Entrepreneur's Overconfidence, Private Benefits and the Market Performance of the Firm

Many firms around the world are managed and partially owned by entrepreneurs. These entrepreneurs hold under diversified portfolios and, therefore, bear idiosyncratic risk in addition to systematic risk. To compensate the additional risk borne, they extract private benefits. In this paper, we analyse how an entrepreneur's overconfidence affects the market performance of the firm, through the channel of private benefits. We show that two dimensions of overconfidence, namely overestimation of future cash-flows and underestimation of idiosyncratic risk (called miscalibration), have opposite effects on the private benefits extracted by the entrepreneur. As a consequence, firms managed and partially owned by overconfident entrepreneurs can deliver overperformance or underperformance, depending on the prevalence of overestimation or miscalibration of the beliefs of the entrepreneur.

Recognition judgments and the performance of the recognition heuristic depend on the size of the reference class

In a series of three experiments, participants made inferences about which one of a pair of two objects scored higher on a criterion. The first experiment was designed to contrast the prediction of Probabilistic Mental Model theory (Gigerenzer, Hoffrage, & Kleinbölting, 1991) concerning sampling procedure with the hard-easy effect. The experiment failed to support the theory's prediction that a particular pair of randomly sampled item sets would differ in percentage correct; but the observation that German participants performed practically as well on comparisons between U.S. cities (many of which they did not even recognize) than on comparisons between German cities (about which they knew much more) ultimately led to the formulation of the recognition heuristic. Experiment 2 was a second, this time successful, attempt to unconfound item difficulty and sampling procedure. In Experiment 3, participants' knowledge and recognition of each city was elicited, and how often this could be used to make an inference was manipulated. Choices were consistent with the recognition heuristic in about 80% of the cases when it discriminated and people had no additional knowledge about the recognized city (and in about 90% when they had such knowledge). The frequency with which the heuristic could be used affected the percentage correct, mean confidence, and overconfidence as predicted. The size of the reference class, which was also manipulated, modified these effects in meaningful and theoretically important ways.