Rest of the World” competition. Working paper, arXiv preprint arXiv:1012.4571.Google Scholar
• Terwiesch C, Xu Y (2008) Innovation contests, open innovation, and multiagent problem solving. Management Sci. 54(9):1529–1543.Link, Google Scholar
• Tiefenbeck V, Goette L, Degen K, Tasic V, Fleisch E, Lalive R, Staake T (2018) Overcoming salience bias: How real-time feedback fosters resource conservation. Management Sci. 64(3):1458–1476.Link, Google Scholar
• Tilson D, Lyytinen K, Sørensen C (2010) Research commentary: Digital infrastructures: The missing IS research agenda. Inform. Systems Res. 21(4):748–759.Link, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wooten JO, Ulrich KT (2017) Idea generation and the role of feedback: Evidence from field experiments with innovation tournaments. Production Oper. Management 26(1):80–99.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yang Y, Chen PY, Pavlou P (2009) Open innovation: An empirical study of online contests. Proc. 30th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (AIS, Atlanta).Google Scholar
• Yoo Y, Boland RJ, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A (2012) Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1398–1408.Link, Google Scholar