Opportunity evaluation represents a core aspect of the entrepreneurial process. Prior research suggests that evaluation of new opportunities is influenced by biases rooted in subjective beliefs, values, and assumptions. In the present study, we used stereotype activation theory to propose that respondent gender (men–women), content of stereotype (masculine–feminine), and the manner in which stereotype information is presented (subtle–blatant) interact to influence evaluations of a new business opportunity. We found that both masculine and feminine stereotype activation influenced men and women's evaluation of a business opportunity differently depending upon whether the stereotype was blatantly or subtly activated. Our results indicate that gender stereotype activation can both boost and impede men and women's subsequent actions on entrepreneurial tasks such as opportunity evaluation, depending on the content of the stereotype and the manner in which it is presented. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhlH. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 595–622.
2.
AhlH. (2007). Sex business in the toy story: A narrative analysis of a teaching case. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(5), 673–693.
3.
AreniusP. & De ClerqD. (2005). A network based approach to opportunity recognition. Small Business Economics, 24, 249–265.
4.
BarghJ.A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life. In WyerR.S.Jr (Ed.), The automaticity of everyday life: Advances in social cognition (pp. 1–61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
BaronR.A. & EnsleyM.D. (2006). Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: Evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Management Science, 52, 1331–1344.
6.
BaronR.A., MarkmanG.D., & HirsaA. (2001). Perceptions of women and men as entrepreneurs: Evidence for differential aspects of attributional augmenting. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 923–929.
7.
BeilockS.L. & CarrT.H. (2005). When high–powered people fail: Working memory and choking under pressure in math. Psychological Science, 16, 101–105.
8.
BergeronD.M., BlockC.J., & EchtenkampA. (2006). Disabling the able: Stereotype threat and women's work performance. Human Performance, 19, 133–158.
9.
BerkowitzL. & DonnersteinE. (1982). External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments. The American Psychologist, 37, 245–252.
10.
BirdB. & BrushC. (2002). A gendered perspective on organizational creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26, 41–65.
11.
BrehmJ.W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
12.
BrehmS.S. & BrehmJ.W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.
13.
BruniA., GherardiS., & PoggioB. (2004). Entrepreneur–mentality, gender, and the study of women entrepreneur. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 256–268.
14.
BygraveW., HayM., NgE., & ReynoldsP. (2003). Executive forum: A study of informal investing in 29 nations composing the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Venture Capital, 5, 101–116.
15.
CadinuM., MaassA., RosabiancaA., & KiesnerJ. (2005). Why do women underperform under stereotype threat?Psychological Science, 16(7), 572–578.
16.
ChilesT.H., BluedornA.B., & GuptaV.K. (2007). Beyond creative destruction and entrepreneurial discovery: A radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 28(4), 467–493.
17.
ChristC.P. (2006). Why women need the goddess: Phenomenological, psychological, and political reflections. In ReidS. (Ed.), Between the worlds: Readings in contemporary neopaganism (pp. 41–66). ON, Canada: Canadian Scholars Press.
18.
CookT.D. & CampbellD.T. (1979). Quasi–experimentation: Design and analysis for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mufflin.
19.
CullenM.J., HardisonC.M., & SackettP.R. (2004). Using SAT—grade and ability—job performance relationships to test predictions derived from stereotype threat theory. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 220–230.
20.
CzarniawskaB. (2004). Narratives in social science research. London: Sage.
21.
DaviesP.G., SpencerS.J., & SteeleC.M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women's leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 276–287.
22.
EckhardtJ.T. & ShaneS.A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333–349.
23.
EnglandP. (2000). The pay gap between male and female jobs: Organizational and legal realities. Law and Social Inquiry, 25, 913–932.
24.
ErikssonK. & LindholmT. (2007). Making gender matter: The role of gender–based expectancies and gender identification on women's and men's math performance in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48(4), 329–338.
25.
FiskeS.T. & TaylorS.E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). Singapore: McGraw–Hill.
26.
FletcherD. (2007). “Toy Story”: The narrative world of entrepreneurship and the creation of interpretive communities. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 649–672.
27.
GreerG. (1999). The whole woman. New York: Knopf.
28.
GuptaA. (1992). The informal education of the Indian entrepreneur. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 9(4), 63–70.
29.
GuptaV.K. & FernandezC. (2009). Cross–cultural similarities and differences in characteristics attributed to entrepreneurs: A three–nation study. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15(3), 304–318.
30.
GuptaV.K., TurbanD.B., & BhaweN. (2008). The effect of gender stereotype activation on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1053–1061.
31.
GuptaV.K. & YorkA.S. (2008). The effects of geography and age on women's attitudes towards entrepreneurship: Evidence from the state of Nebraska. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 9(4), 251–262.
32.
HeilmanM.E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.
33.
HeilmanM.E. & ChenJ.J. (2003). Entrepreneurship as a solution: The allure of self–employment for women and minorities. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 347–364.
34.
HisrichR., Langan–FoxJ., & GrantS. (2007). Entrepreneurship research and practice: A call to action for psychology. American Psychologist, 62, 6–14.
35.
IlgenD.R. (1986). Laboratory research: A question of when, not if. In LockeE.A. (Ed.), Generalizing from lab to field settings (pp. 257–267). Lexington, MA: Heath.
36.
JamesW. (1890). Principles of psychology. (pp. 1–2). New York: Holt.
37.
KehH.T., FooM.D., & LimB.C. (2002). Opportunity evaluation under risky conditions: The cognitive processes of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 125–149.
38.
KrayL.J., GalinskyA.D., & ThompsonL. (2002). Reversing the gender gap in negotiations: An exploration of stereotype regeneration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(2), 386–410.
39.
KrayL.J., RebJ., GalinskyA.D., & ThompsonL. (2004). Stereotype reactance at the bargaining table: The effect of stereotype activation and power on claiming and creating value. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 399–411.
40.
KrayL.J., ThompsonL., & GalinskyA. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 942–958.
41.
LevyB. (1996). Improving memory in old age through implicit self–stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1092–1107.
42.
ManimalaM.J. (2002). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor India Report: 2002. Bangalore, India: Indian Institute of Management.
43.
MarxD.M. & RomanJ.S. (2002). Female role models: Protecting women's math test performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1183–1193.
44.
MirchandaniK. (1999). Feminist insight on gendered work: New directions in research on women and entrepreneurship. Gender, Work, and Organization, 6, 224–235.
45.
MitraR. (2002). The growth pattern of women–run enterprises: An empirical study in India. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7, 217–237.
46.
MorrisM.H., MiyasakiN.N., WattersC.E., & CoombsS.M. (2006). The dilemma of growth: Understanding venture size choices of women entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 44, 221–244.
47.
NadkarniS. & HerrmannP. (2010). CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The case of the Indian BPO Industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1050–1073.
48.
NguyenH.H. & RyanA.M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta–analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1314–1334.
49.
NicolauN., ShaneS., CherkasL., & SpectorT.D. (2009). Opportunity recognition and the tendency to be an entrepreneur: A bivariate genetics perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 108–117.
50.
NosekB.A., BanajiM.R., & GreenwaldA.G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math # me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 44–59.
51.
OrserB.J., RidingA.L., & ManleyK. (2006). Women entrepreneurs and financial capital. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 643–665.
RousseauD.M. & FriedY. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing international research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 1–13.
54.
SchjoedtL. & ShaverK.G. (2007). Deciding on an entrepreneurial career: A test of the push and pull hypotheses using the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics data. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 733–752.
55.
SchmaderT., JohnsM., & ForbesC. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115(2), 336–356.
56.
ShepherdD.A. & DeTienneD.R. (2005). Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 91–112.
57.
SinhaJ.B.P. & KanungoR.N. (1997). Context sensitivity and balancing in Indian organizational behavior. International Journal of Psychology, 32(2), 93–106.
58.
SmithJ.L. & WhiteP.H. (2002). An examination of implicitly activated, explicitly activated, and nullified stereotypes on mathematical performance: It's not just a woman's issue. Sex Roles, 47(3), 179–191.
59.
SmithR. & AndersonA.R. (2004). The devil is in the e–tale: Forms and structures in the entrepreneurial narratives. In HjorthD. & SteyaertC. (Eds.), Narrative and discursive approaches in entrepreneurship. A second movements in entrepreneurship book (pp. 125–144). Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
60.
SolymossyE. (2005). Entrepreneurship in extreme environments: Building an expanded model. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1, 501–518.
61.
SpencerS.J., SteeleC.M., & QuinnD.M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.
62.
SteeleC.M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629.
63.
StoneJ., LynchC.I., SjomelingM., & DarleyJ.M. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on Black and White athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1213–1227.
64.
SundaramT.R. (1996). Ancient jewel. The World & I, October, 24–31.
65.
TeohH.Y. & FooS.L. (1997). Moderating effects of tolerance for ambiguity and risk–taking propensity on the role conflict and perceived performance relationship: Evidence from Singaporean entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 67–81.
66.
WheelerS.C. & PettyR.E. (2001). The effects of stereotype activation on behavior: A review of possible mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 127(6), 797–826.
