Skip to content

Add study_013: Keh, Foo & Lim (2002) — Opportunity Evaluation under Risky Conditions#2

Merged
XuanL17 merged 2 commits intoAISmithLab:devfrom
zgk2003:contrib-zgk2003-013
Mar 7, 2026
Merged

Add study_013: Keh, Foo & Lim (2002) — Opportunity Evaluation under Risky Conditions#2
XuanL17 merged 2 commits intoAISmithLab:devfrom
zgk2003:contrib-zgk2003-013

Conversation

@zgk2003
Copy link
Contributor

@zgk2003 zgk2003 commented Mar 7, 2026

Summary

  • Adds Study 013: Keh, H. T., Foo, M. D., & Lim, B. C. (2002). "Opportunity Evaluation under Risky Conditions: The Cognitive Processes of Entrepreneurs." Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 125–148.
  • Cross-sectional survey of N = 77 founders of top SMEs in Singapore, measuring four cognitive biases (overconfidence, illusion of control, planning fallacy, belief in small numbers) and their effects on risk perception and opportunity evaluation via a standardized business vignette.
  • Implements 5 findings (F1–F5) from the paper's calibration test and Table 4 regressions:
    • F1: Entrepreneurs are overconfident (one-sample t-test, mean items outside 90% CI > 1)
    • F2: Risk perception negatively predicts opportunity evaluation (OLS, β = −0.50)
    • F3: Illusion of control negatively predicts risk perception (multiple OLS, β = −0.76)
    • F4: Illusion of control positively predicts opportunity evaluation (multiple OLS, β = 0.40)
    • F5: Belief in small numbers positively predicts opportunity evaluation (multiple OLS, β = 1.17)

Files added (14 files, 1,811 lines)

studies/study_013/
├── index.json
├── README.md
├── source/
│   ├── Keh-Foo-Lim-2002-Opportunity-Evaluation.pdf
│   ├── metadata.json
│   ├── specification.json
│   ├── ground_truth.json
│   └── materials/
│       ├── section_a_risk_propensity.json      (5 forced-choice gamble items)
│       ├── section_b_cognitive_biases.json      (7 Likert items: 2 filler, 2 planning fallacy, 3 illusion of control)
│       ├── section_c_overconfidence.json        (10 confidence-interval items with verified answers)
│       └── section_d_case_vignette.json         (Mr. Tan vignette + 4 risk perception + 3 opportunity evaluation + 1 open-ended)
└── scripts/
    ├── config.py          (CustomPromptBuilder + StudyStudy013Config)
    ├── evaluator.py       (OLS regressions for F2–F5, one-sample t-test for F1)
    ├── study_utils.py     (shared scoring, D8 coding, response parsing)
    └── stats_lib.py       (p-value parsing utilities)

Implementation notes

  • Overconfidence answer key: All 10 confidence-interval items verified against Yearbook of Statistics Singapore 2000, Changi Airport Group records, LTA Vehicle Quota Tender Results, and SingStat residential datasets.
  • Persona variation: Each of 77 trials generates a randomized entrepreneur profile (age, sex, race, education, business size, founder status) sampled from the paper's Table 2 demographics to produce individual differences needed for regression analyses.
  • Evaluator: F2 uses simple OLS (OE ~ risk_perception). F3–F5 use multiple OLS with controls [overconfidence, small_numbers, planning_fallacy, illusion_of_control, risk_propensity, age], matching the paper's Model 1 and Model 2 specifications.
  • D8 open-ended item: Coded as belief in small numbers (+1) vs. statistical reasoning (−1) via keyword matching. Made optional in the prompt with neutral framing to avoid biasing AI responses toward data requests.

Test plan

  • Structure verification passes (5/5 checks)
  • D8 coding edge cases pass (10/10 tests)
  • Full pipeline with synthetic data: all 5 findings computed, replication verdicts generated
  • CI verify_study.sh study_013 validation
  • CI build_studies_index.py index building

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

zgk2003 and others added 2 commits March 6, 2026 16:02
…isky Conditions

New study contribution examining how cognitive biases (overconfidence, illusion of control,
planning fallacy, belief in small numbers) affect entrepreneurs' opportunity evaluation,
mediated by risk perception. Based on survey data from 77 Singaporean SME founders.

Includes:
- Full questionnaire (Sections A-D) with verbatim stimuli from paper appendix
- 10 overconfidence items with answers verified against Singapore Yearbook of Statistics 2000
- 5 findings (F1-F5): overconfidence t-test + 4 Pearson correlations
- config.py with persona-varied prompt generation (40 questions per trial)
- evaluator.py with one-sample t-test and correlation-based replication testing

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Major changes from code review:
- Replace Pearson correlations with OLS regressions for F2-F5, matching
  the paper's Table 4 analysis (simple OLS for F2, multiple OLS with
  controls for F3-F5)
- Fix F5 finding: change from overconfidence→OE to small_numbers→OE
  (β=1.17, t=1.91, p<.06) matching Model 2 in Table 4
- Move shared scoring logic (parse_question_responses, compute_construct_scores,
  code_belief_in_small_numbers, iter_response_records) into study_utils.py
- Fix D8 open-ended coding: "no additional information needed" now correctly
  codes as +1 (substantive belief in small numbers), not treated as missing
- Make D8 prompt optional with de-biased framing to avoid inflating
  statistical-reasoning responses
- Tighten demographics to Table 2 only (sex, race, education, business_size)
- Fix compute_participant_scores → compute_construct_scores naming mismatch
- Update ground_truth.json with reported_coefficient and reported_t_value
  fields for regression findings

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@XuanL17 XuanL17 merged commit 493d9f3 into AISmithLab:dev Mar 7, 2026
1 of 2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants