Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
DECISION Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baron RA (1998) Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: why and when entrepreneurs think differently than other people. J Bus Ventur 13(3):275–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron RA, Markman GD (1999) Cognitive mechanisms: potential differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. Frontiers Entrepreneurship Res 123–137

  • Baron RA, Markman GD (2000) Beyond social capital: how social skills can enhance entrepreneurs’ success. Acad Manag Exec 14(1):106–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd NG, Vozikis GS (1994) The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory Pr 18:63

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockhaus RH Sr (1980) Risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Acad Manag J 23(3):509–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):103–121

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):9–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busenitz LW, Barney JB (1997b) Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. J Bus Ventur 12:9–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 100–116

  • 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 track

  • Clarke CR (1988) Optical distortion. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):17–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS (2003) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 3rd edn. Lawrence Jersey, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper AC, Woo CY, Dunkelberg WC (1988) Entrepreneurs’ perceived chance of success. J Bus Ventur 3(1):97–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das TK, Teng BS (1997) Time and entrepreneurial risk behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory Pr 22(2):69–88

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):527–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Carolis DM, Saparito P (2006) Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial opportunities: A theoretical framework. Entrepreneurship Theory Pr 30(1):41–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Duhaime IM, Schwenk CR (1985) Conjectures on cognitive simplification in acquisition and divestment decision making. Acad Manag Rev 10:287–295

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):1149–1160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forlani D, Mullins JW (2000) Perceived risks and choices in entrepreneurs’ new venture decisions. J Bus Ventur 15(3):305–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman H (2007) Does overconfidence affect entrepreneurial investment? Whart Res Sch J 42:2–3

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G, Todd PM (2000) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF Jr, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (2006) Multivariate data analysis with readings. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatten TS, Coulter M (1997) Small business: entrepreneurship and beyond. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 York

  • Hogart RM (1980) Judgement and choice: the psychology of decision. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):325–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 20:195–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iacobucci D and Duhachek A (2003) Mediation analysis-round table ACR 2003, presentation at the round table of the ACR conference, Toronto

  • Ivanova E, Gibcus P (2003) The decision-making entrepreneur. Recuperadojunio, 23, 2006

  • Kahneman D, Lovallo D (1993) Timid choices and bold forecasts: a cognitive perspective on risktaking. Manage Sci 39(1):17–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kannadhasan M (2012) Risk analysis in strategic investment decisions: a contingency approach. LAP Lambert Acad Publ, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Kannadhasan M, Nandagopal R (2010a) Influence of decision makers’ characteristics on risk analysis in strategic investment decisions. J Mod Acc Audit 6(4):38–44

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):55–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Keh HT, Foo MD, Lim BC (2002) Opportunity evaluation under risky conditions: the cognitive processes of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship theory pr 27(2):125–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):145–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerin RA, Varadarajan PR, Peterson RA (1992) First-mover advantage: a synthesis, conceptual framework, and research propositions. J Mark 56(4):33–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger NF, Brazeal DV (1994) Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory Pr 18:91

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):586–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laibson D, Zeckhauser R (1998) Amos tversky and the ascent of behavioral economics. J Risk Uncertain 16(1):7–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer EJ (1975) The illusion of control. J Pers Soc Psychol 32(2):311–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levander A, Raccuia I (2001) Entrepreneurial profiling–a cognitive approach to entrepreneurship. In: Stockholm school of economics, Seminar presentation

  • McCarthy A, Schoorman F, Cooper A (1993) Reinvestment decisions by entrepreneurs: rational decision-making or escalation of commitment? J Bus Ventur 8:9–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):63–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally J (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutt PC (1993) Flexible decision styles and the choices of top executives. J Manage Stud 30(5):695–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palich LE, Bagby DR (1995) Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-taking: challenging conventional wisdom. J Bus Ventur 10(6):425–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Publications

  • Russo JE, Schoemaker PJH (1992) Managing overconfidence. Sloan Manag Rev 33(2):7–17

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Schwenk CR (1986) Information, cognitive biases, and commitment to a course of action. Acad Manag Rev 11(2):298–310

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):832–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaver KG, Scott LR (1991) Person, process, choice: the psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory Pr 16(2):23–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader RC, Simon M (1997) Corporate versus independent new ventures: resource, strategy, and performance differences. J Bus Ventur 12(1):47–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon M, Houghton SM (2003) The relationship between overconfidence and theintroduction of risky products: Evidence from a field study. Acad Manag J 46(2):139–149

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):113–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, IL

  • Sitkin SB, Pablo AL (1992) Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Acad Manag Rev 17(1):9–38

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):1573–1592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):223–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel M (1982) Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects on structural equation models. In: Leinhardt S (ed) Sociological methodology. Jossy-Bass, San Francisco, pp 290–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor SE, Brown JD (1988) Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychol Bull 103:193–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenenhaus M, Vinzi VE, Chatelin Y-M, Lauro C (2005) PLS Path Modeling. Comput Stat Data Anal 48(1):159–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Khaneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5:207–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban B (2004). Understanding the moderating effect of culture and self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intentions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria)

  • 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 91–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetzels M, Schroder GO, Oppen VC (2009) Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Q 33(1):177–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Zacharakis AL, Shepherd DA (2001) The nature of information and overconfidence on venture capitalists’ decision making. J Bus Ventur 16(4):311–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhai J (2007) Prior exposure to entrepreneurial experience and risk perception: a comparative study of potential entrepreneurs in Canada and China

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Accounting & Finance Group, Indian Institute of Management Raipur, GEC Campus, Old Dhamtari Road, Sejbhar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India

    M. Kannadhasan

  2. Periyar Management and Computer College, Periyar Centre, FC-33, Plot No 1 and 2, Institutional area, Jasola, New Delhi, 110025, India

    S. Aramvalarthan

  3. Institute of Management Technology Hyderabad, Survey No. 38, Cherlaguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, RR District, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, 501218, India

    B. Pavan Kumar

Authors
  1. M. Kannadhasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Aramvalarthan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Pavan Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Kannadhasan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kannadhasan, M., Aramvalarthan, S. & Pavan Kumar, B. Relationship among cognitive biases, risk perceptions and individual’s decision to start a venture. Decision 41, 87–98 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-014-0029-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-014-0029-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation