Conservatism Gets Funded? A Field Experiment on the Role of Negative Information in Novel Project Evaluation

References

• Amabile TM (1983) Brilliant but cruel: Perceptions of negative evaluators. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 19(2):146–156.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amabile TM, Glazebrook AH (1982) A negativity bias in interpersonal evaluation. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 18(1):1–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arrow KJ (2011) The economics of inventive activity over fifty years. Lerner J, Stern S, eds. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 43–48.Google Scholar
• Åstebro T, Elhedhli S (2006) The effectiveness of simple decision heuristics: Forecasting commercial success for early-stage ventures. Management Sci. 52(3):395–409.Link, Google Scholar
• Azoulay P, Li D (2020) Scientific grant funding. NBER Working Paper 26889, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartunek JM, Murninghan JK (1984) The nominal group technique: Expanding the basic procedure and underlying assumptions. Group Organ. Stud. 9(3):417–432.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Finkenauer C, Vohs KD (2001) Bad is stronger than good. Rev. Gen. Psych. 5(4):323–370.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bendersky C, Hays NA (2012) Status conflict in groups. Organ. Sci. 23(2):323–340.Link, Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ, Lakhani KR (2015) “Open” disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology. Res. Policy 44(1):4–19.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ, Guinan EC, Lakhani KR, Riedl C (2016) Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science. Management Sci. 62(10):2765–2783.Link, Google Scholar
• Bradford M (2017) Does implementing a cross-review step improve reviewer satisfaction and editor decision making? Presentation, CSE 2017 Annual Meeting, May 23, San Diego. https://druwt19tzv6d76es3lg0qdo7-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/5.2_Bradford.pdf.Google Scholar
• Charmaz K (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Christensen CM (2013) The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail (Harvard Business Review Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Cicchetti DV (1991) The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behav. Brain Sci. 14(1):119–135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Correll SJ, Ridgeway CL, Zuckerman EW, Jank S, Jordan-Bloch S, Nakagawa S (2017) It’s the conventional thought that counts: How third-order inference produces status advantage. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 82(2):297–327.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Criscuolo P, Dahlander L, Grohsjean T, Salter A (2017) Evaluating novelty: The role of panels in the selection of R&D projects. Acad. Management J. 60(2):433–460.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Csaszar FA, Eggers JP (2013) Organizational decision making: An information aggregation view. Management Sci. 59(10):2257–2277.Link, Google Scholar
• Cummings JN (2004) Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Sci. 50(3):352–364.Link, Google Scholar
• Chubin DE, Hackett EJ (1990) Peerless Science: Peer Review and US Science Policy (State Universty of New York Process, Albany, NY).Google Scholar
• Dalkey NC (1969) The Delphi Method: An Experimental Study of Group Opinion (RAND Corp., Santa Monica, CA).Google Scholar
• Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL, Validzic A (1998) Intergroup bias: Status, differentiation, and a common in-group identity. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 75(1):109–120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Naef M, Schmidt KM (2006) Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments: Comment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(5):1912–1917.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiske DW, Fogg L (1990) But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. Amer. Psychologist 45(5):591–598.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galasso A, Simcoe TS (2011) CEO overconfidence and innovation. Management Sci. 57(8):1469–1484.Link, Google Scholar
• Gallo SA, Sullivan JH, Glisson SR (2016) The influence of peer reviewer expertise on the evaluation of research funding applications. PLoS One 11(10):e0165147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB (2004) Bayesian Data Analysis Chapman & Hall, CRC Texts in Statistical Science (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL).Google Scholar
• Gewin V (2012) Risky research: The sky’s the limit. Nature 487(7407):395–397.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gigone D, Hastie R (1993) The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 65(5):959–974.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harford T (2018) Why big companies squander good ideas. Financial Times (September 6), https://www.ft.com/content/3c1ab748-b09b-11e8-8d14-6f049d06439c.Google Scholar
• Heinze T (2008) How to sponsor ground-breaking research: A comparison of funding schemes. Sci. Public Policy 35(5):302–318.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson RM, Clark KB (1990) Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1):9–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hilbig BE (2009) Sad, thus true: Negativity bias in judgments of truth. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 45(4):983–986.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hirshleifer D, Low A, Teoh SH (2012) Are overconfident CEOs better innovators? J. Finance 67(4):1457–1498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ito TA, Larsen JT, Smith NK, Cacioppo JT (1998) Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 75(4):887.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones BF, Wuchty S, Uzzi B (2008) Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science 322(5905):1259–1262.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klepper S (1996) Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. Amer. Econom. Rev. 86(3):562–583.Google Scholar
• Lagerstedt E (2018) 50 examples of companies that failed to innovate. Accessed February 19, 2021, https://inquentia.com/50-examples-of-companies-that-failed-to-innovate/.Google Scholar
• Lamont M (2009) How Professors Think (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lane JN, Ganguli I, Gaule P, Guinan E, Lakhani KR (2020) Engineering serendipity: When does knowledge sharing lead to knowledge production? Strategic Management J. 42(6):1215–1244.Google Scholar
• Leahey E, Beckman CM, Stanko TL (2017) Prominent but less productive: The impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists’ research. Admin. Sci. Quart. 62(1):105–139.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levy G (2007) Decision making in committees: Transparency, reputation, and voting rules. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(1):150–168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li D (2017) Expertise vs. bias in evaluation: Evidence from the NIH. Amer. Econom. J. Appl. Econom. 9(2):60–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li D, Agha L (2015) Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? Science 348(6233):434–438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lofland J, Lofland LH (1971) Analyzing Social Settings (Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA).Google Scholar
• Mannes AE (2009) Are we wise about the wisdom of crowds? The use of group judgments in belief revision. Management Sci. 55(8):1267–1279.Link, Google Scholar
• Merton RK (1973) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Miller CC (2006) Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus. Acad. Management J. 49(3):425–431.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mollick E, Nanda R (2016) Wisdom or madness? Comparing crowds with expert evaluation in funding the arts. Management Sci. 62(6):1533–1553.Link, Google Scholar
• Nicholson JM, Ioannidis JP (2012) Research grants: Conform and be funded. Nature 492(7427):34–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Okhuysen GA, Eisenhardt KM (2002) Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flexibility. Organ. Sci. 13(4):370–386.Link, Google Scholar
• O’Reilly III CA, Tushman ML (2013) Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Acad. Management Perspect. 27(4):324–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peeters G, Czapinski J (1990) Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psych. 1(1):33–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pier EL, Brauer M, Filut A, Kaatz A, Raclaw J, Nathan MJ, Ford CE, Carnes M (2018) Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115(12):2952–2957.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Powell WW, Snellman K (2004) The knowledge economy. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 30:199–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roy R (1985) Funding science: The real defects of peer review and an alternative to it. Sci. Technol. Human Values 10(3):73–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rozin P, Royzman EB (2001) Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 5(4):296–320.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubio DM, Schoenbaum EE, Lee LS, Schteingart DE, Marantz PR, Anderson KE, Platt LD, Baez A, Esposito K (2010) Defining translational research: Implications for training. Acad. Med. 85(3):470–475.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scott EL, Shu P, Lubynsky RM (2020) Entrepreneurial uncertainty and expert evaluation: An empirical analysis. Management Sci. 66(3):1278–1299.Link, Google Scholar
• Sharkey AJ, Kovács B (2018) The many gifts of status: How attending to audience reactions drives the use of status. Management Sci. 64(11):5422–5443.Link, Google Scholar
• Starbuck WH (2003) Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer reviews? J. Management Inquiry 12(4):344–351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stephan PE (2012) How Economics Shapes Science (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taylor SE (1991) Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psych. Bull. 110(1):67–85.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thomas-Hunt MC, Ogden TY, Neale MA (2003) Who’s really sharing? Effects of social and expert status on knowledge exchange within groups. Management Sci. 49(4):464–477.Link, Google Scholar
• Thursby JG, Haeussler C, Thursby MC, Jiang L (2018) Prepublication disclosure of scientific results: Norms, competition, and commercial orientation. Sci. Adv. 4(5):eaar2133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD (2017) Reviewer bias in single- vs. double-blind peer review. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114(48):12708–12713.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, Anderson P (1986) Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 31(3):439–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Utterback J (1994) Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can Seize Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N (1998) Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial. JAMA 280(3):234–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wagner CS, Alexander J (2013) Evaluating transformative research programmes: A case study of the NSF Small Grants for Exploratory Research programme. Res. Eval. 22(3):187–197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhu DH (2013) Group polarization on corporate boards: Theory and evidence on board decisions about acquisition premiums. Strategic Management J. 34(7):800–822.Crossref, Google Scholar