learning to identify opportunities - aom 2012 presentation

7/29/2019 Learning to Identify Opportunities - AOM 2012 Presentation

1/21

Learning to Identify Opportunities: The ConcomitantInfluence of Affect, Cognition, and Motivation

Academy of Management- August 7, 2012


2/21

Introduction

Give a man a fish and hell eat for a day. Teach him

how to fish and hell eat forever. Chinese proverb

We know little about how and what entrepreneurs learn

Experience can lead to entrepreneurial knowledge Previous studies have emphasized an individualized view of

entrepreneurial learning

However, this is surprising given a wide range of evidence

indicating the importance to entrepreneurs of learning from others

Social learning may be of particular importance to entrepreneurs

This study integrates social constructivist and educational

psychology theories in exploring the entrepreneurial learning

process.


3/21

Theory

We look at entrepreneurial learning in a social context

Social constructivist theory explores how interactions

between experts and novices can lead to the

heightened development of knowledge Experts facilitate learning through situated modeling,

coaching, and fading

Extensive research in educational psychology indicate

there are primarily two factors that explain individual

learning: (1) ability and (2) willingness to learn


4/21

Conceptual Model

Display ofStructural

AlignmentProcesses

MetacognitiveAbility

Learning ofStructural

AlignmentProcesses

CreativeSelf-Efficacy

NegativeAffect


5/21

Structural Alignment

In making sense of new information, individuals compare new

stimuli to preexisting information

Structural alignment is a cognitive tool that people use to

compare and make sense of new things

Alignment proceeds at two levels: superficial and structural

alignment

Structural alignment is more involved in higher-order reasoning:

learning, new product ideation, problem solving

A study by Gregoire et al. (2010) found that entrepreneurs rely

largely upon structural alignment comparisons in recognizing

opportunities


6/21

Metacognition

An individuals ability to think about their own thinking

Allows individuals to consider alternate thinking

strategies for a given situation

Individuals with metacognitive abilities will be betterable to compare and contrast opportunity identification

strategies

These individuals are better equipped to understand

and make thinking changes necessary to develop

expertise in a given domain

However, negative affect may lead to cognitive

overload and inhibit learning


7/21

Conceptual Model


AlignmentProcesses



AlignmentProcesses


NegativeAffect

H1

H2


8/21

Creative Self-Efficacy

An individuals confidence in their ability to attain a high level of

performance in a specific task

Self-efficacy has been widely found to positively impact

performance through effort, persistence, and perseverance

Self-efficacy needs to be specific to the task

A few studies suggest that in certain contexts, high self-efficacy

can lead to diminished performance

Affect-as-information literature indicates that affect plays a role

in signaling whether one has exerted enough effort on a task

The motivational impact of negative affect is likely tied to an

individuals level of self-efficacy


9/21

Conceptual Model


AlignmentProcesses



AlignmentProcesses


NegativeAffect

H3

H4


10/21

Sample

Sample includes 124 entrepreneurial students and 124 experienced

entrepreneurs

Entrepreneurs selected from OneSource database and participation in

Technology Park (IN, IL, IA, MI, WI)

Students drawn from entrepreneurship and strategy classes

Entrepreneur Demographics

Average Age 52 years old, Range 20-85 years old

Average Schooling 4 year college degree, Range from high school to

PhD An average of 2.8 ventures started per entrepreneur


11/21

Research Design

Student attemptsOR exercise on

own

Student attempts3 OR exercisesin collaboration

with entrepreneur

Student attemptsa final OR

exercise on theirown


12/21

Measures

Display of and Learning of Structural Alignment Processes Verbal protocol analysis

using coding structure consistent with Gregoire et al. (2010). 94% and 90%

agreement respectively between coders.

Metacognitive Ability We used the Measure of Adaptive Cognition (MAC), a 36 item

scale as developed by Haynie and Shepherd (2009). Cronbachs =.94

Creative Self-Efficacy A 3 item measure as developed by Tierney and Farmer(2002). Cronbachs =.83

Negative AffectWe used 10 items from Watson et al.s (1998) PANAS scale to

measure novice negative affect. Cronbachs =.86


13/21

Results


AlignmentProcesses



AlignmentProcesses


NegativeAffect

H3: Not supported

H4: Supported (p


14/21

Results

Model 3 Model 4

H1: EntAlignment*Metacognition -0.048 -0.111

H2: EntAlignment*Metacognition*

Negative Affect -0.355**

H3: EntAlignment*Self-Efficacy -0.135 -0.267*

H4: EntAlignment*Self-Efficacy*

Negative Affect0.351**

R2 0.308** 0.394**


15/21

Conclusions

Negative affect can have a powerful effect upon learning

In preparatory contexts (where one is learning a new skill),

low self-efficacy can lead to higher performance

Higher level information processing abilities (metacognition)

can actually impair an individuals ability to learn when

operating with negative affect

Negative affect should be looked at in tandem with cognitive

and motivational variables when exploring learning outcomes

Collaborative learning between individuals is a viable means of

transferring opportunity identification knowledge

Collaborative learning may be similarly effective in transferring

other types of entrepreneurial knowledge


16/21

Questions?


17/21

Expansion on Measures

Cohens k also calculated for each measure as shown below

Learning of Structural Alignment Processes Verbal protocol analysis using

coding structure consistent with Gregoire et al. (2010). 90% agreement

between coders. K =.905

Display of Structural Alignment Processes Verbal protocol analysis using

coding structure consistent with Gregoire et al. (2010). 94% agreement

between coders. K = .895


18/21

Controls

Positive affect

International origin of novice

Amount of conversation by entrepreneur

Novice post-interaction negative affect

Previous entrepreneurship experience of novices


19/21

Graph - Metacognition


20/21

Graph Creative Self-Efficacy


21/21

Full Results

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4Control VariablesInternational student -0.204* -0.220* -0.214* -0.247**Positive affect 0.055 0.086 0.089 0.124Total entrepreneur speak 0.036 -0.154 -0.161 -0.206*Post negative affect -0.120 -0.085 -0.044 -0.062Prior novice experience 0.178 0.210* 0.242** 0.221**Predictor VariablesEntrepreneur structural alignment 0.375** 0.327** 0.361**Negative affect -0.107 -0.124 -0.026Metacognitive ability 0.044 0.104 0.110Creative self-efficacy -0.192 -0.243* -0.271**Entrepreneur SA X Metacognitive ability -0.048 -0.111Entrepreneur SA X Negative affect -0.178 -0.011Entrepreneur SA X Creative SE -0.135 -0.267*Metacognitive ability X Negative affect 0.121 0.076Creative self-efficacy X Negative affect 0.098 0.267*Entrepreneur SA X Metacognitive ability X Negative affect -0.355**Entrepreneur SA X Creative SE X Negative affect 0.351**

R2 0.114* 0.255** 0.308** 0.394**Adj. R2 0.077* 0.196** 0.219** 0.303**

R2 0.114* 0.141** 0.053 0.086**Note: Standardized regression coefficients are displayed in the

table*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

learning to identify opportunities - aom 2012 presentation

Documents