# Methods — full detail and project timeline

*Draft 1, 2026-09-18. The complete account, for the Elgaronline appendix and for our own
record. Everything here is verified against the data, the programs, or a dated document;
where something is inferred or unresolved it says so. The condensed version for the
chapter body is `methods-chapter.md`.*

---

## 1. Origin of the design

The design predates access to the subject pool. Eleven dated versions run from January
2014 to February 2016:

`Entrepreneurs_Jan2014` → `_29July14` → `_10Dec2014` → `Feb.9.2015` → `March.10.2015` →
`March.26.2015` → `May29.2015` → `Oct11.2015` → `Oct17.2015` → `Nov.2015` →
**`Entrepreneurs.Feb.2016.docx`** (fielded)

The January 2014 document already contains the motivation and the measure list. Access to
Emlyon was negotiated in **August 2014** — that is, the design was written first and the
subject pool found for it. Six parallel `Tests.*.docx` track the instruments. Cooper,
Saral and Villeval are authors on the early versions; Dubard Barbosa joins later, at a
point not yet established.

**Designed but never fielded:** a moonlighting variant of the trust game, a creativity
task (Erat and Gneezy rebuses), ambiguity measures, and the DOSPERT scale. The later NSF
proposal would have swapped Raven's matrices for the cognitive reflection test, in a
follow-on study that was not funded and never ran.

## 2. Timeline

| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Jan 2014 | First design document; motivation and measure list already present |
| Aug 2014 | Emlyon access negotiated |
| 2015 | PALSE / UniLyon grant awarded (€10,000 as awarded; €9,600 as later reported) |
| Feb 2016 | Final design document |
| 9 Mar 2016 | `trust.ztt` — the first trust program, as run in session 1 |
| 10 Mar 2016 | Lab instructions finalised for session 1; consent form dated 11 Mar |
| **11 Mar 2016** | **Session 1** (20 participants) |
| 17 Mar 2016 | Saral to Cooper and Villeval: a related paper has subjects play both trust roles, "we should probably add this" |
| **19 Mar 2016** | **Trust game redesigned** — both roles, strategy method, new parameters |
| 22 Mar 2016 | All programs rewritten to self-guided instructions; verbal script retired |
| 1 Apr 2016 | French translations of the instruction screens finalised |
| 26–29 Apr 2016 | Sessions 2, 3, 4 |
| 3 May 2016 | Session 5 |
| by 15 Apr 2016 | Wave-1 cash payment deadline at the laboratory |
| 8 Jun 2016 | Final push to the oTree repositories; fielded builds deployed to Heroku |
| 24 Jun 2016 | Session 6 — end of wave 1 |
| 6 Dec 2016 | Online-experiment data exported, English and French, wave 1 |
| Oct–Dec 2016 | Online-phase payments (Amazon vouchers, PayPal) |
| **24, 31 May 2017** | **Sessions 7 and 8** — wave 2, GATE pool, Survey III |
| Nov 2017 | Follow-up fee proposed at €5 / €10 / €15 |
| 4 Mar, 11 Apr 2018 | Online-experiment exports, wave 2 |
| **Apr 2018** | **Follow-up survey fielded**, fee randomised at €5 / €7.50 / €10 |
| 22 Apr 2018 | Cooper: the randomised fee "does not appear to correlate" — Heckman correction abandoned |
| Apr 2018 | Follow-up payments |
| 1 May 2018 | `ent_djc_4.dta` — David's analysis dataset (67 follow-up records) |
| 17 May 2018 | `ent_final2.dta` — the cleaned dataset of record (68 follow-up records) |
| Sep 2018 | `djc take 4.do`, the definitive analysis file |
| 16 Jul 2019 | Final Qualtrics pull |

## 3. Sessions

Dates come from the z-Tree output filenames, which are authoritative. **Two folder names
in the archive are wrong** — folder 7 is labelled 26 May and folder 6 is labelled 25 June;
the filenames say 24 May and 24 June respectively.

| Session | Date | n | Wave |
|---|---|---:|---|
| 1 | 2016-03-11 | 20 | 1 |
| 2 | 2016-04-26 | 16 | 1 |
| 3 | 2016-04-27 | 24 | 1 |
| 4 | 2016-04-29 | 11 | 1 |
| 5 | 2016-05-03 | 12 | 1 |
| 6 | 2016-06-24 | 16 | 1 |
| 7 | 2017-05-24 | 16 | 2 |
| 8 | 2017-05-31 | 16 | 2 |

Session 1 stands six weeks before the main block, and is the session whose trust game
differs. Recruitment for wave 1 was by Doodle poll, with Dubard Barbosa personally
bringing the Emlyon cohort to the laboratory. Survey-to-laboratory matching was performed
**by hand, on participant names**, with at least one case that could not be resolved.

### Who is in the analysis sample, and who is not

The z-Tree files hold **131 records**. One person took part twice, so those are 130 distinct
people. The chapter uses **122**.

| | Records |
|---|---:|
| Run across the eight sessions | 131 |
| Less: completed the laboratory session but not the intake survey | -8 |
| Less: second participation by a subject already in the sample | -1 |
| **Analysis sample** | **122** |

**The eight.** All are wave 1, from sessions 2 (1), 3 (1), 4 (1), 5 (4) and 6 (1) — none
from session 1. They played all five games and their laboratory data are complete; what is
missing is the intake survey, and since the three-way classification is built from the
intake responses on entrepreneurial experience and intent, they cannot be placed in a
group. Age is missing for all eight and gender for three.

**The ninth.** Subjects 206 (session 2, 26 April 2016) and 709 (session 7, 24 May 2017) are
the same person, recruited first at Emlyon and again thirteen months later through the GATE
pool under a second identifier. The second wave ran the same five games in the same order,
so her 2017 decisions were made by someone who had already played them. She is also
classified differently on the two occasions — future entrepreneur in 2016, non-entrepreneur
in 2017 — and answered the 2018 follow-up under both identifiers. We keep the first
participation and drop the second.

By wave, the analysis sample is **91 from wave 1 and 31 from wave 2**.

**This is separate from the trust game exclusion.** All twenty session-1 subjects are in
the 122 and contribute to every measure except trust, which they are excluded from because
that session ran a different version of the game (Section 5.1). That is why trust rests on
102 observations and the other laboratory games on 122. The two exclusions do not overlap:
none of the eight unclassified subjects came from session 1.

**Earlier presentations of this study used 123**, keeping both of the repeat participant's
records. Re-running every specification both ways leaves each coefficient intact to two
decimal places and moves no p-value across a conventional threshold — the entrepreneur
marginal effect on tournament entry is 0.331 against 0.333, the conditional contribution
coefficient in the follow-up 0.940 against 0.944, and the 11–20 request 0.042 against
0.040. Raw means shift only in the non-entrepreneur column, by at most 0.12.

## 4. The intake survey, by instrument

Wave 1 received two separate instruments; wave 2 received one combined instrument
(Survey III, May 2017). Placement below is established from the surviving instruments and
confirmed against coverage in the data.

**Survey I** — demographics; educational and professional background; entrepreneurial
history (`work_status`, year of first business, firm size, sole ownership, reasons for
starting, obstacles, failure, parental and peer entrepreneurship); entrepreneurial
intentions; entrepreneurial self-efficacy (searching, planning, marshalling subscales);
three items on attitudes to risk in choosing and holding a job, and whether fear of failure
would deter them from starting a business; and the **Cognitive Style Index**.

**Survey II** — six blocks, in order: login; fast risk (Dohmen et al., 2011); fast
patience (Vischer et al., 2013); the Big Five (Gosling TIPI, ten items); locus of control
(Levenson, 1981, 24 items); grit (Duckworth, 12 items).

**Survey III** — the wave-2 combined instrument, in French, reproducing both of the above
**except the risk-perception items**, which were not asked.

*Evidence for the placement of the Cognitive Style Index:* among wave-1 participants, all
80 with a computed index also completed the Survey I self-efficacy block (100%), whereas
only 81% also completed Survey II. It therefore belongs to Survey I. The index is
administered as **38 true/false/uncertain items** (`tf1`–`tf38`, each with 117 responses)
but scored on **37**.

**Item 29 was omitted from the French version.** `tf29` holds no `Vrai`, `Faux` or
`Incertain` responses at all — only the 35 English ones, against 96 blanks — while every
other item carries both languages. Survey III's own preamble confirms it, promising "37
déclarations." The scoring block for item 29 is therefore commented out in `cleaningII.do`
(ll. 1113–1115), and the scored series runs `cs1`–`cs28`, `cs30`–`cs38`. Scoring it would
have restricted the index to the English-language subsample, so the omission is correct
and `cognitive_style` is legitimately a 37-item scale.

One loose end: the variable's label reads *"max possible score of 76,"* which is the
original CSI's 0–2 scoring. This implementation scores each item 0/1, so the maximum is
37, and the observed maximum is indeed 37.

### Coverage, analysis sample of 122

| Block | n | Note |
|---|---:|---|
| Entrepreneurial status (`entstart`), age, sex | 122 | complete |
| Self-efficacy, intentions | 118 | Survey I |
| Cognitive Style Index | 109 | Survey I; 80 of 91 in wave 1, 29 of 32 in wave 2 |
| TIPI, locus of control, grit, fast risk, fast patience | 100–102 | Survey II; 71 of 91 in wave 1, 31 of 32 in wave 2 |
| Income | 95 | |
| Job risk items, fear of failure | 86–87 | **wave 1 only** — 0 of 31 in wave 2 |

The wave-1 shortfall on the Survey II block (71 of 91) is the single largest source of
missing intake data, and it is an artefact of splitting the battery across two
separately-completed instruments.

## 5. The laboratory session

GATE-Lab, Écully, in the Lyon metropolitan area. z-Tree. Approximately 2.5 hours. Order of play, recorded in
`ProgramNotes.txt` and in no deck or write-up:

**login → trust → 11–20 → Raven's matrices → market entry → tournament entry → public
goods → results → questionnaire**

| Game | Source | Variables | n |
|---|---|---|---:|
| Trust | Dickinson, Masclet & Villeval (2015) | `give`, `return1`–`return5`, `sent` | **103** |
| Public goods | Fischbacher, Gächter & Fehr (2001) | `contribution`, `contribution1`–`20`, `condcoop` | 122 |
| 11–20 | Arad & Rubinstein (2012) | `request`, `opprequest` | 122 |
| Market entry + Raven's | Camerer & Lovallo (1999) | `enter`, `entrantguess`, `skilltotalcorrect`, `skillquartile`, `skillrankbelief` | 122 |
| Tournament entry | Niederle & Vesterlund (2007) | `tournamentchoice`, `correct1`–`correct3`, `correctguess` | 122 |

**11–20 game parameters**, from the z-Tree source (`strategic_sophistication.ztt`, March
2016, and `strategic_sophistication2.ztt`, March 2017 — the two files are identical):
subjects randomly paired, each requests an integer from 11 to 20 points, exchange rate
`0.1` so 10 points = €1. Payoff is `Profit = request + 20` when the request is exactly one
less than the other player's, `Profit = request` otherwise. The game was unchanged across
all eight sessions.

⚠ The superseded `lab_instructions.docx` contains two exchange rates in the same document,
10 points to €1 in one paragraph and 4 points to €1 in another. The z-Tree source and the
13 March 2016 instruction file both say 10, so the 4 is a drafting error that never
reached the software.

The choice of the 11–20 game over the p-beauty contest is attributed on the slides to
p-beauty being too familiar to business students. **No contemporaneous source for this has
been found**; treat it as recollection.

### 5.1 The session-1 trust game

| | Session 1 (`trust.ztt`) | Sessions 2–8 (`trust2.ztt`) |
|---|---|---|
| Endowment | 20 points | 10 points |
| Exchange rate | 10 points = €1 | 10 points = €1.50 |
| Sender's choice set | 0–20 | 0–5 |
| Multiplier | ×3 | ×3 |
| Elicitation | direct, sequential | strategy method |
| Roles | one per participant | both |

Verified in the z-Tree source. `trust.ztt` is dated **9 March 2016, two days before
session 1**, and its on-screen text reads "Each of you has been given 20 points… Player 1
has the opportunity to give a portion of these 20 points to Player 2." The session-1 data
corroborates this independently: it records `player` ∈ {1,2} with a `receive` column,
where sessions 2–8 record `givegroup` instead.

### 5.2 Instruction delivery changed as well

Early sessions used a verbal script read aloud by the experimenter
(`lab_instructions.docx`, 10 March 2016). On **22 March 2016** all programs were rewritten
so that instructions were delivered on screen — `ProgramNotes.txt` records "instructions
are now built into the programs - no verbal script." Both scripts survive. This is a
separate change from the trust redesign three days earlier and affects all five games; it
is *not* the reason session 1 is dropped.

## 5.3 Why the market entry game failed

Diagnosed 2026-09-22 from `lab_instructions_13.3.2016.docx`. Subjects kept a **€5 stake**
by staying out. Entering placed them in a market of up to four entrants with capacity two,
paying **€16.50** to the top-ranked entrant and **€8.50** to the second, ranked on twelve
Raven's matrices.

For an entrant equally likely to hold any rank:

| Entrants | Expected payoff from entering |
|---:|---:|
| 1 (alone) | €25.00 |
| 2 | €12.50 |
| 3 | €8.33 |
| 4 (full entry) | €6.25 |

Even under full entry the expected return is 25% above the certain €5. We make **no claim
that entry was a dominant strategy** — that depends on risk preferences, since entering is
a gamble over €0/€8.50/€16.50 against a certain €5, and on beliefs about relative ability.
The defensible statement is simply that the parameters made entry very attractive.

Two features of the procedure reinforce it. The **entry decision was taken before the
quiz**, so subjects had seen one sample matrix and had almost no private information about
their own ranking. And the **industry payoff was fixed at €25 regardless of entrant
count**, so the congestion that should discipline entry never bites hard enough. Camerer
and Lovallo (1999) set the industry payoff so that entry beyond capacity is unprofitable;
that tension is what makes excess entry evidence of overconfidence, and we removed it.
Eighty-nine percent entry is close to what these incentives called for.

**Boredom is ruled out, and this is a point in the design's favour.** Every subject
attempted the twelve-item quiz whether or not they entered — the instructions ask
non-entrants to attempt it anyway, and all 122 have a `skilltotalcorrect` score (13
non-entrants, 110 entrants, 100% coverage in both). Staying out therefore did not mean
watching others work, and entering carried no additional effort cost. Both the effort cost
of competing and the disutility of enforced idleness are absent, which isolates the payoff
miscalibration as the cause rather than muddying it.

An incidental curiosity: those 13 non-entrants completed the task under effectively flat
pay — their earnings were the €5 stake whatever they scored — and still solved **4.69 of
12** against **5.28** for the performance-paid entrants (t = -0.76, p = 0.45). Not a clean
incentive comparison, since entry was self-selected and n = 13, but they plainly engaged
with the task without being paid for performance.

**Tournament entry is sound by contrast** and should not be tarred with the same brush:
piece rate €0.50 per correct answer, tournament €2.00 per correct answer to the winner of
a group of four — a standard Niederle & Vesterlund structure.

## 5.4 Power

Removed 2026-10-05. An ex-post power section stood here, reporting minimum detectable
differences against the differences observed. **David's objection was that power
calculations belong before a study, not after it**, and the corresponding passage was
taken out of the chapter at the same time. The calculation is not part of this deposit, since nothing in the chapter reports it.

## 6. The online experiment

Built in oTree and deployed to Heroku — French on `fathomless-wildwood-26204`, English on
`secure-wildwood-80793`. The fielded builds are `ENT5` (English) and `ENT5_fr` (French).
The five apps were first written by an external developer (GitHub user `leliel12`) in the
repository `otree_saral_2`; Saral carried that build forward through `ENT2`–`ENT5`. A
public snapshot sits at `github.com/kjsaral/ENT`, last pushed 8 June 2016; the fielded
builds went to Heroku only. Source code is complete and archived.

Order of play, from the oTree `app_sequence`: login, time preferences, risk aversion,
preference for skew, honesty, eyes test, results.

| Task | Source | Variables |
|---|---|---|
| Time preferences | Andersen, Di Girolamo, Harrison & Lau (2014). Ten choices, €100 in one month against a larger sum in thirteen, annual rates 5% to 50% | `time1`–`time10`, `patience` |
| Risk and loss aversion | Eckel & Grossman (2002). Four sets of six fifty-fifty gambles, two over gains and two over losses | `risk1`–`risk4` |
| Preference for skew | Grossman & Eckel (2015). Three sets of six lotteries over outcomes at 50%, 49% and 1% | `skewchoice1`–`skewchoice3` |
| Honesty | Abeler, Becker & Falk (2014). Predict-then-report coin flip, 3 tosses at €1 per correct prediction | `playertails` — **correct predictions, not tails** |
| Reading the Mind in the Eyes | Baron-Cohen et al. (2001), in the validated French version of Prevost et al. (2014); 36 items plus a worked example | `numcorrect_eyes` |

**How many completed — revised 2026-10-05.** **95 of the 122 subjects in the analysis
sample completed Phase 3**, and that is the figure the chapter now uses.

The number depends on which file you read, and the reason is chronology:

| File | dated | online records | wave 1 | wave 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| `ent_djc_3.dta` | 26 Dec 2017 | 78 | 78 | **0** |
| `ent_final2.dta` | May 2018 | 98 | 78 | **20** |

**Wave 1 did the online experiment about a week after their laboratory session, in 2016.
Wave 2 did it in early 2018** — roughly nine months later, using the links in
`ENT administration/participant tracking and pay/GATE_OnlineExperimentLinks_Feb2018.xlsx`,
with the cleaned imports dated 11 April 2018. `ent_djc_3.dta` was built before that
collection happened, which is why it holds no wave-2 online data at all.

On the 122-subject analysis sample the counts are **76 (48/12/16) in `ent_djc_3.dta`
against 95 (66/13/16) in `ent_final2.dta`**. All nineteen recovered subjects are
non-entrepreneurs or future entrepreneurs; the entrepreneur cell is 16 either way, which
is consistent with sessions 7–8 being drawn from the GATE subject pool. The repeat
participant never took the online experiment, so she does not enter the arithmetic, and
there are no partial completions — all five tasks have data for the same subjects.

This supersedes an earlier note here which reported 78 and 76 and recorded the 98 in
`ent_final2.dta` as unexplained. It is explained: it is the same 78 plus wave 2's 20.
The 2018 NSF pilot writeup's figure of 78 was correct for the data that existed when it
was written.

**Do not use** `playerdecision1`–`10`, `playerriskchoice1`–`4` or `playerskewchoice1`–`3`:
these columns appear populated on a naive count but contain no numeric data.

## 7. The follow-up

April 2018, Qualtrics, French and English waves, batch-emailed by Quentin Thevenet of GATE
rather than by the authors. Twenty-two questions: current entrepreneurial status and
intentions, firm details where applicable, refreshed demographics, repeated fast risk and
fast patience, a repeated true/false block, and a new item on preference for working in
teams.

The fee was randomised across **€5 / €7.50 / €10** — proposed in November 2017 as
€5/€10/€15 and changed before fielding, for reasons not on record.

**The fee was an instrument for a Heckman selection correction, and it failed.** Cooper,
mid-fielding, 22 April 2018: *"We need something exogenous which is correlated with their
entry decision. This is exogenous, obviously, but does not appear to correlate."* There is
consequently no selection correction — not for want of trying, but because the instrument
was uncorrelated with response.

**Response counts.** `ent_final2.dta` holds **68** follow-up records; David's
`ent_djc_4.dta` holds **67**. The difference is **subject 507**, present only in the
former, most likely a late response arriving after the 1 May 2018 dataset was cut. Because
one person responded twice (§9), 68 records correspond to 67 people and David's 67 records
to 66 people.

## 8. Payment

Wave-1 laboratory earnings were paid **in cash, in person at GATE, by 15 April 2016**, and
only on completion of the online phase — the instructions state "your total earnings from
today will be paid to you upon completion of the follow-up online portion." Online and
follow-up payments were made by Amazon voucher (.fr, .de, .com) and PayPal in October–December
2016 and April 2018.

Mean payoffs: **€27** laboratory, **€20** online, **€7** follow-up.

## 9. The repeat participant, in detail

Who she is and why the 2017 record is dropped are in Section 3. Three further details,
recorded because they bear on how independent the two participations were.

**How it was found.** Both identifiers matched a single external profile; nothing in the
laboratory or survey records flagged it. Any comparable study recruiting a second wave from
a different pool a year later would face the same risk.

**Her decisions differ sharply between the two.** Tournament entry 1 in 2016 against 0 in
2017; group contribution 54 against 8. Whatever the second participation measures, it is
not a stable repetition of the first.

**The 2018 follow-up holds two responses from her**, one under each identifier. The factual
answers agree — status, income, education, marital status — while the attitude sliders
differ slightly, as one would expect of the same person answering twice. The chapter counts
the response attached to the retained record.

## 10. Consent and disclosure

Two regimes operated. The laboratory used a **signed French paper form**
(`ConsentForm_10March16.doc`, dated 11 March 2016 — session 1's own date), covering
voluntary participation, the right to withdraw, anonymity of decisions, absence of
physical risk, and the in-person payment deadline. The online components used an
**English click-through form** in US IRB style, including a tax-reporting note and the
contact address `kjsaral@webster.ch`.

The multi-part structure was disclosed at the laboratory: "this is a multi-part experiment
and today is the only portion that will take place in a laboratory. The follow-up parts
will all be online." Email addresses were collected on that basis.

## 11. Funding

- **PALSE / UniLyon (MAELYSE)**, awarded 2015 — €10,000 as awarded, reported as €9,600 the
  following year. Funded the data collection.
- **Webster University St. Louis**, 2016 — $7,120, faculty research grants 2015–16 and
  2017–18.
- Travel support from the John and Laura Arnold Foundation, $1,000.
- The 2018 **NSF proposal (1853498) was not funded.**

## 12. Materials available online

**Ours, and publishable without restriction:** all z-Tree programs including **both**
versions of the trust game; the full oTree source in English and French; laboratory
instructions in both the verbal and self-guided versions; French translations of the
instruction screens; screenshots of every laboratory and online screen; both consent
forms; and the Qualtrics `.qsf` files for the follow-up.

⚠ **Not ours, and requiring clearance before posting.** Shane's contributor terms require
us to "warrant originality and to clear any third-party material." Several instruments are
third-party: **Raven's Progressive Matrices** (copyrighted, licensed through Pearson), the
**Reading the Mind in the Eyes** photographs, and the validated scales — TIPI, Levenson's
locus of control, Duckworth's grit scale, and the Allinson & Hayes Cognitive Style Index.
Screenshots of our implementation reproduce some of this material directly, and so does
the program source: **37 image files in the oTree `eyes_mind` app**, in both the English
and French builds, and **13 in each z-Tree build** — the twelve Raven's matrices plus a
sample. Every other part of the code is clean, so publishing the programs means
publishing the instruments unless those folders are stripped first, and stripping them
leaves the eyes-reading and market-entry tasks unrunnable as published. What can actually
be posted needs deciding before we describe the appendix as complete; the fallback is to
cite the source papers and post only our own code, instructions and surveys.

Note that the English on-screen text for the **redesigned** trust game survives only as
screenshot images and as literal strings inside `trust2.ztt`; the French version exists as
extractable prose. For quotation, take the English wording from the program source.

---

## 13. Every measure tested the same way

The chapter discusses the measures that bear on its argument. This section tests every
other measure collected across the three-way classification, on one uniform specification,
so that what is null is null on the record rather than by omission. The seven laboratory
games are not repeated here — they appear in Tables 2 to 4 of the chapter, each with the
estimator appropriate to it.

**Specification.** Group means, then the coefficients on *Future entrepreneur* and
*Entrepreneur* from an OLS regression on the classification with the chapter's demographic
controls (age, gender, broad income, broad education), robust standard errors,
non-entrepreneur omitted. Sample of 122, as in the chapter.

**This is a screen, not the estimator of record.** OLS is used throughout so the columns
read across measures; it is the wrong estimator for some of them. Where the chapter reports
a different number, the chapter governs.

**Coverage.** The online-experiment measures rest on the 76 subjects with online data, a
subsample selected on entrepreneurial classification. The first-wave-only survey items rest
on 86 to 89, and the personality, locus-of-control and grit blocks on about 100, because
the intake survey was administered in two parts. Entrepreneurial intention items are
excluded, since they enter the construction of the classification.

**Multiple comparisons.** Counting the laboratory games, thirty-eight measures are tested.
Four reach the 5% level where about two would be expected by chance. Survey risk tolerance
and tournament entry are large enough to survive that arithmetic; openness probably is; the
Reading the Mind in the Eyes result is not, and its standardised difference of 0.62 sits
below what a sample this size reliably detects.

**Risk and related survey items**

| Measure | Non-ent. | Future | Entrep. | Future coef. | Ent. coef. | *p* | n |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Survey risk tolerance (0–10) | 5.89 | 6.91 | 7.90 | +1.13 | +1.87\*\*\* | <0.001 | 101 |
| Risk-taking, general (1–7) | 3.24 | 3.67 | 4.26 | +0.36 | +0.97\* | 0.057 | 86 |
| Risk on the job avoided (1–7) | 2.59 | 2.58 | 3.30 | +0.09 | +0.66 | 0.163 | 86 |
| Sees self as innovator (0/1) | 0.65 | 0.58 | 0.56 | +0.04 | -0.16 | 0.186 | 89 |
| Fear of failure (0/1) | 0.42 | 0.33 | 0.26 | -0.08 | -0.12 | 0.336 | 87 |
| Survey patience (0–10) | 4.86 | 5.00 | 5.45 | +0.14 | +0.45 | 0.412 | 101 |
| Interest in social venture (0/1) | 0.29 | 0.17 | 0.24 | -0.07 | -0.02 | 0.865 | 89 |
| Prefers a low-risk, secure job (1–7) | 3.10 | 3.08 | 3.09 | -0.04 | -0.07 | 0.881 | 86 |

**Online experiment (incentivized)**

| Measure | Non-ent. | Future | Entrep. | Future coef. | Ent. coef. | *p* | n |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Reading the Mind in the Eyes (0–36) | 26.17 | 25.92 | 24.06 | -0.50 | -2.43\*\* | 0.023 | 76 |
| Correct predictions reported (0–3) | 1.96 | 1.92 | 1.75 | -0.19 | -0.19 | 0.367 | 76 |
| Incentivized risk, Eckel–Grossman | 3.65 | 4.23 | 3.53 | +0.86 | -0.17 | 0.624 | 76 |
| Preference for skew | 4.28 | 3.72 | 4.29 | -0.87 | +0.06 | 0.897 | 76 |
| Time preference (switch point) | 6.10 | 5.58 | 5.81 | -0.27 | -0.01 | 0.994 | 76 |

**Big Five personality**

| Measure | Non-ent. | Future | Entrep. | Future coef. | Ent. coef. | *p* | n |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Openness to experience | 5.82 | 6.00 | 6.42 | +0.28 | +0.48\*\*\* | 0.004 | 101 |
| Extraversion | 5.67 | 5.45 | 5.35 | -0.16 | -0.30 | 0.211 | 101 |
| Conscientiousness | 5.81 | 5.32 | 5.84 | -0.44 | +0.04 | 0.892 | 99 |
| Emotional stability | 5.37 | 5.50 | 5.42 | -0.01 | +0.03 | 0.916 | 100 |
| Agreeableness | 5.79 | 5.86 | 5.78 | +0.06 | +0.02 | 0.925 | 101 |

**Locus of control, grit, cognitive style**

| Measure | Non-ent. | Future | Entrep. | Future coef. | Ent. coef. | *p* | n |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Grit (1–5) | 3.25 | 3.12 | 3.51 | -0.07 | +0.24\* | 0.094 | 95 |
| Cognitive Style Index (0–38) | 25.59 | 26.86 | 27.35 | +0.83 | +1.60 | 0.135 | 108 |
| Locus of control: internal | 32.33 | 34.55 | 34.37 | +2.74 | +1.81 | 0.286 | 99 |
| Locus of control: chance | 18.47 | 18.55 | 17.25 | -0.68 | -1.74 | 0.398 | 101 |
| Locus of control: powerful others | 17.69 | 19.36 | 16.75 | +1.15 | -0.64 | 0.762 | 101 |

**Entrepreneurial self-efficacy**

| Measure | Non-ent. | Future | Entrep. | Future coef. | Ent. coef. | *p* | n |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Self-efficacy: searching | 4.77 | 5.00 | 5.42 | +0.18 | +0.46\* | 0.078 | 117 |
| Self-efficacy: all four combined | 4.77 | 4.90 | 5.15 | +0.14 | +0.36\* | 0.083 | 117 |
| Self-efficacy: planning | 4.72 | 4.88 | 5.15 | +0.11 | +0.40 | 0.156 | 117 |
| Self-efficacy: marshalling | 4.32 | 4.45 | 4.60 | +0.12 | +0.40 | 0.171 | 117 |
| Self-efficacy: implementing | 5.26 | 5.28 | 5.44 | +0.17 | +0.16 | 0.504 | 117 |

**Task performance (incentivized)**

| Measure | Non-ent. | Future | Entrep. | Future coef. | Ent. coef. | *p* | n |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Addition, round 3 | 9.22 | 11.00 | 10.68 | +2.19 | +1.75 | 0.117 | 122 |
| Addition, round 1 | 8.50 | 8.88 | 8.82 | +0.74 | +1.03 | 0.242 | 122 |
| Raven's matrices correct | 5.36 | 5.44 | 4.57 | +0.22 | -0.58 | 0.346 | 122 |
| Addition, round 2 | 9.26 | 9.88 | 9.25 | +1.00 | +0.62 | 0.510 | 122 |

*\*\*\* p<0.01, \*\* p<0.05, \* p<0.1. Produced by* `chapter_analysis.do`.

### What the sweep turned up

Three measures separate the groups and are discussed in Section 3.4 of the chapter:
self-reported risk tolerance, which is the largest cross-sectional difference in the study;
openness to experience, the only Big Five dimension that moves; and the Reading the Mind in
the Eyes test, on which entrepreneurs score lower. Grit and the searching subscale of
self-efficacy lean in the expected direction without reaching conventional significance.

Everything else is null: loss aversion, time preferences, honesty, all three
locus-of-control subscales, the remaining four personality dimensions, cognitive style and
the job risk items.

A note on the future-entrepreneur column. It reaches the 5% level on one measure of the
thirty-eight, which is fewer than chance would give, and on the laboratory games its
smallest p-value is 0.16. People who intend to start a business but have not done so are
not distinguishable, in this study, from people with no interest in starting one. The
exception is risk: the survey items order that group above the non-entrepreneurs on every
one of them, though only the first reaches even the 10% level on its own.