Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Decision biases and entrepreneurial finance

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We study the effects of three cognitive biases by the entrepreneur on obtaining funding. We find planning fallacy to increase funding amounts, whereas optimism and overconfidence by the entrepreneur have no effects on funding amounts from others. Further, planning fallacy positively impacts the probability of strong-tie (inside) investments but negatively impacts the probability of weak-tie (outside) investments. Mediation analyses further show that planning fallacy positively impacts venture performance through both self and other investor funding amounts. Our findings are not consistent with the pecking order theory of informal finance and suggest positive effects of at least one cognitive bias on entrepreneurial business success through increased funding.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We cannot in this paper infer whether the entrepreneurs engage in self-deception or not. For an experimental paper on the role of overconfidence, self-deceptive beliefs, and persuading others, see Schwardmann and Van der Weele (2016).

  2. An exception is a working paper by Dushnitsky (2009), which at a more aggregate level of analysis correlates country-level optimism with the country-level valuation of start-ups by venture capitalists. Also, Dushnitsky (2010) and Van den Steen (2004) have formally modeled the potential effects of entrepreneurial optimism on potential investors’ valuations of an entrepreneur’s venture ideas.

  3. The CIC evaluates potential entrepreneurs and their venture ideas at an early stage and provides diagnostic feedback. For more information about the CIC and its evaluation process, see, for example, Åstebro and Koehler (2007).

  4. All of the data except for the IAP evaluation were collected through a telephone survey. We developed a list of 6405 inventor-entrepreneurs who had submitted ideas for IAP review between 1994 and 2001. Of this number, we were able to trace 1352 current addresses. Of these, 1272 addresses led to actual contacts. The adjusted response rate was calculated by the Center as the contact rate (1272/1352) multiplied by the cooperation rate (830/1272). The Center follows the statistical methods and best practices of the American Association of Public Opinion Research, http://www.aapor.org. For further information about the survey procedure, please contact the authors.

  5. We imputed the missing item responses five times, assuming data were missing at random (MAR), using a switching regression approach that is described in van Buuren et al. (1999). For an introduction to multiple missing data imputation, see Graham and Hofer (2000).

  6. To better understand the composition of the entrepreneur sample, we further draw a comparison sample from the general Canadian population. Using random digit dialing, we queried a sample of 300 Canadians from the general population based on sampling quotas for province, employment, and gender, to reflect the similarities in the aggregate with the entrepreneurs on these three variables. Comparisons are then made on background characteristics (results available upon request). The combined samples from the general population matched with the entrepreneurs contain unusually a high proportion reporting that they are self-employed (63 %) or that they have owned a business (60 %). However, the rate of entrepreneurship is much higher for the entrepreneur sample than it is for the general population sample.

  7. Sales data are truncated by survey date for some observations. If data truncation is correlated with independent variables, coefficient estimates may be biased. In an alternate analysis, we therefore forecasted future sales that were conditional on truncation using exogenous parameters. This implies that the forecast was uncorrelated with covariates and should not produce biased regression parameters, but it may introduce more noise, thus increasing the standard errors. We used the Bass diffusion with exogenous parameters to forecast sales. Results of this analysis are consistent with those reported in text. Contact the authors for detailed methods and results.

  8. Pretests results indicated respondents’ difficulty with the items “I feel blue’ and ‘I dislike myself.’ After careful deliberations on the possible effects of the two items on the questionnaire response and reliability, we decided to exclude these items and two other items that are matched with them—hence the 6 items out of the original 10 items.

  9. While following the basic principles for establishing mediation as implemented for OLS (Baron and Kenny 1986), our tests are performed within a more general statistical estimation framework (see Clogg et al. 1995) as follows. The correlation between the focal independent variable and the dependent variable is estimated without the mediator, while including all covariates. The model is then re-estimated adding the mediator. This generates two sets of parameter vectors and variance–covariance matrices. A Chi-square test on the difference in the target coefficient between the two estimations, given the differences in the parameter vectors and variance–covariance matrix between the two estimations, is computed to test whether there is mediation. The suest routine in Stata is used for this purpose (Weesie 1999).

References

  • Arabsheibani, G. D., de Meza, D., Maloney, R. J., & Pearson, B. (2000). And a vision appeared unto them of a great profit: Evidence of self-deception among the self-employed. Economic Letters, 67, 35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armor, D. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1998). Situated optimism: Specific outcome expectancies and self-regulation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 309–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Åstebro, T., Jeffrey, S. A., & Adomdza, G. (2007). Inventor perseverance after being told to quit: The role of cognitive biases. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(3), 253–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Åstebro, T., & Koehler, D. (2007). Calibration accuracy of a judgmental process that predicts the commercial success of new product ideas. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(4), 381–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Åstebro, T., & Serrano, C. (2015). Business partners: Complementary assets, financing and the commercialization of inventions. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 24(2), 228–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when entrepreneurs think differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 275–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohner, G., & Dickel, N. (2011). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 391–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohner, G., Dykema-Engblade, A., Tindale, R. S., & Meisenhelder, H. (2008a). Framing of majority and minority source information in persuasion. When and how “consensus implies correctness. Social Psychology, 39, 108–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohner, G., Erb, H. P., & Siebler, F. (2008b). Information processing approaches to persuasion integrating assumptions from the dual- and single-processing perspectives. In D. W. Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 161–188). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Peetz, J. (2010). Chapter one—The planning fallacy: Cognitive, motivational, and social origins. In P. Z. Mark (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 1–62). Cambridge: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people underestimate their completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 366–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. W. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(6), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BusinessWeek. (2006). Think twice before borrowing from family, April 19, 2006.

  • Camerer, C. F., & Lovallo, D. (1999). Overconfidence and excess entry: An experimental approach. American Economic Review, 89, 306–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casamatta, C. (2003). Financing and advising: Optimal financial contracts with venture capitalists. Journal of Finance, 58, 2059–2086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassar, G. (2010). Are individuals entering self-employment overly optimistic? An empirical test of plans and projections on nascent entrepreneur expectations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(8), 822–840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X.-P., Xin, Y., & Kotha, S. (2009). Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan presentation: A persuasion analysis of venture capitalists’ funding decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clogg, C. C., Petkova, E., & Haritou, A. (1995). Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 1269–1293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S., & Wiltbank, R. (2009). Effectual versus predictive logics in entrepreneurial decision-making: Differences between experts and novices. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(4), 287–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dushnitsky, G. (2009). A cross-country study of entrepreneurial optimism and valuations. Working paper http://dushnitsky.com/research.html

  • Dushnitsky, G. (2010). Entrepreneurial optimism in the market for technology inventions. Organization Science, 21(1), 150–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erb, H.-P., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., Spiegel, S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2007). Biased processing of persuasive information: On the functional equivalence of cues and message arguments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1057–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. S., & Jovanovic, B. (1989). An estimated model of entrepreneurial choice under liquidity constraints. Journal of Political Economy, 97(4), 808–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with Certainty: The Appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(4), 552–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R., Tanner, C., & Wagner, A. F. (2014). Preferences for truthfulness: Heterogeneity among and within individuals. American Economic Review, 103, 532–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J. W., & Hofer, S. M. (2000). Multiple imputation in multivariate research. In T. D. Little, K. U. Schnabel, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multiple-group data: Practical issues, applied approaches, and specific examples (pp. 201–218). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1974). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, D., & Tversky, A. (1992). The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 411–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann, T., & Puri, M. (2002). Venture capital and the professionalization of start-up firms: Empirical evidence. Journal of Finance, 57(1), 169–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Entrepreneurs’ optimism and new venture performance: A social cognitive perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 473–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, D., Smith, M. F., & Winter, P. D. (1980). Regression analysis of data from complex surveys. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 143(4), 474–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D. (1993). Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk-taking. Management Science, 39, 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & P. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions: A reply to Gigerenzer’s critique. Psychological Review, 103, 582–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keh, H. T., Foo, M. D., & Lim, B. C. (2002). Opportunity evaluation under risky conditions: The cognitive processes of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 27(2), 125–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koellinger, P., Minniti, M., & Schade, C. (2007). I think I can, I think I can—Overconfidence and entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(4), 502–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Persson, P. (2015). Financing from family and friends. (September 10, 2015). IFN Working Paper No. 933; NYU Stern Working Paper FIN-12-007; ECGI—Finance Working Paper No. 358. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2086625.

  • Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review, 115(2), 502–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, B. G., Pollack, J. M., Rutherford, M. W., & Lohrke, F. T. (2012). The influence of entrepreneurs’ credentials and impression management behaviors on perceptions of new venture legitimacy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 941–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oregon Research Institute. (2001). A scientific collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of personality traits and other individual differences. http://ipip.ori.org/.

  • Oskamp, S. (1965). Overconfidence in case-study judgements. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 2, 261–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, J. M., Rutherford, M. W., & Nagy, B. G. (2012). Preparedness and cognitive legitimacy as antecedents of new venture funding in televised business pitches. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 915–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puri, M., & Robinson, D. T. (2007). Optimism and economic choice. Journal of Financial Economics, 86(1), 71–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D., & Robb, A. (2014). The capital structure decisions of new firms. Review of Financial Studies, 27(1), 153–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (2001). Optimism, pessimism, and psychological well-being. In E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and practice (pp. 189–216). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schwardmann, P., & Van der Weele, J. J. (2016). Deception and self-deception. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, TI 2016-012/I. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2734736.

  • Shane, S., & Cable, D. (2002). Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48(3), 364–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanteau, J. (1988). Psychological characteristics and strategies of expert decision makers. Acta Psychologica, 68(1–3), 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanteau, J. (1992). How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant? Acta Psychologica, 81(1), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, M., & Houghton, S. M. (2002). The relationship among biases, misperceptions and introducing pioneering products: Examining differences in venture decision contexts. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27, 105–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, M., & Shrader, R. C. (2012). Entrepreneurial actions and optimistic overconfidence: The role of motivated reasoning in new product introductions. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(3), 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. E., Pham, L. B., Rivkin, I. D., & Armor, D. A. (1998). Harnessing the imagination: Mental simulation, self-regulation, and coping. American Psychologist, 53(4), 429–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. (1985). Social evolution. Menlo Park, CA: The Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Buuren, S., Boshuizen, H. C., & Knook, D. L. (1999). Multiple imputation of missing blood pressure covariates in survival analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 18, 681–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Steen, E. (2004). Rational overoptimism (and other biases). The American Economic Review, 94(4), 1141–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanous, J. P., & Hudy, M. J. (2001). Single-item reliability: A replication and extension. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weesie, J. (1999). Seemingly unrelated estimation and the cluster-adjusted sandwich estimator. STATA Technical Bulletin, STB, 52, 34–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, A., Bhatia, M., & Freeman, Z. Freeman. (2009). Angel finance: The other venture capital. Strategic Change, 18, 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ashesi University College, 1 University Avenue, Berekuso, PMB CT3, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana

    Gordon K. Adomdza

  2. HEC Paris, 1 Rue de la Libération, 78351, Jouy-en-Josas, France

    Thomas Åstebro

  3. ESSEC Business School, 5 Nepal Park, Singapore, 139408, Singapore

    Kevyn Yong

Authors
  1. Gordon K. Adomdza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Åstebro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kevyn Yong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Åstebro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adomdza, G.K., Åstebro, T. & Yong, K. Decision biases and entrepreneurial finance. Small Bus Econ 47, 819–834 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9739-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9739-4

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation