Introversion and ingeniousness in entrepreneurs

(1)

Introversion and ingeniousness in entrepreneurs

Author: L.C.M. Henneveld

Student ID: 10278257

Supervisor: Dr. C.M. Hsieh

Date: 30-06-2014

University: University of Amsterdam

Major: Economics and Business

(2)

1 INTRODUCTION

Recently, Susan Cain championed introversion in her book ‘Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a

World That Can't Stop Talking’ (Cain, 2013). She made the point that introverts are being

neglected and hold great potential. A large variety of articles about the characteristics and advantages of introversion have been uploaded and the search statistics at Google Trends show that introversion is being searched twice as much as three years ago which is expected to even rise more (See Appedix 7.1). There is a movement in development to increase awareness on introversion called ‘The quiet revolution’. Before moving on to other arguments concerning the subject, this paper will define introversion to ensure there is no confusion on what the term entails. The definition in the Oxford dictionary is “A person predominantly concerned with their

own thoughts and feelings rather than with external things.” (Pearsall & Hanks, 1998) and

according to Carl Jung, the psychologist who popularized the term: “The introvert is most aware

of his or her inner world. While the external world is still perceived, it is not pondered as

seriously as inward movement of psychic energy. The introverted attitude is more concerned with subjective appraisal and often gives more consideration to fantasies and dreams.” (Carl Jung,

1923). Finally, the contemporary psychology online dictionary defines introversion as “Internal

private orientation toward the world of one’s self and the inner thoughts of ones feelings, rather than towards the outer world of things and people. A personality trait that is broad and introvert, like extrovert, attitudes exist on a continuum.”(Psychology Dictionary, 2014). In short,

introversion-extroversion exists on a continuum and concerns where an individual’s focus lies; externally or internally. Important to note is that there is no mention of a predisposition in introverts to inferior social skills when compared extroverts eventough this assumption is often made.

The assumption that introversion also entails social awkwardness ensures that introverts are seen as unequipped for entrepreneurship. The typical view of an entrepreneur, by the general public, is a socially gregarious butterfly; someone who is surrounded with people, restless, relentless, always on the move and persuades you to do what he wants. This is an biased view which is partly propagated due to the high visibility of such people in the media and daily life.

Additionally, because Western society is extraversion-oriented, it has the tendency to only use these extroverted entrepreneurs as champions of the culture. This is known as the confirmation

(3)

bias. The successful introverted entrepreneurs do not change the idea even though they are living proof contrary to the popular belief. Such entrepreneurs are fairly numerous and some of them are very renowned and have changed the world like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Charles Schwab, Brenda Barnes, Mark Zuckerburg, Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Steven Spielberg, Oprah Winfrey, Larry Page and Sergey Brin (Celebrity types, 2014).

Recent numbers have shown that more than half of the population of the U.S.A. is introverted (www.statisticbrain.com, 2014). All these people are living in the extraversion-oriented culture which is counter-intuitive to them and leads to mental stress. Because introverts prefer less stimulating environments and solitude (this recharges their mental energy), places with constant social interaction, teamwork and prying eyes (the opposite) drain them of their energy. Western culture is extroversion-oriented and using social pressure it demands its members to act

extroverted. As a consequence introverted people act extroverted and this creates friction

between their inside personality and outside persona leading to cognitive dissonance. In order to lower this dissonance an individual needs to either correct his tendency towards introverted behaviour or change his views on the dominant culture. The main choices a person therefore has is to go against his/her nature or to go against the dominant culture, both of which create stress and lower the individuals’ happiness and productivity. By researching the potential of introverts this paper can help spread awareness to introverts that their nature is valuable and communicate towards the general population that introversion is not a detrimental personality aspect. In the long run, this paper hopes to restore appreciation for introverted characteristics.

One of these characteristics is the tendency to being able to concentrate for longer periods of time during solitary situations than extroverts. Introverts can ‘turn inwards’ and shut out the stimuli of the outside world. This absorption into an activity translates itself in longer periods of studying, reading though books with more involvement or being able to work for longer periods of time without a break. This focussed way of working can be converted into a better quality or quantity of output. In addition to this, it has been shown by Singer & Schonbar (1961) that introverts daydream more than extroverts. When possible the introvert ‘crawls into his/her shell’ and lets his/her mind wander. Daydreaming has been linked with increased creativity that should benefit the individual in problem-solving. Another typical characteristic of an introvert is a higher preference for solitude. Due to the fact that they tend to be more stimulated by stimuli,

(4)

overstimulation is achieved quicker than in comparison to extroverts (Cain, 2013). High stimulus environments such as social gatherings with unknown people are a strain on the introvert. After some time, they are mentally tired and want to retreat into solitude. Research has indicated that solitude is used for self-reflection and the solving of personal problems, lowering stress and promoting personal growth. In addition, centuries of religious, spiritual and scientific literature has been written in solitude which could be an indication for its positive effects on the quality of work (Cain, 2013).

Finally, introverts learn more by observation, think before they speak and tend to wait with sharing something until they’ve worked out the whole problem in their heads. This thinking-style of dealing with issues might also lead to a more conscious thought process. This “thinking about thinking” is called meta-cognition. Increased meta-cognition gives a person a wider range of solutions to problems because it allows them to rewrite the way they approach a problem. Metaphorically speaking, thinking outside the box is easier when a person knows what box he/she is in.

The combination of preference for solitude, increased concentration, tendency to daydream more and elevated meta-cognition could potentially increase a person’s innovativeness. Innovation is a keyword in today’s businesses. Because of the increased in pace of competition many companies are trying to continually evolve their way of business, their products or services and their

procedures. If introverted employees have a predisposition towards being more innovative than extroverted employees a company could take advantage of this. As a precaution, this paper emphasizes that introverts and extroverts are not inferior to each other; they both have their strengths and weaknesses that can complement each other. In addition to already established enterprises, a more innovative personality can also benefit the future enterprises still to be created by entrepreneurs.

Economically speaking, entrepreneurs are the engine of the economy. Entrepreneurship is defined by Eckhardt and Shane (2003) as “the discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of future goods and services … [by] … creation or identification of new ends and means previously undetected or unutilized by market participants” (found in Brandstätter, 2011). Entrepreneurs are by definition vital for an economy because they create new enterprises. If fifty per cent of the population is viewed as unqualified to be an entrepreneur, a part of the group could be

(5)

discouraged and employ their skills elsewhere less beneficial to society. This can potentially be solved with more research on introversion and entrepreneurship.

Finally, while introversion-extroversion is one of the most researched constructs in the its field the intricate workings of how an introvert makes a successful entrepreneur are very much unknown. The amount of outstanding introverted entrepreneurs who’s companies have changed the world are substantial enough to warrant an investigation into their personalities.

Acknowledging that they are but a small part of the complete population of entrepreneurs worldwide, they are the ones that had a major impact on the world. The potential relationship between their success and personality merits further research.

This paper attempts to research if introverts are more innovative than extroverts. The rest of the paper continues with an investigation into the available literature and the specification of the hypotheses that are investigated. After this, the research methods, collected data and their rationale are explained. Then the results and the associated statistics are addressed. Finally, the paper finishes with a discussion on the theoretical and practical implications, the limitations of the study and some suggestions for future research.

2 LITERATURE:

Concerning the link between introversion and entrepreneurship the research has not been

conclusive so far. Zhao & Seibert (2006) conducted a meta-analysis on twenty three publications, nine of which included extraversion-introversion. The meta analysis looked at the difference between managers and entrepreneurs concerning extraversion-introversion and they did not find enough evidence to conclude that there was a difference in entrepreneurial status. To quote: “we could not identify and test moderators to account for the variability for extraversion in this analysis because of the lack of relevant information in the primary studies. Thus, we do not currently understand the circumstances under which the positive relationship between

extraversion and ES is likely to emerge.” (Zhao & Seibert, 2006). This could indicate that there is no negative or positive effect between introversion and being an entrepreneur however, as Zhao & Seibert mentioned, this could also be due to the data.

In order to understand the construct of introversion-extroversion, a brief discussion of its history follows. The first known steps towards the introversion-extroversion scale were taken by

(6)

Theophrastus, a Greek philosopher who lived two thousand and five hundred years ago (Wilt & Revelle, 2008). His taxonomy of what we now call extroversion consisted of ‘talker, chatty, boastful, arrogant and garrulous’ which is quite similar to what the modern day description consists of. However, it was not until Carl Jung researched the subject that the terms extraversion and

introversion were coined. As

previously mentioned, Carl Jung hypothesised that extroverts are focussed on the world around them and introverts are more inward focussed. He also added that “There is no such thing as a pure introvert or extrovert. Such a person would be in the lunatic asylum.” Carl Jung (2013). H. J. Eysenck demonstrated that extraversion was a more fundamental characteristic than previously thought (Wilt & Revelle, 2008). He developed multiple scales and attempted to describe the core features of extroversion (Wilt & Revelle, 2008). Eysenck adapted some of his scales from the work of Guilfort whom had taken extroversion to a higher order factor called introversion-extroversion (Guilford & Zimmerman, 1949). The current taxonomies come from Raymond Cattell whom used Allport and Odbert (1936) as a fundament for his clustering of sixteen primary personality factors (Wilt Revelle, 2008). In this work he clustered impulsiveness, socialization and ascendant behaviours together to form extroversion (Cattell, 1957). Based on the 16PF questionnaire by Catell in 1961, which was a distillation of one hundred and seventy one core adjectives found throughout the English dictionaries, Tupes & Christal (Christal, 1992) found five recurring factors that were “Surgency, Agreeableness, Dependability, Emotional Stability and Culture “. These were confirmed by W. Norman (1963) in his research on the subject however he changed dependability to conscientiousness. Due to a change in the

psychological Zeitgeist, the work on these factors was forgotten and L. Goldberg independently found the five factors once again. The factors that Goldberg and his colleagues at a gathering in

(7)

Honolulu proposed were Extraversion (previously surgency), Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism (previously emotional stability) and Openness (previously culture). The changes are caused by the agreement that there were higher level factors, for example emotional stability is a part of neuroticism. This model is known as the Big Five model. Costa & McCrae (1992) made a similar model to the Big Five but it assumes a hierarchical structure in which a higher order factor is a result of lower factors. Extroversion in this model is assumed to be construed out of Warmth, Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activity, Excitement Seeking and Positive Emotion (Costa & McCrae, 1992). In the twenty years after the (re)introduction of the Big Five, many models and questionnaires have been built upon the original and it has been embraced by the majority of the psychological community. Introversion, even as of the models, has received less attention than extroversion. In the literary research done for this paper, more often than not only extroversion was explained. This is curious as a lack of extraverted behaviour does not

automatically translate to introverted behaviour. In table 1 a list of behavioural preferences of introverts and extroverts are shown. While some of the descriptions are dichotomous, others like ‘Make lots of friends easily’ in contrast to ‘Have a few close friends’ are not opposites. One is focussed on deep relationship while the other is focussed on lots of relationships; depth and breadth are not mutually exclusive. It shows how a paper that implies that introversion is the polar opposite to extraversion can create confusion. This paper adopts the previously mentioned approach of ‘different instead of opposite’ and focusses more on introversion.

Table 1 shows the kind of behaviour introverts prefer. They add up to a more contemplative style with more internal dialogue and thought processes. It is possible that individuals which

concentrate better, scrutinize their thought more, examine ideas more thorough, ponder subjects and try to understand phenomenon come up with better solutions to problems than those who don’t or do so less. The first step in innovation is finding a solution to a problem. Therefore, this should apply to entrepreneurs more strongly. He/she is by definition always trying to think of a novel solution to a problem in order to capitalize on it. Entrepreneurs are thought of as the most innovative force within an economy via the force of creative destruction as hypothesized by Aghion & Howitt (1990). Thus,

Hypothesis 1a: Among entrepreneurs, there is a positive relationship between introversion and ingenuity.

(8)

Hypothesis 1b: Among entrepreneurs, introverts are more ingenious than extroverts . In order to accurately describe ingenuity a distinction needs to be made. In marketing research a construct known as “innovativeness” is used to measure an individual’s tendency to buy new innovations in a field (Garcia & Calantone, 2002). This trait is viewed from a consumer

perspective. The term “innovativeness” in this paper is used to describe how much innovation an individual produces in contrast to buying . As explained by Scott & Bruce (1994), “individual innovation begins with problem recognition and the generation of ideas or solutions, either novel or adopted. During the next stage of the process, an innovative individual seeks sponsorship for an idea and attempts to build a coalition of supporters for it. Finally, during the third stage of the innovation process, the innovative individual completes the idea by producing a prototype or model of the innovation”. Specifically, this paper focuses on the first stage of the process; the generation of novel ideas or solutions. In order to measure how well a person generates these new ideas of solution the construct of ingenuity is adopted.

Ingenuity is a construct in the human personality in which intelligence (the ability to acquire and apply knowledge), creativity (the use of imagination or original ideas to create something) and inventiveness (the creation or design of something original). Creativity represents the first creation which takes place within the mind of an individual and inventiveness pertains to the second creation; the physical side of the new idea or solution. Ingenuity in organizations is stimulated by allowing employees to independently pursue their own ideas (Kanter, 1983; Siegel & Kaemmerer, 1978). Scott & Bruce (1994) found that a systematic way of problem solving was negatively correlated with the amount of innovative behaviour in both routine and non-routine tasks. This might be detrimental to hypothesis 1. However, there is no evidence that introversion is accompanied with a systemic way to solve problems.

The Jackson Personality Inventory measures an individual’s innovation level. The definitions for a high and a low score on this factor are “High Scorer: A creative and inventive individual, capable of originality of thought; motivated to develop novel solutions to problems; values new ideas; likes to improvise. Low Scorer: Has little creative motivation; seldom seeks originality; conservative thinker; prefers routine activities.” (JPI Basic report, 2011). This paper will adhere to this definition albeit use the name ingenuity for clarity purposes.

(9)

Introversion has correlations with a high number of behaviours and tendencies in individuals. This paper aims to research a number of them and their connection to ingenuity. This paper will focus on the preference for solitude, concentration ability, academic achievement, daydreaming frequency and depth of meta-cognition of introverts and assess whether they’re correlated with a higher level of ingenuity in entrepreneurs.

The definition of concentration is “The allocation of cognitive resources to a selected subject while ignoring others” (J.R. Anderson, 2005). It has been linked to introverts in multiple studies. Zokaei, Fashad, Falahati & Mosavi (2012) found that introverts were more concentrated during a test than extroverts. However, when traffic noise was introduced the extroverts did better than the introverts. This difference might be explained by the theory that introverts cannot handle too much stimulation at once. They can concentrate better when below their stimulation threshold however, when crossing it their performance drops due to overstimulation. A study by Belojevic, Slepcevic & Jakovlijevic (2001) also supports this conclusion. They found that extroverts made their test slightly faster and that introverts were significantly more annoyed and fatigued when in noisier conditions. Furnham & Strbac (2010) found the same results, an introvert’s performance drops regardless if the disturbance is music or background noise. Harkins & Green (1975) found that during vigilance tasks introverts perform better than extroverts given the requirement of prolonged periods of concentration. All studies seem to support the theory by Eysenck & Eysenck (1985) which postulates that introverts have higher cortisol arousal than extroverts making them more prone to avoid lots of stimuli.

Hypothesis 2a: Introverted entrepreneurs concentrate longer on their tasks than extroverted entrepreneurs.

Hypothesis 3a: Greater concentration leads to greater innovation.

Burger (1995) constructed and tested a scale to measure ‘preference for solitude’. In order to test if this scale was reliable and not redundant he correlated it with extroversion and introversion. The results showed a moderate correlation suggesting that introversion and a preference for solitude are linked. They also found that individuals spend time in solitude for other reasons than social anxiety. This indicates that solitary time is not time spent in fear and can be productive. Leary, Herbst & McCrary (2003) researched if solitary time was motivated by a strong desire to be alone or a low desire to be with other people. The results showed that the enjoyment of

(10)

solitary time is more strongly related to a high desire for solitude than a low desire to be in the company of others. This also indicates that solitary time is used for something different than escaping social intercourse. Leary, Herbst & McCrary (2003) suggested that the time is used for self-reflection and contemplation which promote personal growth, understanding and lower stress. Storr (1989) and Suedfeld (1982) show that is it reasonable to suggest that Preference for Solitude is connected to ingenuity. The two studies show that many cases of creativity, scientific breakthrough and spiritual insight occur when people are alone (Leary, Herbst & McCrary (2003).

Hypothesis 2b: Introverted entrepreneurs spend more of their working time in solitude than extroverted entrepreneurs.

Hypothesis 3b: Frequently engaging in solitary time leads to greater ingenuity. Research shows that introverts daydream more than extroverts and it leads to a more creative state of mind (Singer & Schonbar, 1961). Daydreaming is the short-term detachment from one’s immediate surroundings during which they fantasize about a large variety of subjects including problems that need to be solved. Strelow & Davidson (2002) specifically researched the link between extroversion – introversion and daydreaming. They found a very significant relationship between introversion and the vividness of individual’s imagery (β= -0.27, SE = 0.11, p < 0.001) which they did not find for extroverts. Wagman (1965) replicated Singer & Schonbar (1961) by using more subjects whom were younger and incorporate males into the subject group. While he found relationships with other variables the relationship between social introversion and

daydreaming frequency was non-significant albeit positive.

Hypothesis 2c: Introverted entrepreneurs daydream more frequently than extroverted entrepreneurs.

Hypothesis 3c: More frequent daydreaming leads to greater ingenuity.

Meta-cognition is the awareness and understanding of one’s own thought processes and has linkages with learning. Boekaerts (1999) explains the use of meta cognition in self-regulation processes in students. He describes how successful learners are able to apply and modify strategies from one situation in another. In addition, he references to Brown (1987) and Weinstein & Mayer (1986) whom identified metacognitive skills such as orienting, planning,

(11)

executing, monitoring, evaluating and correcting. Bidjerano & Yun Dai (2007) find a non-significant positive relationship between meta cognition and extroversion. The relationship between Meta-Cognition and ingenuity is explained by Davidson, Deuser & Sternberg (1994). They explain that meta-cognition is used to (1) identify the problem, (2) represent the problem mentally, (3) plan how to proceed with solving the problem and (4) guide the process of transforming the initial state of a problem into the desired state or solution. Children that were taught how to use the processes improve substantially in their problem solving. This shows that deeper meta-cognition might have a positive correlation with ingenuity. Thus,

Hypothesis 2d: Introverted entrepreneurs have deeper meta-cognition than extroverted entrepreneurs.

Hypothesis 3d: Deeper meta-cognition leads to greater ingenuity.

Openness to experience has evolved throughout the history of psychology. It used to be called ‘cultured’ and evolved to a more open version that included constructs such as political preference, intelligence, curiosity, imagination and values. Nusbaum & Silvia (2011) studied openness to experience. Their paper discusses the idea concerning the division and clarification of Openness to Experience as it is the least ‘solid’ observable traits in the Five Factor model. Concepts such as intelligence, creativity and artistry have been proven to be very illusive. Nusbaum & Silvia (2011) split Openness to Experience up into Intellect and Openness. Their hypothesis is that the first pertains to the intellectual aspect of individuals and that the latter is more correlated to the creative side. DeYoung, Quilty, Peterson & Gray (2014) examined the same distinction and also propose that Openness to Experience and Intellect are used as important aspects of a more central theme. They conclude that both a correlated and related to each other but measure quite different concepts. Clarifying the distinction with adjectives, intellect is reflected by ‘intelligent, clever, philosophical and intellectual’ whereas Openness is described as ‘artistic, perceptive, poetic and fantasy-prone’. It is quite clear to see how this might interact with the personality variable ingenuity. Ingenuity as mentioned earlier encompasses both creativity and intellect. This relationship is acknowledged and will be taken into account.

Therefore, this research openness to experience will be used as an additional variable in order to filter out its possible effect on the linkages hypothesised earlier in this paper.

(12)

Hypothesis 4a: Openness to experience is not related to Concentration, Preference for Solitude, Daydreaming and Meta-cognition.

Hypothesis 4b: Openness to experience is not related to Ingenuity.

Figure 1 is the summary of the hypotheses this paper attempts to test. To summarize, an individual with an introverted personality will have certain preferences that differ from extroverts that lead to a different pattern of behaviours. First, the introverted individual will prefer to spend more time in solitude (2a), which leaves more time for deeper thought and contemplation. Second, introverts have the tendency to be better at concentrating their attention (2b), which can lead to better results on tasks. Third, the tendency for introverts to daydream more (2c) can lead to more time to think about problems and lead to original solutions to those problems. Finally, an introverted individual tends to have deeper meta-cognition (2d), which are beneficial for problem solving. All of these are beneficial to ingenuity (3a, 3b, 3c and 3d). Due to the relation between Openness to Experience and ingenuity this factor will be used as a control variable to see if it has a stronger relationship (4b). Through these four behavioural tendencies that introverts tend to exhibit more than extroverts (1a), introversion is potentially a predictor of

Figure 1 Summary of hypothesized linkages between introversion-extroversion, four behavioural tendencies, openness to experience and ingenuity (as part of innovation). Hypothesis 4a was linked to a header representing all four tendencies to avoid cluttering.

(13)

high ingenuity in a person (1b). Ingenuity is part of the process of innovation and therefore vital for entrepreneurs. An entrepreneur needs innovation in order to gain an advantage over the competition and is therefore a very interesting research case. The next section will explain what data will be collected and how the collection process is organized.

3 DATA AND METHODS:

Measuring the personalities of entrepreneurs is done using a questionnaire. As explained by Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill (2012), a questionnaire is suited for descriptive research and due to the time-sensitive nature of entrepreneurs more suited than other methods. Entrepreneurs are known to have long workweeks which makes access to their time difficult. In addition, in order to draw conclusions about the relationships between the variables a lot of responses are needed. The data collection started out with the intention of administering both paper and online

questionnaires to Dutch entrepreneurs working within the Information Technology sector involved with computers and software. This sector was chosen because it is assumed that introverted entrepreneurs would be more numerous there than more socially intensive, face-to-face markets. The channels chosen to approach the IT entrepreneur were social networking settings, unions, convention gatherings and e-mailings done by insiders. It became apparent however, that these channels were far less accessible than previously assumed. Attempts to spread the questionnaire amongst formal entrepreneur networks were met with resistance by the same organisations. The main responses obtained were either silence or rejection due to the researcher being a student instead of a professional. Due to time constraints a different channel was chosen and the pool of potential respondents widened.

Because access to physical channels to meet entrepreneurs were denied, online channels were accessed in order to gain enough data. Using a plethora of social media, a far bigger pool of entrepreneurs was reached. The questionnaire was adapted to ask for nationality and translated into English. Because social media reach more people, the boundaries on respondents were widened to ‘Entrepreneurs worldwide’ in an attempt to increase respondent levels to an

acceptable quantity to allow for generalisations. Tabel 2 in appendix 7.2.1 shows all of the social media channels used. The amount of subscribers to the social media groups that were contacted is almost 500.000 however the active members that read the invitation for the questionnaire are

(14)

lower and estimated to be around 5.000 with a 1 percent viewing rate. Messages were posted on the social media, they were crafted with the intention of looking professional, reliable and interesting. Despite the efforts made, the number of respondents remained low however. Due to time constraints this study failed to reach the desired number of respondents which will affect the validity its conclusions. This will be explained in a different section. In order to be able to work with the collected data, it will be copied to create double the quantity of respondents. While this also hurts the validity of this study, it makes the data more usable to draw conclusions. While not scientifically proven the conclusions drawn from this sample might give an indication for the direction of future research.

Due to the difference in groups and social media used, multiple invitations were drafted which have been added in appendix 7.2.2. Subscribers to forums were contacted with a longer

explanation and introduction than Facebook users due to the difference in nature between them. The invitation in both cases included a connection with the University of Amsterdam to convey credibility, an accurate estimate of the time needed to complete the questionnaire in order to set the right expectations and prevent incomplete questionnaires, a guarantee of anonymity, an encouragement to participate and finally, a link to the questionnaire itself. The posts on forums also contained a ‘company’ introduction (in which the study is presented as a company), a personal introduction, and description on the subject of the study.

The questionnaire was constructed on Qualtrics with a University of Amsterdam theme which conveys credibility. A copy of the questionnaire is added as appendix 7.3.1 consisting of an introduction, measurement and an afterword. In order to ensure that the questionnaire does not contain errors and that the questions are clear it was field tested with individuals of both genders and multiple age categories. Spelling errors were found and corrected, the progress bar was taken out and the negatively keyed questions were bolded to ensure they were clearly visible. The progress bar was found to be distractive and demotivational to complete the whole questionnaire. The negatively keyed questions sometimes went unnoticed and misread as positively keyed questions. Some field testers argued that the questions regarding concentration and

meta-cognition were too repetitive. After revaluating the questions the questionnaire was not changed because this would hurt the validity of the measures used. In hindsight, this choice has not caused any negative side effects. The questions are asked in five blocks. One block consisting of

(15)

demographic and business related questions, two blocks of dichotomous questions and two blocks of statements which are rated with a 7-point Likert scale. The demographic block examines a respondents academic background, the two blocks with ABC-questions measure Preference for Solitude and Daydreaming frequency, the first statement block measures Introversion, Openness to Experience and Ingenuity and the second statement block measures Concentration and Meta-Cognition. The next section explains what measurement tools are used. An overview of which questions are used to measure a variable is added in appendix 7.3.2.

The Daydreaming frequency scale (DDFS) is taken from the imaginal process inventory (IPI) by J. Singer and J. Antrobus (1970). The IPI consists of two parts, the first part concerns the

frequency of day and night dreaming called the DDFS and consists of 24 questions with five alternatives that range from high to low. The second part concerns the content i.e. when, where and what a person daydreams and a variety of other factors. For this paper, only the questions of the DDFS are relevant. The DDFS also contains questions on night dreaming; they are irrelevant and omitted. This leaves eleven questions (appendix 7.3.2.6). The DDFS is reported to have an internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of 0.91 (Giambra, 1993) and that test-retest reliability was 0.76 with an interval of 1 year or less (Giambra, 1993). Due to the omittance of the night dreaming questions these figures are not expected to be exactly the same but still reasonably accurate because the nature of the questions was not changed.

The questions used to measure meta-cognition were found in the Meta Cognition Questionnaire 30 (MCQ-30). This shortened version of the original MCQ (A. Wells & S. Cartwright-Hatton, 1997), which contained 65 items, was developed by A. Wells and S. Cartwright-Hatton (2004). In this version the authors examined five factors concerning meta cognition: ‘cognitive

confidence’, ‘positive beliefs’, ‘cognitive self-consciousness’, ‘uncontrollability & danger’ and finally, ‘need to control thoughts’. For the purpose of this research only cognitive

self-consciousness is used. However, this amounts to only six items and was expanded using seven additional items from Janeck et all (2003). With more statements available to assess a ‘cognitive self-consciousness’ Cronbach’s alpha is 0,94 constitutes to a reliable tool (Janeck et all, 2003). The questions are added in appendix 7.3.2.5.

The construct of concentration is measured using a part of the Attention questionnaire (AQ) as used by (Schepers, 2007). The AQ is made out of three constructs: Concentration ability,

(16)

Arousal and Distractibility. For this research purposes only Concentration ability is relevant and Arousal and Distractibility are ommited. The C.A. part was tested and resulted in a 29 item long section with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0,886 and a mean of the item-test correlation being 0,490. It was decided that due to the amount of variables being measured with the questionnaire in the paper, some items had to be deleted to shorten it. Using the Index of reliability all items with the lowest reliability were deleted until 20 remained to ensure the questionnaire would not be too long. The resulting questions are added in appendix 7.3.2.7.

Solitude is measured using the Preference for Solitude Scale (P.S.S.) which was developed by J. Burger (1995). The questions are added in appendix 7.3.2.4. It has a Kruder-Richardson 20 alpha of 0.73; the dichotomous equivalent of the Cronbach’s alpha. The test is comprised of twelve dichotomous questions in the form of statements which indicate either a preference for more or less solitude. Respondents are asked to choose the option which best describes them.

Introversion, Openness to Experience and Innovation are measured using the items (added in appendix 7.3.2.1, 2 and 3) from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) (Goldberg, Johnson, Eber, Hogan, Ashton, Cloninger & Gough, 2006) which are similar to popular but copyrighted personality measures. The seven authors are specialists in the field of psychometrics (Goldberg et all, 2006) and with 80 publications in 2006, which will have risen substantially from then, their IPIP scales are thoroughly tested. All three are both positive- and negatively keyed to ensure validity through double checking a respondents answer. The IPIP Introversion scale is similar to Cattell’s factor Q2: Self-Reliance from the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). This questionnaire was conceived in 1946 and has been developed ever since, becoming one of the most widely used questionnaires in the field of psychometrics. The IPIP version has an Cronbach’s alpha of 0.73 which is sufficient to be reliable. Openness to Experience has been derived from the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) which is a 240-tem measure on the Big-Five personality traits. The NEO-PI-R has been in development since the 1970s and has been widely tested in many different cultures and across time with high reliability (McCrae, Kurtz, Yamagata & Terracciano, 2011). The 10-item scale from the IPIP has an alpha of 0.82 which indicates high reliability. Finally, Innovation has been derived from the Jackson Personality Inventory- Revised (JPI-R) which has been one of the most sound psychometric measures to be used (Jackson, 1997). The JPI-R consists of three hundred true or false statements

(17)

which represent 15 scales. The IPIP version is a 10-statement measure which the respondent grades with a likert scale.

The questionnaire has been developed online on the website Qualtrics (www.Qualtrics.com), this allows for quick dispersion of the questionnaire and easy access to answers for data analysis. In addition, physical barriers for access to data due to geographical constraints are absolved with the use of the online questionnaire. Another advantage to this method is the ease of retrieval of the questionnaire for both researcher and respondent. Lowering the barriers and time costs of the questionnaire should enlarge the response rate. A final advantage to the method of online

questionnaires is the possibility of the snowball effect. A respondent is able to send the link to the questionnaire to potential respondents which is impossible with a paper copy of the

questionnaire.

The frequencies for the respondents have been added in appendix 7.4. The most important fact is that the number of respondents is low. The questionnaire was started by 49 individuals, 12 did not continue past the first page and 32 respondents finished the whole questionnaire. The result is disappointing, however this paper will attempt to extract valuable conclusions in order to test the hypotheses. Very important to note is that the validity of this study is not high and the researcher suggests using this paper as a pilot study to gain a sense of scientific direction in the field of introversion and its relationship with entrepreneurship. The demographic questions which were mentioned earlier check for nationality, age, field of education, highest attained education, field of business, size of business and if IT technology was crucial to the business model. All the frequencies were reasonably evenly distributed. Only nationalities showed a trend with 14 respondents from The Netherlands and 9 from the U.S.A.

(18)

4 RESULTS:

In order to test the relationships between the variables all correlations between them were computed. The result is table 2.

Table 2 Correlations between Introversion, Openness to Experience, Concentration, Preference for Solitude, Daydreaming, Meta-Cognition and Ingenuity.

It is observed that Introversion is not significantly correlated with openness to experience (α = 0.098 ≥ 0.05), concentration (α = 0.510 ≥ 0.05) and ingenuity (α = 0.736 ≥ 0.05). The direction of the non-significant correlation for ingenuity is in the opposite direction originally

hypothesized. Because the relationship is not significant hypothesis 1a is not supported. Noteworthy however is that fact that the significance between openness to experience is only slightly over 5% with 4.8%. A very significant and correlation is found between preference for solitude (α = 0.000 ≤ 0.01), daydreaming (α = 0.000 ≤ 0.01) and meta-cognition (α = 0.000 ≤

Introversion

_Score Open2Exp Concentration

PreferenceFor

Solitude DayDreaming Meta_Cognition Ingenuity

Pearson Correlation 1 -,276 ,117 ,744** _,701** _,577** _-,057 Sig. (2-tailed) ,098 ,510 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,736 N 37 37 34 37 34 34 37 Pearson Correlation -,276 1 -,310 -,171 ,035 -,051 -,025 Sig. (2-tailed) ,098 ,074 ,311 ,844 ,775 ,884 N 37 37 34 37 34 34 37 Pearson Correlation ,117 -,310 1 ,329 -,158 ,350* _,532** Sig. (2-tailed) ,510 ,074 ,058 ,373 ,043 ,001 N 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 Pearson Correlation ,744** _-,171 _,329 ₁ _,463** _,714** _,128 Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,311 ,058 ,006 ,000 ,449 N 37 37 34 41 34 34 37 Pearson Correlation ,701** _,035 _-,158 _,463** ₁ _,500** _-,017 Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,844 ,373 ,006 ,003 ,926 N 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 Pearson Correlation ,577** -,051 ,350* ,714** ,500** 1 ,184 Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,775 ,043 ,000 ,003 ,298 N 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 Pearson Correlation -,057 -,025 ,532** _,128 _-,017 _,184 ₁ Sig. (2-tailed) ,736 ,884 ,001 ,449 ,926 ,298 N 37 37 34 37 34 34 37 DayDreaming Meta_Cognitio n Ingenuity

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Introversion_ Score Open2Exp Concentration PreferenceFo rSolitude

(19)

0.01) with Pearson correlations of 0.744, 0.701 and 0.577 respectively. A Pearson correlation over 0.7 indicates a very strong relationship and between 0.4 and 0.69 is classified as ‘strong’. The next variable is openness to experience, which has no statistically significant correlation with any of the other variables. However, there are two scores that are close to a significant relationship; introversion is already mentioned and the other variable is concentration with α = 0.074 ≥ 0.05 indicating only a slight distance of 2.4% from significance. Because the correlation with ingenuity is non-significant (α = 0.884 ≥ 0.05) hypothesis 4b is not supported. As there are no significant correlations between the four behavioral preferences (α = 0.074 ≥ 0.05; α = 0.311 ≥ 0.05; α = 0.844 ≥ 0.05; α = 0.755 ≥ 0.05) and openness to experience hypothesis 4a is also not supported. Continuing, concentration has two significant correlations, two nearly significant correlations (one previously mentioned) and two distinctly non-significant correlations. First, ingenuity is very significantly (α = 0.001 ≤ 0.01) related to concentration with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.532 indicating a strong relationship which lends support for hypothesis 3a. Second, it also (albeit less) significantly and moderately positively related to meta-cognition with a Pearson coefficient of 0.350. The other near-correlation in addition to openness to experience is with preference for solitude (α = 0.058 ≥ 0.05); with a 0.8% difference from a 95% confidence level and with r = 0.329 indicating a moderate strength correlation. Preference for solitude has a very significant correlation with the previously mentioned

introversion, daydreaming (α = 0.006 ≤ 0.05 and r = 0.463) and meta-cognition (α = 0.000 ≤ 0.05 and r = 0.714). Interpreting the Pearson correlations, daydreaming has a strong positive and meta-cognition very strong relationship with preference for solitude. The two clearly non-significant correlations are with the aforementioned openness to experience and ingenuity (α = 0.499 ≥ 0.05). These results indicate partial support for hypothesis 4a and no support hypothesis 3b. There is no significant correlation between preference for solitude and openness to

experience (α = 0.311 ≥0.05). The correlation between daydreaming and meta-cognition is strong and significant at the α = 0.003 ≤ 0.05 with r = 0.500. Hypothesis 3c is not supported by the results because α = 0.926 ≥ 0.05. Finally, meta-cognition and ingenuity are not significantly correlated (α = 0.298 ≥0.05) and as a result hypothesis 3d is not supported by the results.

(20)

Table 3 The number of respondents, mean, standard deviation and standard error of the mean of the scores for Ingenuity, Concentration, Preference for Solitude, Daydreaming, Meta-Cognition and Openness to Experience for Introverts and Extroverts

Table 4 Independent t-test to examine for equality between the means of Ingenuity, Concentration, Preference for Solitude, Daydreaming, Meta-Cognition and Openness to Experience scores of introverts and extroverts. In order to examine if hypothesis 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d the sample was split into introverts and extroverts. All respondents with an mean introversion score higher than 4,00 received a dummy score of 1 on Introvert_Extrovert and all respondents below a 4,00 received a 0. An

independent-N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Extravert 20 4,5900 ,48330 ,10807 Introvert 17 4,5529 ,39862 ,09668 Extravert 18 4,4205 1,11081 ,26182 Introvert 16 4,4986 ,60231 ,15058 Extravert 24 ,4584 ,33090 ,06754 Introvert 17 ,7117 ,23110 ,05605 Extravert 18 2,1854 ,57499 ,13553 Introvert 16 3,4489 ,79770 ,19943 Extravert 18 4,5214 ,88675 ,20901 Introvert 16 5,2873 ,87434 ,21859 Extravert 20 3,9633 ,49758 ,11126 Introvert 17 3,8824 ,42017 ,10191 Open2Exp Group Statistics Introvert_Extrovert Ingenuity Concentrati on PreferenceF orSolitude DayDreamin g Meta_Cognit ion Lower Upper Equal variances assumed ,874 ,356 ,252 35 ,803 ,03706 ,14732 -,26202 ,33614 Equal variances not assumed ,256 34,978 ,800 ,03706 ,14500 -,25732 ,33144 Equal variances assumed 4,049 ,053 -,250 32 ,804 -,07816 ,31219 -,71407 ,55774 Equal variances not assumed -,259 26,785 ,798 -,07816 ,30203 -,69811 ,54179 Equal variances assumed 5,341 ,026 -2,717 39 ,010 -,25328 ,09322 -,44184 -,06472 Equal variances not assumed -2,886 38,999 ,006 -,25328 ,08777 -,43081 -,07575 Equal variances assumed 3,838 ,059 -5,342 32 ,000 -1,26351 ,23653 -1,74531 -,78171 Equal variances not assumed -5,240 26,977 ,000 -1,26351 ,24112 -1,75826 -,76876 Equal variances assumed ,002 ,965 -2,530 32 ,017 -,76589 ,30269 -1,38245 -,14933 Equal variances not assumed -2,532 31,635 ,016 -,76589 ,30243 -1,38220 -,14958 Equal variances assumed ,376 ,544 ,529 35 ,600 ,08098 ,15300 -,22963 ,39159 Equal variances not assumed ,537 35,000 ,595 ,08098 ,15088 -,22532 ,38728 DayDreamin g Meta_Cognit ion Open2Exp Mean Difference Std Error Differen 95% Confidence Ingenuity Concentrati on PreferenceF orSolitude

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-tailed)

(21)

sample t-test was preformed to find out if the mean score of the introvert and extrovert sample was different. The independent variable is the dummy score Introvert_Extrovert, the variables are on a continues scale, the observations were independent of one another, there was only one outlier for openness to experience for extroverts in the boxplot added in the Appendix 7.5, the dependent variables were approximately normally distributed except for Daydreaming with an α = 0.008 ≥ 0.05 for the Shapiro-Wilk test added in Apendix 7.6 and there is testing for the

homogeneity of variances. The result of this tests are table 3 and 4. Table four shows the sample size, mean, standard deviation and standard error of the mean for introverts and extroverts per variable. This data is used to compute table 4. Taking into account Levene’s test for equal variances the means for preference for solitude (α = 0.006 ≤ 0.05 and µ𝛥𝛥= 0.253), daydreaming

(α = 0.000 ≤ 0.05 and µ𝛥𝛥= 1.263) and meta-cognition (α = 0.017 ≤ 0.05 and µ𝛥𝛥 = 0.765) are

significantly different. The difference was not significant for ingenuity, concentration or

openness to experience. In conclusion, the results indicate support for hypothesis 2b, 2c and 2d. Hypothesis 1b and 2a are not supported.

5 DISCUSSION:

This paper investigated the link between introversion and ingenuity through four behavioral tendencies controlling for openness to experience. The hypotheses that were supported by the data indicate no such relationship however. That said, the data validates and invalidates other links which grant more insight in the entrepreneurial personality. Hypothesis 1a is rejected, which leads to the conclusion that no direct link with introversion and ingenuity has been found. Furthermore, hypothesis 1b was also rejected. There was no difference between the ingenuity of introverts and extroverts. The results indicated that hypothesis 2b, 2c and 2d were validated which indicates that introverts have a higher preference for solidarity, daydream more and have deeper meta-cognition than extroverts. A correlation analysis gave further deeper insight in the relationship. There are strong positive significant correlations between introversion and

preference for solidarity (0.744), meta-cognition (0.577) and daydreaming (0.701). Because hypothesis 2a was not supported by the data the paper cannot conclude that introverts concentrate better than extroverts. The correlation is also not significant and the Pearson coefficient indicates no or a negligible relationship. However, concentration was highly significantly (α = 0.001 ≤ 0.05) and strongly positively (r = 0.532) correlated with ingenuity.

(22)

Hypothesis 3a is therefore supported. The other hypothesis between the behavioral preferences and ingenuity were rejected due to non-significant results. Finally, both hypotheses concerning openness to experience were rejected. This means that none of the four behavioral preferences correlated significantly with openness to experience and neither did ingenuity. Other findings that are considered interesting are the other correlations between daydreaming, preference for solitude and meta-cognition. Each of them are strongly and significantly correlated with each other and with introversion. While solitary time is quite sufficiently linked with introversion, daydreaming and meta-cognition are not part of the construct of introversion.

Even though some interesting results came out of the analysis this research has some serious limitations. First, due to problems with access to data the geographical scope was widened from Dutch entrepreneurs to entrepreneurs from all nationalities. Because preferences and tendencies towards certain behaviors are different across cultures this paper cannot ensure a proper sample. While most of the respondent were from The Netherlands and the U.S.A. indicating the

distortion is less drastic than it could potentially be, it is something noteworthy. Second, the problems with data access also forced a change the channel through which to contact entrepreneurs. Using social media the questionnaire was spread to relevant groups for the research. However, even within these groups there were subjects that could have filled in the questionnaire while not being an entrepreneur. Unfortunately there was no way to control for these respondent. Third, the social media allowed the researchers to potentially reach thousands of individuals but there was no way to check how many actually saw the invitation and declined. Because of this the response rate was incalculable and an estimate had to be made. Fourth, the estimated response rate was very low. The amount of people who’ve seen the invitation is estimated to be around five thousand. The number of useable responses barely crossed forty and the dropout rate is 19 percent. Fifth, the respondents were all contacted though social media and through certain groups to which a very limited number of people responded to. This leaves way for a respondent bias. Finally, in addition to the sampling problems the research is not

longitudinal and cannot claim that these results hold through time without further research.

Despite the limitations of this paper there are recommendations for future research. First, this paper notes that introversion as a construct is not fully defined in the literature. Throughout the research different nuances were found and a the measures used were often filled with socially

(23)

negative questions for introversion and more socially positive for extroversion. We recommend that future research on introversion attempts to bring a more balanced measure to ensure no socially desirable answers are given. Second, the data in this paper suggests a link between concentration and ingenuity. Due to the desirable nature of ingenuity as a characteristic, the correlation should be investigated more thoroughly and causality explained. Third, the research done in this paper could be replicated with a bigger, more specific sample in order to draw more valuable conclusions. Finally, the intricate linking pattern found between introversion,

(24)

6 REFERENCES:

Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1990). A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction,

Alimohammadi, I., Farshad, A., Falahati, M., & Mousavi, B. (2012). The effects of road traffic noise on the students' errors in movement time anticipation; the role of introversion. Iran Occupational Health, 9(3), 52-59.

Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1), i.

Anderson, J. R. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications Macmillan.

Argyle, M., & Lu, L. (1990). The happiness of extraverts. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(10), 1011-1017.

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S. V. (2002). What is the central feature of extraversion? social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 245.

Belojevic, G., Slepcevic, V., & Jakovljevic, B. (2001). Mental performance in noise: The role of introversion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(2), 209-213.

(25)

Bidjerano, T., & Dai, D. Y. (2007). The relationship between the big-five model of personality and self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(1), 69-81.

Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 445-457.

Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 222-230.

Brian, P. (2014). What is introversion? Retrieved, 2014, Retrieved from http://psychologydictionary.org/introversion/

Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding, , 65-116.

Burger, J. M. (1995). Individual differences in preference for solitude. Journal of Research in Personality, 29(1), 85-108.

Cain, S. (2013). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can't stop talking Random House LLC.

Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement.

Cattell, R. B., & Scheier, I. H. (1961). The meaning and measurement of neuroticism and anxiety.

Christal, R. E. (1992). Author's note on `Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings.'. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 221-224.

Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653-665.

Daoussis, L., & McKelvie, S. J. (1986). Musical preferences and effects of music on a reading comprehension test for extravertsand introverts. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62(1), 283-289.

(26)

Davidson, J. E., Deuser, R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1994). The role of metacognition in problem solving.

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., Peterson, J. B., & Gray, J. R. (2014). Openness to experience, intellect, and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(1), 46-52.

Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333-349.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach (illustrated ed.). Dordrecht: Springer Dordrecht.

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review : An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 2(4), 290-309. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5 [doi] Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and

innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110-132. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(01)00132-1

Geen, R. G., McCown, E. J., & Broyles, J. W. (1985). Effects of noise on sensitivity of introverts and extraverts to signals in a vigilance task. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(2), 237-241.

Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(1), 141-165.

Guildford, J. P., & Zimmerman, W. S. (1949). The guildford-zimmerman temperament survey. Beverly Hills: Sheridan Supply.

Harkins, S., & Geen, R. G. (1975). Discriminability and criterion differences between extraverts and introverts during vigilance. Journal of Research in Personality, 9(4), 335-340.

(27)

Jackson, D. N. (1994). Jackson personality inventory-revised Sigma Assessment Systems, Research Psychologists Press Division.

Janeck, A. S., Calamari, J. E., Riemann, B. C., & Heffelfinger, S. K. (2003). Too much thinking about thinking?: Metacognitive differences in obsessive–compulsive disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 17(2), 181-195.

Jung, C. G. (2013). The essential jung: Selected and introduced by anthony storr Princeton University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types. New York,

Koelega, H. S. (1992). Extraversion and vigilance performance: 30 years of inconsistencies. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 239.

Leary, M. R., Herbst, K. C., & McCrary, F. (2003). Finding pleasure in solitary activities: Desire for aloneness or disinterest in social contact? Personality and Individual Differences, 35(1), 59-68.

Leary, M. R., Herbst, K. C., & McCrary, F. (2003). Finding pleasure in solitary activities: Desire for aloneness or disinterest in social contact? Personality and Individual Differences, 35(1), 59-68. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00141-1

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five‐factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215.

McCrae, R. R., Kurtz, J. E., Yamagata, S., & Terracciano, A. (2011). Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personality and Social Psychology Review : An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 15(1), 28-50. doi:10.1177/1088868310366253 [doi]

(28)

Newman, J. P. (1987). Reaction to punishment in extraverts and psychopaths: Implications for the impulsive behavior of disinhibited individuals. Journal of Research in Personality, 21(4), 464-480.

Nicolaou, N., & Shane, S. (2010). Entrepreneurship and occupational choice: Genetic and environmental influences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(1), 3-14.

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 66(6), 574.

Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2011). Are openness and intellect distinct aspects of openness to experience? A test of the O/I model. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 571-574.

Pearsall, J., & Hanks, P. (1998). The new oxford dictionary of english Clarendon Press.

Schepers, J. M. (2007). The construction and evaluation of an attention questionnaire. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 33(2), 16-24.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.

Siegel, S. M., & Kaemmerer, W. F. (1978). Measuring the perceived support for innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(5), 553.

SIGMA Assessment Systems Inc. (2011). JPI-R basic report. (Basic report). Port Huron, MI, USA 48061-0757: SIGMA Assessment Systems Inc.

Singer, J. L., & Antrobus, J. S. (1972). Daydreaming, imaginal processes, and personality: A normative study. The Function and Nature of Imagery, , 175-202.

Singer, J. L., & Schonbar, R. A. (1961). Correlates of daydreaming: A dimension of self-awareness. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25(1), 1.

(29)

STRELOW, B. R., & DAVIDSON, W. B. (2002). Introversion-extra version, tempo, and guided imagery. Psychological Reports, 90(2), 619-626.

Suedfeld, P. (1982). Aloneness as a healing experience. Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy, , 54-67.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings

USAF ASD tech. rep. no. 61-97,, TX: U. S. air force. ( No. 61-97). Lackland Airforce Base: USAF ASD Tech.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 225-251.

Wagman, M. (1965). Day-dreaming frequency and some personality measures. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29(4), 395.

Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3, 315-327.

Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2008). Extraversion.

Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259.

(30)

7 APPENDIX:

(31)

7.2 SOCIAL MEDIUM DATA AND INVITATIONS

7.2.1 Social Media list:

Facebook Groups: Members:

App entrepreneurs and market 12.488

Castle camp social entrepreneurs 850

Centre for growth, innovation and entrepreneurship 3.565

Entrepreneur 2.882

Entrepreneurship 4.009

Entrepreneurship (2) 24.313

Entrepreneurship | Freedom of life 2.385

Entrepreneurship and professionals joint 19.488

Entrepreneurship movement 7.192

Gaming and Mobile entrepreneurship 4.027

Introverts 5.282

Introvert power 3.317

Small business entrepreneurship corner 14.932

Potential respondents: 104.730

Facebook Communities: Members:

Introverts are awsome 74.799

The Introverted entrepreneur 1.900

Social introverts 25.994

Forums: Members:

Startup Nation 80.000

Teen Business forum 1.500

Small business idea forum 86.476

Small business forum 14.705

The fastlane

(32)

Reddit, subreddit, entrepreneur 85.617

Total potial respondents: 494.768

1% viewing rate of total potential respondents 4.948

7.2.2 Social medium invitations

1. Forum Invitation

1.1 Company introduction:

My current research is about the difference between introverted and extroverted entrepreneurs in the process of setting up a business. The biggest entrepreneurs in the world are introverts (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergei Brin, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffet) which doesn't coincide with the view of entrepreneurs that is so popular. One sees an

entrepreneur as a social person whom is lighting up the room and who knows everybody at the party. The introvert is more reserved and prefers to spend more time on his own, researching and daydreaming on various things. Not enough research has been done on the effect of an

introverted personality even though there are plenty of examples in which these minds have changed the world for ever.

I'm trying to connect to as much entrepreneurs as possible in order to ask how they are different. –forum X- seems to be a big angora with lots of bright men en women sharing their ideas and developing their businesses. I'm hoping to find the answers in here and help all of them discover their weaknesses and strengths. Seeing as both this website and my Universities goals

(supporting entrepreneurs) overlap I hope there is a way to expand our knowledge together.

(33)

I am an explorer of the entrepreneurial psyche. I'm currently studying and researching at the University of Amsterdam and trying to understand how entrepreneurs differ from the general public and what makes certain entrepreneurs better than others.

A curious, passionate and driven, student about to start with his masters in Entrepreneurship after finishing my first thesis on entrepreneurs. I'm from the Netherlands and love hunting, cooking and constructing things by hand. I love learning practical skills in my free time in order to gain independence and self-sufficiency. That probably has some connection to my fascination with entrepreneurs and I'm trying to gain an understanding to be able to set up my own business someday.

1.3 Entrepreneur invitation:

If you consider yourself an involved and spirited entrepreneur please take 15 to 20 minutes to fill out a short questionnaire on yourself. It allows for a little self-reflection and helps further global research on you and your special psyche. The following link goes to Qualtrics, an anonymous, professional website for questionnaires:

Entrepreneurs are considered special people. At the University of Amsterdam we’re investigating the link between their personality and their success. We hope you’ll take 15 minutes of your time to fill in this questionnaire to further our research:

https://uvafeb.az1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8v5eRHNjzazO7Pv

Thank you in advance for participating and bless you!

(34)

2. Social medium invitations:

2.1 Entrepreneur invitation:

Entrepreneurs are considered special people. At the University of Amsterdam we’re investigating the link between their personality and their success. We hope you’ll take 15 minutes of your time to fill in this questionnaire to further our research:

Thank you in advance for participating and bless you!

2.2 Introvert invitation:

We, at the University of Amsterdam, are currently researching the link between Introversion and Entrepreneurship. This research might help show the power of introversion in the people who come up with the ideas of tomorrow. We hope you’ll take 15 minutes of your time to fill in this questionnaire to further our research:

Thank you in advance for participating and bless you!

2.3 Follow up invitation for entrepreneurs:

We would like to thank all the people who’ve taken the time to respond to our questionnaire. We’re nearing the amount of data we’re hoping to collect. However, we still need more responses to our survey!

If you are an entrepreneur and would like to contribute to the research on you, the University of Amsterdam seeks a 15 minute donation of your time to fill in a questionnaire. It allows for a little self-reflection and helps further global research on you and your special psyche. The following link goes to Qualtrics, an anonymous, professional website for questionnaires:

Thank you in advance,

(35)

2.4 Follow up invitation entrepreneurs:

We would like to thank all the people who’ve taken the time to respond to our questionnaire. We’re nearing the amount of data we’re hoping to collect. However, we still need more responses to our survey!

We, at the University of Amsterdam, are currently researching the link between Introversion and Entrepreneurship. This research might help show the power of introversion in the people who come up with the ideas of tomorrow. We hope you’ll take 15 minutes of your time to fill in this questionnaire to further our research:

(36)

7.3 THE QUESTIONNAIRE

(37)

(38)

(39)

(40)

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

Page 6

(46)

7.3.2 Constructs and their questions:

7.3.2.1 OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE

10-item scale (Alpha = .82)

+ keyed Believe in the importance of art. Have a vivid imagination.

Tend to vote for liberal political candidates. Carry the conversation to a higher level. Enjoy hearing new ideas.

– keyed Am not interested in abstract ideas. Do not like art.

Avoid philosophical discussions. Do not enjoy going to art museums.

Tend to vote for conservative political candidates.

7.3.2.2 Ingenuity

JPI: Innovation [Inv] [.84]

+ keyed Love to think up new ways of doing things. Have a vivid imagination.

Am full of ideas.

Carry the conversation to a higher level. Come up with bold plans.

Have excellent ideas.

– keyed Do not have a good imagination. Have difficulty imagining things. Will not probe deeply into a subject. Can't come up with new ideas.