Advertisement

DECISION

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 87–98 | Cite as

Relationship among cognitive biases, risk perceptions and individual’s decision to start a venture

  • M. KannadhasanEmail author
  • S. Aramvalarthan
  • B. Pavan Kumar
Research Paper

Abstract

The study examines the relationship among the cognitive biases (viz., overconfidence, illusion of control, optimism and planning fallacy), risk perception and individual’s decision to start a venture. To understand the relationship, this study developed and tested a model by partial least square—structural equation modelling. The study collected responses from 136 post graduate students after teaching discussion of a Harvard Business School case titled ‘Optical Distortion, Inc (Clarke 1988)’.This study found that planning fallacy and illusion of control have direct as well as indirect influence on new venture formation. Conversely, overconfidence and optimism have influenced new venture formation through risk perception. The study also indicates the overall preparation of management graduates for being an entrepreneur. It would act as an indicator of entrepreneurial orientation. All these understandings would be used as a base for the teaching of business skills as well as increasing the understanding the potential Indian entrepreneur’s minds towards the entrepreneurship and risk perception in particular.

Keywords

Cognitive biases Risk perception New venture formation Decision-making Entrepreneurs 

References

  1. Baron RA (1998) Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: why and when entrepreneurs think differently than other people. J Bus Ventur 13(3):275–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron RA, Markman GD (1999) Cognitive mechanisms: potential differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. Frontiers Entrepreneurship Res 123–137Google Scholar
  3. Baron RA, Markman GD (2000) Beyond social capital: how social skills can enhance entrepreneurs’ success. Acad Manag Exec 14(1):106–116Google Scholar
  4. Boyd NG, Vozikis GS (1994) The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory Pr 18:63Google Scholar
  5. Brockhaus RH Sr (1980) Risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Acad Manag J 23(3):509–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brockman BK, Becherer RC, Finch JH (2006) Influences on an entrepreneur’s perceived risk: the role of magnitude, Likelihood, and risk propensity. Acad Entrepreneurship J 12(2):103–121Google Scholar
  7. Busenitz LW, Barney JB (1997a) Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: biases and heuristics in strategic decision making. J Bus Ventur 12(1):9–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Busenitz LW, Barney JB (1997b) Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. J Bus Ventur 12:9–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach for structural equation modelling. In: George A, Marcoulides (eds) Modern methods for business research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, p 100–116Google Scholar
  10. Chen Z, Dong J (2007) Risk perception and entrepreneur's decision to start a venture: An empirical study from Optical Valley of China (Wuhan). In: Wuhan (ed) The sixth wuhan international conference on E-Business-innovation management trackGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke CR (1988) Optical distortion. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen JF (2001) Environmental uncertainty and managerial attitude: effects on strategic planning, non-strategic decision making and organizational performance. South African J Bus Manag 32(3):17–32Google Scholar
  13. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS (2003) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 3rd edn. Lawrence Jersey, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper AC, Woo CY, Dunkelberg WC (1988) Entrepreneurs’ perceived chance of success. J Bus Ventur 3(1):97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Das TK, Teng BS (1997) Time and entrepreneurial risk behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory Pr 22(2):69–88Google Scholar
  16. De Carolis DM, Litzky BE, Eddleston KA (2009) Why networks enhance the progress of new venture creation: the influence of social capital and cognition. Entrepreneurship Theory Pr 33(2):527–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Carolis DM, Saparito P (2006) Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial opportunities: A theoretical framework. Entrepreneurship Theory Pr 30(1):41–56Google Scholar
  18. Duhaime IM, Schwenk CR (1985) Conjectures on cognitive simplification in acquisition and divestment decision making. Acad Manag Rev 10:287–295Google Scholar
  19. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 41(4):1149–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forlani D, Mullins JW (2000) Perceived risks and choices in entrepreneurs’ new venture decisions. J Bus Ventur 15(3):305–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Friedman H (2007) Does overconfidence affect entrepreneurial investment? Whart Res Sch J 42:2–3Google Scholar
  23. Gigerenzer G, Todd PM (2000) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. Hair JF Jr, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (2006) Multivariate data analysis with readings. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  25. Hatten TS, Coulter M (1997) Small business: entrepreneurship and beyond. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  26. Helm S, Eggert A Garnefeld I (2010) Modeling the impact of corporate reputation on customer satisfaction and loyalty using partial least squares In: Esposito VV, Chin WW, Henseler J, Wang H (eds) Handbook of partial least squares. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Hogart RM (1980) Judgement and choice: the psychology of decision. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Houghton SM, Simon M, Aquino K, Goldberg C (2000) No safety in numbers: persistence of biases and their effects on team perception and team decision making. Group Org Manag 25(4):325–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hulland J (1999) Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 46.Faul, F., E. Erdfelder, A. Buchner and A.G Lang. Strategic Management Journal 20:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Iacobucci D and Duhachek A (2003) Mediation analysis-round table ACR 2003, presentation at the round table of the ACR conference, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  31. Ivanova E, Gibcus P (2003) The decision-making entrepreneur. Recuperadojunio, 23, 2006Google Scholar
  32. Kahneman D, Lovallo D (1993) Timid choices and bold forecasts: a cognitive perspective on risktaking. Manage Sci 39(1):17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kannadhasan M (2012) Risk analysis in strategic investment decisions: a contingency approach. LAP Lambert Acad Publ, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  34. Kannadhasan M, Nandagopal R (2010a) Influence of decision makers’ characteristics on risk analysis in strategic investment decisions. J Mod Acc Audit 6(4):38–44Google Scholar
  35. Kannadhasan M, Nandagopal R (2010b) Do company-specific factors influence the extent of usage of risk analysis techniques in strategic investment decisions? IUP J Financ Risk Manag 7(4):55–72Google Scholar
  36. Keh HT, Foo MD, Lim BC (2002) Opportunity evaluation under risky conditions: the cognitive processes of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship theory pr 27(2):125–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keil M, Wallace L, Turk D, Dixon-Randall G, Nulden U (2000) An investigation of risk perception and risk propensity on the decision to continue a software development project. J Syst Softw 53(2):145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kerin RA, Varadarajan PR, Peterson RA (1992) First-mover advantage: a synthesis, conceptual framework, and research propositions. J Mark 56(4):33–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krueger NF, Brazeal DV (1994) Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory Pr 18:91Google Scholar
  40. Kruger J, Evans M (2004) If you don’t want to be late, enumerate: unpacking reduces the planning fallacy. J Exp Soc Psychol 40(5):586–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Laibson D, Zeckhauser R (1998) Amos tversky and the ascent of behavioral economics. J Risk Uncertain 16(1):7–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Langer EJ (1975) The illusion of control. J Pers Soc Psychol 32(2):311–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Levander A, Raccuia I (2001) Entrepreneurial profiling–a cognitive approach to entrepreneurship. In: Stockholm school of economics, Seminar presentationGoogle Scholar
  44. McCarthy A, Schoorman F, Cooper A (1993) Reinvestment decisions by entrepreneurs: rational decision-making or escalation of commitment? J Bus Ventur 8:9–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mullins JW, Forlani D, Cardozo RN (2002) Seeing differently, acting differently? New venture perceptions and decisions of managers and successful entrepreneurs. J Res Mark Entrepreneurship 4(3):63–190Google Scholar
  46. Nunnally J (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Nutt PC (1993) Flexible decision styles and the choices of top executives. J Manage Stud 30(5):695–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Palich LE, Bagby DR (1995) Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-taking: challenging conventional wisdom. J Bus Ventur 10(6):425–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Panzano PC, Billings RS (1997) An organizational-level test of a partially mediated model of risky decision-making behavior. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings. Edited by Dosier LN, Keys B. Statesboro, Ga, Georgia Southern University, Office of PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  50. Russo JE, Schoemaker PJH (1992) Managing overconfidence. Sloan Manag Rev 33(2):7–17Google Scholar
  51. Sánchez García, J. C., Carballo, T., & Gutiérrez, A. (2011).The entrepreneur from a cognitive approach. Psicothema, 23(3), 433-438. http://www.psicothema.es/pdf/3906.pdf
  52. Schwenk CR (1986) Information, cognitive biases, and commitment to a course of action. Acad Manag Rev 11(2):298–310Google Scholar
  53. Seligman ME, Schulman P (1986) Explanatory style as a predictor of productivity and quitting among life insurance sales agents. J Pers Soc Psychol 50(4):832–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shaver KG, Scott LR (1991) Person, process, choice: the psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory Pr 16(2):23–45Google Scholar
  55. Shrader RC, Simon M (1997) Corporate versus independent new ventures: resource, strategy, and performance differences. J Bus Ventur 12(1):47–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Simon M, Houghton SM (2003) The relationship between overconfidence and theintroduction of risky products: Evidence from a field study. Acad Manag J 46(2):139–149Google Scholar
  57. Simon M, Houghton SM, Aquino K (2000) Cognitive biases, risk perception, and venture formation: how individuals decide to start companies. J Bus Ventur 15(2):113–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Singh RP, Hills GE, Lumpkin GT, Hybels RC (1999) The entrepreneurial opportunity recognition process: examining the role of self-perceived alertness and social networks. In Academy of Management Meeting, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  59. Sitkin SB, Pablo AL (1992) Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Acad Manag Rev 17(1):9–38Google Scholar
  60. Sitkin SB, Weingart LR (1995) Determinants of risky of decision-making behavior: a test of the mediating role of risk perception and propensity. Acad Manag J 38(6):1573–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smith KG, Gannon MJ, Grimm C, Mitchell TR (1988) Decision making behavior in smaller entrepreneurial and larger professionally managed firms. J Bus Ventur 3(3):223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sobel M (1982) Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects on structural equation models. In: Leinhardt S (ed) Sociological methodology. Jossy-Bass, San Francisco, pp 290–312Google Scholar
  63. Taylor SE, Brown JD (1988) Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychol Bull 103:193–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tenenhaus M, Vinzi VE, Chatelin Y-M, Lauro C (2005) PLS Path Modeling. Comput Stat Data Anal 48(1):159–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tversky A, Khaneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5:207–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Urban B (2004). Understanding the moderating effect of culture and self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intentions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria)Google Scholar
  67. Wadeson N (2008) Cognitive aspects of entrepreneurship: decision-making and attitudes to risk. In: Casson M, Yeung B, Basu A, Wadeson N (eds) The oxford handbook of entrepreneurship. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 91–113Google Scholar
  68. Wetzels M, Schroder GO, Oppen VC (2009) Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Q 33(1):177–195Google Scholar
  69. Zacharakis AL, Shepherd DA (2001) The nature of information and overconfidence on venture capitalists’ decision making. J Bus Ventur 16(4):311–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zhai J (2007) Prior exposure to entrepreneurial experience and risk perception: a comparative study of potential entrepreneurs in Canada and ChinaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Institute of Management Calcutta 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Kannadhasan
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. Aramvalarthan
    • 2
  • B. Pavan Kumar
    • 3
  1. 1.Accounting & Finance GroupIndian Institute of Management RaipurRaipurIndia
  2. 2.Periyar Management and Computer College, Periyar CentreJasolaIndia
  3. 3.Institute of Management Technology HyderabadHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations