Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ii
Para Miguel Angel y Mateo
iii
Résumé
RÉSUMÉ
Ce travail cherche à mieux comprendre les facteurs cognitifs en jeu dans les différentes étapes
d’élaboration et de réalisation du projet entrepreneurial : quel est l’impact de la cognition
entrepreneuriale sur la réalisation et le succès d’une opportunité d’innovation ?
Pour répondre à cette question nous décomposons la problématique en trois axes. Le premier
essai propose un modèle conceptuel de l’innovation entrepreneuriale en tant que processus
individuel. Nous conceptualisons les différentes activités – génération d’une idée créative,
évaluation et implémentation – et examinons leurs spécificités et l’influence des facteurs
cognitifs sur chaque étape. Le deuxième article présente une analyse empirique qui teste les
hypothèses issues du modèle à travers une expérimentation avec 70 entrepreneurs. Le design
expérimental permet de reproduire le processus d’innovation, depuis la génération de l’idée
jusqu’à l’implémentation tout en offrant également une mesure de la performance de
l’innovation sur le marché. Nos résultats montrent que la créativité est un facteur d’innovation
mais que ce lien entre génération de l’idée et implémentation est influencé par les facteurs
cognitifs : excès de confiance, optimisme et comportement face au risque. Le troisième article
se concentre sur la décision par des individus innovants de créer ou non leur entreprise. Avec
une étude quantitative sur 124 chercheurs, dont 76 ont créée leur entreprise, nous apportons
un éclairage au lien entre innovation et création d’entreprise : être innovant ne suffit pas pour
devenir entrepreneur, l’effet du sentiment d’auto-efficacité et du comportement face au risque
sont des éléments déterminants.
iv
Résumé
Idea, innovation and new venture creation: An investigation on the role of confidence
and risk-taking on entrepreneurs’ innovative behavior
ABSTRACT
This thesis investigates the cognitive factors involved all along the entrepreneurial process
and their impact over the different activities underlying such process. We aim at answering
the research question: What is the impact of entrepreneurial cognition on the successful
implementation of an innovation?
To tackle this question, we depicted the subject in three axes. The first essay proposes a
conceptual model of individual innovation embedded in the entrepreneurial process. We
conceptualize the different stages of creative idea generation, evaluation and implementation
and examine the peculiarities of each stage and the influence of cognitive factors. The second
paper presents an empirical analysis that tests the hypotheses issued from the model through
an economic experiment with 70 entrepreneurs. The experimental design provides an
objective measure of innovation and imitates every stage of the process: from the generation
of ideas all throughout the implementation and performance of innovations in the market. Our
findings show that although creativity is the source of innovations, the relationship between
generation of ideas and its implementation is influenced by cognitive factors: overconfidence,
optimism and risk-taking. The third essay focuses on the decision by innovative individuals to
start a venture. Building on a quantitative study with 124 researches, from which 76 created
their venture, we contribute to the debate about the link between innovation and
entrepreneurship: being innovative is not enough for becoming an entrepreneur, self-efficacy
beliefs an risk-taking behavior are two drivers of individual’s decision to start a venture.
v
Remerciements
REMERCIEMENTS
Jamais je n’ai pu tenir pour acquis ce que les autres affirmaient, me remettant sans cesse en question,
mon but étant de toujours progresser et apprendre dans chacun des aspects de ma vie. L’aboutissement
de cette thèse de Doctorat n’est rien de plus qu’une étape, et le début de grandes choses.
Dès le départ, un grand événement, dans ma vie personnelle et familiale, est venu marquer ce parcours
professionnel : la naissance de mon fils Mateo.
Même s’il n’a pas toujours été facile de composer avec mes obligations de doctorante et mes
responsabilités de mère et d’épouse, je sais que jamais je n’aurais pu accomplir cette grande étape de
ma vie sans la présence, à mes côtés, de mon époux Miguel Ángel et de mon fils Mateo. En effet, rien
de tout cela n’aurait été possible sans le soutien sans faille, la compréhension et l’amour qu’ils m’ont
donnés pendant toute cette période. Merci Miguel, car tu m’as toujours réconfortée, par tes paroles et
ton amour, merci pour ta grande patience et pour tous les sacrifices, connus de nous seuls, auxquels tu
as consenti.
Merci Mateo car, dans mon ventre déjà, tu écoutais mes réflexions « scientifiques ». Depuis tout petit,
tu es très compréhensif et autonome. Merci de toujours m’avoir accueillie avec tendresse, et avec ce
sourire qui toujours efface mes préoccupations.
Je tiens à remercier tout spécifiquement ma directrice de thèse, Professeur Véronique Bessière, pour
m’avoir accordé, dès le début, sa confiance et son soutien inconditionnel, et m’avoir donné toutes les
clés pour réaliser ce projet de recherche. Véronique est un enseignant-chercheur digne d’admiration,
elle a toujours su me guider dans la bonne direction et me parler avec franchise et de manière
constructive. Elle a toujours été là pour m’écouter, me conseiller et me motiver. Je la remercie surtout
pour sa compréhension, son ouverture d’esprit et la gentillesse dont elle a fait preuve à mon égard.
J’espère être à la hauteur de ses attentes et avoir honoré sa confiance. L’aboutissement de cette thèse
n’aurait été pas possible sans sa direction.
Je remercie également les Professeurs Jean-Pierre Boissin et Peter Wirtz qui ont accepté d’être les
rapporteurs de ce travail, les Professeurs Karim Messeghem, Eric Stéphany et Roy Thurik, ainsi que
Madame Ophélie Laboury-Barthez, qui me font l’honneur de siéger à ce jury.
Je tiens à adresser un remerciement spécial à Karim Messeghem, directeur du Labex Entreprendre, qui
m’a toujours encouragé à travailler sans relâche et a soutenu mes efforts. Ses conseils ont toujours été
d’une grande pertinence et sa vision critique a contribué significativement à l’élaboration de cette
thèse.
Mes remerciements s’adressent aussi tout particulièrement au Professeur Eric Stéphany, qui m’a
apporté son soutien absolu durant toute la thèse et dans ma mission comme Assistante d’Enseignement
et de Recherche à l’IAE de Montpellier. Je le remercie également pour ses conseils avisés et pour les
relectures de cette thèse.
Je remercie aussi tous les membres du groupe de recherche en Finance de MRM. Les commentaires,
conseils et autres remarques qu’ils ont pu formuler à l’occasion de chacune de mes présentations ont
été d’une grande valeur pour le développement théorique et empirique de ce travail de recherche.
Merci pour l’intérêt marqué qu’ils ont montré pour mon travail, ainsi que pour leur compréhension, y
compris lorsque mes présentations s’éloignaient du champ de la finance et mélangeaient anglais,
espagnol et une pointe de français. Je remercie également tous les chercheurs du groupe
d’Entrepreneuriat de MRM et les membres du Labex. Leurs connaissances étendues sur
l’entrepreneuriat et leur vision critique ont grandement contribué à la finalisation de cette thèse.
vi
Remerciements
La réalisation de cette thèse a par ailleurs été possible grâce à l’implication du personnel administratif
de l’IAE de Montpellier. Je ne peux malheureusement tous les citer, la liste serait trop longue ; je
voudrais toutefois remercier en particulier Grégory Bouviala, pour avoir soutenu toutes mes initiatives
– parfois désespérées – pour trouver des entrepreneurs volontaires. J’ai aussi une pensée spéciale pour
l’équipe de communication, pour leur implication dans la conception et la rédaction des documents
ainsi que l’organisation de tous les événements liés à ce projet.
Enfin, je tiens à remercier le responsable des Systèmes d’Information, Matthieu Dereumaux, sans
l’appui duquel l’expérimentation réalisée pour cette thèse n’aurait pas été possible. Grâce à sa
compétence, sa persévérance et sa gentillesse, l’installation et le fonctionnement de z-tree sur Mac, qui
semblaient voués à l’échec, ont été un véritable succès.
Je tiens également à remercier toutes les personnes qui m’ont offert leur aide pour le collecte des
données et la rédaction en français des questionnaires, mails entre autres : Sélène Romiguières,
Bastien Clergue, Thibault Chazal et Maxime Toury. Merci pour leur précieuse contribution. Je
remercie aussi Maître Eric Donnadieu, avocat et associé-gérant du cabinet Raynaud et Associés, Mme
Ophélie Laboury-Barthez présidente fondatrice du cabinet de conseil Myriagone Conseil, l’association
IAE Startup Lab et Marc Pagès de la CCI de Montpellier pour leur soutien.
De même, je remercie tous les membres du laboratoire MRM et du Labex Entreprendre, en particulier
Marie-Laure Weber et Manon Cantelouves. Je pense également à tous les doctorants qui m’ont
accompagné dans cette belle aventure. Ce fut un plaisir de partager avec vous la joie de voir un article
accepté lors d’une conférence ou dans une revue, le stress de ne pas avoir achevé ce que nous
souhaitions, et, de manière générale, toutes les émotions vécues au cours de ces trois ans.
Enfin, je tiens à remercier ma famille et mes amis car, sans leur soutien, leurs encouragements et leur
affection, rien de tout cela n’aurait été possible. A mon père, qui a toujours su trouver les mots pour
m’apaiser et m’encourager. A Vale qui, malgré la distance et sans véritablement comprendre l’objet de
ma thèse, s’est toujours montrée intéressée et m’a toujours considérée comme son idole. A Marcel et
Maria Clara, qui ont toujours été présents et m’ont apporté leur aide quand j’en avais besoin. A leur
fille, dont la présence me réconforte. A Diana, Sélène, Manuel et Vincent, parce qu’ils ont toujours
écouté mes préoccupations et m’ont aidée à tout relativiser, avec des rires, un verre de vin, une bière
faite maison ou de la bonne cuisine, sud-américaine ou non. Je les aime !
Pour finir, je remercie ma mère, qui m’accompagne depuis le ciel, et Dieu, qui me donne la force, la
volonté et l’opportunité de finaliser cette étape qui m’ouvrira les portes d’un brillant avenir !
vii
«Jovenes […] aprended a juzgar por vosotros mismos;
Andres Bello
1
Traduit par nous : « Les jeunes […] apprenez à juger par vous mêmes, aspirez à la liberté de la pensée.»
viii
Table des Matières
1
Table des Matières
2
Table des Matières
3
4
5
Introduction générale
INTRODUCTION GENERALE
6
Introduction générale
INTRODUCTION GÉNÉRALE
2
The Erwing Marion Kauffman Foundation 2016 Report: The 2016 Kauffman Index of Startup Activity:
National Trends. Kansas City, Missouri. http://www.kauffman.org/microsites/kauffman-index/reports/startup-
activity
3
World Economic Forum & Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2015 Report: Leveraging Entrepreneurial
Ambition and Innovation Report: A global Perspective on Entrepreneurship, Competitiveness and Development.
Cologny/Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.weforum.org/reports/leveraging-entrepreneurial-ambition-and-
innovation-global-perspective-entrepreneurship-competitiveness-and-development/
4
Selon l’Agence France Entrepreneur
5
European Commission. 2008. Think small first: A small business act for Europe. Brussels, Belgium: DG
Enterprise. no. IP/08/1003, Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/business-friendly-environment/small-
business-act_fr
6
Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan. Commission Européene https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/promoting-
entrepreneurship/action-plan_fr
7
Commission Européene 2013. Communication from the commission to the european parliament, the council,
the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions entrepreneurship 2020 action plan
Reigniting the entrepreneurial spirit in Europe. Communication no. 52012DC0795. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0795
7
Introduction générale
Innovante (JEI)) et de cadres légaux spéciaux qui favorisent la création d’entreprise (loi
Dutreil 2003 8 , Statut auto-entrepreneur 2008 9 ). Dans ce même esprit, le Ministère de
l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche a mis en place des mesures spécifiques avec
comme objectif la sensibilisation à l’entrepreneuriat des étudiants (Boissin & Schieb-Bienfait,
2012). Parmi ces mesures on trouve notamment la création des Pôles Entrepreneuriat Étudiant
(PEE)10 en 2010 et encore plus récent le lancement des Pôles Étudiants pour l'Innovation, le
Transfert et l'Entrepreneuriat Etudiant (PEPITE) 11 qui offrent aux jeunes étudiants non
seulement un accès aux informations concernant les différentes aides existantes, mais qui
proposent aussi un accompagnement dans leur démarche de création d’entreprise 12 .
Cependant, malgré ces efforts en matière de politiques publiques et une forte croissance du
taux de création d’entreprises, la France reste souvent présentée comme un pays doté d’une
faible culture entrepreneuriale (Boissin, Fayolle, & Messeghem, 2013; Léger-Jarniou, 2013;
Messeghem & Sammut, 2011). Dès lors, les autorités sont conscients que l’émergence et la
mise en place d’un cadre propice à la dynamique de création d’entreprise dépend
principalement de facteurs comme la reconnaissance sociétale de l’entrepreneur, de la culture
vis-à-vis du risque, et de l’état d’esprit des individus vis-à-vis de cette prise de risque, tout
particulièrement chez les jeunes (Commission Européenne, 2008)13. Ainsi, une meilleure
connaissance de l’état d’esprit entrepreneurial représente un des enjeux majeurs des politiques
visant à stimuler une culture entrepreneuriale.
Suivant ce constat, les recherches en entrepreneuriat ont porté une attention toute particulière
à « l’entrepreneur » : sa personnalité, ses motivations, ce qu’il fait, pourquoi et comment il le
fait. Un large pan de la littérature a ainsi cherché à identifier des traits de personnalité
spécifiques qui distingueraient les entrepreneurs du reste de la population. L’entrepreneur
étant au centre du processus entrepreneurial, il est naturellement l’objet d’étude majeur pour
8
Loi n° 2003-721 du 1 août 2003 pour l'initiative économique
9
loi n° 2008-776 du 4 août 2008 de modernisation de l'économie
10
Pôles Entrepreneuriat Etudiant : http://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid5757/les-dispositifs-pour-
l-entrepreneuriat-
etudiant.html#Les_p%C3%B4les%20de%20l%27entrepreneuriat%20%C3%A9tudiant%20inter-
%C3%A9tablissements%20:%20les%20P.E.E
11
PEPITE : http://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid79223/pepite-poles-etudiants-pour-innovation-
transfert-entrepreneuriat.html
12
Interview de Jean-Pierre Boissin - Les Echos (10/02/2016) :
http://business.lesechos.fr/entrepreneurs/aides-reseaux/jean-pierre-boissin-coordinateur-national-des-pepites-
nous-voulons-faire-connaitre-au-maximum-le-statut-d-etudiant-entrepreneur-207218.php
13
European Commission. 2008. Think small first: A small business act for Europe. Brussels, Belgium: DG
Enterprise. no. IP/08/1003, Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/business-friendly-environment/small-
business-act_fr
8
Introduction générale
La limitation de cette approche par les caractéristiques a déplacé la recherche vers une
approche beaucoup plus axée sur la manière dont l’entrepreneur pense, agit, prend des
décisions. Ce courant s’est ainsi concentré sur l’aspect cognitif dans la démarche
entrepreneuriale. Les chercheurs en entrepreneuriat ont puisé dans les résultats issus de la
psychologie cognitive. Dans ce cadre, la cognition se définit comme un ensemble de « mental
processes that occur within individuals as they interact with other people and the
environment around them » (Mitchell et al., 2002: 96). L’étude de cet ensemble de processus
mentaux caractérise la perspective cognitive en entrepreneuriat. Cette approche a permis une
meilleure compréhension de l’acte entrepreneurial, en se focalisant sur la manière dont
l’entrepreneur pense, décide et agit (Baron, 2004; Grégoire, Corbett, & McMullen, 2011;
Mitchell et al., 2002, 2004, 2007; Shepherd, 2015). Dans un numéro spécial de la revue
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice sur « Information processing and entrepreneurial
cognition », Mitchel et al. (2002: 97) donnent la première définition de la cognition
entrepreneuriale comme : « the knowledge structures that people use to make assessments,
judgments, or decisions involving opportunity evaluation, venture creation, and growth ».
9
Introduction générale
2003; Mitchell et al., 2002, 2007; Simon et al., 2000; Ward, 2004). Par exemple, la
surconfiance sous ses différentes formes – concernant ses propres perspectives, ses propres
capacités ou ses connaissances – ou encore la prise de risque, ont été identifiées comme des
facteurs significatifs influençant :
- l’intention de devenir entrepreneur (Barbosa et al., 2008; Boyd & Vozikis, 1994;
Dawson & Henley, 2013; Leonidas A. Zampetakis, 2011; Urban, 2012; Wilson,
Kickul, & Marlino, 2007) ;
- le caractère innovant des entreprises créées (Antoncic, 2003; Baron & Tang, 2011;
Carnabuci & Dioszegi, 2015; Engelen, Neumann, & Schwens, 2015; Galasso &
Simcoe, 2011; Herz, Schunk, & Zehnder, 2014; Hirshleifer, Low, & Teoh, 2012; Li &
Wu, 2011; Simon & Houghton, 2003; Simon & Shrader, 2012).
- et leur performance (Baron, Tang, & Hmieleski, 2011; Bonnet & Wirtz, 2011; Chen,
Ho, & Ho, 2014; Hmieleski & Baron, 2009; Hopp & Stephan, 2012; Wales, Patel, &
Lumpkin, 2013)
Cependant, malgré ces efforts, les résultats empiriques ne sont pas totalement concluants
principalement en raison de difficultés méthodologiques. En effet, la définition des concepts
n’est pas toujours parfaitement claire et précise et, de plus, leur mesure est délicate. La
littérature a mis en exergue cette difficulté concernant la surconfiance qui apparaît comme un
concept ombrelle dans certaines études ou, au contraire comme défini de manière stricto sensu
(excès de confiance) dans d’autres études (dites « de calibrage ») (Bessière & Pouget, 2012).
L’idée du concept ombrelle traduit le fait que la surconfiance peut concerner à la fois une
surestimation de ses capacités, de ses connaissances, de son contrôle, de ses chances de
succès et de ses perspectives (Moore & Healy, 2008). Ainsi, la littérature a utilisé différentes
formes d’excès de confiance pour étudier son impact sur la perception du risque, la décision
10
Introduction générale
de créer une entreprise, le choix d’un mode de financement, et la capacité à innover (Bessière,
2015; Bessière & Pouget, 2012).
On retrouve cette même difficulté pour définir et mesurer le comportement vis-à-vis du risque
des entrepreneurs. Dans la littérature en entrepreneuriat et management, deux principales
approches coexistent. D’une part, une première approche traduit une attitude vis-à-vis du
risque, peu influencée par le contexte et qui s’étend de manière stable dans différents
domaines (Caliendo, Fossen, & Kritikos, 2010; Dohmen et al., 2011; Simon & Houghton,
2003). D’autre part, une deuxième approche évoque une notion multidimensionnelle de la
prise de risque qui va au-delà d’une simple attitude et qui est fortement liée à la cognition et
aux émotions (Antoncic, 2003; Barbosa & Fayolle, 2007; Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, &
Welch, 2001; McCline, Bhat, & Baj, 2000; Palich & Bagby, 1995; Sitkin & Pablo, 1992;
Sitkin & Weingart, 1995). Ce deuxième courant entend le comportement d’un individu vis-à-
vis du risque comme dépendant du contexte et spécifique à un domaine d’application
(Barbosa, 2008; Hanoch, Johnson, & Wilke, 2006; Janney & Dess, 2006; Slovic, 1964;
Slovic, Finucane, Peters, & MacGregor, 2004; Weber, Blais, & Betz, 2002). Ainsi, plusieurs
outils de mesure ont été développés et employés afin de capturer ce comportement
caractéristique de l’entrepreneur, ce qui a produit des résultats parfois contradictoires.
Or, beaucoup de questions sur l’impact des facteurs cognitifs dans la démarche
entrepreneuriale restent en suspens. Leur rôle apparaît important, de plus ils peuvent affecter
les différentes activités de la démarche entrepreneuriale de façon différenciée. En particulier,
ils peuvent jouer un rôle opposé selon la tâche dans laquelle l’entrepreneur est impliquée
(Baron, Hmieleski, & Henry, 2012; Herz et al., 2014; Miller, 2015). Ainsi, même s’il existe
une importante littérature sur le rôle des facteurs cognitifs sur l’intention entrepreneuriale et la
reconnaissance d’opportunités (Autio, Dahlander, & Frederiksen, 2013; J. Boissin, Chollet, &
Emin, 2009; Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Bryant, 2007; Dyer, Gregersen, & Christensen, 2008;
Grégoire, Barr, & Shepherd, 2010; Krueger & Dickson, 1994; Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud,
2000; Linan, Urbano, & Guerrero, 2011; Wilson et al., 2007) il y a beaucoup moins de
travaux empiriques qui étudient la décision d’exploiter une opportunité et la persistance de
l’entrepreneur à mener cette exploitation (Bryant, 2007; Grégoire et al., 2011; Grichnik et al.,
11
Introduction générale
2010). Ces questions sont pourtant d’un grand intérêt pratique. Les tâches concrètes
effectuées par l’entrepreneur sont en effet très différentes selon les stades du projet. La
littérature managériale représente schématiquement la démarche14 entrepreneuriale en trois
grandes activités 15(même si elles peuvent être décomposées plus finement) : la génération de
l’idée, l'évaluation de l’opportunité (incluant par exemple la phase de l’élaboration du
business model), et l’implémentation (incluant notamment la recherche de fonds, le
recrutement de partenaires, etc.) (voir tableau 1). Ces activités font potentiellement appel à
des ressources cognitives différentes. De plus, il ne s’agit pas d’une trajectoire linéaire, mais
plutôt d’activités imbriquées qui interagissent entre elles et qui s’ajustent dans une logique de
réévaluation (Davidsson, 2004) et d’évolution dans le temps et l’espace (Messeghem &
Sammut, 2011): l’idée initiale est sans cesse revisitée, le modèle économique réexaminé, etc.
14
Nous faisons référence à « démarche » entrepreneuriale plutôt qu’à processus entrepreneurial car nous nous
focalisons uniquement sur les aspects individuels qui influencent les différentes activités (ou tâches) liées à
l’entrepreneuriat. Nous sommes conscients que le processus entrepreneurial implique l’interaction entre
individu, projet et environnement, et qui évolue dans les deux dimensions du temps et de l’espace (Messeghem
& Sammut, 2011). Cependant, pour définir les activités cruciales de la démarche entrepreneuriale auxquelles
nous faisons référence dans cette thèse, nous nous inspirerons de deux modélisations reconnues du processus
entrepreneurial : i) celle basée sur l’émergence organisationnelle (Gartner, 1985) et ii) celle qui le caractérise en
termes d’opportunité (Chabaud & Messeghem, 2010; Shane, 2003; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000).
15
En exemple le processus entrepreneurial décrit par l’i-lab de l’université de Harvard (https://i-lab.harvard.edu/)
ou la définition dans INC ( http://www.inc.com/resources/startup/articles/20050801/process.html) ou encore les
étapes clés identifiées par un entrepreneur qui a suivi le programme « MIT launch summer »
(http://www.business2community.com/small-business/turn-many-ideas-million-dollar-business-
01258680#sLtfOIjl7yTEDUPL.97 )
12
Introduction générale
Évaluation Ici l'individu doit être capable de distinguer les bonnes Mesurée à partir du design
d'opportunités idées des mauvaises et de sélectionner celles à fort expérimental qui spécifie la
potentiel sur le marché. L'individu doit repérer une capacité à explorer des
opportunité pour laquelle il estime pouvoir investir des opportunités nouvelles.
compétences, du temps, de l'effort et de l'argent.
L'évaluation d'une opportunité concerne des taches
telles que l'étude du marché, l'analyse financière, entre
autres.
Implémentation Pour qu'une innovation soit implémentée (réalisée et Mesuré à partir du design
d'innovations mise sur le marché), l'individu doit prendre la décision expérimental. Correspond à la
de poursuivre l'opportunité et passer à l'acte. Il doit performance économique de
rassembler les ressources nécessaires (monétaires, l'innovation. Elle est calculée à
humaines, technologiques) pour mener à bien son partir des données réelles du
projet tout en affrontant le risque lié au projet. Il doit marché. Elle est conçue de
convaincre et recruter ses premiers clients, manière à capturer le caractère
investisseurs, associés... Cette implémentation peut original de l'offre ainsi que sa
aboutir (ou pas) à la création d'une entreprise nouvelle. praticabilité sur le marché (prix et
intention d’achat par le
consommateur.)
Décision de C'est la décision de créer et diriger une entreprise Mesuré de manière a posteriori à
création nouvelle pour commercialiser l'innovation issue du partir d’un questionnaire auprès
d'entreprise processus précédent. de scientifiques qui ont créé leur
entreprise vs. ceux qui ne l’ont
pas fait.
Plusieurs aspects liés aux processus cognitifs qui sous-tendent l’action de l’entrepreneur et
l’émergence d’une nouvelle entreprise ne sont pas encore parfaitement appréhendés dans la
littérature existante (Delmar & Shane, 2004; Gartner, 1990; Lichtenstein, Carter, Dooley, &
Gartner, 2007; McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Shepherd, 2015), notamment les interrelations
13
Introduction générale
entre activités, ou encore entre cognition et évaluation (ou jugement, au sens psychologique),
et enfin entre évaluation et action.
L’intérêt de cette recherche n’est pas seulement théorique. En adoptant une posture plus
managériale, notre démarche s’insère systématiquement dans les activités réelles et tangibles
de la démarche entrepreneuriale. Dans notre travail de thèse, cette approche théorique de la
cognition entrepreneuriale est déployée et intégrée dans les différentes activités menées par
l’entrepreneur. Il en ressort une connaissance utile pour l’action, pour la mise en œuvre et la
structuration du projet entrepreneurial.
Cette notion d’action entrepreneuriale portée par la cognition, et déployée sur l’ensemble du
développement du projet se fonde principalement sur une acception schumpétérienne (1934)
de l’entrepreneur qui place l’innovation au centre de l’acte entrepreneurial, l’entrepreneur
étant un agent du changement (« agent of change ») capable de révolutionner un marché
(« disruption ») notamment par l’usage de technologies nouvelles. Notre approche de
l’entrepreneur est aussi penrosienne dans le sens où les facteurs déterminants de l’évolution
du projet entrepreneurial sont fondamentalement le fruit des décisions prises par
l’entrepreneur. Chez Penrose (1959), l’acte entrepreneurial est volontariste (par opposition à
une sélection darwinienne ou un déterminisme de l’environnement) et cognitif (à travers les
capacités, les compétences).
A travers une approche cognitive intégrant les différentes activités entrepreneuriales, nous
tentons d’apporter un éclairage à trois questions que Baron (2004) et plus tard Mitchell et al.
(2007) ont considéré comme centrales. Pourquoi certaines personnes choisissent d’être
entrepreneurs (et d’autres pas) ? Pourquoi certaines personnes reconnaissent qu’une
opportunité peut être valablement exploitée sur un marché (et d’autres pas) ? Pourquoi
certains entrepreneurs connaissent-ils le succès (et d’autres pas) ? Ces questions sont
14
Introduction générale
revisitées en suivant les suggestions récentes de Grégoire et al (2011) et Shepherd (2015) qui
invitent à étudier le rôle de la cognition entrepreneuriale pas seulement dans l’acte
d’entreprendre d’une manière générale mais au sein des différentes activités qui interviennent
dans la démarche entrepreneuriale ( entrepreneuring ). En suivant ces auteurs, nous explorons
les effets directs et les interactions des facteurs cognitifs sur les activités clés de
l’entrepreneur, notamment les effets positifs ou négatifs de chaque facteurs sur chaque
activité clé.
Notre travail de recherche se situe dans le champ principal de l’entrepreneuriat mais s’insère
plus précisément à l’interconnexion de différentes disciplines :
15
Introduction générale
l’entrepreneur comme celui qui découvre, évalue et exploite des opportunités qui permettent
d’introduire des produits ou services nouveaux ou de nouvelles méthodes d’organisation
profitables. Kirzner (1973, 1997) reconnaît également le caractère central de l’innovation
dans l’action entrepreneuriale. Il n’y a pas seulement des opportunités susceptibles de dégager
un profit, mais surtout des opportunités susceptibles d’accroître l’efficience des produits
actuels, services, matières, ou méthodes par la découverte de nouvelles relations entre les
moyens et les résultats (Kirzner, 1973, 1997). De plus, l’entrepreneur est celui qui assume les
risques liés à l’exploitation de ces opportunités (Knight, 1921).
En se fondant sur ces définitions, et pour le propos de notre thèse, nous considérons
l’entrepreneur comme une personne capable d’introduire des innovations sur le marché – quel
que soit le type d’innovation – à travers la création d’une entreprise, et à partir de laquelle il
réalise un profit économique. Nous distinguons ainsi l’entrepreneur de l’individu qui crée
simplement son propre emploi ou encore de celui qui investi dans une entreprise mais n’en est
pas le créateur. Cette définition ne vise pas à fixer des frontières à ce que serait ou non
l’entrepreneuriat, mais elle vise simplement à permettre une identification et une
opérationnalisation des actions et tâches intrinsèquement entrepreneuriales, et à cibler
l’individu clé qui sera l’objet de nos études sur la cognition entrepreneuriale.
Cette thèse traite des facteurs cognitifs qui influencent la capacité de l’entrepreneur à
découvrir, évaluer et exploiter des opportunités pour développer des innovations sur un
plan économique (mise sur le marché). Ceci implique notamment pour l’entrepreneur
d’assumer une prise de risque inhérente à cet ensemble d’activités.
Notre objet de recherche – l’entrepreneur – est donc appréhendé sous l’angle de la prise de
décision en situation de risque. Depuis les travaux pionniers de Kahneman et Tversky
(1974), la prise en compte du risque dans la décision a été traitée à travers la compréhension
d’heuristiques cognitives et de biais cognitifs, qui conduisent à altérer la rationalité telle que
la définissait la théorie de l’utilité espérée. La théorie des perspectives (Prospect Theory)
(Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) montre que les individus prennent des décisions en fonctions
des gains et pertes qu’ils perçoivent, et qu’ils évaluent ces gains et pertes à partir
d’heuristiques cognitives qui sont le plus souvent en contradiction avec la rationalité. Ils sont
notamment très sensibles à des « effets de cadre » (framing effect). Ainsi, en situation de
pertes, les individus auront tendance à prendre des risques élevés (pour éviter ces pertes) alors
qu’en situation de gain la prise de risque sera plus modérée. Cela explique pourquoi on
16
Introduction générale
constate des comportements face au risque relativement stables lorsqu’on confronte les
individus à des situations générales (Sitkin & Pablo, 1992) alors qu’ils sont au contraire très
variables selon les types de risques et les domaines où ces risques sont encourus (Baucells &
Rata, 2006; Janney & Dess, 2006; Krueger & Dickson, 1994; March & Shapira, 1987;
Meertens & Lion, 2008; Sitkin & Weingart, 1995).
Les travaux de Kahneman et Tversky ont trouvé un large écho dans différentes disciplines des
sciences de gestion, notamment en finance à travers le courant de la finance comportementale,
au sein duquel la surconfiance (overconfidence) est l’un des facteurs cognitifs les plus
documentés (Daniel et Titman, 1999). Il constitue également un moteur significatif du
passage à l’acte, notamment dans le cadre entrepreneurial (Bessière & Pouget, 2012), et pour
l’innovation (Bessière, 2015).
La surconfiance est ici définie dans ces différentes formes. Nous faisons référence à « a
degree of certainty that we hold in the validity, or correctness, of our mental states: beliefs,
knowledge, perceptions, predictions, judgments, or decisions » (Pulford, 1996). Cette
surconfiance peut porter sur (i) ses propres aptitudes à réussir une activité, (ii) la probabilité
d’obtenir un résultat, (iii) la qualité d’une estimation. Cette définition générique de la
surconfiance 16 permet de réconcilier différentes perspectives (Bernardo & Welch, 2001;
Bessière & Pouget, 2012; Moore & Healy, 2008). Elle correspond à des concepts et des
mesures identifiés dans la littérature, respectivement : auto-efficacité (self-efficacy),
optimisme et excès de confiance stricto sensu (Overconfidence). Le tableau 2 présente une
synthèse des différentes conceptualisations de la surconfiance, ses définitions et les mesures
les plus utilisées.
16
La surconfiance traduit l’idée que le degré de certitude exprimé est excessif par rapport à ce qui est effectif.
Cet « excès » n’est pas toujours strictement mesurable.
17
Introduction générale
18
Introduction générale
Dans ce travail de thèse, le risque est également défini sous ses différentes formes. Le tableau
3 présente une synthèse des définitions et mesures utilisées dans nos études.
Attitude vis-à- L'attitude vis-à-vis du risque est Echelle de propension au risque (Brockhaus, 1980;
vis du risque considérée comme un trait de financier: choix entre deux Caliendo et al., 2010;
personnalité, plutôt stable dans le options qui ont la même valeur Gomez-Mejia &
temps et dans des domaines espérée: une risquée et autre Balkin, 1989; Palich
différents. Sa formalisation a été certaine, ou choix entre & Bagby, 1995;
réalisée dans le cadre de la différentes loteries. Simon & Houghton,
théorie de l’utilité : "risk attitude Echelle de propension au risque 2003)
is nothing more than a général: degré d'accord sur des
descriptive label for the shape of situations plus ou moins risquées
the utility function presumed to dans des domaines différents.
underlie a person's choices"
(Weber et al. 2002)
Il s'agit d'un continuum entre
aversion au risque et propension
au risque.
Comportement Le comportement vis-à-vis du Echelle de "Risk Willingness": (Barbosa, Gerhardt,
envers la prise risque d'un individu va au-delà mesure la volonté à prendre de & Kickul, 2007;
de risque (Risk d'une simple attitude, il est risques dans un domaine et Dohmen et al., 2011;
taking influencé par sa perception et contexte spécifique à travers des Forlani & Mullins,
behavior) l’interprétation des risques. questions qui peuvent ne pas être 2000; Hanoch et al.,
Même si l'attitude envers le associées directement au risque: 2006; Palich &
risque est la même pour la "Je n'aime pas quand je ne sais Bagby, 1995; Slovic,
plupart des situations, la valeur pas ce qui va se passer" ou 1964; Slovic et al.,
marginale des résultats potentiels encore " Je n'hésite pas à faire les 2004; Weber et al.,
peu varier, ce qui explique un changements que j'estime 2002)
comportement face au risque nécessaires sur mon lieu de
différent qui dépend du contexte. travail".
(Weber et al. 2002) “Risk-taking
has two components: the
riskiness of situations and the
willingness of people to take
risks”(MacCrimmon &
Wehrung, 1985)
Sur la base de ce cadre théorique, et ayant clarifié les définitions des concepts utilisés, nous
pouvons préciser maintenant le contenu de ce travail doctoral et les questions de recherche qui
y sont associées.
19
Introduction générale
Questions de recherche
sur sa capacité à générer, à évaluer et à exploiter des opportunités dans l’optique d’un
lancement réussi d’une innovation sur le marché et sur sa décision de créer une entreprise à
partir de cette innovation.
Pour traiter ce sujet, nous l’avons décomposé en plusieurs questions de recherche qui
constituent l’armature des chapitres de ce document. Nous avons regroupé ces questions en
trois grands axes.
20
Introduction générale
- Quels sont les facteurs cognitifs qui favorisent la réalisation d’une innovation
lancée avec succès sur le marché?
3) Les déterminants de la décision de créer une entreprise par les individus innovants.
Nous positionnons ici la recherche sur un ensemble d’individus innovants et
questionnons les facteurs individuels favorisant la décision de créer une entreprise. En
effet, tous les individus innovants ne sont pas entrepreneurs.
21
Introduction générale
Structure de la thèse
Les éléments qui précèdent conduisent à une structuration en trois essais. Bien que chaque
essai constitue une étude théorique ou empirique per se, les trois essais sont reliés ensemble
par la problématique centrale de notre travail doctoral et par l’objectif global de la thèse. Le
traitement de cette problématique est effectué en trois phases qui correspondent à l’ordre des
chapitres.
Le chapitre 1 correspond à l’essai : « The bridge between creativity and Innovation: What can
entrepreneurial cognition tell us? ». Ce chapitre développe les fondations théoriques et
conceptuelles de la thèse. Ici, nous revisitons différentes théories en innovation,
entrepreneuriat, psychologie et économie pour proposer un modèle conceptuel de l’innovation
individuelle insérée dans la démarche entrepreneuriale. Nous considérons que l’innovation
individuelle implique trois principales activités qui interagissent et qui n’interviennent pas
nécessairement de manière séquentielle. Nous conceptualisons les différentes activités –
22
Introduction générale
Le dernier chapitre, qui correspond à l’article « From lab to venture: Cognitive factors
influencing researchers’ decision to start a venture » prolonge les analyses précédentes en se
focalisant sur la décision, par des individus innovants, à créer ou non leur entreprise. Cette
étude compare des chercheurs qui ont créé leur entreprise (dans le cadre de la Loi sur
l’Innovation et la recherche, dite Loi Allègre) et ceux qui ne l’ont pas fait et exercent toujours
leur métier de chercheur, à partir d’une population issue des mêmes laboratoires
technologiques17. Nous examinons ainsi l’effet de la capacité à reconnaître les opportunités,
l’optimisme, l’auto-efficacité (self-efficacy) et le comportement vis-à-vis du risque sur la
décision de créer une entreprise pour une catégorie d’individus caractérisés par leur aptitude à
l’innovation technologique et scientifique. Nous apportons ici un éclairage particulier au lien
entre innovation et création d’entreprise : être innovant ne suffit pas pour devenir
17
Cette étude s’insère dans le cadre de l’Observatoire du chercheur créateur d’entreprise développé par le
Labex Entreprendre de l’Université de Montpellier.
23
Introduction générale
Au total, ces trois papiers présentent différents aspects du rôle joué par la cognition dans la
démarche d’innovation et de création d’entreprise. Le tableau 4 présente une synthèse des
questions de recherche, du cadre théorique et de la méthodologie de chacun des trois essais de
cette thèse
1. The bridge - Quelle est la relation entre créativité - Modèle de créativité et Développement
between et innovation?! d’innovation (Amabile, 1988)! conceptuel :
creativity and - Comment des idées créatives et des - Processus entrepreneurial modèle théorique
Innovation: What opportunités potentielles se (Shane & Venkataraman,
can transforment-elles en des innovations 2000)
entrepreneurial pratiques ?! - Théorie comportementale de
cognition theory la décision en situation
tell us? d’incertitude (Kahneman and
Tversky, 1979)!
- Cognition entrepreneuriale
(Baron, 2004; Mitchell et al.,
2002)
2. The - Pourquoi et comment les - Processus entrepreneurial Expérimentation
implementation entrepreneurs sont-ils capables de (Shane & Venkataraman, et questionnaire
of creative ideas: générer de nouvelles idées, de 2000) quantitatif (70
An experimental reconnaître des opportunités et de - Cognition entrepreneuriale entrepreneurs
investigation of réaliser la mise en œuvre d’une (Baron, 2004; Mitchell et al., innovants en
the role of innovation ? 2002) phase de création
entrepreneurs' - Quels sont les facteurs cognitifs qui - Théorie comportementale de de leur
confidence and favorisent la réalisation d’une la décision en situation entreprise)
risk-taking innovation lancée avec succès sur le d’incertitude (Kahneman and
behavior marché? Tversky, 1979)!
- Dans quelle mesure la surconfiance
et le comportement vis-à-vis du risque
de l’entrepreneur influencent-ils leur
capacité à innover ?
24
Introduction générale
« La science n’est pas un système d’énoncés certains ou bien établis, non plus qu’un système progressant
régulièrement vers un état final. Notre science n’est pas une connaissance (épistêmê) : elle ne peut jamais
prétendre avoir atteint la vérité ni même l’un de ses substituts, telle la probabilité. [ …] Nous ne savons pas,
nous ne pouvons que conjecturer. Et des croyances non scientifiques, métaphysiques (bien que biologiquement
explicables) en des lois, des régularités que nous pouvons découvrir, mettre en évidence, guident nos
conjectures. […] Des idées audacieuses, des anticipations injustifiées et des spéculations constituent notre seul
moyen d’interpréter la nature, notre seul outil, notre seul instrument pour la saisir. Nous devons nous risquer à
les utiliser pour remporter le prix. Ceux parmi nous qui refusent d’exposer leurs idées au risque de la réfutation
ne prennent pas part au jeu scientifique.
Les tests expérimentaux, prudents et rigoureux, auxquels nous soumettons nos idées sont eux-mêmes inspirés par
des idées : l’expérience est une action concertée dont chaque étape est guidée par la théorie. Nous ne tombons
pas fortuitement sur des expériences pas plus que nous ne les laissons venir à nous comme un fleuve. Nous
devons, au contraire, être actifs : nous devons « faire » nos expériences »
Après avoir examiné la littérature relative à ces questions, nous construisons un modèle
conceptuel, assorti de propositions théoriques (chapitre 1). Nous en dérivons ensuite des
hypothèses testables que nous cherchons à confirmer ou réfuter à travers nos études
empiriques. Ces dernières utilisent à la fois des données issues de questionnaires et des
données issues d’une expérimentation, obtenues à partir de différents échantillons
d’entrepreneurs innovants (chapitre 2 et 3) et de non-entrepreneurs (chapitre 3).
25
Introduction générale
Un premier test empirique a été réalisé sous forme d’expérimentation dont le design vise à
tester directement les propositions du modèle théorique. L’utilisation de la méthode
expérimentale apparaît particulièrement adaptée à l’analyse des comportements et du
processus de décision. Soixante-dix entrepreneurs innovants ont participé à notre
expérimentation en laboratoire, ce qui distingue notamment notre étude de celles effectuées à
partir de participants non-professionnels.
Ensuite, nous avons conduit une analyse quantitative transversale sur les entrepreneurs
académiques et les chercheurs non-entrepreneurs. Notre échantillon se compose de 76
entrepreneurs académiques et 48 chercheurs, issus des mêmes laboratoires universitaires. La
comparaison des deux sous-échantillons nous permet de dégager des conclusions sur la
décision de créer une entreprise parmi le même type de population de départ dont l’activité est
hautement innovante et technologique.
Bien que nous ayons défini avec rigueur le design expérimental, les questionnaires, les
variables étudiées et les méthodes employées, et malgré différents contrôles introduits dans
nos analyses, nos résultats ne visent pas à apporter une réponse définitive aux questions que
nous avons soulevées. Ils sont à interpréter comme une contribution à un ensemble qui doit
être poursuivi et qui s’inscrit dans la démarche poppérienne d’une science qui « s’achemine
plutôt vers le but infini encore qu’accessible de toujours découvrir des problèmes nouveaux,
plus profonds et plus généraux, et de soumettre ses réponses, toujours provisoires, à des tests
toujours renouvelés et toujours affinés » (Popper, 1935 ed. langue française 2007: 287). Ce
travail doctoral s’inscrit dans cette démarche, nous souhaitons modestement prendre part à ce
« jeu scientifique » en exposant nos idées pour qu’elles soient discutées et disputées.
26
27
The bridge between creativity and innovation
28
The bridge between creativity and innovation
RÉSUMÉ
La transformation des idées créatives en innovations opérationnelles est un sujet central pour
l’entrepreneuriat et le management de l’innovation (Sarooghi, Libaers, & Burkemper, 2015;
Van de Ven, 1986). Des nombreux travaux en entrepreneuriat et innovation ont supposé
souvent une relation étroite entre créativité et innovation, et affirment que les individus
créatifs sont les plus enclins à innover (Baron & Tang, 2011; Plsek, 1997; Soroa, Balluerka,
Hommel, & Aritzeta, 2015). Toutefois, on constate fréquemment des situations où des idées
créatives qui, même si elles sont originales, ne trouvent pas de place sur le marché, ou bien
des idées créatives qui, bien que disposant d’un un fort potentiel de marché, ne sont jamais
implémentées. Ce constat nous conduit à penser que le chemin qui mène de la créativité à
l’innovation ne suit pas toujours une ligne droite aisée à parcourir. Les aspects cognitifs
jouent un rôle crucial dans le processus d’innovation chez l’entrepreneur, d’autant que sa
capacité à innover dépend de ses perceptions et de ses interprétations du monde extérieur
(Barbosa, 2014; Mullins & Forlani, 2005). Dans cette optique cognitive, nous proposons un
modèle conceptuel permettant de mieux comprendre comment et quand un individu est
capable de transformer une idée créative en une innovation opérationnelle. Nous
conceptualisons l’innovation individuelle comme un processus qui comprend trois activités
clés : i) la génération d’idées créatives ii) l’évaluation des opportunités potentielles issues de
ces idées et iii) l’implémentation de ces idées sur le marché. Sur cette base, nous explorons
l’influence de certains facteurs cognitifs et/ou comportementaux sur chacune de ces trois
activités et comment l’interaction de ces facteurs peut améliorer (ou pas) les chances qu’un
individu passe de la créativité à l’innovation. Le modèle proposé ici présente de nombreuses
implications théoriques car il approfondit nos connaissances en matière de processus
d’innovation chez les entrepreneurs, mais aussi managériales car il fournit des pistes
intéressantes pour les entrepreneurs et pour les professionnels de l’accompagnement à la
création d’entreprises innovantes.
29
The bridge between creativity and innovation
ABSTRACT
18
A first version of this paper was presented at the European Academy of Management (EURAM) Annual
conference in Paris, the 1st – 4th June 2016. A second version was presented at the Academy on Management
Annual Meeting in Anaheim, California, US, the 5th -9th August 2016.
19
M.C. Angel Ferrero (2016), The bridge between creativity and Innovation: What can entrepreneurial cognition
theory tell us? Working Paper.
30
The bridge between creativity and innovation
1. INTRODUCTION
The central role of innovation in the development of today’s societies continues to attract the
attention of academics and practitioners as many questions about how innovation occurs have
still to be answered. Schumpeter (1934) described the entrepreneur as being the ‘agent of
innovation’; and he defined innovation as a result of a process of ‘creative destruction’, which
involved the revolutionary use of technologies and the disruption of the current economic
structures and markets. This entrepreneur-driven view of innovation has inspired almost all
influential leaders, academics and practitioners. Whether the entrepreneur is seen as the ‘dis-
equilibrator’ (Schumpeter, 1934) or the ‘equilibrator’ (Kirzner, 1973) of markets, it is he who
‘creates’ the change in the market, and he who innovates. Consequently, understanding why
and how entrepreneurs ‘create’ innovation is crucial for comprehending the entire process.
By definition, innovations are shaped from creative ideas and indeed the former are the
successful implementation of creative ideas in the marketplace ((Amabile, 1988). In fact,
these notions of ‘implementation’ and ‘market’ are what marks the difference between
innovations and inventions (Schumpeter, 1934, 1939). But not every creative idea becomes
an innovation, there are several inventions that find their way into the market only years or
decades after or even some that do not find their way at all. A well-known example is that of
Edison’s light bulb. In fact, in 1806 Humphrey Davy presented a prototype of a powerful
electric lamp to the Royal Society, 70 years before Edison’s light bulb. Many other ideas and
prototypes came after that, but Edison simply figured out how to sell the light bulb, of course
after some improvements. Situations such as this, suggest that the path from creativity to
innovation is not (always) direct. Although research has advanced on the study of this
relationship, questions on how creative behavior is translated into innovative behavior have
still to be addressed. If creativity is the source of innovation, but creative people do not
always carry out innovations, then when does creativity lead to innovation?
The transformation of creative ideas into innovative business involves complex activities and
requires many different skills. To innovate, an individual must identify an opportunity for
‘doing things differently’ (Kirton, 1976) to address or create ‘a market need’ (Schumpeter,
1934) and judge the fact of taking action upon it both desirable and feasible (Ajzen, 1991;
Krueger, 2000; Krueger & Brazeal, 1994; Shapero, 1982) .
31
The bridge between creativity and innovation
Following this same line of reasoning, Shane and Venkataraman (2000) argue that, for
individual innovation to occur, entrepreneurs must: i) recognize and interpret the information
available to identify the opportunity, ii) possess the cognitive properties and skills to evaluate
the opportunity and iii) have the willingness and required skills to exploit that specific
opportunity. These and other research findings offer support for the suggestion that
innovation refers to a process that starts in an individual and thus is impacted by his behavior
and cognition. Following this perspective, scholars, in an attempt to measure individual
innovation, have referred to concepts such as creativity and opportunity recognition among
others (Baer, 2012; Chan, 1996; Dyer et al., 2008). While there is empirical evidence that
suggests a positive link between creativity and innovation, and opportunity recognition and
innovation, the way an individual moves from one to another depends strongly on mental
processes.
These arguments lead us, logically, to study innovation processes of individuals from a
cognitive perspective. In essence, cognition refers to the mental process by which information
is acquired, selected, transformed, evaluated, stored, recovered, and used for many different
tasks ((Baron, 2004; Neisser, 1967; Sternberg, 1999).
32
The bridge between creativity and innovation
Having clarified this, the remainder of this paper will focus on understanding how cognition
influences the implementation of creative ideas in the market place. We built on past research
on entrepreneurial innovation and identify innovation as a multistage process that
encompasses three main activities that do not necessary follow a linear sequence: i) the
generation of novel ideas, ii) the evaluation of potential opportunities for those ideas; and iii)
the effective implementation of those opportunities for business purposes. Following this
conceptual model we define creativity (idea generation) as the prior and necessary step before
idea implementation (Baer, 2012). In so doing we argue that creativity is part of the process of
innovation as it refers to idea generation. However, we propose that opportunity evaluation is
an essential process for innovation to occur and that being able to discern good ideas from bad
(opportunities) increases the chances that a creative idea is implemented for an innovation. In
this sense, we no longer consider the link between creativity and innovation but rather, the
passage from idea generation to its successful implementation in the market place. We also
suggest that the ability to evaluate opportunities properly (discern good from bad) is
positively related to implementation abilities and that it moderates the relationship between
creative idea generation and idea implementation.
In what follows, we develop a theoretical framework on the link between creativity and
innovation, paying special attention to cognition. Firstly, we define individual innovation as a
process that encompasses creative idea generation, idea evaluation and implementation.
Secondly, we explore the process of innovation from a cognitive perspective and present our
33
The bridge between creativity and innovation
theoretical model and suggest some propositions about the cognitive factors involved in the
process of innovation. Finally, we conclude with an overview of the insights, implications,
limitations and directions for future research.
Innovation has been defined in many ways and has been related to the person, the process and
the product. The diversity in the definition of innovation has entailed several ambiguities and
incongruences in empirical research on entrepreneurship and innovation. The methods and
approaches used by researchers to measure and assess innovation are highly influenced by the
definition they give to this concept. In much of the literature on entrepreneurship, innovation
has been assessed and measured mainly as an outcome: patent count, citations per patent and
R&D expenditures (Galasso & Simcoe, 2011; Hirshleifer et al., 2012). Although these
variables could reflect somehow the degree of innovation of a venture, they are not
completely reliable (e.g. a venture might have high R&D expenditures but still not be
innovative, or a company can be highly innovative and not have an important number of
patents). This is especially true in entrepreneurial ventures, since usually this type of firm has
more limited access to resources and the cost of these activities remains high. Also, this kind
of measures ignores any other type of innovation that is not technological. Moreover, these
constructs do not reflect individual innovation processes.
Van den Ven (1986) defined individual innovation as the “development and implementation
of new ideas by people who over time engage with others within an institutional context” (p.
591). Kanter (1984) is more explicit about the role of both idea generation and
implementation and he defines innovation “as the generation, acceptance and
implementation of new ideas, processes, products or services” Similarly, Shane and
Venkataraman (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) argue that, for individual innovation to occur,
entrepreneurs must: i) recognize and interpret the information available to identify the
opportunity, ii) possess the cognitive properties and skills to evaluate the opportunity and iii)
34
The bridge between creativity and innovation
have the willingness and required skills to exploit that specific opportunity. Following these
same lines, Baer (2012) defines innovation as a process that encompasses both the generation
of novel ideas and the effective implementation of these ideas in the real world. Since
creativity refers to the generation of novel and useful ideas or solutions (Amabile, 1983;
Heap, 1989; Plsek, 1997; Rodney McAdam & John McClelland, 2002), we suggest that
creativity is a crucial part of the innovation process. In this sense we support the assumptions
made by Baer (2012) that implementation cannot occur unless creative ideas are generated.
However, being able to innovate means being able to go beyond the generation of ideas. It
requires making the decision of going further in the process and investing time, effort and
money to finally implement these ideas. This decision of going further depends on whether or
not the individual advocates that an opportunity for that idea exists in the market that is
feasible and personally desirable to be pursued (Krueger, 2000, 2003). In fact, an individual
will not act if he is not confident enough that there is an interesting opportunity available for
him from which to profit from (Dimov, 2007; Grégoire et al., 2010, 2011; McMullen &
Shepherd, 2006). Because implementing an innovation requires action, then the ability to
evaluate opportunities plays a crucial role in the decision and ability to implement a creative
idea. Furthermore, being able to discern good opportunities from bad should increase the
chances that a creative idea is effectively implemented.
35
The bridge between creativity and innovation
relationship between creative idea generation and implementation. Figure 2 shows the basis of
our model and explains the tasks involved in each key activity. The figure presents only
examples of tasks performed in each activity and is not exhaustive.
However, acknowledging that creativity and opportunity evaluation are central to the process
of individual innovation (Dyer et al., 2008; Hargadon & Douglas, 2001; Laureiro-Martínez,
Brusoni, Canessa, & Zollo, 2015; Rice, Kelley, Peters, & Colarelli O’Connor, 2001;
Tumasjan, Welpe, & Spörrle, 2013) is not sufficient to explain why entrepreneurs are able to
innovate and when and how creative ideas are actually implemented in the real world. From a
cognitive perspective we aim at answering the important question of why and when
entrepreneurs decide to implement a creative idea, and how cognition affects this decision.
In what follows, we explain the three key activities of individual innovation, then following
suggestions derived from the entrepreneurial cognition theory framework, we explore the
potential effects of key cognitive factors on the different activities of innovation.
36
The bridge between creativity and innovation
“There will be no innovation…without creative ideas from individuals, you need ideas before
you can develop and implement them”(Amabile, 1988: 151). The first stage of innovation
relies on the generation of creative ideas, regardless of whether the ideas are generated for
solving a specific predefined issue or if the issue comes after brainstorming. At this stage,
entrepreneurs are faced either with a problem or market need gap to address, or with a general
thematic for which they generate ideas and finally identify the need or problem these ideas
could address. In this part of the process, entrepreneurs must be able to empathize with the
external world (see Design thinking process), interpret external information and be in the
continuous search (or be alert) for market needs, gaps and issues (or signals).
In the literature, creativity has been defined in numerous ways. Nonetheless, the aspects of
newness and usefulness appear to be at the core of most definitions. According to Amabile
(1983): “A product or response will be judged as creative to the extent that (a) it is both a
novel and appropriate, useful, correct, or valuable response to the task at hand and (b) the
task is heuristic rather than algorithmic” (p. 360). The creation of novel and useful ideas
includes the recombination and rearrangement of knowledge (Plsek, 1997) and/or the re-
imagination of existing objects (Heap, 1989). Also, creativity refers to both the process of
idea generation and learning or problem-solving and the actual idea or solution resulting from
it (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005; Rodney McAdam & John McClelland, 2002).
As put forward by Amabile (1983), individual creativity relies on three main components: i)
domain-relevant skills, which include experience, prior knowledge and innate abilities; ii)
creativity-relevant skills, which refer to cognitive style, personal characteristics, among
others; and iii) task motivation, which involves one’s attitude towards the task or the
‘desirability’. This framework suggests that different configurations of these three elements
lead to different degrees of creativity. Differences in individual creativity might be explained
by the fact that people use information differently and that the processes to interpret,
categorize and stock that information differ from one individual to another (Baron, 2007;
Ward, Smith, & Finke, 1998).
Creativity has long been associated with an individual’s ability or trait (Eysenck, 1993;
Galton, 1949; Guilford, 1950; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Torrence, 1966). Eminent works
in creativity such as Guilford (1950) and Torrance (1966) argue that creativity is a personality
trait that leads to different abilities in individuals to produce ‘creative outcomes’. Another
37
The bridge between creativity and innovation
more current and extremely important research stream is that of psychology that has led to the
study of creativity and creative processes from a cognitive approach (Batey, 2007). From this
perspective, researchers have focused on the identification of the different cognitive processes
that are involved in the generation of new ideas and their implementation. These approaches
suggest that the creativity level of an individual is influenced not only by his personality, but
by the mental and knowledge structures that he uses during a task (Mednick, 1962; Smith,
Ward, & Finke, 1995). These suggest that creative processes may vary from one person to
another, but moreover, an individual may display different degrees of creativity depending on
his cognitive style and his mental responses to external information (Finke, Ward, & Smith,
1992; Smith et al., 1995; Ward, 2004, 2007).
The evaluation of ideas is a crucial task for the innovation process. Entrepreneurs must be
able to discern which ideas represent potential opportunities for innovations. Moreover they
have to assess them as personally appealing as they decide whether it is worth investing, time,
effort and money in them (Williams & Wood, 2015). Before deciding to implement a specific
idea generated from the creativity process, an individual must judge its implementation to be
desirable and feasible (Krueger, 2000, 2003; Krueger & Brazeal, 1994; Shane &
Venkataraman, 2000; Shapero, 1982). These two concepts of desirability and feasibility are
what defines an entrepreneurial opportunity (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990). Desirability refers to
the perceived value retrieved from the potential outcomes of pursuing the opportunity. It
relates to both intrinsic interest in implementing the opportunity and the extrinsic motivation
driven by the society’s perceived value of the opportunity (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994). The
feasibility concept instead refers to the practicability of the opportunity. It covers both the
personal abilities and skills needed for implementing the opportunity and the difficulty related
to the opportunity itself (competition, adoption cycle, financial needs) (Krueger, 2003;
Krueger & Brazeal, 1994; Tumasjan et al., 2013).
Passing from idea generation to its implementation requires making a decision of going
further in the process and investing time, effort and money. This decision is strongly
influenced by whether the individual judges that an opportunity for that idea exists (or not) for
him and for the market (Bryant, 2007; Krueger & Dickson, 1994; Krueger, 2000; Tumasjan et
al., 2013). Here, the entrepreneur has to evaluate the potential of the idea and identify whether
there is or not an opportunity that he can pursue. This evaluation includes tasks such as
38
The bridge between creativity and innovation
concept testing, market analysis, financial forecast, organizational assessment, and any other
analyses carried out before finally deciding to launch and implement the idea. Opportunity
evaluation requires a strong implication of the individual, since it requires investing time,
effort and money to determine whether the opportunity (if any) is worthy of further
investment for its final implementation. Thus, the importance of desirability and feasibility
concepts explained earlier.
Cognition plays an essential role in the evaluation process of an idea, since the perceptions of
desirability and feasibility are strongly influenced by thinking style, mental frameworks and
knowledge structures. Depending on which schema, opportunity or threat, individuals rely
more strongly, an idea would be judged as an opportunity (or not) since it is controllable
(feasibility) and personally (and socially) desirable (Krueger, 2000; Krueger & Brazeal,
1994).
The implementation of creative ideas for innovations requires action. Here, the entrepreneur
must decide to act upon the idea/opportunity and gather the resources needed to implement it,
knowing (or not) that perhaps things will not go exactly as he planned. At this stage, the
entrepreneur has to deal with the market itself and adapt his plan, strategy and resources to the
expectations and behavior of the market. The implementation stage includes tasks such as
recruiting team members, engaging investors, convincing potential customers, finding
suppliers and partners and prototype perfecting, among others. The amount of effort, time and
money involved in the implementation stage is most of the time the reason why many creative
ideas and opportunities do not find their way into the market. Although the desirability and
feasibility perceptions of the opportunity have a strong influence on the intention to exploit
the opportunity and implement it in the market, the actual implementation might take more
time and need different abilities (Baer, 2012; Bryant, 2007; Magadley & Birdi, 2012;
Tumasjan et al., 2013). At this stage of the innovation process individuals have to be able to
transform their beliefs and intentions into action.
Creative ideas by nature go against traditional ways of doing things and imply change,
therefore resistance and reluctance for their implementation is stronger than for less original
ideas. The effort to convince people (firms and institutions) and to harvest resources to
implement them is bigger as they are more likely to create a conflict of interests and
39
The bridge between creativity and innovation
disagreements between parties (Binnewies & Gromer, 2012; Černe et al., 2014). Therefore,
people wanting to implement their creative ideas must be able to gather the socio-political
support to back up their ideas and increase the probabilities of realizing them (Baer, 2012;
Green, Welsh, & Dehler, 2003). The transformation of creative ideas into practical use and
moreover their implementation for a commercial end depends on the ability of individuals to
assimilate new knowledge and apply it (Gong et al., 2009). How individuals engage with and
adapt to new practices and their ability to ‘unlearn’ norms/values and behavior by changing
cognitive structures determines their ability to innovate. Individuals who prefer to avoid
uncertainty and ambiguous situations are less comfortable with changing their whole familiar
patterns and processes, and therefore less likely to update their knowledge at the pace
demanded by the fast and dynamic environment where innovation takes place (Cepeda-
Carrion, Cegarra-Navarro, & Jimenez-Jimenez, 2012). Along the same lines, motivation plays
an essential role in the passage from generating creative ideas to their implementation and
commercialization. People who are intrinsically motivated to follow up the implementation of
their idea are more likely to see it happen (Baer, 2012). As suggested by Shane and
Venkataraman (2000) to innovate, entrepreneurs must not only need the skills to recognize
and evaluate an opportunity, moreover they need to have the willingness and required skills to
act upon it. People that decide to pursue these creative ideas and face the risk of not realizing
their expected results, must believe that they have the required abilities, motivation and social
resources to act upon that idea and succeed in its implementation (Baer, 2012). Moreover,
they have to believe in the accuracy of their forecast and trust that things will happen in the
way they predicted regardless of the uncertainty involved.
Cognition plays an essential role in the whole process of innovation, as it determines how
people deal with the different phases of problem-solving, idea generation and idea
implementation (Chan, 1996; Kirton, 1976; Mudd, 1995). Entrepreneurial innovation is
highly related to the person’s – entrepreneur’s – information and his ability to interpret the
external word (Shaver & Scott, 1991). More importantly, the entrepreneur’s ability to
innovate depends on his ability to transform creative ideas into profitable business
innovations. Hence, being able to innovate implies deciding to act and acting upon a specific
idea or opportunity, regardless of the risk of not realizing the expected outcomes. Cognitive
biases, attitudes and motivations influence one’s perception and judgment of risks and
opportunities derived from the implementation of an idea, thus it influences the decision to
exploit, or not, that idea/opportunity and to gather the resources needed for its
40
The bridge between creativity and innovation
implementation. In this sense, the study of the cognitive factors that are rooted in the different
components of individual innovation processes could give valuable insight concerning the
nature of individual innovation and more interestingly it could help answer the questions as to
why and how entrepreneurs turn creative ideas into implemented innovations.
The remaining part of this paper explores the link between creativity (idea generation) and
implementation of innovation from a cognitive perspective.
In this sense, cognition plays an essential role on creativity and innovation, as the
entrepreneur’s ability to innovate is shaped by the his perception and interpretation of the
external world (Barbosa, 2014; Mullins & Forlani, 2005). Many researchers have focused on
understanding why some individuals are able to identify and pursue unique opportunities
while others simply cannot. In fact behavior, feelings and cognitive style can affect one’s
creative process resulting in higher or lower levels of creativity (Baron & Tang, 2011; Soroa
et al., 2015). Moreover, the interactions between the aforementioned elements and creativity
might entail different consequences for innovation and entrepreneurial activity (Dimov, 2007;
41
The bridge between creativity and innovation
Gielnik, Frese, Graf, & Kampschulte, 2012; Hansen et al., 2015; Magadley & Birdi, 2012).
Figure 3 presents the complete model with the propositions suggested in the next sections.
According to Carver et al. (2010), optimistic individuals have the tendency to “engage in
problem-focused coping when there is something to be done, and they display accommodative
coping when the adversity simply has to be endured” (p. 885). This tendency to look for
solutions might explain why optimism could influence positively “entrepreneurial search” and
creativity.
The combination of high levels of positive affect and a strong focus on achievements of
entrepreneurs may contribute to their creativity and their capability to generate innovative
opportunities (Baron & Tang, 2011).
Positive mood encourages creative behavior, as individuals feel that the environment is safe
so they pay less attention to details and are more game-playing and novelty-seeking. On the
contrary, negative moods lead to a problematic view of the environment that forces people to
be more detail-oriented and to put more effort into analyzing information so that they don't
incur risks (Schwarz, 1990). The extent to which people tend to feel enthusiastic and
pleasurably engaged with something enhances creativity as it leads to grater cognitive
flexibility and creative problem-solving (Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999; Baron & Tang, 2011).
On the other hand, extremely high levels of positive affect may be also detrimental to
performance and innovation, as they encourage individuals to believe that things are going so
well that they don't have to put much effort into current tasks (Grichnik et al., 2010; Oishi,
Diener, & Lucas, 2007). It might lessen motivation for these tasks. High levels of positive
affect might reduce attention towards, and processing of, negative information, especially
when it goes against one’s own beliefs and expectations (Baron et al., 2012). Also, it can lead
to positive unrealistic judgment of opportunities and ideas (Baron et al., 2011), since the
more positive emotions are considered to evaluate the idea/opportunity, the more positive the
evaluation will finally be (Grichnik et al., 2010). This negative effect on the quality of the
evaluation of ideas can in turn diminish the feasibility of its implementation. Along these
same lines, high or extreme optimism can lead to venture failure and excess entry (Hmieleski
& Baron, 2009; Simon & Shrader, 2012; Ucbasaran, Wright, & Westhead, 2003). Extreme
levels of optimism have negative effects on the judgment and decision-making of
42
The bridge between creativity and innovation
Proposition 1. Optimism and positive affect are positively related to creative idea generation.
Proposition 2. Extreme levels of optimism and positive affect have a negative impact on idea
implementation as they lead to poor judgment and evaluation of opportunities.
“Opportunities are seized by those who are prepared to seize them” (Krueger & Brazeal,
1994). An entrepreneur’s decision to act upon a business opportunity depends on how feasible
and desirable it is for him to pursue such an undertaking. Overall, categorizing ideas as
opportunities depends strongly on one’s belief of control and that positive outcomes will
result from it (Jackson & Dutton, 1988). When the perceived threads concerning an idea are
low, entrepreneurs tend to evaluate the latter more favorably and to see more of an
opportunity in it (Keh et al., 2002). When evaluating an idea, individuals that tend to think
they can control the situation and its course because they see themselves as competent to
implement it, are more likely to think that it is feasible and see an opportunity for business
(Krueger & Brazeal, 1994).
In this sense, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, individual’s belief to have the required skills to
implement a particular idea or opportunity for business, enhances the chances of that person
to pursue the idea and follow through with the innovation process. Entrepreneurial self-
efficacy is associated with perceiving more opportunities and being more confident about
succeeding at exploiting such opportunities (Bryant, 2007). Also, people with high levels of
self-efficacy tend to set more challenging goals and to be strongly committed to those goals
(Boyd & Vozikis, 1994). Since innovation implies facing numerous challenges and
uncertainties, the decision of implementing a particular innovation relies mainly on the beliefs
that one has the required skills and knowledge to put it into action (Bandura, 1997; Bandura
& Wood, 1989; Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Individuals with higher
entrepreneurial self-efficacy have higher intentions of pursuing an entrepreneurial opportunity
(Chen et al., 1998; De Noble et al., 1999; Krueger et al., 2000; Linan & Fayolle, 2015; Wilson
43
The bridge between creativity and innovation
et al., 2007). Indeed, individuals with high entrepreneurial self-efficacy will have stronger
beliefs that they possess a feasible idea for a new business and that their goals will be
attained. Empirical evidence suggests that high levels of self-efficacy of entrepreneurs lead to
higher investments on R&D and production of patents (Bandura, 1997; Gist & Mitchell,
1992; Wood & Bandura, 1989). The notion of self-efficacy suggests that individuals would
not engage in pursuing an opportunity unless they believed they had the skills to appropriately
develop the target innovation (Lin, Lu, Chen, & Chen, 2014). Thus, we suggest the following
proposition:
Tolerance to risk and risk-taking behavior are both embedded in innovation, as the latter
involves an exploratory process and uncertain outcomes. Since the availability of information
and past experience is relatively low, innovators face higher levels of uncertainty and risks
compare to imitators. From the very first stage of innovation, individuals are faced with the
risk of failing to produce the anticipated returns. Because engaging in creative thinking means
producing ideas that are not just novel, but also useful, then individuals have to generate ideas
that can be potentially implemented. In a work environment especially, people involved in the
generation of creative ideas are frequently facing judgment of their peers, superiors, partners,
investors and potential consumers. Thinking ‘outside-the-box’ supposes one to go against
traditional ways of doing things and they disturb the status quo and power balances (Albrecht
& Hall, 1991; Dewett, 2006). Moreover, if implementation fails or doesn’t come into effect at
all, people might lose their reputation and trust from partners and key players (Brockhaus,
1980; Camerer, 1988). Therefore, an individual who is intrinsically motivated to engage in
this risky activity or who has a higher tolerance for risk is more likely to execute the idea and
go through the innovation process (Baer, 2012). This might be a due to the entrepreneur’s
perception and framing of situations, since entrepreneurs give greater attention to potential
rewards, compared to the threads associated with an opportunity (Barbosa & Fayolle, 2007;
Baron, 2004; Kahneman & Lovallo, 1993; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Mullins & Forlani,
2005).
44
The bridge between creativity and innovation
According to Pérez-Luño et al (2011) risk-taking reflects the willingness to pass from the
creative idea to its implementation in the real world, suggesting that individuals that are
willing to take risks are more likely to concentrate effort and attention on the pursuit of new
opportunities, and see more risks for themselves if they don’t pursue the opportunity (risk of
missing the boat) than if they pursue it and do not accomplish the projected outcomes (risk of
sinking the boat) (Mullins & Forlani, 2005). They argue that risk-averse people would tend to
prefer innovation-adoption over innovation-generation, or simply would not innovate at all
choosing not to implement any of the creative ideas in the market place. Similarly, Pfeffer and
Sutton (2000) explain that an employee's fear leads to a ‘knowledge-doing gap’ in the
organization, where no action is taken based on acquired knowledge of risk salience. The
introduction of pioneering products is highly ambiguous – it lacks historical precedents
regarding its success or failure. Therefore, the interpretation of the threads and opportunities
linked to the implementation of a pioneering idea (product) is influenced by entrepreneurs'
desires and perceptions (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1988). On the basis of these arguments
we suggest the following propositions:
Overconfidence refers to the inability to understand the limits of one’s knowledge, which
leads people susceptible to this, to be unreasonably certain of their beliefs (Russo &
Schoemaker, 1992).The beliefs that we hold about our own knowledge influence how we
perceive and process information, biasing our judgments (Kahneman & Lovallo, 1993;
45
The bridge between creativity and innovation
Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982). Confident individuals tend to stick to their personal
impressions and beliefs and when new information is available they tend to look for
confirming evidence whilst overlooking disconfirming evidence (Lord, Ross, & Lepper,
1979). Since disconfirming evidence is frequently ignored, then the likelihood that a judgment
is reassessed is lower for highly confident individuals (Pulford, 1996). In the same way,
overconfident people are less likely to have backup plans in case things do not go in the way
they forecasted. This might be due to the fact that they do not consider the uncertainty or
underweight the probability in the occurrence of uncertain outcomes, specially for highly
complex situations and/or judgments (Lichtenstein & Fischhoff, 1977; Pulford, 1996).
However, confidence in one’s knowledge can be also beneficial for innovation. Overconfident
individuals tend to engage in more exploratory and creative tasks because they underestimate
the nature, costs and likelihood of the risk inherent to those tasks (Gervais & Odean, 2001;
Loewenstein et al., 2001; March & Shapira, 1987; Simon & Houghton, 2003). Overconfident
individuals tend to be more skeptical about external information and more confident about
internal information and therefore they tend to overweigh the latter and base their decision
mainly upon it (Bernardo & Welch, 2001). This certainty on their beliefs induces to a more
decisive decision-making and to worry less about the risks and the potential negative
consequences of their errors (Gervais, Heaton, & Odean, 2011; Lambert, Bessière, &
N’Goala, 2012). In this sense, overconfidence can lead individuals to underestimate the risk
of an opportunity and to assess it as more favorable and feasible and therefore might be more
prone to implementing an innovative idea because they focus their attention on the high
potential gains rather than the related risks and because they truly believe that they will
succeed in such undertakings (Chuang & Lee, 2006; Galasso & Simcoe, 2011; Hirshleifer et
al., 2012; Simon & Houghton, 2003). Therefore, an individual who shows high levels of
confidence in his knowledge and predictions and who leverages his private abilities and
information explores more novel, though risky, alternatives (Hayward, Forster, Sarasvathy, &
Fredrickson, 2010), thus increasing his likelihood he will profit from business opportunities
before all the information about that opportunity is available (Busenitz & Barney, 1997).
Additionally, overconfident entrepreneurs are more likely to attract, convince and retain
investors, stakeholders and talented employees/collaborators since they signal more
commitment and decisiveness in their actions and endeavors (Gervais & Goldstein, 2003,
2007; Gervais et al., 2011; Kyle & Wang, 1997). Furthermore, overconfidence enhances the
enthusiasm and the determination needed to act and to succeed in risky situations (Simon &
Shrader, 2012).
46
The bridge between creativity and innovation
47
The bridge between creativity and innovation
An entrepreneur must rely on creative processes to generate and exploit novel ideas (Gielnik
et al., 2012; Puhakka, 2011; Ward, 2004). Several scholars have recognized the important role
of creativity in entrepreneurial processes, arguing that creativity is the source of innovations
and generation of new ventures (Ko & Butler, 2007; Leonidas A. Zampetakis, 2011) or even
describing entrepreneurship as a form of creativity (Lee, Lee, & Pennings, 2001).
Scholars have often assumed the existence of a relationship between creativity and
innovation. Nonetheless, the transformation of creative ideas into innovative business requires
many complex activities and several different skills. Although for many scholars the impact
of creativity over the entrepreneurial process is obvious, its effects over enterprise outcomes –
innovativeness, growth, and profitability – are blurred. Hence, to understand how creativity
might impact the innovation of firms, we need first to understand the innovation processes of
individuals.
We have drawn on entrepreneurial cognition theory to explore the nature of the relationship
between creativity and innovation. By exploring the cognitive factors that influence both
creativity and innovation, and furthermore the passage from creative ideas to implemented
innovations we have generated some valuable insights into the understanding of these two
processes. Cognition plays an essential role in a person’s ability to think in creative ways. The
way a problem is framed influences the creativity of the solution proposed, the desirability
and feasibility of the solution and thus its final implementation. Cognitive constraints, related
to past experience, knowledge and risks could lead to low creativity and/or low innovation.
As stated before, cognitive processes are known to have strong influence over the perceptions
and decision-making of individuals, causing a substantial impact upon their ability to
recognize, evaluate and exploit innovative opportunities (Simon et al., 2000). The use of some
of these cognitive biases helps individuals to cope with cognitive and environmental
limitations, offering mental shortcuts that entrepreneurs tend to use when facing risky
48
The bridge between creativity and innovation
situations with little information and lack of time to make a more informed and
comprehensive decision.
The interaction between different cognitive factors might exert strong influence on the
individual innovation process by increasing (or diminishing) the chances of implementing and
exploiting (or not) the value of a creative idea.
To understand how cognition influences the implementation of creative ideas in the market
place, we built on a definition of innovation as a process that encompasses three key
activities: i) the generation of novel ideas, ii) the evaluation of potential opportunities for
those ideas and iii) the effective implementation of those creative ideas/opportunities in the
business world. Conceptualizing innovation in this way enabled us to gain valuable insight on
the role of creativity on innovation and the nature of the relationship between them. We took
inspiration from the model proposed by Baer (2012) and identify creativity (novel idea
generation) as the prior and necessary step before idea implementation. In doing so we argue
that creativity is part of the process of innovation as it refers to idea generation. In this sense,
we no longer consider the link between creativity and innovation but the passage from idea
generation to its final implementation.
As supported and evidenced by past studies, the ability to exploit and act upon a novel
opportunity (or idea) is influenced by specific skills other than creativity and opportunity
recognition (Camisón & Forés, 2011; Sarooghi et al., 2015; Zahra & George, 2002).
Optimism and positive affect are two factors known to encourage creative thinking and
explorative behavior in individuals (Baron & Tang, 2011; Carver et al., 2010), nonetheless
there is evidence that extreme levels of these factors could also entail negative consequences
on performance and innovation (Hmieleski & Baron, 2009; Oishi et al., 2007; Simon &
Shrader, 2012). The evaluation of the feasibility and desirability of creative ideas is an
important step before deciding to implement a particular innovation. The belief that one has
the required skills to act upon the idea increases the desirability and feasibility of its
implementation in the real world, hence one would be more likely to judge that specific idea
as having good potential for business (Krueger, 2000; Krueger & Brazeal, 1994). This
suggests that individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to go further in the innovation
process as they evaluate the fact that there is an opportunity for them to profit from. Being
optimistic about the outcomes of that implementation will be no warrant of the engagement in
such an endeavor, unless such a person believes in having the ability to appropriately develop
49
The bridge between creativity and innovation
the target innovation. The implementation of novel ideas implies taking several risks since, if
the expected outcomes are not achieved people might lose, other than investment and effort,
reputation and trust from partners and key players (Brockhaus, 1980; MacCrimmon,
Wehrung, & Stanbury, 1986; Yuan & Woodman, 2010). Consequently, people that decide go
through the implementation of those creative ideas and face the risk of not realizing their
expected results, must not only believe that they have the required abilities, motivation and
social resources (Baer, 2012) to act upon those ideas, but that their assertions and beliefs
about the future outcomes are correct and that they will succeed in those undertakings
(Chuang & Lee, 2006; Galasso & Simcoe, 2011; Hirshleifer et al., 2012; Simon & Houghton,
2003).
These propositions suggest that cognitive processes and factors have a different impact on the
innovation process, and according to the stage of the process certain factors are preferable to
others. Moreover, it is possible that the same factors that are desirable for enhancing creative
idea generation might not be suitable for the implementation of those ideas effectively in the
market place. For example, being highly optimistic might lead to poor judgment and
evaluation of ideas and subsequent inefficient implementation. The interaction and
moderation effects that we propose in the model described in our paper suggest that the
passage from idea generation to idea implementation is not as simple as one might think; and
that the actual transformation of novel ideas into implemented innovations depends on
perceptions and interpretations of external and internal information.
This entails some valuable implications for researchers and practitioners, since identifying the
factors that foster creativity and furthermore enable the implementation of those creative ideas
is of high interest to the development of entrepreneurship and innovation. Our contribution to
the literature on creativity and innovation in entrepreneurship is twofold. Firstly, while our
proposition that creativity is embedded in the innovation process is far from being new, our
paper is among the first conceptual models to explore how cognitive factors might impact
both processes independently and to insinuate that some of them might even have a dual and
50
The bridge between creativity and innovation
The opportunities for future research are numerous. Researchers can add significant value to
this literature by focusing on other individual and environmental factors, moderating and
mediating the link between idea generation, idea evaluation and idea implementation. Several
contributions can be made from a theoretical and methodological perspective, proposing new
instruments to assess the different processes (creative idea generation, idea evaluation and
idea implementation) at the individual level. As suggested in this paper, several issues
regarding the measurement and assessment of the three activities of innovation challenge the
study of the relationship among creativity and innovation. The difficulty of measuring idea
implementation at the individual level defies the conclusiveness of the results. Similarly, the
interaction of multiple factors other than those suggested in this research complicates the
tasks. In order to have reliable results and conclusions concerning the study of this
relationship, researchers need to integrate both individual and environmental factors. Besides,
simple survey methods would not be suitable for the accurate assessment of creativity, as
rigorous controls have to be applied to ensure that circumstances have no influence on the
behavior of the sample. For example, using experimental exercises could be a valuable
approach to develop new and more accurate measures of individual innovation capabilities
and innovative behavior of individuals.
Another direction of research is that of metacognition. Since we suggest that depending on the
activity in the innovation process, some cognitive factors are more (or less) preferable than
others, it would be of great interest to investigate how entrepreneurs could rely on
metacognition to overcome the challenges of innovation and entrepreneurial action.
51
The bridge between creativity and innovation
Metacognition refers to the awareness and understanding of one’s own cognitive process
(Urban, 2012; Young Sik Cho & Jung, 2014). Through proper training and experience,
individuals can learn to adapt their behavior according to the tasks they need to perform and
the goals they expect to achieve (Schmidt & Ford, 2003). If entrepreneurs learn about the type
of cognitive mechanisms they might be prone to and are aware of their benefits and potential
costs when performing a specific task, then they can adapt better by choosing the different
cognitive strategies that might be valuable when facing a particular situation, context or
feedback (Haynie, Shepherd, Mosakowski, & Earley, 2010; Haynie & Shepherd, 2009).
Thus, we encourage future research to continue investigating the origins of creative and
innovative behavior by both: 1) proposing new theoretical frameworks for the understanding
of the creativity-innovation link; 2) developing appropriate tools and methodologies to
accurately assess idea generation, idea evaluation and idea implementation and 3)
investigating how metacognitive dimensions can impact the individual’s ability to transform
creative ideas into practical innovations. Advances in these directions would also be of great
support to both practitioners dealing with this twofold process in entrepreneurial ventures and
organization, and policy-makers and key actors supporting the development of innovation and
entrepreneurship in societies.
52
53
INTRODUCTION AU DEUXIEME CHAPITRE
Dans le chapitre précédent, nous avons exploré la nature de la relation entre créativité et
innovation à travers le prisme de la théorie de la cognition entrepreneuriale. Nous avons
conceptualisé l’innovation individuelle comme un processus qui comprend trois activités
clés : i) la génération d’idées nouvelles ii) l’évaluation des opportunités potentielles issues de
ces idées et iii) l’implémentation de ces idées sur le marché. Par l’identification des facteurs
cognitifs qui influencent à la fois la créativité et l’innovation, mais aussi le passage de la
créativité à l’innovation effective, nous avons permis une meilleure compréhension de ce
processus. Premièrement, nous montrons que l’interaction entre différents facteurs cognitifs
exerce une forte influence sur l’innovation individuelle en favorisant ou non l’évaluation et
l’exploitation de l’idée nouvelle. Deuxièmement, nous avançons la proposition que certains
facteurs qui pourraient être favorables pour la génération de l’idée ne le soient pas pour son
implémentation concrète. Troisièmement, les effets modérateurs et d’interaction que nous
proposons dans le modèle suggèrent que le passage de l’idée à sa réalisation n’est pas aussi
simple qu’on pourrait le penser, et qu’il dépend de la perception et de l’interprétation de
l’information.
54
55
The implementation of creative ideas
56
The implementation of creative ideas
RÉSUMÉ
Toute innovation commence par une idée créative (Amabile, 1996: 143), de même
l’introduction d’une innovation ne survient pas si l’individu ne perçoit pas une opportunité
pour innover (Krueger, 2000). Cependant la réalité montre que toutes les idées créatives ne
deviennent pas des innovations rentables et que les individus ne poursuivent pas toutes les
opportunités qui se présentent. Les facteurs cognitifs influencent la façon dont les individus
perçoivent, interprètent et transforment les informations, ainsi ils jouent un rôle crucial dans
les processus d’innovation de ces individus (Baron, 2004, 2007; Shane, 2003; Simon et al.,
2000). Sous cette perspective de la théorie de la cognition entrepreneuriale, cette recherche
porte sur le rôle de la surconfiance et du comportement face au risque de l’entrepreneur dans
sa capacité à innover. Dans une démarche expérimentale avec 70 jeunes entrepreneurs
innovants, cette étude fournit un nouvel éclairage sur une question cruciale, mais peu étudiée
dans la recherche en entrepreneuriat : pourquoi certains entrepreneurs ont plus de chances que
d’autres de transformer une idée créative en innovation opérationnelle et de la lancer avec
succès sur le marché ? Nos résultats montrent que la surconfiance et la propension à la prise
de risque ont un impact positif sur la créativité, l’évaluation d’opportunités ainsi que sur le
lancement d’une innovation. En revanche, l’optimisme semble avoir un double effet, positif
pour la créativité mais négatif pour l’évaluation des opportunités et leur mise en œuvre dans
un marché.
57
The implementation of creative ideas
ABSTRACT
While it is true that “all innovation begins with creative ideas”(Amabile, 1996: 143) and that
innovation doesn’t occur if individuals do not perceive an opportunity to innovate (Krueger,
2000), not all creative ideas are implemented and not all opportunities are pursued. Cognition
influences the way individuals perceive, interpret and transform information, thus it plays a
crucial role on individual innovation processes (Baron, 2004, 2007; Shane, 2003; Simon et
al., 2000). Guided by entrepreneurial cognition theory, this research examines the role of
confidence and risk-taking on entrepreneur’s ability to innovate. Building on an experimental
design with 70 real entrepreneurs, the present study provides new insights into the under-
researched area of why some entrepreneurs are more likely to implement creative ideas and
succeed at introducing innovations. Our findings suggest that overconfidence and risk-taking
behavior favor creativity, opportunity evaluation and innovation implementation. In the other
hand, optimism seems to have a dual and contradictory effect: positive for creativity, but
negative for the evaluation and implementation of innovations.
58
The implementation of creative ideas
1. INTRODUCTION
Entrepreneurship is a process that involves “[…] the discovery, evaluation and exploitations
of opportunities to introduce new goods and services, ways of organizing markets, processes
and raw materials through organizing efforts that had previously not existed”
(Venkataraman, 1997). Moreover, entrepreneurship is the decision by a person to act upon an
opportunity to create something new despite the risks involved in those undertakings (Shane,
2003). In short, entrepreneurship is about how entrepreneurs innovate through the creation of
new ventures. Given this definition, research in entrepreneurship has focused on
understanding why and how individuals discover opportunities, decide to exploit them and
succeed in implementing them in the marketplace (Shane, 2003).
Entrepreneurs are indeed the key actors in this process of venture creation. They are
responsible, among other things, for generating new ideas for products or services,
recognizing business opportunities for those ideas, and obtaining the resources needed for
implementing them through the creation of a new venture (Ardichvili, Cardozo, & Ray, 2003;
Baron, 2004, 2007; Shane, 2003). While this suggestion is far from being new, there are still
many questions to answer about how entrepreneurs carry out this process. More specifically
one of the central questions that drive research in entrepreneurship is why entrepreneurs are
able to generate new ideas, recognize opportunities and carry out innovations that non-
entrepreneurs fail to generate, recognize or carry out? (Baron, 2004; Dyer et al., 2008; Shane,
2003)
In an attempt to answer these questions, scholars have brought attention to the identification
of the different attributes that distinguish entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs. Cognition is
among the most influential factors that have been proven to explain the differences
concerning decision-making and behavior between individuals (Mitchell et al., 2002).
Cognition influences the way individuals perceive, interpret and transform information. Thus,
it has a strong impact on the ability to recognize opportunities, on the willingness to exploit
them and on the final decision to implement them (Baron, 2004, 2007; Shane, 2003; Simon et
al., 2000). Also, cognition impacts individual’s behavior as it is directly linked to their control
beliefs and attitudes (Ajzen, 1991; Baron, 2007; Dohmen et al., 2011; Tullett & Davies,
1997).
59
The implementation of creative ideas
Research in entrepreneurial cognition has provided theoretical and empirical evidence that
proves that entrepreneurs are somehow different from non-entrepreneurs. Moreover, past
studies have suggested that entrepreneurs rely on cognitive bias and factors when making
decisions since they are frequently confronted with high uncertainty and information
asymmetry. Optimism, overconfidence, self-efficacy and tolerance to risk have received a
large amount of attention in entrepreneurship literature as they are believed to be strong
predictors of the decision by individuals to start a new venture and to innovate (Baron, 2007;
Chen et al., 1998; De Noble et al., 1999; Galasso & Simcoe, 2011; Herz et al., 2014; Keh et
al., 2002; Krueger & Dickson, 1994; Simon et al., 2000; Tang, Kacmar, & Busenitz, 2012).
Nonetheless, there is still too much ambiguity regarding the results and on their implication in
what concerns entrepreneurship and innovation.
The present study offers several contributions. Firstly, it seeks to contribute to current
research on the link between creativity and innovation and the role played by cognition and
behavior. Depicting innovation in different activities and analyzing how individual
characteristics might impact each one of them is of great interest to the field of
entrepreneurship as it advances our understanding of how entrepreneurs think, decide and act.
Secondly, we provide a more detailed and objective measure of entrepreneurs’ ability to
innovate as we rely on an experimental design with real entrepreneurs that allows us to
capture individual innovative behavior in a specific setting. While other research on
entrepreneurs’ creativity and innovative behavior frequently uses self-rated evaluations for
both constructs, we rely on psychological measures of creativity and offer a more objective
20
We built on the theoretical model presented in the previous chapter of this thesis: the bridge between creativity
and innovation.
60
The implementation of creative ideas
measure of innovative behavior through an experimental setting that imitates a real market
situation where entrepreneurs have to compete between themselves and face the uncertainties
of not achieving the expected outcomes. Thirdly, empirical evidence from this study suggests
that while overconfidence and low aversion to risk have a beneficial effect on individual
innovation, optimism might have a twofold and contrary effect. These results, together with
growing empirical evidence on the role of cognitive and behavioral factors on innovative and
entrepreneurial behavior, strongly suggest the need for deeper investigations designed to
clarify the process of individual innovation and the potential role of cognition in key activities
within this process.
Figure 4 presents the conceptual model guiding this work. We propose that creativity
positively influences the ability to implement innovations. Furthermore, the model posits that
opportunity evaluation capabilities in addition to impacting directly the ability to implement
innovations also moderate the relationship between creativity and implementation. In
addition, the model suggests that while optimism encourages creativity it decreases abilities to
implement innovations. Similarly, we hypothesize a positive impact of entrepreneurial self-
efficacy on the ability to evaluate opportunities. Along the same lines, we propose that risk-
aversion has a detrimental effect on creativity, opportunity evaluation and implementation of
innovations. Overconfidence on the other hand is presented as having a positive influence on
both the abilities to evaluate opportunities and implement innovations, and to act as a
moderator between risk-aversion and implantation of innovations.
This paper proceeds as follows: firstly, an initial section briefly describes the three key
activities of individual innovation and how they interact with each other. In this first section
we also review current knowledge concerning cognitive and behavioral factors that have been
found to impact innovative behavior and we present our hypothesis. We then provide an
overview of our experimental design, the characteristics of the sample and the measures we
used to assess our different variables in the model. Thirdly, we present the results of our
analyses and the adjusted model. Finally, we conclude by outlining the implications of our
findings and the possible directions for future research.
61
The implementation of creative ideas
62
The implementation of creative ideas
Given the importance of innovation to entrepreneurship, a growing body of work has focused
on studying entrepreneurs’ creative process and opportunity recognition. However less is
known about how they implement those innovations effectively.
In particular, despite acknowledging that innovation is a multistage process, and that each
stage might be shaped by different behavioral and cognitive factors, many studies have not
made a clear distinction between these concepts and have used them interchangeably to define
an umbrella concept of innovation (Baer, 2012). While it is true that “all innovation begins
with creative ideas” (Amabile, 1996: 143) and that innovation does not occur if individuals
do not perceive an opportunity to innovate (Krueger, 2000), not all creative ideas are
implemented and not all opportunities are pursued. This suggests that though there is strong
theoretical evidence that advocates the existence of a relationship between these concepts and
innovation, each of them refers to distinct processes that require different skills and mental
processes.
This lack of clarity about what innovation is and what it encompasses, has led past research to
contrasting findings on how some behavioral and cognitive factors encourage or hinder
innovative activity. Moreover, the complexity of assessing implementation makes it even
more difficult to understand which cognitive and behavioral factors have an important role,
when they have an effect and why they are so important for innovation to occur and be
implemented.
Although this work has significantly advanced the understanding of factors that encourage
idea generation and opportunity recognition, there is still much to be done on i) how all these
concepts interact with each other, ii) what factors are most likely to increase the chances of an
idea being implemented or an opportunity being pursued and iii) when and why these factors
are beneficial (or not) to individual innovation.
Building on past research on entrepreneurial cognition and innovation and with the purpose of
addressing these three points cited earlier, we define innovation here as a multistage process
with three main sub-processes that might or might not follow a linear structure: i) creative
idea generation (creativity), ii) opportunity evaluation and iii) implementation of innovations.
Each of these sub-processes is characterized by different types of activities and decisions and
thus they require different behavior, skills and cognitive mechanisms.
63
The implementation of creative ideas
Behind any innovation there is always a creative idea. Before any successful implementation
of new products, services, business or processes is possible, individuals and teams must come
up with novel and useful ideas and then decide to go further to gather the necessary resources
and support to implement them (Amabile, 1983; Baer, 2012; Sarooghi et al., 2015; Scott, Shu,
& Lubynsky, 2015; Scott & Bruce, 1994). Whereas there is agreement on the definitions of
both concepts of creativity and innovation, a lack of clear understanding of their boundaries
has blurred the findings of past research. Despite acknowledging that creativity and
innovation are two distinct concepts, previous work has often failed to distinguish between
them in its theoretical discourse and in its empirical analyses. Creativity refers to the
generation of “novel and useful” ideas (Amabile, 1983) whereas innovation refers to not only
the generation of those ideas but their implementation in the marketplace (Axtell et al., 2000;
Bharadwaj & Menon, 2000; Rosing, Frese, & Bausch, 2011; Scott & Bruce, 1994). Thus,
innovation involves both creative idea generation (creativity) and its implementation (Baer,
2012). While the link between creativity and innovation has been studied in the past, most
research has assumed their relationship as linear and straightforward, but the empirical results
show that the strength of the relation between the two is influenced by other factors, and that
being creative does not imply being able to implement an innovation (Baer, 2012; Sarooghi et
al., 2015). This might be explained by the fact that both the generation and implementation of
creative ideas require different skills, mental processes and behavior that sometimes might
even be opposing. For example, creativity implies searching for problems, gaps and solutions,
thinking divergently and having explorative behavior. On the other hand, implementation
requires gathering external support and resources, possessing the skills and social
relationships to ultimately exploit these ideas. This suggests that while being creative is
crucial, for innovation to occur, additional skills and behavior are required.
Moreover, passing from idea generation to its implementation requires making a decision of
going further in the process and investing time, effort and money. This decision is strongly
influenced by whether the individual judges that an opportunity for that idea exists (or not) in
the market that is feasible and personally desirable to pursue (Krueger, 2000, 2003). Because
implementing an innovation requires action, and an individual will not act if he is not
confident enough that there is an appealing opportunity available for him to profit from
(Dimov, 2007; Grégoire et al., 2010, 2011; McMullen & Shepherd, 2006), the ability to
evaluate opportunities plays an important role in implementation and should increase the
64
The implementation of creative ideas
H1a. The entrepreneur’s degree of creativity is positively related to the entrepreneur’s ability
to implement an innovation.
H1c. The ability to evaluate opportunities moderates the relationship between creativity and
implementation of innovation, in such a way that this relationship is stronger when the degree
to which entrepreneurs are able to evaluate opportunities is high.
One’s tendency to think more about the possibility of positive rather than negative outcomes
taking place may explain why individuals persevere in their activities and continue striving
towards the achievement of their initial goals regardless of the risks involved (Carver et al.,
2010; Cassar, 2009; Dawson & Henley, 2015; Hmieleski & Baron, 2009). Research in
psychology has often related optimism to higher cognitive flexibility, suggesting that thinking
more about positive outcomes enhances the ability of individuals to interpret information,
recombine resources and solve problems in creative ways (Ashby et al., 1999; Chang &
Farrehi, 2001; Isen, 2002; Sternberg, 1985). Also, individuals who exhibit high levels of
optimism tend to have positive attitudes and feelings towards what they do and the future as
they believe they will be able to control the course of their actions even in times of adversity
(Li & Wu, 2011; Wu, Chang, & Chen, 2008).
While there is evidence that optimism enhances cognitive flexibility, positive emotions and
creativity, there are also indications that too much optimism might have detrimental effects on
innovation. For example, Papenhausen (2010) found that optimistic managers engage more in
searching for solutions to problems as well as looking for new opportunities to innovate. But
their results evidenced that the relationship between managers’ optimism and search behavior
followed a “u-shape”: while moderately high levels of optimism might lead to deeper
searching, extreme optimism might reduce and harm managers’ performance. In the same line
of research, Hmieleski and Baron (2009) measured the impact of dispositional optimism of
entrepreneurs on the performance level of their ventures and found that entrepreneurs’
65
The implementation of creative ideas
optimism impacted negatively the performance of their ventures and that both entrepreneurial
experience and environmental dynamism moderated this relationship.
Also, high or extreme optimism can lead to early venture failure or excess entry (Hmieleski &
Baron, 2009; Simon & Shrader, 2012; Ucbasaran et al., 2007). Extreme levels of optimism
can harm the judgment and decision-making of entrepreneurs, because it leads to having
unrealistic expectations, overlooking negative information and risks and reducing effort in
current tasks (Herz et al., 2014; Hmieleski & Baron, 2009; Isen, 2002; Oishi et al., 2007).
Thus, we propose that:
H2b. The entrepreneur’s level of optimism is negatively related to the entrepreneur’s ability
to evaluate opportunities.
H2c. A high degree of optimism will have a detrimental effect on the ability to implement an
innovation.
Self-efficacy refers to the individual’s belief of having the required capabilities to mobilize
motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action in order to accomplish a job or specific
task (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Moreover, self-efficacy has been proven to have a strong
impact on goal commitment, aspiration levels, work attitudes and career choices (Gist &
Mitchell, 1992). Since self-efficacy is a domain-specific dependent construct and that
previous work suggests that it plays an important role in shaping the individual’s choices,
effort and time devoted to a task (or job), it can be used for predicting entrepreneurs’ intention
to pursue a new business opportunity (Drnovsek & Glas, 2002; Krueger & Dickson, 1994;
Krueger & Brazeal, 1994; McGee, Peterson, Mueller, & Sequeira, 2009). Implementing an
innovation implies facing numerous challenges and uncertainties, the decision of
implementing a particular opportunity depends strongly on whether or not one believes in
having the required skills and knowledge to put it into action (Bandura, 1997; Bandura &
Wood, 1989; Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Wood & Bandura, 1989). When evaluating an idea,
individuals who tend to think they can control the situation and its course because they see
themselves as competent to implement it, are more likely to think that it is feasible and see an
66
The implementation of creative ideas
opportunity for business (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994). Following this line of research, we
propose that:
H3a. High levels of Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy are positively related to the entrepreneur’s
ability to evaluate opportunities.
“Innovations are inherently risky, and although the potential benefits of adoption may be
recognized by all adopters, there is no guarantee that adoption will, in fact, produce the
anticipated consequences” (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998: 18)
Risk has been defined as the extent to which there is uncertainty about whether potentially
significant and disappointing outcomes of decisions will be realized (Sitkin & Pablo, 1992).
The introduction of innovations and new venture creation are characterized as risky
endeavors. The high asymmetry of information, the uncertainty about outcomes, the lack of
resources and the high rates of failure are some of the many risks to bear when introducing an
innovation or launching a new venture.
Risk-taking has gained a lot of attention in the study of entrepreneurial and innovative
behavior and there is empirical evidence that shows that entrepreneurs are more likely to
show high tolerance to risk and choose riskier endeavors compared to non-entrepreneurs
(Forlani & Mullins, 2000; Norton & Moore, 2006).
Also, past research has stressed the importance of understanding how individuals frame
situations and thus perceive the risks versus reward tradeoffs when considering the
introduction of an innovation (Barbosa & Fayolle, 2007; Baron, 2004; Kahneman & Lovallo,
1993; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Mullins & Forlani, 2005). For example, Palich and Bagby
(1995) studied through the categorization theory the influence of cognitive heuristics and
processes on entrepreneurs’ risk perceptions. They argue that entrepreneurs tend to categorize
more situations as having strengths and opportunities because they perceive and overweigh
more positive potential outcomes of a situation rather than negative ones. In other words, they
suggest that entrepreneurs are more optimistic about the potential outcomes of a situation than
non-entrepreneurs, leading them to perceive fewer risks and more opportunities. Similarly,
Forlani and Mullins (2000) found that entrepreneurs tend to pursue more innovative but
67
The implementation of creative ideas
riskier ventures, because they tend to under-evaluate the probable negative outcomes,
resulting in low risk perception and thus a higher propensity to take risks.
Risk-taking has also been associated with creative behavior (Dewett, 2006; Fidler & Johnson,
1984; Shalley, 1991; Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2008). Because creative ideas are disruptive by
nature, their development involves taking the risk of thinking ‘outside-the-box’ and going
beyond common habits and ways of doing things, they disturb the status-quo and power
balances (Albrecht & Hall, 1991; Dewett, 2006). Moreover, their implementation requires
high tolerance to risks. The probabilities of failure are higher for the implementation of
creative ideas compared to more traditional ones and greater uncertainty exists concerning the
potential outcomes their implementation might carry (Janssen, 2000; Yuan & Woodman,
2010). If an idea fails to produce anticipated returns, people supporting that idea might
experience losses of reputation and trust from friends and stakeholders. Thus, the
‘knowledge-doing gap’21 might decrease if individuals are more willing to take risks and if
the surrounding environment encourages risk-taking behavior (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). Based
on these assertions and evidence, we propose the following set of hypotheses:
H4a. High levels of risk aversion are negatively related to the entrepreneur’s creativity.
H4b. High levels of risk aversion are negatively related to the entrepreneur’s ability to
evaluate opportunities.
H4c. High levels of risk aversion are negatively related to the entrepreneur’s ability to
implement an innovation.
The study of overconfidence and its impact on decision-making has received much attention
in psychology, behavioral finance and more recently in entrepreneurship. As noted by
previous research, overconfidence might explain why individuals choose risky endeavors
such as betting on risky assets, starting a new venture or introducing an innovation.
Overconfidence refers to the inability to understand the limits of one’s knowledge, which
drives people to be unreasonably certain of their beliefs (Russo & Schoemaker, 1992).
Essentially a stable characteristic, overconfidence influences the way external information,
21
Pfeffer and Sutton (2000) define the “knowledge-doing gap’ in organizations as a void where the individual
does not take any action based on acquired knowledge due to the salience of risk related to that action.
68
The implementation of creative ideas
conditions, and stimuli are selected, interpreted, and applied when making a decision
(Malmendier & Tate, 2005). There is empirical evidence that suggests that entrepreneurs are
more prone to showing overconfidence, compared to managers or other employees, and that
overconfidence might encourage individuals to start a venture. However, the nature of the
relationship between overconfidence and innovation is still very blurred. The concept of
overconfidence has been approached differently in the literature; sometimes it has been trade
with other cognitive biases such as optimism, illusion of control and self-efficacy. This
ambiguity about its definition has triggered different and even contradictory results on the
effects it has on innovation, venture formation and risk-taking behavior (Moore & Healy,
2008). While many studies have described overconfidence as a beneficial cognitive bias for
entrepreneurship (Engelen et al., 2015; Kahneman & Lovallo, 1993; Simon & Shrader, 2012),
other have labeled it as a negative characteristic leading to the underestimation of risk, poor
decisions and low performance (Biais et al., 2004; Hayward, Shepherd, & Griffin, 2006; Herz
et al., 2014; Hogarth & Karelaia, 2011).
While it is true that a constant underestimation of risks and threats might be detrimental to
performance, being confident about one’s predictions and knowledge might be beneficial to
evaluating an opportunity and thus deciding to act upon and implement it. Moreover, it can be
advantageous for motivating and convincing others of one’s credibility (Russo &
Schoemaker, 1992).
Being unrealistically positive at self-evaluations and believing that one can control
uncertainty and modify probabilities of occurrence of risks can be especially beneficial to
69
The implementation of creative ideas
entrepreneurs engaged in projects involving new technology and unfamiliar fields (Kahneman
& Lovallo, 1993). Entrepreneurs may be more likely to accept risks than non-entrepreneurs as
they tend to estimate their chances of success to be higher than that of others and to value
success above failure (Hilton, 2006).
Also, overconfident individuals have a natural tendency to overcome the effects of risk
aversion. For example, overconfident managers may choose riskier project sets that earn
higher returns (Gervais et al., 2011; Goel & Thakor, 2008). Similarly, looking at investors
instead of managers, the overconfident agents tend to underestimate the risk of their
investments and therefore tend to bet on riskier yet more profitable assets than do the less
confident yet risk-averse investors (Chuang & Lee, 2006). Following these considerations we
propose the following:
H5a. High levels of overconfidence are positively related to the entrepreneur’s ability to
evaluate opportunities.
H5b. High levels of overconfidence are positively related to the entrepreneur’s ability to
implement an innovation.
H5c. The entrepreneur’s overconfidence moderates the relationship between high risk-
aversion and implementation of innovations, in such a way that this relationship is weaker
because of high levels of overconfidence.
3. METHODOLOGY
To test our hypotheses we conducted a laboratory experiment in which subjects have to solve
a real management task effort. We took inspiration from two previous experimental studies
carried out by Ederer and Manso (2010) and Herz et al. (2014) that used a similar task to test
effects on innovation of payment incentives and judgmental overconfidence, respectively.
We collected data from a sample of entrepreneurs coming from different industries and at
different stages (more or less early) of their business development. In addition to
experimental data, we collected external data about the subjects’ personal characteristics and
about the project or business they were working on.
70
The implementation of creative ideas
The main part of the experiment was programmed and conducted with the z-Tree
(Fischbacher, 2007) software in the Computer Room of the IAE Montpellier School of
Management, which had been adapted for experimental use. A whole session lasted
approximately 90 minutes22. To alleviate the amount of time spent on the experiment, we
conducted an online survey to assess other behavioral/cognitive factors that did not require
the use of an experimental control.
To recruit entrepreneurs for our experiment we proceeded with two different approaches that
led us to a final sample of 70 young-entrepreneurs with an average age of 32 years, from
which 19 (27,1%) were female. A first wave of 4023 entrepreneurs was recruited through a
directed mailing and social media campaign conducted in collaboration with the Chamber of
Commerce and Industry (CCI) and the IAE startup-lab24 in Montpellier, France. We launched
a call for participation among the entrepreneurial ecosystem of Montpellier directly through
the website of the CCI and through its newsletter25. The call was open to every founder of a
company, but was addressed to arouse the attention of entrepreneurs from highly innovative
companies and startups in Montpellier and surrounding cities. In order to encourage
participation, we organized four workshops on different interesting topics for entrepreneurs at
an early and more advanced stage. We had the support of different confirmed speakers26 to
intervene at the workshops and we relied strongly on the support of important actors of the
entrepreneurial ecosystem in Montpellier to promote our workshops and gain the attention of
entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs27 were invited to participate in our experiment and to attend to
one of the four workshops taking place immediately after the experiment session was
finished. We conducted a mailing campaign directed to founders of companies that were
22
Appendix A shows a photo of the computer room and how it was adapted for experimental use.
23
Initially 45 entrepreneurs assisted at our experiment, data from two entrepreneurs were excluded from the
study as they had not previously completed the survey. One person abandoned the experiment and did not
complete it. Also, data from two entrepreneurs were excluded, as they didn’t take any notes on the experimental
task which was one of our controls to ensure that they were making an effort with the task.
24
The IAE Startup-Lab is an association of students from IAE Montpellier that aims at the dissemination of a
startup culture among students and alumni. They are frequently involved in the organization of entrepreneurial
events such as the startup weekend and other workshops. www.iaestartuplab.com
25
See appendix B containing the press communication sent through the CCI and the different campaign
documents.
26
In appendix C a photo presents an example of one of the workshops provided to participants.
27
To be sure that we were dealing with entrepreneurs, through the registration form we asked respondents about
their role in their companies and controlled the fact that they were effectively founders of their respective
companies.
71
The implementation of creative ideas
currently or had been incubated in one of the main incubation centers of Montpellier.
Interested subjects had to register through a specific website where they provided basic
demographic information. We offered participants different time slots with different
workshop topics for participants to choose from. Once they selected one of the time slots,
they received online confirmation and were directed to a questionnaire where they provided
further information about themselves, their companies (or projects) and other data. Before the
day of the experiment we controlled and made sure that each participant had properly
completed the online survey. Finally, the subjects arrived at the university laboratory in
person at the specified time.
A second wave of 3028 entrepreneurs was recruited through the Montpellier Startup Weekend
event. As for the first group, they were asked to fill in a registration form that detailed some
demographic information. Once they selected one of the time slots, they received online
confirmation and were redirected to a questionnaire where they provided further information
about themselves, their companies (or projects) and other data. Before the day of the
experiment we controlled and made sure that each participant had properly completed the
online survey. Finally, the subjects arrived at the university laboratory in person at the
specified time. They first proceeded with the experiment and then they continued with the
Startup Weekend Agenda.
As stated earlier, to alleviate the amount of time spent on the experiment, we conducted an
online survey asking participants to provide information about themselves, their companies or
projects and to answer other behavioral/cognitive questions. Prior to the experiment,
entrepreneurs who showed interest in participating in our experiment were sent an email with
a link to our online questionnaire and were informed that for the sake of the reliability of the
results the survey had to be completed before the experiment took place. We controlled this
and excluded those participants that did not fulfill this requirement. The survey took
approximately 10 minutes and was divided into three main sections. Section one asked
participants about themselves and their professional experience, section two asked about their
companies or projects, and section three asked questions about cognition and behavior. We
adapted validated scales to measure entrepreneurial self-efficacy, optimism and risk-aversion
28
In total 34 entrepreneurs from the SW participated in the experiment but 3 of them didn’t complete the survey
and one was excluded as he didn’t take any notes on the task (effort control procedure).
72
The implementation of creative ideas
constructs and translate the original questionnaires to French using a back translation
approach. The details of how each variable was assessed are presented in the next section.
The experiment was depicted in two parts. The first part consisted of written tasks where
subjects had to respond to different tests to measure overconfidence and creativity levels.
Each test was timed and was a one-time-only response. All subjects had exactly the same time
to answer, no early hand-in was permitted and going back to previous questions was not
possible. Then, the second part, which was a computerized task using z-tree (Fischbacher,
2007), consisted of an imaginary scenario where participants played the role of a manager of
an ice-cream stand29.
In this second part of the experiment, subjects had to make choices about how to run the ice-
cream stand over twenty different periods. There were two strategic variables: the mix of ice-
cream flavors and the selling price. At each period they had to choose a mix of two flavors
from a list of 25 different flavors (that is, 300 possible mixes) and the price at which they
would like to sell the mix, which was a continuous variable.
Each ice-cream mix led to a specific profit. To imitate a real market situation, we designed the
profit function of the mixes based on real data from a market study on ice-cream consumption
we had conducted previous to the experiment. Firstly, we deployed an online survey and
collected data on 200 ice-cream consumers and determined French people’s favorite ice-
cream flavors and general consumption trends. Through this survey we identified 25
bestselling ice-cream flavors. Then we conducted three focus groups, with 30 people each, to
!"
evaluate the 300 possible combinations of two flavors !
on originality, willingness to buy
and the maximum price they were willing to pay. With these studies we were able to collect
real consumers’ perceptions on originality, willingness to buy and selling price for each of the
300 mixes used in the experiment, and thus calculate the profit function for each choice made
by participants.30
29
The complete z-tree code is available from the authors upon request.
30
Details about the market study and focus group for the ice-cream stand experimental task are available in
appendix D.
73
The implementation of creative ideas
The profit made by a participant j during a period i was calculated by taking into account the
originality (Orig) perceived by consumers of the mix offered during that period i, the
consumer’s willingness (Will) to buy that specific mix and the price proposed (Pp) by the
participant. A penalty factor was applied if the selling price proposed by the participants was
higher than the maximum price consumers were willing to pay for that mix, so the higher the
distance from the maximum price, the lower the profitability of the choice.
By calculating the profit function in this way, we were able to identify flavor mixes ranging
from very original and very profitable to poorly original and not profitable. We had also
combinations where high originality was not profitable at all or when classic and not original
mixes could be profitable enough.
As part of the instructions for the experiment, participants received a letter from the previous
manager of the ice cream stand. In this letter the previous manager explained the strategy he
used when running the stand. He explained that he sold a mix of Chocolate and Raspberries at
3€ per cone and he made a profit of 1755€ per period. The manager revealed that he had tried
another combination, Chocolate and Vanilla, with a different price but the former remained
the more profitable. In the letter, the manager also gave some information about the ice cream
business in general. Appendix E gives further details on the experiment settings and
instructions.
Subjects thus faced the choice between fine-tuning the product mix given to them by the
previous manager (exploitation) and radically altering the product mix to discover a more
profitable strategy (evaluation). The strategy suggested by the previous manager was not the
most profitable, it was not especially original nor fairly attractive to consumers.
Participants were not aware of how the profit function was calculated, so to help them learn
about the profitability of their strategies chosen at each period, in addition to learning about
the profit made during the period, subjects received customer feedback about the originality,
the attractiveness and/or the price of their offer. Customer feedback was generated through a
random selection on one of the three attributes to provide binary feedback31 to the subject. To
31
At each period a random function selected a dimension (originality of the ice-cream mix, attractiveness of the
mix to consumers, price of the mix) in which consumer feedback was given. Then the feedback depended on
how the ice-cream mix proposed at that period by the entrepreneur was evaluated by consumers in that specific
dimension. The feedback was binary for originality and attractiveness (high/low) while for price three options
were possible (high/fair/low). For example, if the software randomly selected originality dimension to give
feedback, then the message “Your clients thought that your offer was very original” was presented to the
participant if the score for originality given by the consumers was above the mean (obtained from the market
74
The implementation of creative ideas
facilitate learning and to allow for systematic exploration, participants had a white paper at
their disposal to take notes about their choices, profits, and feedback over each period.
Since our sample was composed of entrepreneurs, instead of students, using traditional
methods of compensation in economic experiments was not possible. In order to provide
credible incentives for entrepreneurs we imagined two types of compensation: a show-up fee
and a second based on performance. The show-up compensation was a non-monetary reward,
which consisted in a personalized profile evaluation chart provided to entrepreneurs after their
participation32. We gave them feedback on their personality and cognitive tests and gave them
personalized advice for improving their skills. The performance-based compensation was
designed in a form of a tournament contract combined with an exploration incentive contract.
We chose to use a tournament contract since entrepreneurs are used to this type of
compensation when participating in innovation or start-up contests. It also simulated more
appropriately the actual environment where entrepreneurs have to evolve and succeed with
their business. The exploration contract, on the other hand was chosen because it has been
shown to be effective in motivating innovative behavior (Ederer and Manso, 2010). This
incentive contract was structured in such a way that subjects were not paid for their
performance during the ‘learning phase’ (periods 1-10), but received the acquired profits
during the ‘business phase’ (periods 11-20). The advantage of such a compensation scheme in
the context of innovation is that it tolerates early failure, but rewards long-term success. In
our experiment, the subjects, instead of being paid for the corresponding acquired profit in
periods 11-20, competed with the other participants with the total profit made during these ten
final “business” periods. Thus a participant won the game if his total profit (during the
business phase) was the highest compared to other participants in the same session.
!"
! ! !!!!
!!!!
study conducted prior to the experiment). In total there were seven possible feedbacks - appendix F gives more
details.
32
A sample of the profile chart given to participants is presented in appendix G.
75
The implementation of creative ideas
Creativity is a multi-facet construct and therefore its measurement must rely on different
approaches that allow researchers to assess it in a broader manner. To measure creativity we
relied on two different approaches - firstly we used a version of Guilford’s Alternative Uses
Test (1967), a test that assesses the divergent thinking ability of individuals. Participants were
asked to provide as many unusual uses as they could for three different objects: Brick, Spoon
and Chair. For each object, subjects were given three minutes to write down their responses
on a sheet of paper. The responses were scored for fluency, flexibility and originality33.
Fluency corresponds to the total number of uses sought for each object. Flexibility
corresponds to the number of different categories tackled by the participant for each object.
Finally, originality was judged comparing the whole set of responses of an individual to the
total amount of responses of all participants on a 7-point Likert scale. (see appendix E
exercise 1 for details)
33
We also measured the elaboration of responses (amount of detail given for each response) as it is measured in
the original version of Guilford’s. Nonetheless, we excluded it from the analysis as many studies have criticized
this measure as its relation to creativity seems blurred. Should we consider that a more detailed (or just long)
response is more creative than a concise (short) but quite original response? We ran the analyses with this
measure and found no significant relationship with the other constructs of creativity nor any significant effect on
the results here discussed.
76
The implementation of creative ideas
Writing a short story; Producing your own website; Publishing research; Designing and
planting a garden; Composing a piece of music, etc.), those in which they had been actively
involved over the past 12 months. This measure showed good reliability (α=0.77) coherent
with other studies. (See appendix E exercise 3 for details)
Many scholars have criticized the use of divergent thinking tests to measure creativity, as it
relies heavily upon subjective judgment. Batey (2007) argues that for example in the case of
the Uses test (Guilford, 1967), judging the suggestion of using a brick as a doorstop for a fairy
castle to be more original than the suggestion of using a brick as a doorstop depends strongly
on the evaluator’s interpretation. In order to reduce this subjectivity bias and provide more
reliable and valid assessment we performed a Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT)
(Amabile, 1982). Two different experts evaluated the responses of each participant in this
test: an entrepreneur and director of a University Startup Laboratory and a researcher in
Innovation and Entrepreneurship. The evaluators were given explicit guidelines on how they
should examine each participant and they performed their evaluations separately so that the
other evaluators could exert no influence. Highly significant (p < 0.001) correlation (ρ
ranging from 0.535 to 0.923) between the two evaluators’ assessment reflected good
consistency and reliability of the measures. The evaluation given by each evaluator was then
crossed and a score was determined concerning the three factors: fluency, flexibility and
originality. In this way we were able to obtain an objective measure of Guilford’s (1967)
Alternative Uses Test. Correlations tables between evaluators’ assessments can be found in
appendix H.
Finally, we conducted a PCA factor analysis to calculate a single score for creativity. The
PCA resulted in a single-factor solution explaining 74% of the total variance among the
variables (KMO = 0.771; Barlett Test p < 0.001). The results of the factorization are found in
appendix I.
During this stage individuals had to evaluate ideas and be able to discern good opportunities
for business from bad ideas and threats. To assess evaluation capabilities in our experimental
setting we looked at the quality of the options explored by participants during the ice-cream
stand experiment. Since our experiment was designed so that choices made during the first ten
periods were not taken into consideration for payment, we expected that participants would
77
The implementation of creative ideas
explore for the greater part during this phase and would evaluate the different alternatives to
then make the decisions about the strategies they would put in place during the ‘business
periods’. Evaluating new strategies from period 11 to 20 would become costly and most
probably unprofitable; thus we would expect that the exploration of new alternatives during
these periods would decrease. Therefore, we focused on participants’ behavior during the ten
first periods. To assess the entrepreneur’s evaluation capabilities we added the scores of
originality for each mix proposed during the first ten periods and divided it by the number of
new mixes explored. A new mix consisted of an ice cream mix that had not been previously
explored by the participant34.
Before running our experiment we performed several validity tests to assure that the design
was appropriate, the instructions and protocol were clear and that other biases were not
influencing the choices made and responses given during the exercises and questionnaires.
We now go on to explain the different validity checks we performed to ensure the reliability
of our methodology.
34
We also conceived other measures for evaluation capabilities, for example, we counted the number of mixes
explored during the first ten periods but considered only those mixes that were graded by consumers as highly
original (originality > 3,5). The results did not change significantly from what we have presented in this paper.
78
The implementation of creative ideas
Firstly, we wrote the protocol, the instructions and the exercises for the experiment and we
asked two different scholars in management but from different fields to read the documents
and make annotations on anything they would find difficult to understand, ambiguous or
problematic. We then considered those comments and feedbacks and modified the documents
accordingly. Then we proceeded to ask two professionals in innovation management to
perform the same task as before and in addition asked them to complete each of the exercises.
Other than giving us feedback on the phrasing and clarity of the different documents, we
timed their performance on each task and then asked them what they thought the ideal
duration for each exercise should be. We defined the timing for each exercise to be of three
minutes and tested it with two different individuals to see if they were able to complete the
task within the given time and asked them feedback on whether they thought they had had
enough time to answer as they wished. We observed that individuals needed more time for
answering the overconfidence test, thus we chose to give 5 minutes for the test to ensure that
individuals had the time to read the questions and answer them adequately but without giving
them too much time to revise their answers.
Also, since the ice-cream task was performed using software and that ice-cream flavors were
presented as a list on the computer screen, selection could be susceptible to availability bias
depending on how they were presented to the participant. To ensure that availability bias was
not a problem, we performed a short and simple experiment to test if the order and
distribution of the ice-cream flavors influenced the choices of participants. Availability bias
could influence the choices of participants and thus have several implications for our
experimental results. More specifically, if availability was a problem it would mean that a
participant would be more likely to choose ice-cream flavors that were easier to remember,
for example those flavors situated at the beginning and end of the list, just because they were
readily ensconced in their memory. We performed an experiment with three groups of 15
students, each group having the same instructions as those for the experiment task presented
before but the order in which ice-creams flavors appeared varied according to the group. We
measured the frequency for which each flavor was selected in each group and compared these
frequencies for the three groups – the results of the non-parametric tests suggested that there
were no significant differences between the groups and thus we found no evidence of
availability bias issues. Instructions to participants of this experiments and results from this
test can be found in appendix J.
79
The implementation of creative ideas
After all these pre-tests were performed, we then proceeded by testing the whole experiment
imitating the real scenario. We invited 26 students to participate in our experiment and
replicate the protocol explained in the section before while only modifying marginally the
instructions and questions in the survey so it was appropriate for students. The remuneration
was the same as that described for entrepreneurs and controls over the effort put into the task
and completion of the online survey remained unchanged. The main aim of this test was to
see if the program coded in the experimental economics software functioned well given the
settings of the computer room and equipment. This test allowed us also to check for the
reliability of the measures used and the potential ambiguities with the tasks and questions.
Also, we controlled the fact that there was enough time and that instructions were
comprehensible.
Finally, in order to add robustness to our measures and to ensure that participants took the
research experiment seriously, we added a control variable that assesses effort devoted by
subjects during the task35. Subjects had the possibility to take notes before starting the task,
while reading the letter of the previous manager and, during the experiment while receiving
feedback and making their choices. We gave a score of 0 if the subject did not take any notes
or take notes on less than 50% of the choices, and 1 if the subject took notes on at least 50%
of the periods. Just three of the participants did not take any notes during the experiment and
thus we excluded their data from the final sample.
3.4.1. Overconfidence
In this particular task, in 10 questions subjects are asked to provide a lower and upper limit so
that they are 90 percent sure that the correct answer lies between the two. As recommended
35
An example of « appropriate » note taking is presented in appendix K.
80
The implementation of creative ideas
While for perfectly calibrated individuals the expected proportion of answers lying inside the
confidence interval is 90 percent, in our sample the average proportion of answers lying
inside the confidence interval was 35 percent, showing that in general participants were
overconfident in their judgment. In our analysis, we used the degree of miscalibration of the
participants – measured as the difference between the confidence level (here 90%) and the
percentage of accurate answers given. For example, an individual who answered 50% of the
questions correctly was assigned an overconfidence score of 0.40. In general the participants
in this experiment were overconfident with an average score of 0.65. Only two participants
(2,8%) were perfectly calibrated and none of them under-confident (score less than zero).
Then, since many scholars have criticized the accuracy of this kind of measuring (See for
example Gigerenzer et al. (1991)), we integrated another measure of overconfidence: a
frequency judgment question. At the end of the ten-question quiz, we asked participants to
forecast how many correct answers they thought they would have in the quiz. Frequency
judgment measures tend to be a better predictor of individuals’ level of overconfidence as
they give participants the opportunity to meditate a-posteriori and make a self-evaluation of
their performance (Allwood, 1996; Gigerenzer et al., 1991; Granhag et al., 2000). The degree
of overconfidence was here again measured as the degree of miscalibration: the difference
between the number of forecasted correct answers and the number of actual accurate answers
given by a participant, in percentage. For example, an individual whose prediction of correct
answers was 6 (60 %) and who answered 3 (30%) questions correctly, was assigned an
overconfidence level of 0.3. As expected, confidence levels of participants decreased when
asked to answer this question. On average, participants in this experiment were overconfident
with a score of 0.35, 6 participants (8.6%) were perfectly calibrated and 5 (7.15%) showed
under-confidence (scores less than zero).
With regard to our analyses, we decided to keep only the frequency judgment measure of
overconfidence as it was more robust and was a better predictor of individuals’ differences in
this construct.
81
The implementation of creative ideas
3.4.2. Self-efficacy
For the purposes of our research we used a measurement scale developed by Wilson et al.
(2007) that lies between the two concepts, remaining reasonably short and manageable but
still covering the main specific tasks of entrepreneurship. While it is a simplified measure of
ESE, it relates to other broader assessment tools such as that developed by Chen et al (1998)
and De Noble et al. (1999).
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) was measured through 6 items covering different aspects
related to entrepreneurial success such as creativity, financial control and decision-making.
Respondents were asked to compare themselves in these skill areas to relevant peers on a 5-
point Likert scale (1 = a lot worse; 5 = much better). Internal reliability was 0.75. The full
scale is detailed in appendix L.1.
3.4.3. Optimism
Optimism was measured through a French adaptation36 of the revised Life Orientation Test
(LOT-R) originally developed by Scheier, Carver and Bridges (1994). The scale consisted of
6 items plus 4 fillers, from which 3 of the items were worded in a positive manner, and three
keyed in a negative manner. Respondents had to answer on a 5-point Likert scale their level
of agreement (disagreement) with the statements. After reversing the scores for the negative
items, a final score of optimism was assigned to a participant by averaging the scores for each
of the 6 items. Internal reliability of the scale was of 0.77. We also performed the analysis
with a two-factor solution (Optimism v. Pessimism) but there was no significant improvement
in the model with one factor solution, so we stuck to a general optimism scale. The complete
scale is detailed in appendix L.2.
3.4.4. Risk-aversion
Aversion to risk was measured through an adapted version of the Risk Propensity Scale
developed by Meertens and Lion (2008). This scale was chosen, as it is short and easy and has
been validated to assess individuals’ general risk-taking behavior. The scale consisted of 7
36
The scale was obtained from Denis Hilton of the University of Toulouse II – CLLE (Cognition, Langues,
Langage et Ergonomie) Research Laboratory in Toulouse, France.
82
The implementation of creative ideas
items rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ‘totally disagree’ and 5 ‘totally agree’,
except for the last item, which was ranged on a 5-point Likert scale going from 1 ‘Risk
avoider’ to 5 ‘Risk Seeker’. Since we wanted to measure participants’ risk avoidance, we
reversed the scores for items 4, 6 and 7. A high score on this indicated high risk-avoidance
tendency. An average of the scores obtained for each item was calculated to measure Risk
Aversion. The internal reliability of this scale was of .71. The scale is fully detailed in
appendix L.3.
4. RESULTS
Table 5 presents descriptive statistics for the variables and the correlations among them are
shown in table 6. Since not all of our variables follow a normal distribution, we conducted
correlation analysis using rho-Spearman pairwise correlations. The results from rho-Spearman
correlations (table 6) show that there is a significant and beneficial effect of creativity (
=0.27, p<0.05), opportunity evaluation ( =0.35, p<0.001), overconfidence ( =0.27,
p<0.05) on innovation implementation. On the other hand, there is a significant and
detrimental effect on innovation implementation of risk aversion ( =-0.20, p<0.1). With
regard to our control variables it seems that age and education have a detrimental effect on
opportunity evaluation (age: =-0.36, p<0.001; education: =-0.24, p<0.1).
To test our hypothesis we ran a series of hierarchical logistic and linear regressions depending
on the type of the dependent variable.
37
We controlled for three different stages: 1) New Venture Project 2) Launching company 3) Launched and
operating company. Although we did not include the analysis in this document we carried out our regression
models control for this variable. No significant effect was found and introducing the variable provided no
improvement to the model. To keep results easy and comprehensible we excluded the variable from the final
solutions. Appendix N shows the regressions including this variable.
83
The implementation of creative ideas
Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Imp. Innovationa 2220 462 1
2 Genderb 0.75 0.45 -0.13 1
3 Age 32.71 8.95 -0.13 -0.17 1
4 Education 4.77 0.88 0.18 -0.13 0.14 1
5 Op. Evaluationc 3.57 0.06 0.35** -0.19 -0.36** -0.24† 1
6 Creativity 0.00 1.00 0.27* -0.16 -0.00 0.15 0.11 1
7 Overconfidence 0.32 0.03 0.27* -0.01 -0.15 0.34** 0.22† 0.31* 1
8 Risk Aversion 2.67 0.07 -0.20† -0.14 -0.02 -0.10 -0.13 -0.25* 0.10 1
9 Optimism 3.81 0.08 0.13 -0.15 0.02 0,28* -0.07 0.33* 0.26* -0.17 1
10 ESE 4.14 0.06 0.03 -0.12 0.06 -0.02 0.07 0.17 0.02 -0.21† 0.29* 1
** p < 0,001 ; * p < 0,05 ; † p < 0,1 (two-tailed significance)
a Implementation of Innovation is measured through innovation performance in period 20
b Gender (Males=1, Females=0)
c Opportunity Evaluation is the sum of the originality of new flavors explored during the first 10 periods
84
The implementation of creative ideas
Given that our variable for innovation implementation capabilities did not follow a normal
distribution, we implemented logistic regressions (table 7). We proceeded by dichotomizing
the sample into two groups according to the score obtained for our variable of innovation
performance. Those who scored up to the median (Me= 2358) were classified as high-
innovative entrepreneurs (N=35) and the rest (N=35) were classified as low-innovative
entrepreneurs. Before running any regression we checked for multicollinearity between our
independent variables but found no issues since all the Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) were
below the value of two and tolerance levels were greater than 0.138. To test Hypothesis 1a we
ran a logistic regression of innovation implementation (through innovation performance),
while controlling for gender, age and education (model 1), on creativity (model 2). Results
from the regression (model 2), which are detailed in table 2, suggest that creativity has indeed
a significant and positive impact over innovation implementation ( = 0.87; p<0.05)
accounting for 24% of the total variance (compared to 8% with just the control variables). In
the same manner we tested hypothesis 1b (model 3), and found support also since the results
show that opportunity evaluation capabilities have a significant and positive impact over
innovation implementation ( = 1.52; p<0.05) accounting for an additional 11% (R2
Negelkerke: 0.37) of the total variance. These results taken together provide evidence for
supporting hypotheses H1a and H1b. Next we tested for the moderation effect of evaluation
capabilities on the relationship between creativity and innovation implementation by adding
an interaction variable (Model 4). We found a positive and significant moderator effect of
opportunity evaluation capabilities on the link between creativity and the implementation of
innovations ( = 1.55; p<0.05), adding an additional 5% for the explanation of the variance.
This result is especially interesting as it confirms our hypothesis H1c and suggests that the
probability of being an innovative entrepreneur is higher when creativity is high and that this
probability increases for individuals with better capabilities to evaluate opportunities
(Appendix P contains more details about the interaction effect). Following the
recommendations of Aiken and West (1991) and Cohen et al. (2003), high, moderate and low
levels of the independent and moderator variables are defined as one standard deviation (SD)
above the mean, the mean value, and one SD below the mean. Figure 5 shows the nature of
the interaction for three levels of opportunity evaluation capabilities, after being mean
centered. The plots of the interaction show that the probability of an entrepreneur being in the
38
Results of multicolinearity tests are shown in appendix O.
85
The implementation of creative ideas
innovator group (log odds) is higher when creativity is moderate and high and the probability
is higher and significant (p<0,05) when opportunity evaluation capabilities are moderate and
high. However, when the level of creativity is low, then opportunity evaluation capabilities
exert no significant effect on the relationship between creativity and innovation.
To test the hypotheses concerning cognitive factors influencing the capability to implement
an innovation (h2c, h4c, h5b and h5c) we performed a series of hierarchical logistic
regression including all the variables that appeared to have a significant relationship with the
capabilities of implementing an innovation when introduced alone. The results, detailed in
Model 5, provide evidence that cognitive factors indeed exert strong influence on innovation
capabilities as they explained an additional 14% of the total variance (compared to model 4)
and the forecast accuracy of the model is higher (81.4%). Specifically, model 5 reports that
overconfidence enhances entrepreneurs’ abilities to implement innovations ( = 4.52;
p<0.05), while there is a detrimental effect of high aversion to risk ( = -2.06; p<0.05) and a
negative but slighter effect of optimism ( = -1.22; p<0.1) on implementation capabilities.
86
The implementation of creative ideas
Constant 1.82 2.07 2.72 2.27 -4.82 3.72 0.84 2.53 12.73* 5.17 13.83* 5.58
Gendera -0.87 0.58 -70 0.61 -0.26 0.67 -0.28 0.70 -1.48† 0.87 -1.48† 0.87
Age -0.05 0.03 -0.06 0.03 -0.02 0.04 -0.02 0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 -.04
Education 0.08 0.32 -0.09 0.36 0.05 0.38 0.01 0.37 -0.4 0.47 -0.42 0.47
Op. Evaluationb 1.52* 0.58 1.84** 0.63 1.65* 0.67 1.67* 0.67
Creativity 0.87* 0.30 0.86* 0.32 0.94* 0.34 1.01* 0.42 1.00* 0.42
N 70 70 70 70 70 70
a. Gender (Male=1. Female=0); b. Opportunity Evaluation: sum of originality of new flavors explored
during the first 10 periods; c. variables are mean-centered
87
The implementation of creative ideas
Thus, we find empirical evidence to support our hypotheses suggesting that high levels of
optimism (h2c) and high levels of risk-aversion (h4c) will have a detrimental effect on the
ability to implement an innovation, while high levels of overconfidence enhance the
entrepreneur’s ability to implement an innovation (H5b). To test hypothesis 5c that suggested
a moderator effect of overconfidence between the relationship of risk-aversion and the ability
to implement an innovation, we introduced an interaction effect by multiplying the scores of
risk-aversion and overconfidence after mean-centering the variables. Results shown in model
6 indicate that there is no significant relationship between this interaction variable and
innovation implementation and that there is no significant improvement in the accuracy of the
model compared to the previous model with no interaction effect. These results lead us to
reject hypothesis 5c.
88
The implementation of creative ideas
To test for the hypotheses about how cognitive factors influence creativity (h2a, h4a) we
performed a series of hierarchical linear regressions of creativity on overconfidence, risk
aversion and optimism. Table 8 shows the baseline model (Model 7) including only the
control variables, showing that none of them has a significant impact on creativity. Model 8
shows the final solution of a series of the hierarchical regressions including only those
variables that were significant when introduced alone. More specifically, model 8 in table 8
suggests that creativity is somehow positively influenced by overconfidence ( = 0.95;
p<0.10) and by optimism ( = 0.34; p<0.10) and that risk aversion has a detrimental and
stronger effect on creativity ( = -0.43; p<0.05). Entering overconfidence, risk aversion and
optimism into the model explained an additional 18% (R2 0.25) of the variance of creativity
(compared to the base model with R2=0.07). These results provide support for our hypothesis
suggesting that the entrepreneur’s level of optimism is positively related to entrepreneur’s
creativity (H2a), while high levels of risk-aversion has a negative impact on creativity (H4a).
Moreover, although we did not hypothesize any relationship between overconfidence and
creativity, we found that overconfidence somehow increases the creativity of entrepreneurs.
However, the effect of overconfidence is less significant for the entrepreneur’s creativity than
for the entrepreneur’s innovation capabilities.
89
The implementation of creative ideas
n 70 70 n 70 70
-2 log likelihood 82.82 71.29
F 1.67 3.451 Model chi-square 14.16* 25.69*
* *
R2 0.07 0.25 R2 Negelkerke 0.24 0.41
∆R2 0.18* Correct overall 67.1 77.1
forecast (%)
** p < 0.001 ; * p < 0.05 ; † p < 0.1
a. Gender (Male=1. Female=0)
90
The implementation of creative ideas
Hypothesis 2b, 3a, 4b and 5a explored the impact of optimism, entrepreneurial self-efficacy,
risk-aversion and overconfidence on the evaluation of opportunities. To test these hypotheses
we relied again on logistic regression analysis. Since the dependent variable here, the
entrepreneur’s ability to evaluate opportunities, did not follow normal distribution we
proceeded by dividing our sample into two groups according to the median value (3.62).
Those participants who scored higher than the median were coded 1 and those who scored
below the median were coded 0. Table 8 reports the results of the series of hierarchical
logistic regressions, with our base model (model 9) including only the control variables and
then including the cognitive variables (model 10). The base model, which explains 24% of the
total variance of quality of evaluation, suggests that women have higher capabilities to
evaluate opportunities ( = -1.75; p<0.05) and that these capabilities are higher for younger
individuals ( = -.10; p<0.05). Model 10 shows the final regression model including all the
independent variables that had a significant impact on opportunity evaluation capabilities
when introduced alone. Model 10, which explains an additional 15% (R2 Negelkerke=0.39)
of the variance (compared to the base model), provides support for our hypotheses 2b and 4b
that stated that high levels of optimism and risk-aversion would have a detrimental effect on
opportunity evaluation capabilities (Optimism: = -1.26, p<0.05; Risk aversion: = -1.30,
p<0.05), and hypothesis 5a that overconfidence has a positive impact on the capabilities of
evaluating opportunities ( = 3.27; p<0.05). However, we did not find support for our
hypothesis H3a that suggested a positive impact of entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) on the
entrepreneur’s ability to evaluate opportunities, since the influence of ESE on opportunity
evaluation capabilities is insignificant. See table 9 for a synthesis of the results of testing the
hypotheses. A revised model outlining the found relationships is presented in Figure 6.
91
The implementation of creative ideas
H2c. High degree of optimism will have a detrimental effect on the Supported,
ability to implement an innovation. -1.22 log 0.06 but less
significant
H3a. High levels of Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy is positively related
Not
to the entrepreneur’s ability to evaluate opportunities. 0.86 log 0.23
supported
H4a. High levels of risk aversion are negatively related to the
entrepreneur’s creativity. -0.43lin 0.03 Supported
Additional results
High levels of overconfidence are positively related to the
entrepreneur's creativity, but the relationship is less significant 0.95 lin 0.07
92
The implementation of creative ideas
With this study we sought to develop a better understanding of the process of individual
innovation and the role played by cognitive and behavioral factors. Furthermore our main
goal is to contribute to the current discussion about how entrepreneurs think, decide and act
and more specifically how they transform creative ideas in implemented innovations. Based
on an experimental design we aimed at addressing these research questions: What
cognitive/behavioral factors are most likely to increase the chances of a creative idea being
implemented or an opportunity being pursued? When and why are these factors beneficial (or
not) for individual innovation? And how do these factors impact the entrepreneur’s ability to
pursue/implement a profitable business/innovation?
Building on past research on entrepreneurial cognition and innovation and with the purpose of
answering these questions, we define innovation here as a multistage process with three main
sub-processes that might or might not follow a linear fashion: i) creative idea generation
(creativity), ii) opportunity evaluation and iii) implementation of an innovation.
The results from analyzing experimental and questionnaire data from 70 young early-stage
entrepreneurs provide evidence that the individual’s ability to innovate is influenced by
cognitive and behavioral factors. Moreover, we demonstrate that while the entrepreneur’s
93
The implementation of creative ideas
level of creativity is a strong predictor of his ability to implement an innovation, the ability to
evaluate opportunities moderates this relationship and facilitates the passage from creativity
to implementation. More concretely, we found that the entrepreneur’s overconfidence and low
aversion to risk are beneficial to creativity, the evaluation of opportunities and the
implementation of innovations. In addition to this, we found that the entrepreneur’s optimism
has a dual and contradictory effect on individual innovation: while it encourages creative
processes and divergent thinking, it diminishes the entrepreneur’s ability to evaluate
opportunities and consequently it harms their capability to implement those opportunities for
innovation.
To summarize, our findings are consistent with past research and provide evidence that the
entrepreneur’s high levels of creativity and ability to evaluate opportunities (discerning good
from bad) are positively related to the entrepreneur’s ability to implement innovation,
validating our hypotheses H1a and H1b. Furthermore, the results from logistic regressions
reveal that the entrepreneur’s ability to evaluate opportunities moderates the relationship
between the entrepreneur’s ability to generate creative ideas and his ability to implement
innovations, in such a way that this relationship is stronger (more positive) when
entrepreneurs have good to great aptitude for discerning good opportunities from bad
(opportunity evaluation). This observation leads us to validate hypothesis H1c.
With regard to the influence of cognitive and behavioral factors influencing the process of
individual innovation, we found that optimism has a dual and contrasting effect on individual
innovation as suggested by our hypotheses H2a, H2b and H2c. Our findings show that while
high levels of optimism might encourage creativity, it harms opportunity evaluation and
consequently has a detrimental effect on the implementation of innovations. In line with past
research, our experimental findings show that participants with high levels of optimism tend
to generate more creative ideas and get involved with more activities that require high levels
of creativity. However, these highly optimistic entrepreneurs exhibited poor quality in their
judgment of opportunities, as they explored less original ice-cream mix flavors, and achieved
significantly lower profitability at the end of the experimental task, reflecting fewer
capabilities to implement innovations than those with more moderate levels of optimism.
Thus, hypotheses H2a, H2b and H2c were supported.
We could not find empirical evidence to support hypothesis H3a that suggested a positive
impact of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on the entrepreneur’s ability to evaluate opportunities.
94
The implementation of creative ideas
Results show that entrepreneurial self-efficacy is high among our sample of entrepreneurs
(mean=4.14), but this attribute does not have a significant impact on innovation capabilities.
This result can be explained by the fact that entrepreneurial self-efficacy influences the
individual’s decision to start a venture rather than his ability to innovate39. This is in line with
the study carried by Markman, Balkin and Baron (2002) who provide arguments that patent
inventors scored high in self-efficacy, but those inventors who created a venture from their
invention had significantly higher degrees of self-efficacy than those inventors who did not
start any venture.
Another important finding highlighted by our study is the importance of risk-taking behavior
throughout the process of individual innovation. Our results elucidate the fact that high
aversion to risk damages the entrepreneur’s creativity, and both abilities to evaluate
opportunities and to implement innovations. We found empirical evidence supporting
hypothesis H4a, H4b and H4c as entrepreneurs who participated in our experiment and who
show higher levels of risk-aversion produced less creative ideas, were less involved with
creative activities, explored less original ice-cream mixes and realized significantly lower
profits at the end of the experimental task.
Our results also provide important insight into the role of the entrepreneur’s overconfidence
in individual innovation process. We observed that the founders in our study were on average
overconfident about their beliefs and knowledge, but that those that exhibited higher levels of
overconfidence where more innovative than the rest of the entrepreneurs with more moderate
levels of confidence. In particular, we found that, consistent with our hypotheses H5a and
H5b, overconfident entrepreneurs were better at evaluating opportunities for business since
they preferred to explore perhaps riskier but more original ice-cream mix flavors, and tended
to attain higher profitability proving that they had greater abilities for implementing
innovations compared to less overconfident entrepreneurs. Together these findings provide
support for hypotheses H5a and H5b. Likewise, although we did not predict any relationship
between overconfidence and creativity, we found that the entrepreneur’s overconfidence
increases creative thinking. However, contrary to what we predicted overconfidence does not
moderate the relationship between risk-aversion and the capability to implement innovations.
Nevertheless, this finding is consistent with other research that argues that overconfidence
39
This result is also confirmed by our study with academic entrepreneurs (see next chapter of this thesis: From
lab to venture) that shows that ESE is higher for academics that decided to start their venture compared to those
who stayed in academia, and that this difference is significant.
95
The implementation of creative ideas
influences perceptions of risk which then leads to choosing more risky endeavors (Camerer &
Lovallo, 1999; Kahneman & Lovallo, 1993; Simon & Houghton, 2003).
The present findings have important implications for research in entrepreneurship and
innovation. Notably, the results discussed in the previous section add to the existing
theoretical understanding of the link between the generation of creative ideas and their
effective implementation in the marketplace. We provide direct evidence that although
creativity is the source of innovations, the relationship between generation of creative ideas
and their implementation is shaped by different skills and cognitive factors. Moreover, we
find that being able to properly evaluate opportunities, discerning good from bad, increases
the chances that a creative individual implements an innovation. This offers greater support to
past research advocating that individual innovation is a multistage process composed of
different activities that do not always follow a linear and straightforward path (Scott & Bruce,
1994). Besides, not only are the different activities underlying the process of individual
innovation driven by cognition and behavioral factors but also the intensity and the direction
of their impact might vary considerably depending on the nature of the activity performed. In
other words, our results show how and why risk-taking behavior and some aspects of
cognition such as confidence on outcomes (optimism), self-skills (entrepreneurial self-
efficacy) and/or self-knowledge (overconfidence) enable individual innovation in
entrepreneurs. Furthermore, by distinguishing different types of self-confidence and
analyzing their specific effect on each stage of individual innovation, we contribute to and
reconcile the different perspectives that position the entrepreneur’s confidence as both
boosting and threatening innovative behavior and activity. Our results also contribute to a
better specification of the cognitive processes involved in efforts to innovate. Firstly, we
found optimism to have a dual and bidirectional effect on innovation enhancing creativity but
decreasing the abilities to evaluate opportunities and implement innovations. Secondly,
together with higher risk tolerance, overconfidence improves the abilities to evaluate
opportunities and to implement innovations and at the same time it benefits creative idea
generation but the impact is slightly weaker.
Our research also provides several methodological implications. To the best of our
knowledge, our paper is among the first to develop and test a model that specifies the
96
The implementation of creative ideas
97
The implementation of creative ideas
Finally, there are some practical contributions offered by this study. Innovation is the core
activity of entrepreneurship and the entrepreneur’s ability to innovate is shaped by the manner
in which he recognizes, interprets and processes information before making a decision. Thus,
cognition and behavior play a crucial role in individual innovation. In particular, self-
confidence and risk-tolerance can help individuals counterbalance the effects of high
uncertainty, information asymmetry and scarcity of resources that usually challenge the
decision to start a new venture and innovate. But high susceptibility to these factors has also a
dark side. Being highly optimistic about future outcomes might lead to significant
inefficiencies, as it encourages individuals to pursue more opportunities than they can handle
and to overestimate the potential gains while misjudging the risks. Also, while as suggested
by our findings, overconfidence concerning one’s knowledge can increase the chances and
abilities of implementing creative ideas, other studies show that it can undermine long-term
growth and profitability as highly overconfident individuals tend to overlook negative and
external information. Therefore, knowing which cognitive factors are beneficial (or
detrimental) to the different activities of innovation and which factors increase the probability
of transforming a creative idea in a viable innovation is of great value to entrepreneurs,
investors and third parties involved in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Awareness of how
confidence and risk-taking enable (or not) innovative behavior may encourage entrepreneurs
to modify their behavior and learn to balance internal and external information when making
decisions. It can also be very useful for investors and other actors supporting entrepreneurial
and innovative activity as they can consider the inclusion of specific profiles in the founding
or management team depending on the desired outcomes.
We acknowledge that as with all research, this study has its limitations. Economic
experiments attempt to imitate the “real world” with the decisions used in the tasks and
exercises. Obviously, this attempt is imperfect in that it is difficult to capture and control all
of the factors involved in decision-making, which can affect the external validity of the model
and the findings. Nonetheless, economic experiments and psychological tests are still valid
methods for understanding how decision-makers behave and have been proven of great value
for advancing knowledge in fields such as behavioral finance and psychology. Moreover, past
research using these kinds of methods has found that behavior in the laboratory can really
reflect behavior in the ‘real world’ when appropriate controls for variability due to
externalities of the task are applied.
98
The implementation of creative ideas
To minimize this pitfall we relied on several strategies and controls. Firstly, as explained
earlier, we conducted our experiment with actual entrepreneurs, which should definitely
mirror better entrepreneurs’ behavior in real life compared to students or any other type of
subject. Secondly, we were very cautious about how the instructions, the messages and the
exercises were presented so that we did not encourage any ‘ideal’ behavior. Contrary to other
studies, subjects completing our tasks and questionnaires were less concerned with common
method biases as there was no information about what was socially desirable and that their
remuneration depended only on their decisions. Thirdly, we controlled for effort and excluded
those who gave the impression of not taking the experimental task seriously enough.
A second probable limitation of this study is the fact that we focus on individual innovation
and that we only investigate the impact of cognitive factors. We are conscious that innovation
is also a social process and that factors linked to the context, the environment and the culture,
among others, play a significant role in the development of innovations and innovation
behavior among teams and societies. We believe that understanding how innovation processes
and innovative behavior are triggered in individuals, more specifically in entrepreneurs, is the
first step for comprehending how teams innovate within their organizations and their
societies. Focusing on cognition brings greater understanding of how these processes and
behavior are initiated, however by no means do we suggest that only cognition, and
specifically self-confidence and risk-taking, are responsible for differences in entrepreneurs’
innovation skills.
Both the findings and the potential limitations of our study provide interesting avenues for
future research. Given the potential impact of other individual factors (e.g. social capital,
motivation, resilience, passion and emotion, etc.) on innovative behavior, we encourage
researchers to further explore the role of those elements in entrepreneurs’ ability to innovate.
Future research could expand the ecological validity of our findings by testing the model with
different experimental settings and among different populations. By extension, one could
examine whether entrepreneurs differ from managers, students and/or professionals in
creative industries in terms of the nature of the cognitive factors they use and how they rely
on them to innovate. It would be also interesting to go further in the definition of a sounded
theoretical framework advancing knowledge on how individual innovation occurs. Moreover,
future research could explore the interactions between cognitive, motivational, contextual and
environmental factors, to name but a few, and their effect on innovation capabilities. For
example, upcoming studies could tackle questions about which type of cognitive and
99
The implementation of creative ideas
We have presented here new insight into the under-researched area of why some
entrepreneurs are more likely to implement creative ideas and succeed at introducing
innovations. Using an original economic experiment on actual entrepreneurs we investigated
the role of cognition and behavior in the individual innovation process, and more specifically
on the passage from creative thinking to innovative action. Our findings provide empirical
evidence on the importance of overconfidence and risk-taking for individual innovation.
Furthermore, our results suggest that although high levels of creativity increase the chances of
an entrepreneur implementing an innovation, this probability is especially enhanced if the
entrepreneur has proper abilities to evaluate opportunities. Additionally, we found that the
entrepreneur’s optimism has a dual and contrary effect on innovation, depending on the
activity being performed. While optimism and positive thinking can improve creativity it
might hinder the entrepreneur’s ability to discern good opportunities from bad and thus it
might harm his ability to effectively implement an innovation. The presented findings,
therefore, help reconcile conflicting views relating to the effects of high confidence (optimism
and overconfidence) and risk-taking on innovative behavior.
100
101
INTRODUCTION AU TROISIEME CHAPITRE
A partir du modèle conceptuel développé dans le chapitre 1, ce chapitre a proposé une étude
empirique pour en tester les principales propositions. Nous avons réalisé une expérimentation,
complétée par un questionnaire, auprès de 70 entrepreneurs innovants ayant créé récemment
leur entreprise ou en train de le faire. Globalement, nous montrons que la capacité
individuelle à innover est influencée par des facteurs cognitifs et comportementaux. Plus
précisément, nous montrons que, si le niveau de créativité de l’entrepreneur est un puissant
prédicteur de son aptitude à implémenter une innovation, sa capacité à évaluer des
opportunités accentue cette relation et facilite le passage de la créativité à la réalisation. Nous
montrons également que la surconfiance dans ses capacités et ses prédictions ainsi qu’une
faible aversion au risque sont bénéfiques à la fois pour la créativité, pour l’évaluation
d’opportunité et pour l’implémentation des innovations. Cependant, l’optimisme a un impact
dual et contradictoire sur l’innovation individuelle : alors qu’il stimule la créativité et la
pensée divergente, il diminue la capacité de l’entrepreneur à évaluer les opportunités et en
conséquence il réduit son aptitude à la réalisation d’innovations.
Toutefois, à ce stade, notre étude ne conclut pas sur la capacité d’un individu innovant à
réellement « sauter le pas » et à créer une entreprise. Il s’agit alors, à partir d’une innovation,
de décider de la mettre en œuvre effectivement et de la lancer sur le marché. Cela implique,
non seulement de réaliser techniquement un produit/service qui correspond aux besoins des
futurs utilisateurs et d’en discerner les possibilités de succès commercial, mais aussi de passer
à l’acte et de créer effectivement l’entreprise. La recherche en entrepreneuriat a largement
documenté que l’intention et la décision par un individu de créer une entreprise sont fortement
influencées par sa perception des risques et opportunités et ses croyances concernant sa
capacité à réussir (Barbosa & Fayolle, 2007; J. Boissin et al., 2009; Boyd & Vozikis, 1994;
Chung, Yang, & , 2013; Drnovsek & Glas, 2002; Krueger & Dickson, 1994; Linan &
Fayolle, 2015; Markman et al., 2002). Le lancement et le pilotage d’une start up nécessitent
un ensemble d’aptitudes que les individus innovants (par exemple dans les domaines
technologiques) pourraient ne pas avoir ou pensent ne pas avoir, ce qui alors constituerait un
frein pour prendre la décision de « se lancer dans l’aventure » (D’Este, Mahdi, Neely, &
Rentocchini, 2012; Wanberg, Kanfer, & Rotundo, 1999; Markman et al., 2002). De plus, les
individus innovants pourraient préférer travailler pour d’autres organisations qui rémunèrent
leur comportement innovant tout en évitant les risques et les coûts associés à la création de
102
leur propre entreprise (Amabile, 1988; Janssen, 2000; Markman et al., 2002; Scott & Bruce,
1994; Yuan & Woodman, 2010). Ainsi, la question reste posée : pourquoi certains individus
innovants décident-ils de créer leur entreprise, et d’autres ne le font pas ? Le chapitre qui suit
traite cette question selon la perspective cognitive retenue dans cette thèse. Nous comparons
des caractéristiques cognitives et comportementales de deux groupes d’individus fortement
innovants : des entrepreneurs académiques (ayant réalisé un spin-off académique) et des
chercheurs non entrepreneurs.
103
104
From lab to venture
105
From lab to venture
RÉSUMÉ
106
From lab to venture
ABSTRACT
Research in academic entrepreneurship has gained momentum in the last decades, mainly
because of its contribution to technological innovations and national economies. However,
little attention has been paid to the cognitive factors influencing the decision by
researchers to create a venture. The purpose of this article is to draw on the tenets of
entrepreneurial cognition and behavioral decision-making theories to explain why some
researchers decide to become entrepreneurs. Our research analyses the difference in
cognitive style and risk behavior between academics that moved from research to spin-off
ventures and academics that remain in the laboratory. Our results provide empirical
evidence that higher self-efficacy and risk-taking behavior are positively related to
researchers’ transition to academic spin-offs, while opportunity recognition skills were not
observed to have significant effects. Taken together, these results emphasize the need for
further research on cognitive and behavioral factors influencing the decision by
researchers to start a venture.
40
A version of this paper has been published by the Journal of Enterprising Culture in June 2016, Volume
24, Issue 2. Recommended citation: Angel Ferrero M.C. and Bessière Véronique. (2016). From lab to
venture: Cognitive factors influencing researcher’s decision to start a venture. Journal of Enterprising
Culture, 34 (2): 101 – 131, DOI: 10.1142/S0218495816500059
107
From lab to venture
1. INTRODUCTION
In light of the above, the purpose of this research is to contribute to the available literature
on entrepreneurial cognition and behavioral decision-making in a way that might support
the aforementioned propositions on how cognitive factors and risk behavior influences
innovative and entrepreneurial behavior. In particular, we analyze the relationships
between self-efficacy, optimism, opportunity recognition and risk-taking behavior and the
decision to start a venture within highly innovative environments. We suggest that being
capable of innovating is not sufficient to become an entrepreneur, but that having high
levels of self-efficacy and risk-taking could encourage innovative individuals to start their
own venture. This last issue is very important in understanding whether or not innovation
108
From lab to venture
can be disseminated in the real world by entrepreneurs, why some innovations remain in
the laboratory and why others are implemented in the outside world. The transition of
innovation from the laboratory to the marketplace implies a dual ability: the ability to
innovate (or at least to understand the potentialities of an innovation) and the ability to
create a business based on it.
As far as we are aware, this study is the first to consider this issue with academic
entrepreneurs and researchers coming from the same fields of science and with similar
background and opportunities. Why do some researchers ‘think entrepreneurially’ while
others do not, despite sharing the same background, the same professional and
institutional environment and the same innovation-oriented culture (mostly in labs
working in activities such as biotech, ITC, Engineering), as well as strong skills in project
developments? We analyze the differences in cognitive style and risk behavior among
entrepreneurs and non- entrepreneurs from similar backgrounds. We examine
entrepreneurs from academic laboratories who moved from research to business to
implement their innovation (academic/university spin-offs) – referred to as ‘academic
entrepreneurs’ in this study – and compare them to researchers who chose to remain in the
lab. Both groups are innovative in the sense that they create new technologies or
processes, and both have the same academic background and have evolved in the same
institutional context. By examining the differences between the two, we can gain a better
understanding of what skills and personal characteristics lead academics to identify and
grasp a business opportunity when faced with an innovation, and what underpins one’s
propensity to ‘think entrepreneurially’ regardless of innovative capabilities or educational
background and experience. More specifically, our research focuses on three main
determinants of the decision to create a new venture that have been highlighted in
previous entrepreneurship studies (see e.g. (Barbosa & Fayolle, 2007; Hmieleski & Baron,
2009; Markman et al., 2002; Mullins & Forlani, 2005) but not devoted to academic
entrepreneurs: (i) self-efficacy and optimism, (ii) risk-taking and (iii) the ability to identify
new business opportunities.
Our study attempts to integrate both cognitive theory and behavioral decision- making to
understand why and when some researchers decide to found a venture from their academic
research and innovation. We gathered data from two different populations of researchers,
academic entrepreneurs and pure researchers (not engaged in entrepreneurial activities)
from various French academic laboratories. We investigated how individual factors
influenced their decision to start their own venture. The results of our analyses reveal that
109
From lab to venture
there are significant differences in cognitive characteristics and risk behavior between
researchers who founded a venture and those who stayed in the lab and did not engage in
any entrepreneurial activity. In short, we found that behavior displaying higher levels of
self-efficacy and risk-taking is positively related to the transition from the academic
laboratory to the creation of a spin-off, but we did not observe any significant effect of the
ability to detect business opportunities.
110
From lab to venture
Verbano, 2013; Prodan & Drnovsek, 2010). However, little attention has been paid to the
personality traits and cognitive factors that influence the decision by academic researchers
to engage in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial intentions and the importance of individual
characteristics in the creation of new ventures have been the focus of attention of several
scholars in entrepreneurship. Yet few studies investigate how these individual differences
determine the capability of academic researchers to create spin-off companies (Prodan &
Drnovsek, 2010).
The aim of this section is to explore the available literature on entrepreneurial behaviour
and cognition with a view to understanding which factors, at an individual level,
encourage academics to create spin-offs. Below, we investigate how self-efficacy,
optimism, opportunity recognition and risk-taking could enhance entrepreneurial thinking
and entrepreneurial potential in academic research laboratories.
2.1. Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to the belief that one is able to put required actions into practice to
achieve given goals (Bandura, 1997; Chen et al., 1998; Gist & Mitchell, 1992) and is
generally considered as a determining factor in the decision-making process and the
behavior of an individual. More specifically, self-efficacy influences our perceived control
of a situation and thus our perceptions of the external world (Chen et al., 1998; Markman
et al., 2002). Several researchers have suggested that self-efficacy influences a person’s
choice of career, intentions and performance and thus it could encourage the decision to
start a venture (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Chandler & Jansen, 1992; Delmar & Davidsson,
2000; Krueger & Brazeal, 1994; Markman et al., 2002).
Empirical research suggests that entrepreneurs score higher in self-efficacy than non-
entrepreneurs and that individuals with strong entrepreneurial self-efficacy are more likely
to become entrepreneurs than those with low self-efficacy (Chen et al., 1998). Similarly,
Bandura and Wood (1989) demonstrated that managers with high self-efficacy set
themselves higher goals and are more likely to excel in achieving them than managers
with less confidence in their own skills. More interestingly, Markman and Baron (2003)
suggested that not only might self-efficacy determine one’s intentions to launch a venture
but that entrepreneurs with high self-efficacy perform better than those with lower levels.
As with many psychological traits, scholars have found that self-efficacy is quite a stable
individual characteristic. Nonetheless, it is influenced by many other internal and external
111
From lab to venture
factors and can be moderated over time. Indeed, researchers have found that experience,
organizational environment and strategy, organizational performance, environmental
dynamics, self-esteem and dispositional affect impact and modify one’s level of self-
efficacy (Arora, Haynie, & Laurence, 2013; Chen et al., 1998; De Jorge Moreno, Castillo,
& Masere, 2007; Forbes, 2005; Hopp & Stephan, 2012). These findings imply that
individuals can adjust their self-efficacy continuously according to changes in their
environment. Therefore, the degree of innovation, and thus of uncertainty, the firm’s stage
of development and entrepreneurial experience can determine changes in entrepreneurial
self-efficacy. For example, some scholars have found that serial entrepreneurs have higher
self-efficacy than nascent entrepreneurs because they have accumulated experience from
previous ventures and thus are more confident in their skills to start and manage new ones
(Drnovsek & Glas, 2002).
Based on the results obtained from research in entrepreneurial cognition, we propose the
following hypothesis:
41
Prodan and Drnovsek (2010) studied how entrepreneurial self-efficacy and other factors influence
academic-entrepreneurial intentions. Their sample was composed of academics from two universities who
had not founded a venture. Their results showed that academics with higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy
showed more willingness to create a venture in the future.
112
From lab to venture
H1: High levels of self-efficacy are positively related to the decision by researchers to
start a venture.
Optimistic individuals, people who generally have positive expectations for future
outcomes, compared to people who are more pessimistic, tend to experience fewer
difficulties and less stress when faced with adverse situations. In the face of uncertainty,
optimistic people are more likely to persevere in their activities and to remain engaged
with their initial goals, even when they involve great risks (Carver et al., 2010). As
defined by several scholars, optimism is the tendency of people to think that they are less
likely to have negative outcomes, and more likely to experience positive events than
others (Hmieleski & Baron, 2009; Ucbasaran et al., 2003).
Although the literature suggests that optimism is positively associated with opportunity
recognition, and innovation, a realistic perception of threats is necessary to succeed in
entrepreneurship. High or extreme levels of optimism can lead to venture failure or excess
entry (Hmieleski & Baron, 2009; Simon & Shrader, 2012; Ucbasaran et al., 2007).
113
From lab to venture
Extreme levels of optimism often have negative effects on judgment and decision-making
among entrepreneurs, because they tend to have unrealistic expectations and overlook
negative information and risks (Herz et al., 2014; Hmieleski & Baron, 2009). Extremely
optimistic individuals tend excessively to seek out opportunities to exploit, resulting in
goal conflict because they commit to more opportunities than they can realistically pursue
and become overwhelmed (Hmieleski & Baron, 2009). In their research, Hmieleski and
Baron (2009) argue that entrepreneurs’ optimism negatively impacts the performance of
their ventures and that both entrepreneurial experience and environmental dynamism
moderate this relationship. In fact their results show that the effects of optimism on
venture performance are stronger (more negative) for more experienced entrepreneurs and
when the dynamic of the environment is high.
H2: High levels of optimism are positively related to the decision by researchers to start a
venture.
This ability to recognize opportunities has been shown to have a positive impact on
entrepreneurial intentions and the decision to start a venture (Lindsay, Lindsay, & Kropp,
2009; McCline et al., 2000). Consequently, many researchers have focused on
understanding why some individuals are able to identify and pursue unique opportunities
while others simply cannot. Different approaches such as pattern recognition and signal
detection explain the way in which the process of opportunity recognition works in
114
From lab to venture
humans, and especially in entrepreneurs. It has been argued that alertness can be
influenced by cognitive processes, and thus individuals with a strong need for cognition
are more prone to be endowed with a higher degree of alertness (Ko, 2012).
115
From lab to venture
When the perceived risk of an idea is low, entrepreneurs tend to evaluate it more
favourably and see more of an opportunity (Keh et al., 2002).
42
Self-regulation theory, or regulatory focus theory, explains how people tend to align themselves with their
goals and standards, showing a promotion focus (ideal self) or a prevention focus (ought self) (Brockner,
Higgins, & Low, 2004). Brockner et al. suggest that promotion-focused individuals tend to generate more
alternatives and recognize opportunities than prevention-focused individuals.
116
From lab to venture
Many researchers have studied decision-making in risky situations and shown that
individuals do not rationally deal with risk, notably Kahneman and Tversky (1979). March
and Shapira (1987) observed that managers associate risk with negative outcomes and the
losses incurred compared to an alternative, rather than the wide range of possible
outcomes.
In the entrepreneurial literature, two main results co-exist. The first one is strictly based on
risk attitude (i.e. risk aversion and risk propensity). In empirical studies, the link between
risk attitude and the decision to create a new venture appears to be mitigated. A higher
risk propensity or a low risk aversion does not necessarily characterize an entrepreneur,
even if several studies support this relation, for instance Caliendo Fossen and Kriticos
(2010). Simon and Houghton (2003) observed that entrepreneurs (in the computer
industry) who launch pioneering product innovations have a higher risk propensity than
those who launch incremental innovations. The second range of studies highlights the role
of different cognitive factors in the way individuals perceive risk and their willingness to
take risk, in line with the initial proposition of Sitkin and Pablo (1992), for instance
because of problem framing (Sitkin & Weingart, 1995). Risk taking does not stem solely
from risk attitude, rather it is a broader concept that includes attitude, cognition and
emotions (Antoncic, 2003; McCline et al., 2000).
Hence, most of this literature relates risk-taking to other cognitive and contextual factors,
as in the theoretical contribution made by Busenitz and Law (1996). Empirical papers are
generally experimental studies using situational scenarios that analyze how individuals
build up their perceptions and how this influences the decisions they make (Forlani &
Mullins, 2000; Mullins & Forlani, 2005; Palich & Bagby, 1995). Palich and Bagby (1995)
found that entrepreneurs do not differ from non-entrepreneurs in terms of risk propensity,
but they perceive risk differently: they tend to see more favorable attributes (more
strengths and opportunities versus weaknesses or threats). Forlani and Mullins (2000) also
showed that entrepreneurs’ risk-taking behavior is influenced not only by their risk
propensity but also by their perception of those risks. In a later study, Mullins and Forlani
(2005) found further empirical evidence to support the propositions made above:
entrepreneurs with higher risk propensity are more likely to choose risky ventures.
Moreover, their experimental study introduced the differential role of the likelihood and
the magnitude of potential gains or losses. In particular, they found that risk-prone
entrepreneurs perceive lower risk when the magnitude of loss is high. Likewise, Norton
and Moore (2006) suggest that entrepreneurs tend to assess risk more favorably than non-
117
From lab to venture
entrepreneurs. They attribute this favorable risk assessment to the proposition that
entrepreneurs may engage in systematic searches that build on prior knowledge in ways
that facilitate the recognition and exploitation of opportunities.
In line with these different views on risk, a growing body of studies in management and
economics has made progress in developing different measures in an attempt to explain
and capture individual differences in risk-taking behavior. One largely established
measure consist in that based on lottery questions. This kind of measure, which finds its
roots in the expected utility theory, aims at assessing risk-attitudes towards financial
choices. While hypothetical lottery questions have been found to be strong predictors of
financial risk preferences, they turn out to be less effective when providing information
about risk-taking behavior in other non-financial contexts (Dohmen et al., 2011). The
introduction of context specific measures seems to be a more appropriate approach when
trying to capture risk-taking behavior in domains such as entrepreneurship and business in
general. Moreover, the use of both instruments in a same study is likely to increase the
robustness of the assessments (Dohmen et al., 2011; Keh et al., 2002).
Thus, following these considerations about the assessment of risk and past research in
risk-taking behavior among entrepreneurs, we have divided the body of hypotheses
according to two different dimensions of risk: one specific to the context of
entrepreneurship and a second one related to financial risk-attitude. Our hypotheses are as
follows:
H4a: High levels of Entrepreneurial Risk-taking Willingness are positively related to the
decision by researchers to start a venture.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Sample
In order to understand how highly innovative people behave and what individual factors
lead academics to commercialize their innovations outside the university, we gathered
data from a population of researchers coming from highly innovative academic
laboratories based in Montpellier, France. Our samples were constituted by 1) researchers
who had created their own venture and who were founder-managers of their firm at the
118
From lab to venture
time of the survey; and 2) active researchers not engaged in any entrepreneurial or spin-off
activity. In order to control for innovation and reduce the risks of other environmental
variables influencing the results, both samples were taken from a similar context and
therefore share a scientific culture with high innovation potential. Both samples belong to
three main business sectors: Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Information and
Communication Technology, and Engineering Sciences. Participants were first contacted
by email, with initial support from the directors of the laboratory and incubation center,
and were given a brief explanation of the purpose and procedure of the study. They were
then contacted by telephone and responded to our questionnaire.
The second sample was obtained from an initial list of 355 permanent researchers from
five academic research laboratories in Montpellier, France. The laboratories are based in
the same region as the academic spin-offs that form the sample of academic entrepreneurs
(to limit institutional differences) and they operate in the three sectors mentioned above
(Biotech, ICT and Engineering). Of these researchers, 150 were contacted randomly by
telephone. From the 150 researchers contacted, we were able to survey 54. Within this
group, data from 6 respondents was excluded from the study as their responses to the
survey was incomplete, giving a final response rate of 32%. Our final sample then
consisted of 48 full-time researchers and professors; 31% were female and 40% were
between the ages of 30 and 45.
43
LRI is a start-up incubator specialized in USOs. It is the only USO incubator in the region where the study
took place.
119
From lab to venture
Our dependent variable was entrepreneurial decision, which was a Boolean variable
determined by the group to which each respondent belonged. Researchers who had
founded a venture were coded one and researchers who had not were coded zero.
3.3.1. Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy was measured in accordance with the method proposed by Chen, Greene and
Crick (1998). For this purpose, we selected 7 items to measure general self-efficacy
applied to entrepreneurship. Respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement
with these 7 items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1: ‘strongly disagree’ to 5:
‘strongly agree’ (the Appendix Q displays the items). A single score was given for self-
efficacy, measuring the average score for each respondent in the 7 items. The Cronbach’s
alpha reliability coefficient for this single score is 0.73.
3.3.2. Optimism
Optimism was measured using 4 items from the scale proposed by Scheier, Carver and
Bridges (1994) in their revised Life-Orientation Test. Respondents were asked to indicate
their degree of agreement with each item in a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1:
‘strongly disagree’ to 5: ‘strongly agree’. As proposed by Scheier, Carver and Bridges
(1994), some of the proposed items were framed in a positive manner and others in
negatively. The final optimism score was obtained by averaging the 4 items. The
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for this score is 0.72. The Appendix Q shows the
items used to calculate the final optimism score; it should be noted that some items had to
be reversed in order to obtain the level of optimism, which ranged from 1 to 5, where 5
indicates extreme optimism.
We used 4 items from the scale proposed by McCline, Bath and Baj (2000) to measure
opportunity recognition (OR). McCline et al. (2000) developed a sub-scale in order to
extend the Entrepreneurial Orientation Attitude Scale from Robinson et al. (1991).
Compared to other scales used in entrepreneurship, this scale has shown to be appropriate
for distinguishing entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs (Lindsay et al., 2009). The scale
120
From lab to venture
integrates the three key components of attitude: i) the cognitive component: thoughts and
beliefs about the entrepreneurial opportunity, ii) the affective component: positive or
negative feelings toward the opportunity, and iii) the behavioral component: intentions
and predispositions to behave in a certain way towards the opportunity (McCline et al.,
2000).
Respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with different items
proposed in a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1: ‘strongly disagree’ to 5: ‘strongly
agree’. The total OR was obtained by averaging the items. The Cronbach’s alpha
reliability coefficient for this score is 0.76. Note that some items needed to be introduced
differently depending whether the respondent was an entrepreneur or a researcher. See
appendix Q for more details.
4. RESULTS
Tables 10 and 22 provide descriptive statistics for the two study samples of 76 academic
entrepreneurs and 48 full-time researchers. In order to test our set of hypotheses we
performed various non-parametric analyses and logistic regressions. First, we conducted a
univariate analysis to test the relationships between our independent variables and the
dependent variable. For this first analysis we performed simple Spearman’s rho
correlations and median difference tests. Second, for our multivariate analysis we
performed a series of logistic regressions in order to understand which independent
variables predicted the probability that a researcher would become an entrepreneur and
how they did this.
44
During the pre-test phase of the study we employed a different measure of risk propensity based on the
Risk Style Scale developed by Forlani & Mullins (2000). This measure, based on different lottery scenarios,
dealt with personal propensities towards financial risk taking, as opposed to other kinds of risks.
Respondents had to choose from 2 financial gain scenarios, one with a low but certain gain and another one
with a higher gain but with a percentage of uncertainty. Nonetheless, respondents seemed to be reluctant to
this kind of questions; therefore we decided to introduce a more concrete question to measure their attitude
towards risk through a financial investment decision (based on Caliendo et al. 2010). We performed the
different analyses (correlations and regression) using this risk style scale but found no significant impact on
our dependent variable and no improvement on the whole regression model. Thus, we decided not to include
this measurement in our final results. Appendix R shows the scale, correlations tables and regressions
including the measure of risk propensity assessed trough risky style scale.
122
From lab to venture
123
From lab to venture
Simple Spearman correlations (Table 12) show that there is a positive relationship
between self-efficacy (0.300, p < 0.01), Entrepreneurial Risk-taking Willingness (0.372, p
< 0.001) and high risk propensity (0.293, p < 0.001) and the decision to start a business.
Also, consistent with the literature on entrepreneurial profile, age and gender are shown to
be factors that impact the decision to create a venture. Males (0.182, p < 0.05) and
younger individuals (-0.340, p < 0.001) are more likely to start a venture than female or
older individuals. Among the independent variables, self-efficacy was positively related to
optimism, opportunity recognition and risk propensity. Similarly, entrepreneurial risk-
taking willingness (ERW) was positively associated with optimism and risk propensity.
124
From lab to venture
125
From lab to venture
Table 13. Median difference tests between the two independent samples
Both sets of findings – from the Spearman correlations and median differences tests –
provide empirical evidence in support of H1, H4a and H4b, which predicted that high
levels of self-efficacy, high levels of entrepreneurial risk-taking willingness and high risk
propensity would be positively related to the decision by researchers to start a venture.
However, we were not able to provide evidence to support hypotheses 2 and 3.
45
We also tested different moderating effects by introducing interactions between the control variables and
the independent variables in the models of Table 14. Nonetheless, no moderator effect improves the
predictive ability of the model. The only interaction that showed a significant influence on the transition to
venture creation was that of gender and risk aversion: in the presence of high risk aversion, men are more
likely to become entrepreneurs than women. However, as already explained, this interaction did not improve
the model’s correct forecasting percentage. We also tested for moderating effects between our independent
variables but found no significant effect and no improvement in the predictive quality of overall models.
46
Appendix S shows the results of multicollinearity tests
47
For multivariate logistic regression models we introduced firstly (models 1 to 8) only the independent
variables that appear to have a significant effect on the entrepreneurial decision under the univariate
analysis. We then introduced all the variables in model 9 to 10.
126
From lab to venture
models, adding the two control variables (gender and age) to each of the independent
variables that were significantly correlated to our dependent variable (models 4, 5 and 6).
We subsequently ran a series of regressions, entering one by one each of our significant
independent variables (models 7 and 8), and then ran a full model with all the variables
(model 9). Finally, we performed a backward stepwise logistic regression using the
likelihood ratio statistic for variable removal (model 10).
Variables b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE
Constant -4.75 1.76 -3.42 1.06b 0.12 0.22 -130 2.20 -0.92 1.48
Optimism
O. Recognition
127
From lab to venture
Variables b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE
Constant 2.82 1.11c -5.12 2.56c -4.91 2.58d -1.97 2.99 -1.68 2.92
Gender 0.49 0.97 0.53 0.99 0.54d 1.01 0.56d 0.96 0.54d
0.82
Age -1.38 0.41b -1.67 0.48a -1.66 0.48b -1.99 0.53a -1.95 0.52a
Overall, the multivariate regressions confirm our univariate analysis and provide
additional evidence in support of H1, H4a and H4c, which predicted a significant positive
influence of high self-efficacy, high levels of risk-taking and low risk aversion on the
decision by researchers to start a venture. The multivariate analysis revealed two
additional results. First, the models in Table 14, when considering the whole analysis
(models 7 et seq.), have good predictive power: they are all significant (chi-squared), they
provide a high percentage of correct forecasts (around 75%) and explain a large
percentage of the variance (R2 Negelkerke between 0.41 and 0.46). This means that,
overall, cognitive and behavioral factors have a major impact on the decision to move
from the laboratory to a business venture. Second, among the three main determinants
revealed by our analyses (self-efficacy, entrepreneurial risk-taking willingness and risk
propensity), entrepreneurial risk-taking willingness (ERW) appears to have an especially
strong effect. ERW appears to be the most significant variable in the complete models of
Table 14, especially models 8, 9 and 10. Third, opportunity recognition, which was not
128
From lab to venture
significant in the univariate analysis, here produces a negative effect in contradiction with
hypothesis 3. Within the backward stepwise regression, this variable, associated with self-
efficacy ( = 1.47, p < 0.01) and risk-taking ( = 1.40, p < 0.001), reveals a high level
of significance ( = -1.10, p < 0.05), but the latter coefficient is negative. This means that
high opportunity recognition skills are negatively associated with the decision by
researchers to start a venture. This last finding is of great interest as it contradicts several
research studies in entrepreneurship that demonstrate that opportunity recognition is
positively related to innovation and venture creation. This paradox could be explained by
the fact that in our study, i.e. in highly innovative environments, what drives
entrepreneurship is not the ability to recognize opportunities but the ability to exploit
those opportunities (D’Este et al. 2012). Researchers display high levels of opportunity
recognition, but only those who also have high levels of self- efficacy are likely to create a
new venture.
129
From lab to venture
Our objective was to understand why only some individuals are capable of launching a
venture when contextual characteristics (culture, education, innovative potential and
business opportunity latency) are equal. We set out to study why researchers from highly
innovative domains, such as Biotech, ICT and Engineering, decided to act upon an
innovative opportunity and create a business from it.
Drawing on a study of 124 researchers from similar environmental contexts and their
engagement in spin-off creation (76 created their own business through an academic spin-
off and 48 did not), we investigated how individual factors influenced their decision to
start their own venture. More specifically, we studied the effects of self-efficacy,
optimism, opportunity recognition and risk-taking behavior on this decision. The results
obtained from our univariate and multivariate analysis reveal significant differences in
cognitive characteristics and risk-taking behavior between researchers who founded a
venture and those who stayed in the lab and did not engage in any entrepreneurial activity.
In particular, we found empirical evidence to validate the following set of hypotheses:
H1: High levels of self-efficacy are positively related to the decision by researchers to
start a venture.
H4a: High levels of entrepreneurial risk-taking willingness are positively related to the
decision by researchers to start a venture.
H4b: High risk propensity is positively related to the decision by researchers to start a
venture.
These findings, consistent with other research in entrepreneurial cognition, suggest that
researchers with high levels of self-efficacy, high levels of entrepreneurial risk-taking
willingness and high propensity to risks are more likely to become academic entrepreneurs
than those with low levels of self-efficacy, entrepreneurial risk-taking willingness and risk
propensity. Surprisingly, we did not find that optimism has any significant effect on the
decision to start a venture. In fact, high levels of optimism were observed in both
academic entrepreneurs (median: 4.0 out of a maximum score of 5.0) and researchers
(median: 3.8), but there was no significant difference between the two samples. This
might imply that high levels of optimism, although a determinant of innovative
capabilities, do not increment researcher’s willingness to become entrepreneurs or the
probability thereof. Additionally, our final logistic regression model (model 10) suggests
that in the presence of self-efficacy and positive behavior towards risk, the ability to
130
From lab to venture
This paper, along with recent studies on academic entrepreneurship, indicates that
researchers’ transition to academic spin-offs is strongly influenced by their beliefs and
behavior (Goethner, Obschonka, Silbereisen, & Cantner, 2012; Prodan & Drnovsek,
2010). Consistent with research in entrepreneurial cognition, our results provide further
evidence that self- efficacy and risk-taking behavior influence the decision by researchers
to start a venture. This also suggests that not only does self-efficacy has a positive impact
on the opportunity recognition and innovativeness of individuals, but also when combined
with a positive behavior towards risk-taking, it might encourage individuals to start their
own venture.
We believe this study has important implications as it contributes not only to the research
on academic entrepreneurship and innovation but also to the practice of entrepreneurship
within academia. First, as far as we are aware, it is unprecedented in its analysis of the
impact of cognitive factors and opportunity recognition skills on the decision by
individuals from the same environmental context and with equal chances of recognizing
and exploiting innovative opportunities to create a business venture. Our findings suggest
that, everything else being equal (in terms of environmental context and opportunity
latency), self-efficacy and risk-taking behavior are determinants of researchers’ transition
from the academic laboratory to spin-off creation. Second, our research provides key
insights to universities and academic incubators seeking to encourage entrepreneurial
intentions and activities in academia. According to our findings and to the literature
reviewed herein, universities and academic incubators should not focus only on external
factors influencing their ability to generate spin-offs, but also consider the skills and
131
From lab to venture
and risk-taking behavior might also have detrimental effects on entrepreneurship and
innovation, as they are associated with excess entry, venture failure and low performance
(Hmieleski & Baron, 2009; Simon & Shrader, 2012; Ucbasaran et al., 2007). In order to
identify this turning point, future research should include experimental exercises with
academic entrepreneurs and pure researchers (with no entrepreneurial experience) to
measure not only their personal characteristics (such as overconfidence, optimism, self-
efficacy, risk propensity and perception) but also their ability to innovate and their
performance in venturing activities. Nonetheless, measuring innovativeness and
performance in an experimental way remains a challenge and must be analyzed carefully
to ensure reliable results and interpretations. Case studies would also be useful in
identifying the relationships between certain cognitive factors and the innovation process.
The potential studies to be conducted are numerous, and the results could carry important
implications for both theory and practice in entrepreneurship.
133
134
135
Conclusion générale
CONCLUSION GENERALE
136
Conclusion générale
CONCLUSION GÉNÉRALE
Reconnaître des opportunités et être capable de les saisir est l’essence même de
l’entrepreneuriat. L’entrepreneur est au cœur de ce processus, il décide et agit pour
transformer l'idée en un projet. Il doit générer de nouvelles idées, les évaluer, identifier celles
qui constituent de bonnes opportunités d’affaires et enfin les mettre en action par la création
d’un nouveau produit ou service.
Pour cela, nous avons décomposé cette problématique générale en plusieurs questions qui ont
été traitées à travers les trois chapitres de cette thèse. Ces trois chapitres, qui ont été conçus
comme trois essais indépendants, correspondent aux trois axes de traitement de la
problématique. Nous rappelons ci-dessous les questions associées à chacun des trois axes.
137
Conclusion générale
facteur déterminant de l’innovation individuelle. Nous examinons les relations (et les
interrelations) entre ces facteurs et les activités clés impliquées dans le processus
d’innovation, et leurs effets potentiellement négatifs ou positifs sur ce dernier.
- Quels sont les facteurs cognitifs qui favorisent la réalisation d’une innovation
lancée avec succès sur le marché ?
3) Les déterminants de la décision de créer une entreprise par les individus innovants.
Nous positionnons ici notre travail de recherche sur un ensemble d’individus
innovants et questionnons les facteurs individuels qui favorisent la décision de créer
une entreprise. En effet, tous les individus innovants ne sont pas entrepreneurs.
- Pour quoi certaines innovations, malgré leur potentiel, ne sont pas exploitées
commercialement ?
Le chapitre 1, « The bridge between creativity and innovation: What can entrepreneurial
cognition tell us? », traite du premier axe. Il explore la nature de la relation entre la créativité
et l’innovation à travers le prisme de la cognition entrepreneuriale. Nous conceptualisons
l’innovation individuelle comme un processus qui comprend trois activités : (i) la génération
d’idées nouvelles, (ii) l’évaluation de l’opportunité potentielle de ces idées et (iii) la mise en
œuvre effective de ces idées / opportunités sur le marché réel. En explorant les facteurs
cognitifs qui influencent à la fois la créativité et l’innovation, ainsi que le passage d’une idée
138
Conclusion générale
créative à une innovation intégrée dans un projet entrepreneurial et mise sur le marché, nous
avons pu apporter un éclairage à la compréhension de ce processus. A partir de recherches
antérieures issues de différents champs, nous avons avancé l’idée que l’influence des facteurs
cognitifs s’exerce de manière différente tout au long du processus d’innovation et que, selon
le stade du processus, certains facteurs sont préférables à d’autres. De plus, un même facteur
particulier peut être favorable pour la génération d’idées créatives mais ne pas l’être pour
l’implémentation de ces idées sur le marché. Par exemple, être très optimiste favorise la
pensée créative mais conduit aussi à des jugements erronés sur le potentiel et la valeur
économique d’une idée. En outre, notre modèle conceptuel suggère que l’acceptation du
risque et la surconfiance sont deux moteurs du passage de « l’idée créative » à « l’acte
innovant ».
139
Conclusion générale
Ainsi, les résultats des régressions logistiques montrent que les chercheurs ayant des niveaux
élevés d’auto-efficacité et d’acceptation du risque ont une plus forte probabilité de devenir
entrepreneurs. Néanmoins, nous observons que la capacité à reconnaître des opportunités
contribue négativement à la décision de créer son entreprise (dès lors qu’elle est contrôlée par
l’auto-efficacité et le comportement face au risque). Ce résultat est contraire à celui observé
antérieurement pour des échantillons « classiques » comparant entrepreneurs et non
entrepreneurs. Cela suggère que, dans les environnements hautement innovants
(caractéristique fondamentale de nos deux sous-échantillons), la capacité à reconnaître les
opportunités n’est pas distinctive et par là même n'est pas suffisante pour devenir
entrepreneur.
L’ensemble de ces résultats offre de nouveaux éclairages sur la compréhension du rôle joué
par la cognition entrepreneuriale et les facteurs comportementaux tout au long du processus
d’innovation, de l’idée à la mise sur le marché. En particulier, nous avons mis en évidence
que la surconfiance de l’entrepreneur, sous ses trois formes (dans ses capacités, ses
perspectives, ses prédictions), et son comportement vis-à-vis du risque sont cruciaux mais leur
poids dépend de la phase du processus – idée, évaluation d’opportunités, implémentation de
l’innovation et mise sur le marché – jouant parfois en sens inverse.
Les résultats que nous venons de résumer, apportent différentes contributions à la littérature
sur l’entrepreneuriat et l’innovation, mais aussi sur leurs pratiques. Cependant, comme toute
recherche, elle présente des limites. Les prochains paragraphes exposent les contributions
générales et les limites de la thèse. Les pistes ouvertes pour des recherches futures seront
présentées en conclusion.
140
Conclusion générale
Contributions théoriques
Les facteurs cognitifs sont reconnus comme fortement déterminants dans le processus de prise
de décision et dans les comportements distinguant les entrepreneurs des non entrepreneurs
(Baron, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2002). Le processus cognitif influence la manière dont les
individus perçoivent, interprètent et transforment l’information. Par nature, il a ainsi un effet
fort et direct sur la reconnaissance d’opportunités, sur la propension à les exploiter et sur la
décision finale de lancer l’entreprise (Baron, 2004, 2007; Shane, 2003; Simon et al., 2000).
L’étude de la surconfiance et ses impacts sur la prise de décision ont reçu beaucoup
d’attention en psychologie, en finance comportementale et, plus récemment, en
entrepreneuriat. Comme les recherches antérieures l'ont montré, la surconfiance peut
expliquer pourquoi certains individus s’engagent dans des activités aussi risquées que
l’investissement dans certains actifs, la création d’une entreprise ou le lancement d’une
innovation.
En continuité des travaux de Moore et Healy (2008) et de Bessière et Pouget (2012), nous
avons considéré dans ce travail différentes formes de jugements surconfiants et examiné leurs
effets sur les différentes activités mobilisées dans un projet entrepreneurial. Précisément, nous
étudions le rôle de la surconfiance relative à ses aptitudes (sentiment d’auto-efficacité), à ses
perspectives (optimisme) et à la précision de ses estimations (excès de confiance au sens
strict, à travers les tests dits « de calibrage »), sur la capacité à innover et à créer une
entreprise. Dans cette trajectoire, nous intégrons différentes perspectives et nos études
141
Conclusion générale
contribuent à une meilleure spécification du processus cognitif impliqué dans les activités
d’innovation et de création d’entreprise issue de cette innovation.
Les différents résultats des trois études présentées dans cette thèse apportent un éclairage à la
compréhension théorique du rôle de la surconfiance et du comportement vis-à-vis du risque
dans la transformation d’une idée créative en une innovation effectivement mise sur le
marché. Nous montrons que l’innovation individuelle comprend différentes étapes et activités,
que nous précisons, et qui ne suivent pas toujours un cheminement linéaire (Berends, Jelinek,
Reymen, & Stultiëns, 2014; Magadley & Birdi, 2012; Scott & Bruce, 1994). Nos travaux
clarifient une série d’activités depuis la génération de l’idée jusqu’à la création effective de
l’entreprise et la mise sur le marché de l’innovation. Nous montrons que ces différentes
activités sont fortement influencées par les facteurs cognitifs, mais surtout que l’effet de ces
derniers – leur direction et leur intensité – dépend de la nature de l’activité.
Premièrement, nous montrons que l’optimisme a un effet contraire selon le stade du projet :
positif sur la créativité mais négatif sur la capacité d'une part, à évaluer des opportunités et
d'autre part, à implémenter des innovations.
Contributions méthodologiques
142
Conclusion générale
Ceci nous a permis tout au long de l’expérimentation de disposer d’une référence pour évaluer
le degré d’innovation des produits proposés par les participants, ainsi que le degré de
désirabilité qu’ils suscitaient sur le marché, et enfin, de concevoir une fonction de profit
cohérente avec cet ensemble de données préconstruites à partir des retours des
consommateurs lors de l’enquête préliminaire. Plus précisément, nous avons été en mesure de
capter la perception du consommateur concernant l’ensemble des produits possibles générés
dans l’expérimentation. Cette mesure nous a permis de quantifier l’originalité du produit et sa
capacité à être un succès sur le marché (via sa désirabilité et le prix que le consommateur est
prêt à payer). Cette méthodologie a conduit à la mesure de la performance de l’innovation, à
travers la fonction de profit intégrant ces différents éléments.
143
Conclusion générale
Contributions managériales
A travers cette thèse nous avons cherché d'une part, à mettre en évidence les mécanismes
cognitifs que l’entrepreneur a tendance à utiliser pour formuler un jugement et une décision,
et d'autre part, à comprendre comment ces derniers influencent les étapes de la création de
l’entreprise et de l’innovation. Un corollaire pratique de ce travail est de contribuer à la prise
de conscience des effets concrets et des implications de ces mécanismes cognitifs. La
connaissance de leurs effets potentiellement positifs et négatifs sur les différentes activités
entrepreneuriales présente un intérêt pratique dans la manière de conduire la transformation
d’une idée créative en une innovation viable et un projet entrepreneurial. Cette
compréhension est utile pour les enseignants, tout particulièrement dans l’enseignement
supérieur, les décideurs politiques, pour l’ensemble des parties prenantes impliqué
dans l’écosystème entrepreneurial, et enfin pour l’entrepreneur lui-même.
144
Conclusion générale
Premièrement, les décideurs politiques et les éducateurs (dans les universités en particulier),
ont un rôle fondamental à jouer dans la promotion de la culture du risque, par des mécanismes
qui viseraient d'une part, à récompenser la prise de risque et d'autre part, à tempérer le risque
professionnel que représente le choix de créer une entreprise notamment pour les étudiants.
Ces préconisations sont bien connues, notre étude les renforce, et souligne l'importance de la
prise en compte de la dimension cognitive. Ainsi, le déploiement d’un statut étudiant –
entrepreneur avec peu de prérequis et des avantages pour les candidats à la création
d’entreprise en est un bon exemple (Boissin et al., 2013; Boissin & Schieb-Bienfait, 2012;
Boissin, 2009; Messeghem & Sammut, 2011). Il est implémenté en France depuis deux ans et
connaît un succès grandissant. Dans la même logique, les concours de start-ups, le maillage
entre incubateurs et universités, la création de programmes dédiés aux jeunes disposant de
projets, sont d’autres exemples. Le curriculum des formations en entrepreneuriat pourrait plus
directement s’appuyer sur la surconfiance et la prise de risque pour permettre aux étudiants de
développer leurs initiatives et pour que ces derniers considèrent la création d’entreprise
comme une option valorisée (Adam & Fayolle, 2015; Barbosa et al., 2008; Block,
Hoogerheide, & Thurik, 2013; J. Boissin et al., 2009; Boissin et al., 2013; Knockaert,
Ucbasaran, Wright, & Clarysse, 2011; Mian, Fayolle, & Lamine, 2012).
Enfin, la prise de conscience du rôle des facteurs cognitifs peut, à elle seule, être un puissant
moyen d’en stimuler les effets positifs ou au contraire d’en corriger les excès potentiels qu’ils
peuvent engendrer. C’est une conclusion importante apportée par les travaux de Russo et
Schoemaker (1992) sur l’excès de confiance. Ainsi, last but not least, l’entrepreneur lui-
même pourra trouver dans nos travaux des pistes utiles pour guider son action.
145
Conclusion générale
L’acte d’entreprendre et d’innover est très complexe. Sa compréhension peut s’insérer dans
de multiples approches. Notre choix d’une approche individuelle et cognitive est une limite en
soi, justifiée par la volonté d’une analyse en profondeur d’une question que la littérature
existante ne permettait pas de couvrir parfaitement. Notre étude laisse donc de côté un
ensemble de facteurs organisationnels et environnementaux, mais aussi des facteurs
individuels tels que la résilience, le besoin d’accomplissement, etc.… qui ont trait à la
personnalité du créateur. L’intégration de ces facteurs constitue un développement possible de
ce travail. Elle apporterait une vision élargie de ce processus complexe de transformation de
l’idée en une innovation réalisée et lancée avec succès.
Sur un plan méthodologique, nos choix sont également porteurs de limites. Nos
préoccupations ont porté sur trois dimensions: capturer la cognition entrepreneuriale, fournir
une mesure de la performance de l’innovation, établir des relations entre les différents
éléments (cognitifs et entrepreneuriaux) tout au long de la démarche d’innovation et de
création d'entreprise. Ainsi, une triple approche a été nécessaire : modélisation conceptuelle,
expérimentation, questionnaires. Nous reconnaissons que la capacité d’une approche
expérimentale à traduire la réalité de terrain peut être questionnée. Nous avons travaillé au
design de l’expérience pour qu’elle présente un degré significatif de réalisme, enrôlé des
participants créateurs d’entreprise, effectué de nombreux contrôles. Dans le cadre d’un
prolongement à cette thèse, il serait utile d’intégrer une approche qualitative par entretiens en
profondeur avec des créateurs d’entreprises innovantes.
Au delà des extensions directes à ce travail, d’autres pistes de recherches futures émergent.
Les notions de métacognition et de styles d’apprentissage nous paraissent pouvoir être
mobilisées pour poursuivre notre exploration de l’innovation entrepreneuriale. Ainsi, analyser
comment les entrepreneurs apprennent d'une part, à adapter leur comportement et d'autre part,
à utiliser stratégiquement leurs mécanismes cognitifs pourrait être la clé d’entrée à une
meilleure compréhension de l’acte d’entreprendre et d’innover.
146
147
148
Bibliographie
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
Adam, A., & Fayolle, A. 2015. Bridging the entrepreneurial intention–behaviour gap: the role
of commitment and implementation intention. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 25(1): 36–54.
Adner, R., & Levinthal, D. 2008. Doing versus seeing: acts of exploitation and perceptions of
exploration. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(1): 43–52.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. 1998. The antecedents and consequents of user perceptions in
information technology adoption. Decision Support Systems, 22(1): 15–29.
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and
Interpreting Interactions. SAGE Publications.
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2): 179–211.
Albrecht, T. L., & Hall, B. “J.” 1991. Facilitating talk about new ideas: The role of personal
relationships in organizational innovation. Communication Monographs, 58(3): 273–
288.
Allwood, C. M. 1996. Considering the Knowledge You Have: Effects on Realism in
Confidence Judgements. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 8(3): 235–256.
Amabile, T. M. 1983. The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential
Conceptualization. http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=7393.
Amabile, T. M. 1988. A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations.
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=7441.
Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. 2005. Affect and Creativity at
Work. SSRN Scholarly Paper no. ID 1503847, Rochester, NY: Social Science
Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1503847.
Angel Ferrero, M. C., & Bessière, V. 2016. From Lab to Venture: Cognitive Factors
Influencing Researchers’ Decision to Start a Venture. Journal of Enterprising
Culture, 24(2): 101–131.
Antoncic, B. 2003. Risk Taking in Intrapreneurship: Translating the Individual Level Risk
Aversion into the Organizational Risk Taking. Journal of Enterprising Culture,
11(1): 1.
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. 2003. A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity
identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1): 105–123.
Arora, P., Haynie, J. M., & Laurence, G. A. 2013. Counterfactual Thinking and
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy: The Moderating Role of Self-Esteem and Dispositional
Affect. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2): 359–385.
Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, A. U. 1999. A neuropsychological theory of positive
affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106(3): 529–550.
Autio, E., Dahlander, L., & Frederiksen, L. 2013. Information Exposure, Opportunity
Evaluation, and Entrepreneurial Action: An Investigation of an Online User
Community. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5): 1348–1371.
Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., et al. 2000.
Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3): 265–285.
Baer, M. 2012. Putting Creativity to Work: The Implementation of Creative Ideas in
Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5): 1102–1119.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
149
Bibliographie
150
Bibliographie
Bharadwaj, S., & Menon, A. 2000. Making innovation happen in organizations: individual
creativity mechanisms, organizational creativity mechanisms or both? Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 17(6): 424–434.
Biais, B., Hilton, D., Mazurier, K., & Pouget, S. 2004. Judgmental Overconfidence, Self-
Monitoring and Trading Performance in an Experimental Financial Market. IDEI
Working Paper no. 259, Institut d’Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/idewpaper/1570.htm.
Bigliardi, B., Galati, F., & Verbano, C. 2013. Evaluating Performance of University Spin-Off
Companies: Lessons from Italy. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation,
8(2): 29–30.
Binnewies, C., & Gromer, M. 2012. Creativity and innovation at work: The role of work
characteristics and personal initiative. Psicothema, 24(1): 100–105.
Bisadi, M., Mozaffar, F., & Hosseini, S. B. 2012. Future Research Centers: The Place of
Creativity and Innovation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 68: 232–243.
Block, J. H., Hoogerheide, L., & Thurik, R. 2013. Education and entrepreneurial choice: An
instrumental variables analysis. International Small Business Journal, 31(1): 23–33.
Boissin, J., Chollet, B., & Emin, S. 2009. Les déterminants de l’intention de créer une
entreprise chez les étudiants : un test empirique. M@n@gement, 12(1): 28–51.
Boissin, J., Fayolle, A., & Messeghem, K. 2013. Renforcer notre conception collective de la
connaissance entrepreneuriale. Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, 11(2): 7–9.
Boissin, J., Grazzini, F., & Weil, G. 2014. Psychologie du dirigeant face à l’évolution des
mécanismes de gouvernance d’entreprise dans un contexte d’hyper croissance.
Gestion 2000, me 28(4): 81–102.
Boissin, J., & Schieb-Bienfait, N. 2012. Des Maisons de l’Entrepreneuriat au plan d’action
national des Pôles Entrepreneuriat Étudiants. Entreprendre & Innover, (11–12): 55–
64.
Boissin, J. 2009. L’équipreneuriat, moyen d’action sur la culture entrepreneuriale et
innovante, chap.6, 63-71, (424p.).
Boissin, J., Chalus-Sauvannet, M.-C., Deschamps, B., & Geindre, S. 2009. Profils de
chercheurs primo-entrepreneurs et stratégies de croissance de la jeune entreprise
innovante. Revue internationale P.M.E.: Économie et gestion de la petite et moyenne
entreprise, 22(2): 41.
Bonnet, C., & Wirtz, P. 2011. Investor Type, Cognitive Governance and Performance in
Young Entrepreneurial Ventures:A Conceptual Framework. Working Papers
CREGO no. 1110301, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de
recherches en gestion des organisations.
https://ideas.repec.org/p/dij/wpfarg/1110301.html.
Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. 1994. The influence of self-efficacy on the development of
entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18:
63–90.
Brettel, M., Mauer, R., Engelen, A., & Küpper, D. 2012. Corporate effectuation:
Entrepreneurial action and its impact on R&D project performance. Journal of
Business Venturing, 27(2): 167–184.
Brockhaus, R. H. 1980. Risk Taking Propensity of Entrepreneurs. Academy of Management
Journal, 23(3): 509–520.
Brockhaus, R. H., & Horwitz, P. S. 1986. The psychology of the entrepreneur. In A. Sexton &
R. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship: 25–48. Cambridge, MA:
Balinguer.
Brockner, J., Higgins, E. T., & Low, M. B. 2004. Regulatory focus theory and the
entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2): 203–220.
151
Bibliographie
152
Bibliographie
Chung, D.-Y., Yang, J.-H., & . 2013. Influence of Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial
Participation on Entrepreneurial Intention : Focused on Chinese Students. Korean
Business Education Review, 28(5): 545–574.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 2003. Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mawhaw, NJ,
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Davidsson, P. 2004. Researching Entrepreneurship. SSRN Scholarly Paper no. ID 1496114,
Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1496114.
Dawson, C., & Henley, A. 2013. Over-optimism and entry and exit from self-employment.
International Small Business Journal, 31(8): 938–954.
Dawson, C., & Henley, A. 2015. Gender, Risk, and Venture Creation Intentions. Journal of
Small Business Management, 53(2): 501–515.
de Jong, J. P. J. 2013. The Decision to Exploit Opportunities for Innovation: A Study of High-
Tech Small-Business Owners. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 37(2): 281–301.
De Jorge Moreno, J., Castillo, L. L., & Masere, E. D. Z. 2007. Influence of entrepreneur type,
region and sector effects on business self-confidence: Empirical evidence from
Argentine firms. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19(1): 25–48.
De Noble, A. F., Jung, D., & Ehrlich, S. B. 1999. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The
development of a measure and its relationship to entrepreneurial action. Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, 73–87.
Delmar, F., & Davidsson, P. 2000. Where do they come from? Prevalence and characteristics
of nascent entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12(1): 1–23.
Delmar, F., & Shane, S. 2004. Legitimating first: organizing activities and the survival of new
ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3): 385–410.
D’Este, P., Mahdi, S., Neely, A., & Rentocchini, F. 2012. Inventors and entrepreneurs in
academia: What types of skills and experience matter? Technovation, 32(5): 293–303.
Dewett, T. 2006. Exploring the Role of Risk in Employee Creativity. The Journal of
Creative Behavior, 40(1): 27–45.
Dimov, D. 2007. Beyond the Single-Person, Single-Insight Attribution in Understanding
Entrepreneurial Opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(5): 713–
731.
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., et al. 2011. Individual risk
attitudes: measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the
European Economic Association, 9(3): 522–550.
Drnovsek, M., & Glas, M. 2002. The Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy of Nascent Entrepreneurs:
The Case of Two Economies in Transition. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 10(2):
107.
Drucker, P. F. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. SSRN
Scholarly Paper no. ID 1496169, Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1496169.
Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. 2008. Entrepreneur behaviors, opportunity
recognition, and the origins of innovative ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 2(4): 317–338.
Engelen, A., Neumann, C., & Schwens, C. 2015. “Of Course I Can”: The Effect of CEO
Overconfidence on Entrepreneurially Oriented Firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory &
Practice, 39(5): 1137–1160.
European Commission. 2008. European Commission. (2008a). Think small first: A small
business act for Europe. Brussels, Belgium: DG Enterprise. no. IP/08/1003,
Brussels.
153
Bibliographie
154
Bibliographie
Goethner, M., Obschonka, M., Silbereisen, R. K., & Cantner, U. 2012. Scientists’ transition to
academic entrepreneurship: Economic and psychological determinants. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 33(3): 628–641.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. 1989. Effectiveness of Individual and Aggregate
Compensation Strategies. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society,
28(3): 431–445.
Gong, Y., Huang, J.-C., & Farh, J.-L. 2009. Employee Learning Orientation,
Transformational Leadership, and Employee Creativity: The Mediating Role of
Employee Creative Self-Efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4): 765–778.
Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Allwood, C. M. 2000. Effects of reiteration, hindsight
bias, and memory on realism in eyewitness confidence. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 14(5): 397–420.
Green, S. G., Welsh, M. A., & Dehler, G. E. 2003. Advocacy, Performance, and Threshold
Influences on Decisions to Terminate New Product Development. The Academy of
Management Journal, 46(4): 419–434.
Grégoire, D. A., Barr, P. S., & Shepherd, D. A. 2010. Cognitive Processes of Opportunity
Recognition: The Role of Structural Alignment. Organization Science, 21(2): 413–
431.
Grégoire, D. A., Corbett, A. C., & McMullen, J. S. 2011. The Cognitive Perspective in
Entrepreneurship: An Agenda for Future Research. Journal of Management Studies,
48(6): 1443–1477.
Grichnik, D., Smeja, A., & Welpe, I. 2010. The importance of being emotional: How do
emotions affect entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation and exploitation? Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(1): 15–29.
Guilford, J. P. 1950. Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9): 444–454.
Haller, M. K., & Welch, E. W. 2014. Entrepreneurial Behavior of Academic Scientists:
Network and Cognitive Determinants of Commitment to Grant Submissions and
Award Outcomes. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 38(4): 807–831.
Hanoch, Y., Johnson, J. G., & Wilke, A. 2006. Domain specificity in experimental measures
and participant recruitment: an application to risk-taking behavior. Psychological
Science, 17(4): 300–304.
Hansen, H., Randolph, A., Chen, S., Robinson, R. E., Marin, A., et al. 2015. Institutional
judo: how entrepreneurs use institutional forces to create change. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 28(6): 1076–1093.
Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. 2001. When Innovations Meet Institutions: Edison and the
Design of the Electric Light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3): 476–501.
Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D., Mosakowski, E., & Earley, P. C. 2010. A situated metacognitive
model of the entrepreneurial mindset. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(2): 217–
229.
Haynie, M., & Shepherd, D. A. 2009. A Measure of Adaptive Cognition for Entrepreneurship
Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3): 695–714.
Hayward, M. L. A., Forster, W. R., Sarasvathy, S. D., & Fredrickson, B. L. 2010. Beyond
hubris: How highly confident entrepreneurs rebound to venture again. Journal of
Business Venturing, 25(6): 569–578.
Hayward, M. L. A., Shepherd, D. A., & Griffin, D. 2006. A Hubris Theory of
Entrepreneurship. Management Science, 52(2): 160–172.
Heap, J. P. 1989. The management of innovation and design. London: Cassell.
http://capitadiscovery.co.uk/uclan-sandbox/items/287957.
155
Bibliographie
Herz, H., Schunk, D., & Zehnder, C. 2014. How do judgmental overconfidence and
overoptimism shape innovative activity? Games and Economic Behavior, 83(0): 1–
23.
Hilton, D. 2006. Chapter 10 Overconfidence, Trading and Entrepreneurship: Cognitive and
Cultural Processes in Risk-taking. Contributions to Economic Analysis, vol. 280:
225–235. Elsevier.
Hilton, D., Régner, I., Cabantous, L., Charalambides, L., & Vautier, S. 2011. Do positive
illusions predict overconfidence in judgment? A test using interval production and
probability evaluation measures of miscalibration. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 24(2): 117–139.
Hirshleifer, D., Low, A., & Teoh, S. H. 2012. Are Overconfident CEOs Better Innovators?
The Journal of Finance, 67(4): 1457–1498.
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.
Hogarth, R. M., & Karelaia, N. 2011. Entrepreneurial Success and Failure: Confidence and
Fallible Judgment. Organization Science, 23(6): 1733–1747.
Hopp, C., & Stephan, U. 2012. The influence of socio-cultural environments on the
performance of nascent entrepreneurs: Community culture, motivation, self-efficacy
and start-up success. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(9–10): 917–
945.
Isen, A. M. 2002. Missing in action in the AIM: Positive affect’s facilitation of cognitive
flexibility, innovation, and problem solving. Psychological Inquiry, 57–65.
Jackson, S. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1988. Discerning Threats and Opportunities. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 33(3): 370–387.
Janney, J. J., & Dess, G. G. 2006. The risk concept for entrepreneurs reconsidered: New
challenges to the conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(3): 385–
400.
Janssen, O. 2000. Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work
behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3): 287–302.
Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D. 1993. Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive
Perspective on Risk Taking. Management Science, 39(1): 17–31.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. 1982. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics
and Biases. Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.
Econometrica, 47(2): 263.
Kanter, R. M. 1984. Change Masters. Simon and Schuster.
Karhunen, P., & Ledyaeva, S. 2010. Determinants of Entrepreneurial Interest and Risk
Tolerance Among Russian University Students:: Empirical Study. Journal of
Enterprising Culture, 18(3): 229–263.
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.
Kirton, M. 1976. Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 61(5): 622–629.
Kirzner, I. M. 1973. Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo3614291.html.
Kirzner, I. M. 1997. Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An
Austrian Approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1): 60–85.
156
Bibliographie
Knight, F. H. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Boston, MA: Hart, Schaffner & Marx;
Houghton Mifflin Co. http://www.econlib.org/library/Knight/knRUP.html.
Knockaert, M., Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. 2011. The Relationship Between
Knowledge Transfer, Top Management Team Composition, and Performance: The
Case of Science-Based Entrepreneurial Firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 35(4): 777–803.
Ko, S. 2012. Entrepreneurial Opportunity Identification: A Motivation-based Cognitive
Approach. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 17(2): 23–
37.
Ko, S., & Butler, J. E. 2007. Creativity: A key link to entrepreneurial behavior. Business
Horizons, 50(5): 365–372.
Koellinger, P. D., & Thurik, A. R. 2011. Entrepreneurship and the Business Cycle. Review of
Economics and Statistics, 94(4): 1143–1156.
Krueger, N. F., & Dickson, P. R. 1994. How Believing in Ourselves Increases Risk Taking:
Perceived Self-Efficacy and Opportunity Recognition. Decision Sciences, 25(3): 385–
400.
Krueger, N. F. 2000. The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(3): 5–23.
Krueger, N. F. 2003. The cognitive psychology of entrepreneurship. Handbook of
entrepreneurship research: 105–140. Springer.
Krueger, N. F., & Brazeal, D. V. 1994. Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18: 91–91.
Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. 2000. Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6): 411–432.
Kyle, A. S., & Wang, F. A. 1997. Speculation Duopoly with Agreement to Disagree: Can
Overconfidence Survive the Market Test? The Journal of Finance, 52(5): 2073–
2090.
Lambert, J., Bessière, V., & N’Goala, G. 2012. Does expertise influence the impact of
overconfidence on judgment, valuation and investment decision? Journal of
Economic Psychology, 33(6): 1115–1128.
Lance, C. E. 2006. The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They
Really Say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2): 202–220.
Laureiro-Martínez, D., Brusoni, S., Canessa, N., & Zollo, M. 2015. Understanding the
exploration–exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision-
making performance. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3): 319–338.
Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. 2001. Internal capabilities, external networks, and
performance: a study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal,
22(6–7): 615–640.
Léger-Jarniou, C. 2013. Le Grand Livre de l’Entrepreneuriat. Dunod.
https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01116117.
Leonidas A. Zampetakis, M. G. 2011. Creativity and entrepreneurial intention in young
people Empirical insights from business school students. The International Journal
of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 12(3): 189–199.
Li, C.-H., & Wu, J.-J. 2011. The Structural Relationships Between Optimism and Innovative
Behavior: Understanding Potential Antecedents and Mediating Effects. Creativity
Research Journal, 23(2): 119–128.
Li, J., & Tang, Y. 2010. CEO Hubris and Firm Risk Taking in China: The Moderating Role of
Managerial Discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1): 45–68.
157
Bibliographie
Lichtenstein, B. B., Carter, N. M., Dooley, K. J., & Gartner, W. B. 2007. Complexity
dynamics of nascent entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2): 236–
261.
Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. 1977. Do those who know more also know more about how
much they know? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20(2): 159–
183.
Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. 1988. First-mover advantages. Strategic
Management Journal, 9(S1): 41–58.
Lin, S.-H., Lu, W. C., Chen, M.-Y., & Chen, L. H. 2014. Association Between Proactive
Personality and Academic Self–Efficacy. Current Psychology, 33(4): 600–609.
Linan, F., & Fayolle, A. 2015. A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions:
citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 11(4): 907–933.
Linan, F., Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. 2011. Regional variations in entrepreneurial
cognitions: Start-up intentions of university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 23(3–4): 187–215.
Lindsay, N., Lindsay, W. A., & Kropp, F. 2009. START-UP INTENTIONS AND
BEHAVIOR OF NECESSITY- BASED ENTREPRENEURS: A LONGITUDINAL
STUDY. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 29(5).
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. 2001. Risk as feelings.
Psychological Bulletin, 127(2): 267–286.
Loewenthal, K. M. 2001. An Introduction to Psychological Tests and Scales. Psychology
Press.
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. 1979. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization:
The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11): 2098–2109.
MacCrimmon, K. R., & Wehrung, D. A. 1985. A portfolio of risk measures. Theory and
Decision, 19(1): 1–29.
MacCrimmon, K. R., Wehrung, D. A., & Stanbury, W. T. 1986. Taking risks: the
management of uncertainty. Free Press.
Magadley, W., & Birdi, K. 2012. Two Sides of the Innovation Coin? An Emprical
Investigation of the Relative Correlates of Idea Generation and Idea Implementation.
International Journal of Innovation Management, 16(1): 1250002–1.
Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. 2005. CEO Overconfidence and Corporate Investment. The
Journal of Finance, 60(6): 2661–2700.
March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. 1987. Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk Taking.
Management Science, 33(11): 1404–1418.
Marcy, R. T. 2015. Breaking mental models as a form of creative destruction: The role of
leader cognition in radical social innovations. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(3): 370–
385.
Markman, G. D., Balkin, D. B., & Baron, R. A. 2002. Inventors and New Venture Formation:
The Effects of General Self-Efficacy and Regretful Thinking. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 27(2): 149–165.
Markman, G. D., & Baron, R. A. 2003. Person–entrepreneurship fit: why some people are
more successful as entrepreneurs than others. Human Resource Management Review,
13(2): 281–301.
Martinsen, O., & Kaufmann, G. 1999. Cognitive style and creativity. In M. . Encyclopedia of
creativity, vol. 1: 273–282. New York: McGraw-Hill.: M. Runco & S. Pritsker.
Maw-Der Foo. 2011. Emotions and Entrepreneurial Opportunity Evaluation.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 35(2): 375–393.
158
Bibliographie
McCline, R. L., Bhat, S., & Baj, P. 2000. Opportunity recognition: An exploratory
investigation of a component of the entrepreneurial process in the context of the health
care industry. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(2): 81–94.
McGee, J. E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S. L., & Sequeira, J. M. 2009. Entrepreneurial Self-
Efficacy: Refining the Measure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(4): 965–
988.
McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. 2006. Entrepreneurial Action And The Role Of
Uncertainty In The Theory Of The Entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review,
31(1): 132–152.
Mednick, S. A. 1962. The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review,
220–232.
Meertens, R. M., & Lion, R. 2008. Measuring an Individual’s Tendency to Take Risks: The
Risk Propensity Scale1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6): 1506–1520.
Messeghem, K., & Sammut, S. 2011. L’entrepreneuriat. Éditions EMS.
Messeghem, K., & Torrès, O. 2015. Les grands auteurs en entrepreneuriat et PME.
Cormelles-le-Royal: EMS.
Mian, S., Fayolle, A., & Lamine, W. 2012. Building sustainable regional platforms for
incubating science and technology businesses: Evidence from US and French science
and technology parks. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation, 13(4): 235–247.
Miller, D. 2015, January. A Downside to the Entrepreneurial Personality? Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, 1–8.
Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., et al. 2002. Toward a
Theory of Entrepreneurial Cognition: Rethinking the People Side of Entrepreneurship
Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2): 93–104.
Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., et al. 2004. The
Distinctive and Inclusive Domain of Entrepreneurial Cognition Research.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 28(6): 505–518.
Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L. W., Bird, B., Gaglio M, C., McMullen, J. S., et al. 2007. The
Central Question in Entrepreneurial Cognition Research 2007. Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, 31(1): 1–27.
Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. 2008. The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review,
115(2): 502–517.
Mudd, S. 1995. Kirton adaption-innovation theory: organizational implications.
Technovation, 15(3): 165–175.
Mullins, J. W., & Forlani, D. 2005. Missing the boat or sinking the boat: a study of new
venture decision making. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1): 47–69.
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. 1988. Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and
innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1): 27–43.
Navis, C., & Ozbek, O. V. 2016a. The Right People in the Wrong Places: The Paradox of
Entrepreneurial Entry and Successful Opportunity Realization. Academy of
Management Review, 41(1): 109–129.
Navis, C., & Ozbek, O. V. 2016b. Why Context Matters: Overconfidence, Narcissism, and the
Role of Objective Uncertainty in Entrepreneurship. ResearchGate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304248335_Why_Context_Matters_Overco
nfidence_Narcissism_and_the_Role_of_Objective_Uncertainty_in_Entrepreneurship.
Neisser, U. 1967. Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Norton, W. I., & Moore, W. T. 2006. The Influence of Entrepreneurial Risk Assessment on
Venture Launch or Growth Decisions. Small Business Economics, 26(3): 215–226.
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
159
Bibliographie
Oishi, S., Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. 2007. The Optimum Level of Well-Being: Can People
Be Too Happy? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4): 346–360.
Palich, L. E., & Bagby, R. D. 1995. Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-
taking: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(6):
425–438.
Papenhausen, C. 2010. Managerial optimism and search. Journal of Business Research,
63(7): 716–720.
Park, J. S. 2005. Opportunity recognition and product innovation in entrepreneurial hi-tech
start-ups: a new perspective and supporting case study. Technovation, 25(7): 739–
752.
Parker, S. C. 2009. The Economics of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9780511817441.
Penrose, E. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm (1995th-09–14th ed.). Oxford
University Press.
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198289774.001.0001/acprof-
9780198289777.
Pérez-Luño, A., Wiklund, J., & Cabrera, R. V. 2011. The dual nature of innovative activity:
How entrepreneurial orientation influences innovation generation and adoption.
Journal of Business Venturing, 26(5): 555–571.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. 2000. The Knowing-Doing Gap. Harvard Business Press.
http://www.goodreads.com/work/best_book/134816-the-knowing-doing-gap-how-
smart-companies-turn-knowledge-into-action.
Plsek, P. E. 1997. Creativity, Innovation, and Quality. ASQC Quality Press.
Popper, K. R. 1935. La logique de la découverte scientifique. (N. Thyssen-Rutten & P.
Devaux, Trans.) (Version Française Edition 2007). Payot & Rivages.
Prodan, I., & Drnovsek, M. 2010. Conceptualizing academic-entrepreneurial intentions: An
empirical test. Technovation, 30(5–6): 332–347.
Puhakka, V. 2011. Developing a Creative-Cognitive Model of Entrepreneurial Alertness to
Business Opportunities. Journal of Management and Strategy, 2(4): 85–94.
Pulford, B. D. 1996. Overconfidence in Human Judgement. University of Leicester,
Leicester.
Randerson, K., Degeorge, J.-M., & Fayolle, A. 2015. Entrepreneurial opportunities: how do
cognitive styles and logics of action fit in? International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 27(1): 19–39.
Rice, M., Kelley, D., Peters, L., & Colarelli O’Connor, G. 2001. Radical innovation:
triggering initiation of opportunity recognition and evaluation. R and D Management,
31(4): 409–420.
Robinson, P. B., Stimpson, D. V., Huefner, J. C., & Hunt, H. K. 1991. An Attitude Approach
to the Prediction of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 15(4):
13–31.
Rodney McAdam, & John McClelland. 2002. Individual and team‐based idea generation
within innovation management: organisational and research agendas. European
Journal of Innovation Management, 5(2): 86–97.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. 2011. Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-
innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5):
956–974.
Russo, J. E., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. 1992. Managing Overconfidence. MIT Sloan
Management Review, (Winter): 7–18.
160
Bibliographie
Sanchis Llopis, J. A., Millán, J. M., Baptista, R., Burke, A., Parker, S. C., et al. 2015. Good
times, bad times: entrepreneurship and the business cycle. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(2): 243–251.
Sarason, Y., Dean, T., & Dillard, J. F. 2006. Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and
opportunity: A structuration view. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(3): 286–305.
Sarasvathy, S. D. 2001a. Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from
Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency. SSRN Scholarly Paper no.
ID 1505857, Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1505857.
Sarasvathy, S. D. 2001b. What makes entrepreneurs entrepreneurial?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=909038.
Sarooghi, H., Libaers, D., & Burkemper, A. 2015. Examining the relationship between
creativity and innovation: A meta-analysis of organizational, cultural, and
environmental factors. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5): 714–731.
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–
1078.
Schmidt, A. M., & Ford, J. K. 2003. Learning Within a Learner Control Training
Environment: The Interactive Effects of Goal Orientation and Metacognitive
Instruction on Learning Outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 56(2): 405–429.
Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Transaction Publishers.
Schumpeter, J. A. 1939. Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis
of the Capitalist Process. Martino Pub.
Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Schwarz, N. 1990. Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of
affective states. Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social
Behaviour, 2.
Scott, E. L., Shu, P., & Lubynsky, R. M. 2015. Are “Better” Ideas More Likely to Succeed?
An Empirical Analysis of Startup Evaluation. Working Papers -- Harvard Business
School Division of Research, 1–30.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. 1994. Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of
Individual Innovation in the Workplace. The Academy of Management Journal,
37(3): 580–607.
Shalley, C. E. 1991. Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on
individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2): 179–185.
Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. 2008. The emergence of team creative cognition: the role
of diverse outside ties, sociocognitive network centrality, and team evolution.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(1): 23–41.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. 2004. The Effects of Personal and Contextual
Characteristics on Creativity: Where Should We Go from Here? Journal of
Management, 30(6): 933–958.
Shane, S. A. 2003. A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-opportunity
Nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. 2000. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of
Research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 217–226.
Shapero, A. 1982. Some Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K.
Vesper (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
161
Bibliographie
Shaver, K. 1995. The entrepreneurial personality myth. Business and Economic Review,
41(3).
http://ezproxy.lancs.ac.uk/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/209589196?
OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/sid:primo.
Shaver, K. G., & Scott, L. R. 1991. Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture
creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2): 23–45.
Shepherd, D. A. 2015. Party On! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more interactive,
activity based, cognitively hot, compassionate, and prosocial. Journal of Business
Venturing, 30(4): 489–507.
Shyti, A. 2013. Overconfidence and Entrepreneurial Choice Under Ambiguity: Evidence from
the Lab. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2013(1): 13508.
Simon, M., & Houghton, S. M. 2003. The Relationship between Overconfidence and the
Introduction of Risky Products: Evidence from a Field Study. Academy of
Management Journal, 46(2): 139–149.
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.
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.
Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. 1992. Reconceptualizing the Determinants of Risk Behavior.
Academy of Management Review, 17(1): 9–38.
Sitkin, S. B., & Weingart, L. R. 1995. Determinants of Risky Decision-Making Behavior: A
Test of the Mediating Role of Risk Perception and Propensity. Academy of
Management Journal, 38(6): 1573–1592.
Slovic, P. 1964. Assessment of risk taking behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 61(3): 220–233.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. 2004. Risk as Analysis and Risk
as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality. Risk
Analysis, 24(2): 311–322.
Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. 1995. The Creative Cognition Approach. MIT
Press.
Soroa, G., Balluerka, N., Hommel, B., & Aritzeta, A. 2015. Assessing interactions between
cognition, emotion, and motivation in creativity: The construction and validation of
EDICOS. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 17: 45–58.
Sternberg, R. J. 1985. Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3): 607–627.
Sternberg, R. J. 1999. The Nature of Cognition. MIT Press.
Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. 1990. A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial
management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5): 17–27.
Tang, J., Kacmar, K. M. (Micki), & Busenitz, L. 2012. Entrepreneurial alertness in the pursuit
of new opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1): 77–94.
Thurik, A. R., Carree, M. A., van Stel, A., & Audretsch, D. B. 2008. Does self-employment
reduce unemployment? Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6): 673–686.
Torrence, E. P. 1966. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical Manual.
Research Edition. Verbal Tests, Forms A and B. Figural Tests, Forms A and B.
Personnel Press.
Tullett, A. D., & Davies, G. B. 1997. Cognitive style and affect: A comparison of the Kirton
adaption-innovation and Schutz’s fundamental interpersonal relations orientation-
behaviour inventories (KAI and FIRO-B). Personality and Individual Differences,
23(3): 479–485.
162
Bibliographie
Tumasjan, A., & Braun, R. 2012. In the eye of the beholder: How regulatory focus and self-
efficacy interact in influencing opportunity recognition. Journal of Business
Venturing, 27(6): 622–636.
Tumasjan, A., Welpe, I., & Spörrle, M. 2013. Easy Now, Desirable Later: The Moderating
Role of Temporal Distance in Opportunity Evaluation and Exploitation.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 37(4): 859–888.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1974. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.
Science, 185(4157): 1124–1131.
Ucbasaran, D., Flores, M., & Westhead, P. 2007. Entrepreneurial optimism and experience:
Does the nature of experience matter? Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research,
27(6): 4.
Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M., & Westhead, P. 2003. A longitudinal study of habitual
entrepreneurs: starters and acquirers. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,
15(3): 207–228.
Urban, B. 2012. Applying a Metacognitive Perspective to Entrepreneurship: Empirical
Evidence on the Influence of Metacognitive Dimensions on Entrepreneurial
Intentions. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 20(2): 203–225.
Urbig, D., & Monsen, E. 2012. The structure of optimism: “Controllability affects the extent
to which efficacy beliefs shape outcome expectancies.” Journal of Economic
Psychology, 33(4): 854–867.
Van de Ven, A. H. 1986. Central Problems in the Management of Innovation. Management
Science, 32(5): 590–607.
Venkataraman, S. 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. Advances in
Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 3(1): 119–138.
Venkatraman, N. 1990. Performance implications of strategic coalignment: A methodological
perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 27(1): 19–41.
Wales, W. J., Patel, P. C., & Lumpkin, G. T. 2013. In Pursuit of Greatness: CEO Narcissism,
Entrepreneurial Orientation, and Firm Performance Variance. Journal of
Management Studies, 50(6): 1041–1069.
Wanberg, C. R., Kanfer, R., & Rotundo, M. 1999. Unemployed individuals: motives, job-
search competencies, and job-search constraints as predictors of job seeking and
reemployment. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6): 897–910.
Ward, T. B. 2004. Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 19(2): 173–188.
Ward, T. B. 2007. Creative cognition as a window on creativity. Methods (San Diego,
Calif.), 42(1): 28–37.
Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Finke, R. A. 1998. Creative Cognition. Handbook of Creativity.
Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807916.012.
Weber, E. U., Blais, A.-R., & Betz, N. E. 2002. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale:
measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 15(4): 263–290.
Williams, D. W., & Wood, M. S. 2015. Rule-Based Reasoning for Understanding
Opportunity Evaluation. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(2): 218–236.
Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. 2007. Gender, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and
Entrepreneurial Career Intentions: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education1.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3): 387–406.
Wirtz, P. 2011. The cognitive dimension of corporate governance in fast growing
entrepreneurial firms. European Management Journal, 29(6): 431–447.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. 1989. Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management. The
Academy of Management Review, 14(3): 361.
163
Bibliographie
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward a Theory of Organizational
Creativity. The Academy of Management Review, 18(2): 293–321.
Wu, W.-Y., Chang, M.-L., & Chen, C.-W. 2008. Promoting innovation through the
accumulation of intellectual capital, social capital, and entrepreneurial orientation.
R&D Management, 38(3): 265–277.
Young Sik Cho, & Jung, J. Y. 2014. The Relationship Between Metacognition,
Entrepreneurial Orientation, and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation.
Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 20(2): 71–86.
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. 2010. Innovative Behavior in the Workplace: The Role of
Performance and Image Outcome Expectations. Academy of Management Journal,
53(2): 323–342.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. 2002. Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and
Extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 185–203.
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. 1973. Innovations and organizations. Wiley.
Zhou, J. 2008. New look at creativity in the entrepreneurial process. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(1): 1–5.
164
165
Annexes
166
Annexes
ANNEXES
167
Annexes
168
Annexes
169
Annexes
170
Annexes
171
Annexes
172
Annexes
173
Annexes
Dans le cadre d'une recherche doctorale, nous menons une étude sur les parfums de glaces préférés.
D’après une enquête distribuée au grand public, nous avons identifié 25 parfums les plus préférés des
français. Nous avons utilisé ces résultats pour constituer des possibles mélanges de parfums de glaces et nous
voudrions avoir votre avis sur l’attractivité de ces mélanges.
Nous avons besoin de votre participation à cette enquête, car les résultats que nous obtiendrions vont nous
permettre d’enrichir une étude expérimentale que nous menions auprès des entrepreneurs qui vise à mieux
comprendre leur comportement d’innovation face a des situations différentes.
Merci de répondre à ce questionnaire de quelques minutes pour nous permettre de mieux connaître vos envies
et vos goûts.
Instructions
Vous serez regroupés en groupes de 15 à 20 personnes et vous serez invité à donner votre avis sur 75
mélanges de glaces différentes. Vous évaluerez le degré d’originalité, l’attractivité et le prix que vous serez
prêt à payer pour chaque mélange proposé.
Vous aurez un tableau où vous devrez noter l’appréciation donnée à chaque mélange.
Merci de répondre aux trois questions suivantes et de remplir les cases correspondantes dans le tableau.
Si vous deviez classer ces mélanges selon leur degré d'originalité, quelle note donneriez vous à chacun d'entre
eux? (1=pas du tout original ; 7=Très original)
Dans quelle mesure est-ce probable que vous achetiez chacun des mélanges proposés ? (1=Pas du tout
probable ; 7=très Probable)
Combien, en euros, seriez-vous prêt à payer pour chacun des mélanges proposés?
174
Annexes
175
Annexes
176
Annexes
101 Fruits Rouges - Pistache 4,42 4,04 3,10 1,79 2,16 1,03
102 Citron - Chocolat 3,67 2,54 2,75 2,04 1,89 1,12
103 Yaourt - Banane 3,13 2,75 2,65 1,70 1,98 1,18
104 Mûre - Melon 4,17 3,50 2,79 1,58 1,62 1,18
105 Nougat - Melon 4,71 3,21 3,02 1,33 1,98 1,18
106 Nutella - Fruits Rouges 4,58 3,50 3,15 2,00 2,25 1,16
107 Menthe - Yaourt 4,08 1,83 2,56 1,61 1,40 1,29
108 Yaourt - Vanille 2,83 3,67 2,69 1,71 2,22 1,17
109 Gingembre - Noisette 5,92 2,71 2,90 0,93 2,05 1,29
110 Nutella - Yaourt 3,54 3,88 2,85 1,44 1,98 1,06
111 Chocolat - Vanille 1,50 3,58 2,92 1,35 2,45 1,44
112 Pêche - Macadamia 4,83 3,71 2,89 1,31 1,73 1,12
113 Confiture de lait - Noisette 4,00 4,29 3,09 1,91 2,37 1,18
114 Fruits Rouges - Citron 2,79 4,00 2,94 1,53 2,25 1,18
115 Mangue - Fraise 3,38 3,83 2,85 1,56 2,06 1,15
116 Mûre - Noisette 4,38 3,17 2,83 1,38 2,01 1,17
117 Caramel - Mangue 4,75 3,42 2,83 1,73 2,28 1,18
118 Nutella - Vanille 2,54 4,83 2,81 1,56 2,14 1,15
119 Yaourt - Fraise 2,25 3,29 2,64 1,26 2,16 1,20
120 Menthe - Mangue 4,50 2,17 2,76 1,74 1,76 1,44
121 Mangue - Citron 3,42 3,71 2,88 1,86 2,29 1,22
122 Fruits Rouges - Noisette 4,92 3,42 2,98 1,79 2,17 1,08
123 Yaourt - Café 3,50 2,79 2,46 2,17 2,04 1,44
124 Nougat - Fraise 4,38 2,96 2,76 1,44 1,92 1,08
125 Gingembre - Melon 5,21 3,00 2,75 2,00 2,45 1,44
126 Gingembre - Clémentine 6,00 2,63 2,69 1,38 2,08 1,44
127 Confiture de lait - Pistache 4,79 3,58 3,08 1,64 2,06 1,21
128 Nutella - Macadamia 4,17 4,42 3,08 2,04 1,74 1,42
129 Macadamia - Fruits Rouges 4,38 3,67 2,81 1,56 1,66 1,20
130 Gingembre - Fraise 5,08 2,54 2,52 1,91 1,96 1,38
131 Caramel - Vanille 2,17 4,42 2,73 1,74 2,22 1,20
132 Mangue - Framboise 2,79 4,29 2,83 1,44 1,76 1,14
133 Melon - Noix de Coco 4,33 2,88 2,84 1,66 1,85 1,19
134 Confiture de lait - Fruit de la Passion 4,63 3,79 2,94 1,74 2,02 1,17
135 Nougat - Clémentine 4,92 3,08 2,85 1,67 2,12 1,17
136 Fruit de la Passion - Vanille 3,33 3,79 3,04 1,76 2,26 1,41
137 Caramel - Pistache 2,58 3,29 2,67 1,67 2,18 1,20
138 Fruits Rouges - Mangue 3,04 3,83 2,75 1,85 1,97 1,13
139 Macadamia - Gingembre 5,92 2,54 2,67 1,10 1,96 1,41
140 Mangue - Noix de Coco 4,17 3,58 2,96 1,76 1,84 1,19
141 Pêche - Caramel 3,79 3,38 2,75 1,79 1,93 1,12
142 Fraise - Vanille 1,63 3,33 2,67 1,38 2,44 1,24
143 Caramel - Café 1,83 3,21 2,56 1,61 2,26 1,23
144 Gingembre - Citron 4,54 2,88 2,63 1,96 2,23 1,34
145 Pêche - Framboise 2,46 3,88 2,71 1,50 1,90 1,14
146 Noix de Coco - Pistache 3,46 3,29 2,83 1,77 1,92 1,18
177
Annexes
178
Annexes
179
Annexes
239 Confiture de lait - Vanille 3,80 4,32 2,62 2,22 2,21 1,02
240 Menthe - Melon 4,92 2,44 1,83 1,80 2,10 1,47
241 Macadamia - Yaourt 4,24 3,24 2,12 1,71 2,31 1,30
242 Confiture de lait - Banane 4,24 4,04 2,53 1,81 2,19 1,32
243 Gingembre - Banane 5,68 2,24 1,97 1,93 1,83 1,50
244 Nougat - Confiture de lait 4,28 3,76 2,52 1,57 2,31 1,48
245 Nougat - Noisette 3,52 4,16 2,56 1,76 2,21 1,11
246 Melon - Citron 3,00 3,00 2,03 1,76 2,04 1,34
247 Gingembre - Mangue 5,16 3,08 2,18 1,62 2,02 1,39
248 Noisette - Noix de Coco 4,08 3,36 2,30 1,55 2,12 1,35
249 Gingembre - Fruits Rouges 5,00 2,96 2,14 1,76 2,03 1,61
250 Framboise - Vanille 2,08 3,60 2,30 1,85 2,04 1,16
251 Pêche - Chocolat 3,96 2,72 1,98 1,74 1,62 1,41
252 Confiture de lait - Mangue 4,40 3,40 2,55 1,41 1,87 1,39
253 Framboise - Noix de Coco 3,52 2,64 2,02 1,61 1,78 1,30
254 Noix de Coco - Chocolat 2,84 3,72 2,44 1,68 2,21 1,43
255 Banane - Caramel 4,44 3,68 2,62 1,42 1,75 1,15
256 Nutella - Fruit de la Passion 4,56 2,84 2,17 1,61 2,08 1,83
257 Nutella - Pistache 3,92 3,28 2,13 1,85 2,32 1,72
258 Nutella - Confiture de lait 3,88 3,92 2,33 1,83 2,43 1,48
259 Fruit de la Passion - Noisette 4,32 3,16 2,25 1,25 1,93 1,50
260 Clémentine - Café 5,28 2,04 1,65 1,99 1,51 1,55
261 Pêche - Vanille 3,04 3,32 2,15 1,65 1,89 1,29
262 Pêche - Pistache 3,76 3,08 2,42 1,27 1,82 1,35
263 Banane - Café 4,08 2,28 1,87 1,53 1,46 1,33
264 Fruits Rouges - Noix de Coco 3,28 3,28 2,21 1,65 2,05 1,38
265 Clémentine - Noix de Coco 3,76 2,68 1,80 1,64 2,06 1,30
266 Clémentine - Citron 3,44 3,60 2,13 1,76 2,00 1,27
267 Nougat - Noix de Coco 3,36 2,32 2,04 1,29 1,55 1,28
268 Yaourt - Chocolat 3,84 3,40 2,42 1,60 1,94 1,52
269 Fruits Rouges - Yaourt 3,84 4,40 2,84 1,49 1,55 1,15
270 Banane - Melon 3,92 4,04 2,74 1,61 2,24 1,42
271 Caramel - Noix de Coco 3,80 2,80 2,38 1,55 1,73 1,05
272 Nutella - Nougat 3,44 3,08 2,27 1,85 2,10 1,22
273 Macadamia - Pistache 3,80 3,04 2,14 1,47 1,95 1,27
274 Gingembre - Café 4,88 1,96 1,76 2,11 1,65 1,54
275 Gingembre - Fruit de la Passion 5,08 3,36 2,07 1,82 2,25 1,44
276 Macadamia - Café 3,92 2,40 1,66 1,44 1,78 1,42
277 Clémentine - Mûre 4,12 3,80 2,62 1,64 2,06 1,10
278 Noix de Coco - Vanille 2,36 2,76 1,95 1,52 1,92 1,36
279 Noix de Coco - Café 3,12 1,92 1,76 1,72 1,41 1,39
280 Nougat - Caramel 2,36 3,44 2,37 1,29 2,06 1,26
281 Nutella - Caramel 3,00 3,32 2,24 1,76 2,34 1,51
282 Confiture de lait - Noix de Coco 4,16 3,36 2,71 1,68 2,33 1,72
283 Nougat - Mûre 4,48 3,20 2,18 1,50 1,91 1,42
284 Yaourt - Mûre 3,92 4,12 2,60 1,47 1,76 1,34
180
Annexes
181
Annexes
Vous allez participer à une étude scientifique expérimentale. Cette étude est réalisée dans le cadre d’une thèse
doctorale à l’Université de Montpellier et à l’IAE de Montpellier. Cette recherche a reçu des fonds de
financement de l’état à travers le LabEx Entreprendre , et de l’IAE de Montpellier.
Dans ce cadre, nous réalisons une étude expérimentale auprès des entrepreneurs et porteurs de projets pour
identifier les stratégies d’innovation. L’objectif de cette expérience n’est pas de vous évaluer ni même de
calculer un score de bonnes réponses mais uniquement de comprendre votre comportement face aux questions
posées.
Sachez qu’il n’existe pas de bonnes ou de mauvaises réponses, donc sentez-vous libre de répondre à toutes les
questions de façon naturelle et sincère, même si vous n’avez pas qu’une vague idée sur le sujet.
Certaines questions peuvent paraître répétitive, or elles sont nécessaires pour la fiabilité de notre recherche.
Vos réponses seront traitées de façon confidentielle et ne seront utilisées que pour des buts scientifiques.
Instructions
Merci de lire attentivement les instructions. Tout ce que vous avez besoin de savoir pour participer à
l’expérimentation est expliqué ci-dessous. Dans le cas où vous auriez des questions sur les instructions,
n’hésitez pas à nous l’indiquer en levant votre main. Nous viendrons à votre rencontre pour répondre à vos
questions.
L’étude est divisée en deux grandes parties, la première est un questionnaire qui ne prendra pas plus de 20
minutes ; la deuxième partie prendra la forme d’une simulation où vous jouerez le rôle d’un propriétaire d’un
kiosque de glaces.
Sachez que pendant toute la durée de l’expérimentation la communication ou l’échange entre les participants
est strictement interdit. Notre objectif est en effet d’obtenir des réponses individuelles. Aussi, merci d’utiliser
uniquement les fonctions de l’ordinateur qui sont nécessaires pour l ‘expérience. La navigation sur le web et
l’utilisation d’autres logiciels sont interdites.
182
Annexes
À travers les questions suivantes, nous essayons de restituer votre personnalité. Le but n’est pas de vous
évaluer mais plutôt comprendre votre comportement face aux questions posées.
Sachez qu’il n’existe pas de réponses « idéales » donc merci de répondre à toutes les questions de façon
naturelle, même si vous n’avez qu’une vague idée sur le sujet.
Cette partie de l’étude est divisée en trois (3) séries de questions. Pour chaque série vous disposez d’un temps
défini pour y répondre. L’expérimentateur présent en salle vous indiquera quand commencer et quand passer
à l'exercice suivant. Pour des raisons de fiabilité des résultats, une fois le temps de chaque session écoulé
merci de remettre le document avec vos réponses dans la chemise mise à disposition pour cet effet.
Votre NOM :
Votre Prénom :
Société :
Adresse Mail :
183
Annexes
Exercice 1
Exemple:
Merci d’indiquer toutes les utilisations que vous imaginez pour les objet suivant: Tasse
Utilisations:
1. Porte stylo
2. Pot de fleurs
3. Porte-bougie
4. Moule à gâteau
5. Pot pour mettre des feuilles enroulées
Merci d’indiquer toutes les utilisations que vous imaginez pour l’objet suivant48 :
Brique
Cuillère
Chaise
48
Each object was presented in a separate piece of paper.
184
Annexes
Exercice 2
Dans les séries de questions suivantes, vous devez donner votre réponse sous forme d'intervalle allant d'une
valeur minimale à une valeur maximale. Merci de donner votre intervalle de façon à que vous soyez certain à
90% que la réponse à la question se situe à l'intérieur de l'intervalle.
Valeur Valeur
Minimale Maximale
10. Quel est le point le plus profond connu des océans? (en km)
185
Annexes
Exercice 3
Merci de répondre en toute honnêteté aux questions suivantes. Vous trouverez ci-dessous une liste avec 34
activités. Veuillez placer une croix à coté des activités dans lesquelles vous avez été impliqué(e) au cours des
12 derniers mois.
!Remanié ou redécoré une salle de bains, cuisine, chambre, espace de travail, etc.
!Inventé et réalisé un produit qui peut être utilisé
!Conçu un dessin animé
!Créé un club, groupe ou association
!Peint un tableau (en utilisant des peintures, crayons, acryliques, etc.)
!Publié un article
!Réalisé une sculpture (avec tous types de matériaux)
!Trouvé qu’une théorie/approche scientifique acceptée n’explique pas ce qu’elle prévoit
d’expliquer
187
Annexes
Instructions du Jeu
Pour cette partie de l’étude vous allez jouer le rôle du propriétaire d’un kiosque de glaces. Pendant 20
périodes vous allez prendre des décisions sur la stratégie de vente de façon à maximiser le profit de votre
kiosque. Les décisions à prendre concernent :
• le choix des parfums qui vont composer le mélange de glace que vous allez proposer dans votre
kiosque;
A chaque période on vous demande de choisir parmi une liste, deux parfums de glaces que vous souhaiterez
proposer ensemble à votre clientèle. En même temps, vous devrez définir le prix de vente pour ce mélange.
Vous êtes libre de choisir le mélange et le prix que vous voulez, mais sachez que votre profit à la fin de
chaque période dépendra de la demande. Votre objectif est celui de choisir la stratégie qui vous permettra
d’atteindre le profit maximal.
A la fin de chaque période vous découvrirez le profit que vous avez fait pendant celle-ci. De plus, vous allez
recevoir des avis des consommateurs concernant votre offre pour vous aider à améliorer vos choix dans les
périodes suivantes. Les choix que vous faites en une période vont être considérés comme ceux par défaut
pour la période suivante. Vous pouvez à chaque période changer complètement votre stratégie, la modifier ou
la maintenir.
Vous aurez à votre disposition un stylo et des feuilles blanches où vous pourrez, si vous le voulez, conserver
une trace de vos décisions à chaque période, prendre note des avis donnés par les consommateurs ou toute
autre information que vous souhaitez noter. A la fin de l’expérimentation, pour des raisons liées à la validité
de l’expérimentation, on vous demandera de restituer ces notes à l’expérimentateur présent en salle.
A chaque période, vous disposez d’une minute et demie pour faire votre choix. Vous aurez un écran qui vous
montrera l’écoulement du temps. À défaut de décisions saisies dans le temps, le logiciel conservera les choix
faits pour la période précédente.
Paiement
Pendant les 10 premières périodes votre profit ne sera pas comptabilisé, en effet ces 10 périodes vous
permettent de découvrir le marché et de comprendre son fonctionnement.
Pendant les périodes 11 à 20, votre profit sera pris en compte. Le participant qui aura fait le meilleur profit
cumulé au cours de ces 10 dernières périodes sera le vainqueur de la session.
Avant de commencer le jeu vous aurez 5 minutes pour lire une lettre qui vous a été adressée par l’ancien
propriétaire du kiosque de glaces avec quelques indications sur la façon dont il a géré le business.
188
Annexes
Cher(e) Propriétaire,
Je vous adresse cette lettre qui vous servira de guide dans votre démarrage du kiosque de glaces. Ce guide
détaille la stratégie que j’ai suivie. Quand j’étais à la tête du kiosque je proposais un mélange de Chocolat et
Framboise que je vendais à 3€ le cornet.
Avec cette stratégie j’étais en mesure de faire un profit d’environ 1 755€ par période. J’avais expérimenté
avec d’autres mélanges telles que chocolat et vanille avec des prix différents. Cependant, la stratégie que j’ai
choisie a été pour l’instant la plus profitable.
Selon une récente étude de marché, deux des parfums préférés des français sont le Chocolat et le Nutella.
Cette étude montre aussi que 60 % sont prêts à déguster des mélanges originaux et qu’ils seraient prêts à
payer en moyenne 2 fois plus pour leurs mélanges préférés par rapport aux autres.
En espérant que ces informations vous seront utiles, je vous souhaite beaucoup de succès.
Très Cordialement,
Le Propriétaire Précédent
189
Annexes
190
Annexes
* At each period a random function selected a dimension (originality of the ice-cream mix, attractiveness of
the mix to consumers, price of the mix) in which consumer feedback was given. Then the feedback depended
on how the ice-cream mix proposed at that period by the entrepreneur was evaluated by consumers in that
specific dimension. For example, if the software randomly selected originality dimension to give feedback,
then the message “Your clients thought that your offer was very original” was presented to the participant if
the score for originality given by the consumers was above the mean (obtained from the market study
conducted prior to the experiment)
191
Annexes
192
Annexes
Component Matrix
Component
1
Flexibility 0.948
Fluidity 0.934
Originality 0.880
BICB 0.644
193
Annexes
Introduction
Vous allez participer à une étude scientifique réalisée dans le cadre d’une thèse doctorale à l’Université de
Montpellier et à l’IAE de Montpellier. Cette recherche a reçu des fonds de financement de l’état à travers le
LabEx Entreprendre49 , et de l’IAE de Montpellier.
Pour cette étude on vous invite à jouer le rôle du propriétaire d’un kiosque de glaces. Vous allez prendre des
décisions sur la stratégie de vente de façon à maximiser le profit de votre kiosque. Les décisions à prendre
concernent le choix des parfums qui vont composer les mélanges de glace que vous allez proposer dans votre
kiosque et le prix auquel vous vendrez ces mélanges.
Pendant toute la durée de l’expérimentation la communication ou l’échange entre les participants est
strictement interdit. Notre objectif est en effet d’obtenir des réponses individuelles.
Sachez qu’il n’existe pas de bonnes ou de mauvaises réponses, donc merci de répondre à toutes les questions
de façon naturelle et sincère, même si vous n’avez pas qu’une vague idée sur le sujet.
Vos réponses seront traitées de façon confidentielle et ne seront utilisées que pour des buts académiques.
49
Le Labex Entreprendre bénéficie d’une aide de l’Etat gérée par l’Agence Nationale de la Recherche au titre
du programme “Investissements d’Avenir” portant la référence ANR-10-LABX-11-01.
194
Annexes
Instructions
On vous demande de choisir parmi une liste de parfums, cinq mélanges de deux parfums de glaces que vous
souhaiterez proposer ensemble à votre clientèle (exemple : chocolat et vanille). En même temps vous devrez
définir le prix de vente pour chaque mélange proposé. Vous êtes libre de choisir le mélange et le prix que
vous voulez, mais sachez que votre objectif est celui de choisir la stratégie qui vous permettra de maximiser
le profit de votre kiosque et de rester compétitif face à la concurrence.
Nom :
Age :
Genre :
Groupe50 :
Parmi les parfums proposés dans la liste, Si vous devriez choisir cinq mélanges de glace a vendre dans votre
kiosque, les quelles choisiriez-vous?
Pour chaque mélange que vous avez propose merci d’indiquer le prix auquel vous souhaitez le vendre (en
euros par unité).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50
Group number was assigned randomly, the number indicated the order in which ice-cream mix were
presented. We analyzed differences in frequencies for each ice-cream flavor between 3 groups that had
different orders.
195
Annexes
Median
difference Kruskal-
Ice Cream Flavor Test (sig.)* Wallis Test*
Banane 0.922 0.885
Café 0.551 0.616
Caramel 0.227 0.363
Chocolat 0.413 0.529
Citron 0.406 0.358
Clémentine 0.209 0.217
Confiture de Lait 0.521 0.537
Fraise 0.402 0.752
Framboise 0.136 0.197
Fruit de la Passion 0.681 0.794
Fruits Rouges 0.551 0.558
Gingembre 0.168 0.175
Macadamia 0.956 0.973
Mangue 0.827 0.831
Melon 0.485 0.451
Menthe 0.179 0.16
Mure 0.527 0.535
Noisette 0.107 0.112
Noix de Coco 0.956 0.913
Nougat 0.501 0.509
Nutella 0.111 0.137
Pêche 0.400 0.39
Pistache 0.106 0.181
Vanille 0.339 0.404
Yaourt 0.574 0.581
* the null hypothesis was that the median (or distribution)
for each ice-cream flavor was the same within the three
groups of participants
196
Annexes
197
Annexes
198
Annexes
Veuillez nous indiquer dans quelle mesure vous êtes en accord ou en désaccord avec les
propositions suivantes:
51
This is a French translation of the original scale developed by Wilson et al. (2007).
199
Annexes
Veuillez nous indiquer dans quelle mesure vous êtes en accord ou en désaccord avec les
propositions suivantes:
3. Si quelque chose risque de mal se passer pour moi, alors ça m'arrive. (R)
7. Je m’attends rarement à ce que les choses aillent bien pour moi. (R)
10. Généralement, je m'attends à ce que davantage de bonnes choses m'arrivent plutôt que
de mauvaises.
52
This scale was obtained from Denios Hilton of the University of Toulouse II – CLLE (Cognition, Langues,
Langage et Ergonomie) Research Laboratory in Toulouse, France. Is a translation of the original LOT-R test
developed by Scheier et al. (1994). Items with (R) were reversed when calculating the final optimism score.
Items with (F) are fillers and are not included in the final score.
200
Annexes
Veuillez nous indiquer dans quelle mesure vous êtes en accord ou en désaccord avec les
propositions suivantes:
7. Je me perçois comme53…
53
For this last question the scale ranked from 1 : Risk averse to 5 : Risk prone
201
Annexes
Females Males
Gender 19 (27,1%) 51 (72,9%)
202
Annexes
Model 5 Model 11
Variables B S.E. B S.E.
Constant 12.73* 5.17 12.72* 5.17
Gendera -1.48† 0.87 -1.48† 0.87
Age -0.04 0.04 -0.03 0.05
Education -0.36 0.47 -0.36 0.49
Venture status -0.14 0.40
b
Opportunity Evaluation 1.65* 0.67 1.68* 0.68
Creativity 1.01* 0.42 1.04* 0.43
c
Creativity x Opportunity Evaluation 2.50* 0.96 2.46* 0.97
N 70 70
-2 log likelihood 58.85 58.73
Model chi-square 38.19** 38.31**
R2 Negelkerke 0.56 0.56n.s.
Correct overall forecast (%) 81.4 81,4
** p < 0.001 ; * p < 0.05 ; † p < 0.1 (two-tailed significancy)
a. Gender (Male=1. Female=0); b. Opportunity Evaluation is the sum of originality of new flavors explored
during the first 10 periods; c. variables are mean-centered
n.s: non-significant compared to model without variable "venture status"
! !
203
Annexes
Model 8 Model 12
Variables B S.E. B S.E.
Constant -0.07 1.32 -0.17 1.32
Gender -0.39 0.26 -0.38 0.26
Age -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01
Education 0.02 0.15 0.002 0.15
Venture status 0.11 0.13
Overconfidence 0.95† 0.52 0.92† 0.52
Risk Aversion -0.43* 0.19 -0.41* 0.19
Optimism 0.34† 0.18 0.34† 0.18
ESE
N 70 70
F 3.451* 3.046*
R2 0.25 0.26
∆R2 0.18* 0.01n.s.
** p < 0.001 ; * p < 0.05 ; † p < 0.1 (two-tailed significancy)
a. Gender (Male=1. Female=0);
n.s: non-significant compared to model without variable "venture status"!
Model 10 Model 13
Variables B S.E. B S.E.
Constant 13.31* 5.47 12.99* 5.47
Gender -2.57* 0.84 -2.53* 0.84
Age -0.12* 0.46 -0.13* 0.45
Education -0.90† 0.46 -0.92† 0.46
Venture status 0.27 0.36
Overconfidence 3.27* 1.53 3.17* 1.54
Risk Aversion -1.30* 0.64 -1.27* 0.64
Optimism -1.26* 0.59 -1.27* 0.59
ESE 0.87 0.73 0.89 0.73
N 70 70
-2 log likelihood 71.29 70.72
Model chi-square 25.69** 26.25*
R2 Negelkerke 0.41 0.42n.s.
Correct overall forecast (%) 77.1 75.7
** p < 0.001 ; * p < 0.05 ; † p < 0.1 (two-tailed significancy)
a. Gender (Male=1. Female=0);
n.s: non-significant compared to model without variable "venture status"
204
Annexes
205
Annexes
206
Annexes
Opportunity
Evaluation Effect se Z p LLCI ULCI
-0.59 -0.46 0.55 -0.84 0.40 -1.54 0.62
0.00 1.01 0.42 2.38 0.02 0.18 1.84
0.59 2.48 0.84 2.96 0.00 0 .84 4.12
207
Annexes
For all questions below, respondents were asked to give their degree of agreement with each proposed item,
ranging from 1 (‘Strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘strongly agree’).
Optimism (Cronbach’s alpha for this score is 0.72; note that item three was inversed when calculating final
score)
1. Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad.
2. In uncertain times, I usually expect the best.
3. I rarely count on good things happening to me.
4. I am always optimistic about my future.
Entrepreneurial Risk-taking Willingness (Cronbach’s alpha for this score is 0.67; note that items 1, 2, 4 and
5 were inversed when calculating final score). These items were selected from a total list of 10 items.
1. I prefer to work in an environment where there are few risks required and I am certain of what is
expected of me.
2. I rarely put myself in positions in which I might lose something important to me.
3. I don't mind taking chances with things that are important to me.
4. If I had the feeling that the chances of failure were high I would not start my own business.
5. I do take chances with my career choices.
6. There are career moves I am reluctant to make because they pose a risk to my future security.
Each time the respondent choses the risky option, we asked him/her which percentage of the total amount of
the 100.000 euros won would they like to invest. The question was as follows:
What share of your lottery winnings would you be prepared to invest in this financially risky, yet lucrative
investment?
208
Annexes
Based on these two questions, we classified respondents within 5 categories of risk propensity ranging from 0
(low risk propensity) to 4 (high risk propensity). The categories were depicted as follows:
209
Annexes
Annexe R Scale, correlations and regressions results using Risk style scale for
assessing risk propensity
During the pre-test phase of the study we employed a different measure of risk propensity
based on the Risk Style Scale developed by Forlani & Mullins (2000). This measure, based
on different lottery scenarios, dealt with personal propensities towards financial risk taking,
as opposed to other kinds of risks. Respondents had to choose from 2 financial gain
scenarios, one with a low but certain gain and another one with a higher gain but with a
percentage of uncertainty. Nonetheless, respondents seemed to be reluctant to this kind of
questions; therefore we decided to introduce a more concrete question to measure their
attitude towards risk through a financial investment decision (based on Caliendo et al.
2010). We performed the different analyses (correlations and regression) using this risk
style scale but found no significant impact on our dependent variable and no improvement
on the whole regression model. Thus, we decided not to include this measurement in our
final results. Appendix R shows the scale, correlations tables and regressions including the
measure of risk propensity assessed trough risky style scale
Risk propensity. The Risk Style Scale (Forlani and Mullins, 2000) to measure risk
propensity. This measure dealt with individual propensity toward financial risk- taking, as
opposed to other kinds of risk, and proved effective in assessing the construct of interest.
We asked respondents to choose from two financial gain scenarios, one with a certain gain
and another with a higher gain but with a percentage of uncertainty. The variable was
coded 0 if the respondent chose the certain gain and 1 if she chose the uncertain
scenario. The total score for risk propensity was calculated by summing the responses to
each of the 5 coupled scenarios. The maximum score was 5, which indicates a high
propensity to risk.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Entrepreneur 1
2 Gender 0.182c 1
3 Age -0.340 a -0.133 1
4 Self-efficacy 0.300b 0.120 -0.240b (0.73)
5 Optimism 0.128 -0.019 0.049 0.246b (0.72)
6 Opp. recognition -0.068 0.028 -0.199c 0.346a 0.169 (0.76)
7 Risk-taking 0.372a -0.004 0.033 0.164 0.290b -0.061 (0.66)
8 Risk aversion -0.293b -0.021 0.126 -0.180c -0.008 0.021 -0.221c 1
9 Risk propensity 0.018 -0.074 -0.119 -0.086 -0.002 -0.112 0.021 -0.307b 1
a: p < 0.001; b: p < 0.01; c: p < 0.05
Gender: 0 = Female; 1 = Male; Age: 0 = 30-45; 1 = over 45
Cronbach’s alpha is given in parentheses at the diagonal where applicable
210
Annexes
211
Annexes
212
Annexes
213
Table des matières
LISTE DE FIGURES
LISTE DE TABLEAUX
214
Table des matières
215
Table des matières
216
Table des matières
217