Skip to main content
Log in

Risk-taking in entrepreneurial decision-making: A dynamic model of venture decision

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

On the basis of the seminal work of Kahneman and Tversky Econometrica, 47(2): 263–292 (1979), this research extends the boundaries of prospect theory in investigating determinants and temporal variation of risk-taking in entrepreneurial decisions, such as creating a new business organization or investing a risky business project. The two experimental studies (1) identify entrepreneurial risk-taking in the gain situation and find reversal of risk preference after a dynamic entrepreneurial learning process, indicating that the framing effect of prospect theory in explaining entrepreneurial risk-taking is conditional; (2) instead of weights, subjective judgment of the possibility of success of a risky project (subjective probability) consistently plays central moderating role in entrepreneurial decisions under uncertainty, and (3) the different effects of subjective probability in the two studies reveal that novice decision-makers are more value-driven, whereas experienced decision-makers, particularly under low probability conditions, tend to be more risk averse regardless of the value of a risky project perceived as long as they have a lack of confidence in eventual success.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ács, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Strom, R. J. (Eds.) 2009. Entrepreneurship, growth, and public policy. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agenor, P.-R. 2017. Caught in the middle? The economics of middle-income traps. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(3): 771–791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahlstrom, D. 2010. Innovation and growth: How business contributes to society. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3): 10–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahlstrom, D. 2014. The hidden reason why the first world war matters today: The development and spread of modern management. Brown Journal of World Affairs, 21(1): 201–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahlstrom, D., & Ding, Z. 2014. Entrepreneurship in China: An overview. International Small Business Journal, 32(6): 610–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahlstrom, D., Lamond, D., & Ding, Z. 2009. Reexamining some management lessons from military history. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(4): 617–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahlstrom, D., & Wang, L. C. 2009. Groupthink and France's defeat in the 1940 campaign. Journal of Management History, 15(2): 159–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allais, M. 1953. Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque; critique des postulats et axiomes de l’ecole Americaine’ (the rational man behavior under risk: Criticism of postulates and axioms of the American school). Econometrica, 21(4): 503–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., Muller, E., & Cockburn, I. 1995. Opportunity costs and entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(2): 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, H. J., & Feldman, D. C. 1981. Social desirability response bias in self-report choice situation. Academy management journal, 24: 377–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R., & Ensley, M. D. 2006. Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: Evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Management Science, 52(9): 1331–1344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A. 1999. Counterfactual thinking and venture formation: The potential effects of thinking about “what might have been”. Journal of Business Venturing, 15: 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A. 2008. The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Management Review, 33(2): 328–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, F. H. (1981). Validation and error in multiplicative utility functions: Univ. of Kansas.

  • Bechara, A. 2004. The role of emotion in decision-making. Brain and Cognition, 55(1): 30–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. 1982. Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 30(5): 961–981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birtch, T. A., Au, k. Y.-f., Chiang, F. F. T., & Hofman, P. S. 2018. How perceived risk and return interacts with familism to influence individuals’ investment strategies: The case of capital seeking and capital providing behavior in new venture financing. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(2): 471–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordley, R., & LiCalzi, M. 2000. Decision analysis using targets instead of utility functions. Decisions in Economics and Finance, 23(1): 53–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, E. H. 1980. A risk/return paradox for strategic management. Sloan Management Review, 21: 17–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, S. W., Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. A. 2011. Swinging a double-edged sword: The effect of slack on entrepreneurial management and growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(5): 537–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockhaus, R. H. 1980. Risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 23: 509–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Si, S. 2015. Entrepreneurship, poverty, and Asia: Moving beyond subsistence entrepreneurship. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(1): 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burmeister, K., & Schade, C. 2007. Are entrepreneurs' decisions more biased? An experimental investigation of the susceptibility to status quo bias. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(3): 340–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. 1993. Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision-making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100(3): 432–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busenitz, L. W. 1996. Research on entrepreneurial alertness. Journal of Small Business Management, 34: 35–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caliendo, M., Fossen, F., & Kritikos, A. 2009. Risk attitudes of nascent entrepreneurs–new evidence from an experimentally validated survey. Small Business Economics, 32(2): 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9078-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. F., & Weber, M. 1992. Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4): 325–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. 2001. Organizational actions in response to threats and opportunities. Academy Management Journal, 44: 937–955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. 2013. The Innovator's solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston:Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, Y., & Shepherd, D. 2004. Entrepreneurs’ Decisions to Exploit Opportunities. Journal of management, 30(3): 377–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 2003. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, J. S., Hartog, J., Jonker, N., & Van Praag, C. M. 2002. Low risk aversion encourages the choice for entrepreneurship: An empirical test of a truism. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 48(1): 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(01)00222-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Weiss, H., Hale, J., & Reb, J. 2003. The structure of affect: Reconsidering the relationship between negative and positive affectivity. Journal of Management, 29(6): 831–857.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currim, I. S., & Sarin, R. K. 1984. A comparative evaluation of multiattribute consumer preference models. Management Science, 30(5): 543–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York a Grosset / Putnam.

  • Deci, E. L. 1975. Intrinsic motivation. NY:Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., & Shane, S. 2004. Legitimating first: Organizing activities and the survival of new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3): 385–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denrell, J., & March, J. G. 2001. Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organization science, 12(5): 523–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Workman, K. 2012. A quasi-experimental study of after-event reviews and leadership development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5): 997–1015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, R. J. 2002. Emotion, cognition, and behavior. Science, 298(5596): 1191–1194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M., & Wildavasky, A. 1982. Risk and Culture. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, R. L. M., & Ahlstrom, D. 1995. Seeking the institutional balance of power: Avoiding the power of a balanced view. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 171–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. 1987. Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12(1): 76–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan, J. P. 1975. Signal detection theory and ROC analysis. NY:Academic press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsberg, D. 1961. Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quartely journal of economics, 75(4): 643–699.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erev, I., & Barron, G. 2005. On adaptation, maximization, and reinforcement learning among cognitive strategies. Psychological review, 112(4): 912–931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estes, W. K. 1950. Toward a statistical theory of learning. Psychological Review, 57(2): 94–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiegenbaum, A., Hart, S., & Schendel, D. 1996. Strategic reference point theory. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3): 219–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiegenbaum, A., & Thomas, H. 1988. Attitudes toward risk and the risk-return paradox: Prospect theory explanation. Academy Management Journal, 31: 85–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, C. R., & Tversky, A. 1995. Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3): 585–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, J. W. 1984. The comprehensiveness of strategic decision processes: Extension, observations, future directions. Academy of Management Journal, 27: 445–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, W. B. 1988. “Who is an entrepreneur?” is a wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4): 11–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibb, A. 2002. In pursuit of a new ‘enterprise’ and ‘entrepreneurship’ paradigm for learning: Creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(3): 233–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, S. 2003. Risk and uncertainty. In Z. Acs, & D. Audretsch (Eds.). Handbook of entrepreneurship research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction: 37–52. Amsterdam: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorodnichenko, C. Y., & Roland, G. 2017. Culture, institutions, and the wealth of nations. Review of Economics and Statistics, 99(3): 402–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. 1948. Individualism and economic order. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D. A., & McMullen, J. S. 2009. An opportunity for me? The role of resource in opportunity evaluation decision. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3): 337–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, C. A., & Tversky, A. 1991. Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4: 4–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E., & Erev, I. 2004. Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15(8): 534–539.

  • Hogarth, R. M. 1981. Beyond discrete biases: Functional and dysfunctional aspects of judgmental heuristics. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2): 197–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, R. D., Hit, M., & Sirmon, D. G. 2003. A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimension. Journal of Management, 29(6): 963–989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jawahar, I. M., & McLaughlin, G. L. 2001. Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. Academy Management Review, 26(3): 397–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jegers, M. 1991. Prospect theory and the risk-return relation: Some Belgien evidence. Academy Management Journal, 34: 215–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jia, J. M., Fischer, G. W., & Dyer, J. 1998. Attribute weighting methods and decision quality in the presence of response error: A simulation study. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11(2): 85–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. 2003. A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9): 697–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D. 1993. Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk-taking. Management science, 39(1): 17–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2): 263–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1982. The simulation heuristic. New York:Cambridge Univ. Press, The simulation heuristic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. American psychologists, 39(4): 341–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaish, S., & Gilad, B. 1991. Characteristics of opportunities search of entrepreneurs versus executives: Sources, interest, general alertness. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(1): 45–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, F. H. 1921. Risk, uncertainty and profile. Chicago:Univ. of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köllinger, P., Minniti, M., & Schade, C. 2007. "I think I can, I think I can": Overconfidence and entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(4): 502–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogan, N., & Wallach, M. A. 1964. Risk-taking: A study in cognition and personality. NY:Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühberger, A. 1998. The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 75(1): 23–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. 2001. Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1): 146–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y. 2011. Emotions and new venture judgment in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(2): 277–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Ashkanasy, N., & Ahlstrom, D. (2010). Complexity Theory and Affect Structure: A Dynamic Approach Modeling Emotional Changes in Organizations. In N. Ashkanasy, W. Zerbe & C. Härtel (Eds.), Research on Emotion in Organizations (pp. 139–165): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  • Li, Y., Ashkanasy, N., & Ahlstrom, D. 2014. The rationality of emotions: A hybrid process model of decision-making under uncertainty. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(1): 293–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Chun, H., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Ahlstrom, D. 2012. A multi-level study of emergent group leadership: Effects of emotional stability and group conflict. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(2): 351–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., Wang, L. C., Zhao, L., & Ahlstrom, D. 2013. Board turnover in Taiwan’s public firms: An empirical study. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30(4): 1059–1086.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. 2000. Emotions in economic theory and economic behavior. Preferences, Behavior, and Welfare, 90(2): 426–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision-making: Oxford University Press.

  • Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. 2001. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2): 267–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. 1982. Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. The Economic Journal, 92(368): 805–824.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J., & Shapira, Z. 1987. Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33(11): 1404–1418.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. 2006. Rationality, foolishness, and adaptive intelligence. Strategic Management Journal, 27(3): 201–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, D. C. 1961. The achieving society. N.J:Van Nostrand.

    Google Scholar 

  • McInish, T. 1982. Individual investors and risk-taking. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2(2):125–136.

  • Mcmullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. 2006. Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty on the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy Management Review, 31(1): 132–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellers, B. A., Schwartz, A., Ho, K., & Ritov, I. 1997. Decision affect theory: Emotional reactions to the outcomes of risky options. Psychological Science, 8(6): 423–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minniti, M., & Bygrave, W. 2001. A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(3): 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Bird, B., Gagio, C. M., McMullen, J. S., Morse, E. A., et al. 2007. The central question in entrepreneurial cognition research 2007. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1): 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. R. 1982. Assessing the discriminant validity of regression models of judgments. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 17(3): 359–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, W., & Moore, W. 2006. The influence of entrepreneurial risk assessment on venture launch or growth decisions. Small Business Economics, 26(3): 215–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W. 1995. The enactment of economic adversity: A reconciliation of theories of failure-induced change and threat-rigidity, vol. 17. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palich, L. E., & Bagby, D. R. 1995. Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-taking: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(6): 425–438.

  • Payne, J. W. 1982. Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 92(2): 382–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitz, G. F., & Sachs, N. J. 1984. Judgment and decision: Theory and application. Annual Review of Psychology, 35(1): 139–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raghunathan, R., & Pham, M. T. 1999. All negative moods are not equal: Motivational influences of anxiety and sadness on decision-making. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 79(1): 56–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, R. 2011. Good strategy bad strategy: The difference and why it matters. New York: Crown Business

  • Savage, L. J. 1954. The foundations of statistics. New York:Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schade, C. 2009. Entrepreneurial decision making: A paradigm rather than a set of questions. Journal of Business Venturing, 4: 275–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schade, C., & Burmeister, K. 2009. Experiments on entrepreneurial decision-making. Hanover, MA:now Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Socialism and democracy. NY:Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. 1996. Feelings and phenomenal experiences. NY:Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. 2001. Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management science, 47(2): 205–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. 2008. The illusions of entrepreneurship: The costly myths that entrepreneurs, investors, and policy makers live by. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanks, R. D., Tunney, R. J., & McCarthy, J. D. 2002. A re-examination of probability matching and rational choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(3): 233–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanteau, J. C., & Ptacek, C. H. 1983. Role and implications of averaging processes. NY:Lexington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapira, Z. 1995. Risk-taking: A managerial perspective. NY:Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, K. G., & Scott, L. R. (1991). Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23-.

  • Shaver, P., Schwartz, D., Kirson, D., & Connor, C. 1987. Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6): 1061–1086.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. 1999. Venture capitalists assessment of new venture survival. Management science, 45(5): 621–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. A. 2009. From lemons to lemonade: Squeeze every last drop of success out of your mistakes. Philadelphia, NJ:Wharton School Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieck, W. R., Merkle, E. C., & Zandt, T. V. 2007. Option fixation: A cognitive contributor to overconfidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1): 68–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. 1955. A behavior model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1): 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, M., Houghton, S. M., & Aquino, K. 2000. Cognitive biases, risk perception and venture formation: How individuals decide to start companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2): 113–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, J. 1994. Prospect theory and the risk-return association: Another look. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 24(2): 225–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. 1992. Reconceptualizing and determinants of risk behavior. Academy Management Review, 17(1): 9–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sitkin, S. B., & Weingart, L. R. 1995. Determinants of risky decision-making behavior: A test of the mediating role of risk perceptions and propensity. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1573–1592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. 1995. The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50(5): 364–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. ( 2002). Rational actors or rational fools? Implications of affect heuristic for behavior economics. Cambridge University Press.

  • Solow, R. M. 1956. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1): 65–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. M. 1957. Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3): 312–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taleb, N. (2010). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks (2e).

  • Tetlock, P. E., & Gardner, D. 2016. Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction. New York:Broadway Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmons, J. A. 1994. New venture creation: Entrepreneurship in the 21st century. Homewood:Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tong, T. W., Reuer, J. J., & Peng, M. W. 2008. International joint ventures and the value of growth options. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5): 1014–1029.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1992. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4): 297–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Schie, E., & Van Der Pligt, J. 1995. Influencing risk preference in decision-making: The effects of framing and salience. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(3): 264–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velamuri, S. R., & Venkataraman, S. 2005. An empirical study of the transition from paid work to self-employment. Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance and Business Ventures, 10(1): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. 1944. Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L. C., Ahlstrom, D., Nair, A., & Hang, R. Z. 2008. Creating globally competitive and innovative products: China's next Olympic challenge. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 73(3): 4–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47: 1063–1070.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiseman, R. M., & Catanach, A. H. 1997. A longitudinal disaggregation of operational risk under changing regulations: Evidence from the savings and loan industry. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 799–830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, G., & Gonzalez, R. 1999. Nonlinear decision weights in choice under uncertainty. Management science, 45(1): 74–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yechiam, E., & Busemeyer, J. 2005. Comparison of basic assumptions embedded in learning models for experience-based decision-making. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12(3): 387–402.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the Chinese Nature Science Fund (No. 71371029).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yan Li.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Experiment 1

Scenario: Here is a decision scenario about a start-up business. Please just make a decision based on your own judgment. Note that there is no correct or wrong decision.

Assuming that you are working in a company with a stable salary (US$ 30,000/year), you discover one business opportunity in your work. If you start a firm to realize this opportunity, you can gain US$ 90,000 at the first year if you execute it well and are successful; your gain will be zero if you fail. By your personal investigation, you know the possibility of start-up firm successfully is 33.3%, in other words, you will have one third possibility of success in executing this business opportunity; two third possibilities of failure. You are required to make a decision between the two choices:

  • A: Start up a new firm (33.3% chance of earning US$ 90,000)

  • B: Keep working at the company (certain income of US$ 30,000)___

Before you make the decision, please answer these questions on the below.

Subjective Value:

1. How attractive is this business opportunity for you?

2. How do you desire to realize this business opportunity?

3. What is your preference of this start-up opportunity in comparison to the stable work option?

Weights: 4. How important do you think this business opportunity is for you in comparison to the stable work option?

Subjective Probability:

5. Please estimate the possibility that you can execute this business opportunity successfully.

0 (not at all)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

You are now asked to make a choice from the two options, please rate your intensity of experienced anxiety, upset, and fear on making this decision.

 

not at all

little

a little

bit

quite a bit

extremely

Fear

Anxiety

Upset

Now, please make a choice between A and B,

  • A: Start up a new firm (33.3% chance of earning US$ 90,000)

  • B: Keep working at the company (certain income of US$ 30,000)

Appendix 2: Experiment 2

Section 1: Introduction

You are a CEO of a company and you have to make 20 decisions on project investment. For each decision you have two choices. One is a certain return and one is a risky choice. A certain choice is denoted with one monetary return, e.g. Project A: $100 K, which means if you invest project A, you will be certain to get a $100 K return. A risky choice is denoted with a range of monetary returns, e.g. Project B: $400 K↔0, which means if you select Project B and it succeeds, you will get a $400 K return; but if this project fails, your gain will be zero.

After you choose between Project A or B, you will be informed whether the project succeeded and the amount of money you received from this investment.

As a CEO you have two goals: (1) make as much money as possible; and (2) make correct decisions in your investments. After the 20 decisions, you will have a break and answer 1 question; then you will make one additional investment decision-making task. Your performance in these decision-making tasks is not related with your ability. Just complete the series of decision-making tasks using your own judgment.

Section 2: Questionnaire (Manipulation Check)

Manipulation check

1. Do you think that the risky choice has many chance of winning?

figure a

Section 3: One Addition Decision Making Task

Please make one addition decision. The outcome of this task is very important. Please try your best to make a correct decision.

Please make a choice between:

figure b

Section 4: Questionnaires

Immediate Anxiety:

Please describe the intensity of your emotions on making this decision,

 

not at all

a little

moderately

quite a bit

extremely

Fear

Anxiety

Upset

Subjective Value:

As for the risky choice (6900 K↔0), please answer these questions on the below.

  1. 1.

    How attractive is the risky choice for you?

  2. 2.

    How do you desire to choose the risky choice?

  3. 3.

    What is your preference of the risky choice in comparison to the sure return option?

Subjective Probability:

Please estimate the possibility that the risky choice (6900 K↔0) will win.

0 (not at all)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Appendix 3

Table 5 Decision tasks in Study 2

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Y., Ahlstrom, D. Risk-taking in entrepreneurial decision-making: A dynamic model of venture decision. Asia Pac J Manag 37, 899–933 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9631-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9631-7

Keywords

Navigation