Top performers are not the most impressive when extreme performance indicates unreliability

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 109, Issue 24, 2012, Pages 9331-9336

  Denrell, Jerker ^a   Liu, Chengwei ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Ecological rationality; Performance evaluation; Randomness; Regression to the mean; Social learning

Indexed keywords

APTITUDE; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; HIGH RISK BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; NOISE; PERFORMANCE; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; SKILL; SOCIAL EVOLUTION; SOCIOLOGY; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 84862199745     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1116048109     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Baron J, Hershey JC (1988) Outcome bias in decision evaluation. J Pers Soc Psychol 54(4):569-579.
2. Gilbert DT, Malone PS (1995) The correspondence bias. Psychol Bull 117(1):21-38.
3. Richerson PJ, Boyd R (2005) Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution (Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago).
4. Rogers AR (1988) Does biology constrain culture? Am Anthropol 90(4):819-831.
5. ThorngateW, Dawes R, FoddyM(2008) JudgingMerit (Psychology Press, New York, NY).
6. March JC, March JG (1977) Almost random careers: The Wisconsin school superintendency, 1940-1972. Adm Sci Q 22(3):377-409.
7. Musch J, Grondin S (2001) Unequal competition as an impediment to personal development: A review of the relative age effect in sport. Dev Rev 21(2):147-167.
8. Merton RK (1968) The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science 159(3810):56-63.
9. Frank R, Cook P (1995) The Winner-Take-All Society (Free Press, New York).
10. DiPrete TA, Eirich GM (2006) Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annu Rev Sociol 32:271-297.
11. Barabasi AL, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286:509-512.
12. Lynn FB, Podolny JM, Tao L (2009) A sociological (de)construction of the relationship between status and quality. Am J Sociol 115(3):755-804.
13. Arthur WB (1989) Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ J 99(394):116-131.
14. Salganik MJ, Dodds PS, Watts DJ (2006) Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science 311:854-856. (Pubitemid 43228850)
15. Galton F (1886) Hereditary stature. Nature 33:296-298.
16. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Yale Univ Press, New Haven, CT).
17. Tellis G, Yin E, Niraj R (2009) Does quality win? Network effects versus quality in hightech markets. J Mark Res 46(2):135-149.
18. Harrison JR, March JG (1984) Decision making and postdecision surprises. Adm Sci Q 29(1):26-42.
19. Denrell J (2004) Random walks and sustained competitive advantage. Manage Sci 50(7):922-934.
20. Simon HA (1955) On a class of skew distribution functions. Biometrika 42(3/4):425-440.
21. Gigerenzer G (2008) Rationality for Mortals: How People Cope with Uncertainty (Oxford Univ Press, New York).
22. Geman S, Bienenstock E, Doursat R (1992) Neural networks and the bias/variance dilemma. Neural Comput 4(1):1-58.
23. March JG, Sproull LS, Tamuz M (1991) Learning from samples of one or fewer. Organ Sci 2(1):1-13.
24. Dawes RM (1979) The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. Am Psychol 34(7):571-582.
25. Gigerenzer G, Brighton H (2009) Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Top Cogn Sci 1(1):107-143.
26. Strang D, Macy MW (2001) In search of excellence: Fads, success stories, and adaptive emulation. Am J Sociol 107(1):147-182.
27. Fay S (1997) The Collapse of Barings (W. W. Norton, New York).