The Effectiveness of Simple Decision Heuristics: Forecasting Commercial Success for Early-Stage Ventures

References

• Alba J. W., Marmorstein H. The effects of frequency knowledge on consumer decision making. J. Consumer Res. (1987) 14(1):14–25Crossref, Google Scholar
• Angrist J. D. Estimation of limited-dependent variable models with dummy endogenous regressors: Simple strategies for empirical practice. (2000) . Technical working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
• Åstebro T. The economics of invention and inventor’s assistance programs. (1997) . Report to the Canadian Innovation Centre, Waterloo (November 12), Waterloo, CanadaGoogle Scholar
• Åstebro T. Basic statistics on the success rate and profits for independent inventors. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice (1998) 23(2):41–48Crossref, Google Scholar
• Åstebro T. The return to independent invention: Evidence of unrealistic optimism, risk seeking or skewness loving? Econom. J. (2003) 113:226–239Google Scholar
• Åstebro T. Key success factors for technological entrepreneurs’ R&D projects. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management (2004) 51(3):314–321Crossref, Google Scholar
• Åstebro T., Bernhardt I. The social rate of return to Canada’s inventor’s assistance program. Engrg. Econom. (1999) 44(4):348-361Google Scholar
• Åstebro T., Chen G. Statistical decision-making models and treatment effects. (2004) . Manuscript, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
• Åstebro T., Gerchak Y. Profitable advice: The value of information provided by Canada’s entrepreneur’s assistance program. Econom. Innovation New Tech. (2001) 10(1):45–72Crossref, Google Scholar
• Åstebro T., Koehler D. Calibration accuracy of a judgmental process that predicts the commercial success of inventions. (2004) . Manuscript, University of Toronto, Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
• Baker K. G., Albaum G. S. Modeling new product screening decisions. J. Product Innovation Management (1986) 3(1):32–39Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ben-Shakhar G., Bar-Hillel M., Bilu Y., Shefler G. Seek and ye shall find: Test results are what you hypothesize they are. J. Behavioral Decision Making (1998) 11(4):235–249Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berretty P. M., Todd P. M., Blythe P. W., Shafto M. G., Langley P. Categorization by elimination: A fast and frugal approach to categorization. Proc. Nineteenth Annual Conf. Cognitive Sci. Soc. (1997) (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ) 43–48Google Scholar
• Camerer C. General conditions for the success of bootstrapping models. Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes (1981) 27(3):411–422Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell D. T., Fiske D. W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multi-trait-multi-method matrix. Psych. Bull. (1959) 56:81–105Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chapman L. J., Chapman J. P. Genesis of popular but erroneous psychodiagnostic observations. J. Abnormal Psych. (1967) 72(3):193–204Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chapman L. J., Chapman J. P., Kahneman D., Slovic P., Tversky A. Test results are what you think they are. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1982) (Cambridge University Press, New York) 239–248Crossref, Google Scholar
• Czerlinski J., Gigerenzer G., Goldstein D. G., Gigerenzer G., Todd P. M. How good are simple heuristics? Simple Heuristics That Makes Us Smart (1999) (Oxford University Press, New York) 97–118and the ABC Research GroupGoogle Scholar
• Dawes R. The robust beauty of improper linear models. Amer. Psychologist (1979) 34Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dawes R., Corrigan B. Linear models in decision making. Psych. Bull. (1974) 81:95–106Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dawes R. M., Faust D., Meehl P. E. Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science (1989) 243:1668–1674Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edwards W., von Winterfeldt D. Cognitive illusions and their implication for the law. Southern California Law Rev. (1986) 59:225–276Google Scholar
• Einhorn H. Expert measurement and mechanical combination. Organ. Behavior Human Performance (1972) 7:86–106Crossref, Google Scholar
• Einhorn H. J., Hogarth R. M. Confidence in judgment: Persistence in the illusion of validity. Psych. Rev. (1978) 85:395–416Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ettenson R., Shanteau J., Krogstad J. Expert judgment: Is more information better? Psych. Rep. (1987) 60:227–238Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faust D.The Limits of Scientific Reasoning (1984) (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN) Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B. Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. J. Experiment. Psych.: Human Perception Performance (1975) 1(3):288–299Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B., Kahneman D., Slovic P., Tversky A. Debiasing. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1982) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) 422–445Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B., Beyth R. “I knew it would happen”: Remembered probabilities of once-future things. Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes (1975) 13(1):1–16Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gerchak Y., Åstebro T. Calculating the expectation and variance of the present value for a random profit stream of uncertain duration. The Engrg. Economist (2000) 45(4):339–349Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G., Goldstein D. G. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psych. Rev. (1996) 103(4):650–669Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldberg L. R. Simple models or simple processes? Some research on clinical judgments. Amer. Psychologist (1968) 23:483–496Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grove W. M., Meehl P. E. Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psych., Public Policy, Law (1996) 2(2):293–323Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hammond K. R., Summers D. A. Cognitive dependence on linear and nonlinear cues. Psych. Rev. (1965) 72(3):215–224Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoffman P. J. The paramorphic representation of clinical judgment. Psych. Bull. (1960) 57:116–131Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holte R. C. Very simple classification rules perform well on most commonly used datasets. Mach. Learn. (1993) 3(11):63–91Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica (1979) 47:263–291Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keeney R. L., Raiffa H.Decisions with Multiple Objectives (1976) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Google Scholar
• Makridakis S., Hibon M. The M3-Competition: Results, conclusions and implications. Internat. J. Forecasting (2000) 16:451–476Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manski C. F.Identification Problems in the Social Sciences (1995) (Harvard University Press, London, England) Google Scholar
• Murphy A. H., Winkler R. L. Probabilistic of precipitation forecasts: A review. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1984) 79:391–400Google Scholar
• Payne J. W., Bettman J. R., Johnson E. J.The Adaptive Decision Maker (1993) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Russo J. E., Dosher B. A. Strategies for multi-attribute binary choice. J. Experiment. Psych.: Learning, Memory Cognition (1983) 9:676–696Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shanteau J. Psychological characteristics and strategies of expert decision makers. Acta Psych. (1988) 68:203–215Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shanteau J. How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant? Acta Psych. (1992) 81:75–86Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shanteau J., Grier M., Johnson J., Berner E., Baron J., Brown R. Teaching decision making skills to student nurses. Teaching Decision Making to Adolescents (1991) (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ) Google Scholar
• Skov R. B., Sherman S. J. Information-gathering processes: Diagnosticity, hypothesis-confirming strategies, and perceived hypothesis confirmation. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. (1986) 22:93–121Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thorngate W. Efficient decision heuristics. Behavioral Sci. (1980) 25:219–225Crossref, Google Scholar
• Todd P. M. Simple inference heuristics versus complex decision machines. Minds Mach. (1999) 9:461–477Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psych. Rev. (1972) 79(4):281–299Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science (1974) 185:1124–1131Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Kahneman D. Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psych. Rev. (1983) 90(4):293–315Crossref, Google Scholar
• Udell G. Invention evaluation services: A review of the state of the art. J. Product Innovation Management (1989) 6:157–168Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weiss S. M., Galen R. S., Tadepalli P. V. Maximizing the predictive value of production rules. Artificial Intelligence (1990) 45:47–71Google Scholar
• Zacharakis A. L., Meyer G. D. The potential of actuarial decision models: Can they improve the venture capital investment decision? J. Bus. Venturing (2000) 15(4):323–346Crossref, Google Scholar