The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Conjoint analysis: A new methodological approach for researching the decision policies of venture capitalists
Abstract
Decision making is central to the ability of venture capitalists to predict those new ventures likely to succeed, yet most studies into their decision making use post-hoc methodologies that may generate biased results. People are poor at introspection and often suffer from recall and post-hoc rationalization biases among others. Therefore, researchers should consider using real-time methods that eliminate many of these biases. One such method is conjoint analysis. The purpose of this paper is to reveal the potential that conjoint analysis has to: (1) improve the validity of prior research into VCs' decision making; and (2) act as a catalyst for adopting conceptual tools from other disciplines that can be tested empirically. Both these functions have the purpose of increasing one's insight into the assessment policies of VCs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Debt for brands: tracking down a bias in financing photovoltaic projects in Germany
Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Loock, M. (2011) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.04.006 · Cited by 21
Freiburg, M., & Grichnik, D. (2013) · Journal of Behavioral Finance · doi:10.1080/15427560.2013.791295 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Shepherd, D. A., & Zacharakis, A.
- Venue
- Venture Capital
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1999-07
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 197-217
- ISSN
- 1369-1066 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5343
- OpenAlex
- W2149830405
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.