IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/26847.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Risk of Caution: Evidence from an R&D Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Carson
  • Joshua S. Graff Zivin
  • Jordan Louviere
  • Sally Sadoff
  • Jeffrey G. Shrader Jr

Abstract

Innovation is important for firm performance and broader economic growth. But breakthrough innovations necessarily require greater risk-taking than more incremental approaches. To understand how managers respond to uncertainty when making research and development decisions, we conducted three experiments with master’s degree students in a program focused on the intersection of business and technology. Study participants were asked to choose whether to fund hypothetical research projects using a process that mirrors real-world research and development funding decisions. The experiments provided financial rewards that disproportionately encouraged the choice of higher-risk projects. Despite these incentives, most participants chose lower-risk projects at the expense of projects more likely to generate a large payoff. We also elicited participants’ personal risk preferences and found that decision-makers who are more tolerant of risk were more likely to fund breakthrough projects. The results suggest that the risk preferences of managers in charge of research investments may have an oversized effect on the rate of breakthrough innovation and the profitability of firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Carson & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Jordan Louviere & Sally Sadoff & Jeffrey G. Shrader Jr, 2020. "The Risk of Caution: Evidence from an R&D Experiment," NBER Working Papers 26847, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:26847
    Note: PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w26847.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luís M. B. Cabral, 2003. "R&D Competition when firms Choose Variance," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(1), pages 139-150, March.
    2. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Imas, Alex, 2013. "Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-51.
    3. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(3), pages 527-554, September.
    4. David Hirshleifer & Angie Low & Siew Hong Teoh, 2012. "Are Overconfident CEOs Better Innovators?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 67(4), pages 1457-1498, August.
    5. Joshua Graff Zivin & Elizabeth Lyons, 2021. "The Effects of Prize Structures on Innovative Performance," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 111, pages 577-581, May.
    6. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    7. Nicholas Bloom & Charles I. Jones & John Van Reenen & Michael Webb, 2020. "Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1104-1144, April.
    8. Joshua Krieger & Danielle Li & Dimitris Papanikolaou, 2022. "Missing Novelty in Drug Development," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 35(2), pages 636-679.
    9. Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Motivating Innovation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 66(5), pages 1823-1860, October.
    10. Tishler, Asher, 2008. "How risky should an R&D program be?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 268-271, May.
    11. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    12. Raphael Amit & Christoph Zott, 2001. "Value creation in E‐business," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 493-520, June.
    13. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    14. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard T. Carson & Joshua Graff Zivin & Jordan J. Louviere & Sally Sadoff & Jeffrey G. Shrader, 2022. "The Risk of Caution: Evidence from an Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 9042-9060, December.
    2. Kyle Myers & Wei Yang Tham, 2023. "Money, Time, and Grant Design," Papers 2312.06479, arXiv.org.
    3. Wu, Qiang & Dbouk, Wassim & Hasan, Iftekhar & Kobeissi, Nada & Zheng, Li, 2021. "Does gender affect innovation? Evidence from female chief technology officers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    4. Albert Banal-Estañol & Ines Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2016. "Key Success Drivers in Public Research Grants: Funding the Seeds of Radical Innovation in Academia?," CESifo Working Paper Series 5852, CESifo.
    5. Seong K. Byun & Jong-Min & Han Xia, 2021. "Incremental vs. Breakthrough Innovation: The Role of Technology Spillovers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1779-1802, March.
    6. Charles Ayoubi & Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2021. "Does It Pay to Do Novel Science? The Selectivity Patterns in Science Funding," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(5), pages 635-648.
    7. Joshua S. Gans & Michael Kearney & Erin L. Scott & Scott Stern, 2021. "Choosing Technology: An Entrepreneurial Strategy Approach," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 39-53, March.
    8. Pierre Pelletier & Kevin Wirtz, 2023. "Sails and Anchors: The Complementarity of Exploratory and Exploitative Scientists in Knowledge Creation," Papers 2312.10476, arXiv.org.
    9. Joshua Graff Zivin & Elizabeth Lyons, 2021. "The Effects of Prize Structures on Innovative Performance," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 111, pages 577-581, May.
    10. Nicolas Carayol, 2016. "The Right Job and the Job Right: Novelty, Impact and Journal Stratification in Science," Post-Print hal-02274661, HAL.
    11. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    12. Hermosilla, Manuel, 2024. "Regulating ethical experimentation: Impacts of the breakthrough therapy designation on drug R&D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    13. Florian Ederer & Gustavo Manso, 2013. "Is Pay for Performance Detrimental to Innovation?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(7), pages 1496-1513, July.
    14. Byungchul Choi & M. V. Shyam Kumar & Fabio Zambuto, 2016. "Capital Structure and Innovation Trajectory: The Role of Debt in Balancing Exploration and Exploitation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 1183-1201, October.
    15. Pierre Azoulay & Danielle Li, 2020. "Scientific Grant Funding," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation and Public Policy, pages 117-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Howell, Sabrina T. & Rathje, Jason & Van Reenen, John & Wong, Jun, 2021. "Opening up military innovation: causal effects of reforms to US defense research," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114430, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Cui, Victor & Ding, Waverly W. & Yanadori, Yoshio, 2019. "Exploration versus exploitation in technology firms: The role of compensation structure for R&D workforce," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1534-1549.
    18. Wang, Jian & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Stephan, Paula, 2017. "Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1416-1436.
    19. Lee, Joon Mahn & Kim, Jongsoo & Bae, Joonhyung, 2020. "Founder CEOs and innovation: Evidence from CEO sudden deaths in public firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    20. Ching-Hung Chang & Qingqing Wu, 2021. "Board Networks and Corporate Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 3618-3654, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:26847. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.