• No results found

Entrepreneurial fear failure : loving-kindness meditation & the intention to start again

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Entrepreneurial fear failure : loving-kindness meditation & the intention to start again"

Copied!
45
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 1

ENTREPRENEURIAL FEAR OF FAILURE:

LOVING-KINDNESS MEDITATION & THE INTENTION TO START AGAIN

DANIELLE ALAINA BENNETT UvA 11789093

Supervised by Dr. Yuval Engel

University of Amsterdam & Vrije University Amsterdam Thesis MSc Entrepreneurship

(2)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 2

Abstract

Entrepreneurship is a turbulent and uncertain career with the potential for uncertainty and the constant fear of failure for those who choose to engage in entrepreneurial endeavors. Entrepreneurs’ perception of failure influences how they make decisions and therefore, offers great implications to the entrepreneurial phenomenon. This study conducts an experiment on 100 entrepreneurs to examine their fear of failure after being introduced to a fear-inducing scenario. The participants were randomized into a Loving-Kindness Meditation group and control group. The results revealed that fear of failure could be mitigated through Loving-Kindness Meditation; although, the study did not conclude that fear of failure influences the entrepreneurs’ decision to start a subsequent venture. This study adds support to Loving-Kindness Meditation as a coping mechanism for entrepreneurial fear of failure and contributes a dynamic perspective on how fear of failure can dissuade entrepreneurs from the field of entrepreneurship entirely.

Keywords: Entrepreneurship; Loving-Kindness; Meditation; Fear of Failure; Intention

to Start Again

(3)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 3

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Danielle Alaina Bennett who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. The text and the work presented in this document are original and no sources other than those mentioned in the text and

its references have been used in creating it. The University of Amsterdam and Vrije University Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the

supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(4)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 4

Table of Contents Introduction……….……….….………...…5

Theoretical background Entrepreneurial fear of failure………...………...…... ….7

Loving-Kindness Meditation & fear of failure……… .……...9

Entrepreneurial fear of failure and intention to start again………...…...……11

Methodology 13 Methods………..………..13 Sample………..13 Material………..………..14 Procedure………..14 Measures Entrepreneurial fear of failure………..………..……..15

Intention to start again……… ………….……….………..15

Trait mindfulness………...……….………..15

Manipulation check.………..……….………..15

Scenario check..………...………..………….………..16

Table 1: Randomization checks. ……….……… …………17

Results Assumptions Randomization check. ……….………18 Normality……….………18 Homogeneity of variance……….………18 Correlations………..………..……..………18

Table 2: Correlation matrix..…………...………...…… ……20

Hypothesis testing………..………….………….21

Discussion………22

Conclusion………...…….………..….26

References………...………27

Appendices Appendix A: Additional information & descriptive variables……...…..……34

Appendix B: Tests………..……….….…36

(5)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 5

Introduction

Fear arises in instances of low certainty and control (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003), two fundamental aspects of the entrepreneurial phenomenon. In entrepreneurship, most decisions bear the possibility to fail (Conroy, Metzler & Willow, 2002; Cacciotti, Hayton, Mitchell & Giazitzoglu, 2016); therefore, entrepreneurs are always faced with fear of failure to some extent (Cacciotti & Hayton, 2015). Given that risk-taking is necessary for entrepreneurial activity (Koudstaal, Sloof & Van Praag, 2015), fear can be consequential to entrepreneurs as it may deter them from exploiting opportunities (Kollman, Stöckmann & Kensbock, 2017). As entrepreneurs’ perception of failure influences their ability to comprehend and distinguish opportunities clearly (Klaukien & Patzelt, 2009), the interpretation of failure has tremendous implications on the field of entrepreneurship.

Fear of failure can either motivate or prevent entrepreneurs to take risks, a motivational phenomenon which has spiked in recent years, specifically in terms of entrepreneurs’ psychological insights, competencies and behaviors (Baum & Locke, 2004). In addition to one’s entrepreneurial characteristics, successful entrepreneurship is largely contingent on the market (Baron & Markman, 2003; Man, Lau & Snape, 2008). This means regardless of an entrepreneur’s personal ambitions and strengths, there is a risk of failure that cannot be avoided. As entrepreneurship returns very low rates of success on average (Hall & Woodward, 2010), entrepreneurship is a risky activity to engage in at all (Åstebro, Herz, Nanda & Weber, 2014). As fear of failure is an avoidable factor in the field, understanding entrepreneurs’ perception on failure can explain how decisions are influenced in practice.

Loving-Kindness Meditation (LKM) increases positive emotions (Fredrickson, Cohn, Coffey, Pek, & Finkel, 2008) and decreases negative thoughts and rumination (Feldman, Greeson & Senville, 2010; Hofmann, Grossman & Hinton, 2011). Given the constant threat of failure in entrepreneurship, LKM could lead entrepreneurs to minimize contemplation on the possible negative outcomes and unfavorable circumstances that happened in the past. Loving-Kindness Meditation can also lead one to be more confident in their personal abilities and idea potential (Cacciotti & Hayton, 2015), potentially increasing entrepreneurs’ willingness to take on risks. Additionally, LKM has been found to increase self-compassion (Neff & Germer, 2013; Weibel, 2007; Smeets, Neff, Alberts, & Peters, 2014), a perspective that helps one understand their emotions with more clarity and to objectively overcome

(6)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 6 obstacles with a problem-focused approach (Neff, 2003). As LKM can raise compassion and concern for oneself and others (Hofmann, Grossman & Hinton, 2011), it can help one to perceive the world with more present-focused awareness. When faced with a negative emotion, such as fear of failure, Loving-Kindness Meditation could help entrepreneurs cope with less self-doubt and criticism.

Studying fear of failure has returned contradictory results and is largely dependent on one’s personal characteristics (Mitchell & Shepherd, 2011). As the way entrepreneurs’ interpret failure can result in a variety of outcomes, it is important to understand how these negative emotions can influence entrepreneurial activity in practice. Where fear of failure can potentially be mitigated through LKM, an entrepreneurs’ perception of failure can also drive them to perceive entrepreneurial situations in a different light. For example, entrepreneurs could either be invigorated to start another venture after experiencing failure or motivated to avoid subsequent entrepreneurial risk entirely. As fear is generally associated with a flight response, or avoidant behavioral tenancies (Frijda, Kuipers, &ter Schure, 1989), this study will focus on how fear of failure can deter entrepreneurs away from starting a subsequent venture after experiencing failure.

The challenges faced by entrepreneurs during their first venture can cause them to re-experience the negative feelings (Conroy, 2003), energizing them at the first sign of failure (Elliot, 1999). Negative emotion, such a failure, can direct a person to act and produce a defense response (Elfenbein, 2007; Frijda et al., 1989). This defensive response can spur proactivity and motivate them to avoid future failure (Bélanger et al., 2013; Kollmann et al., 2017). Similarly, research has found that negative emotions can energize one to overcome difficulties (Bélanger, Lafreniere, Vallerand, & Kruglanski, 2013) and symbolize a need for change (Elfenbein, 2007; George, 2011). After experiencing fear of failure, an entrepreneur could likely be motivated to seek security and hinder additional risk-taking as they are driven to avoid experiencing subsequent negative emotions.

Through a sociocultural lens, this study will examine the theoretical literature on entrepreneurial fear of failure to better understand how it can impact the entrepreneurship in practice. Given that entrepreneurs’ interpretation of failure has an impact on their decision making (Klaukien & Patzelt, 2009), it is proposed that fear of failure will influence entrepreneurs’ decision to start again and that fear of failure can be mitigated by Loving-Kindness Meditation. This study examines fear of failure as a

(7)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 7 mediator between Loving-Kindness Meditation and entrepreneurs’ intention to start again. The study will address the following research question:

To what extent does fear of failure decrease entrepreneurs’ decision to start again and how is fear of failure mitigated by Loving-Kindness Meditation?

Theoretical Background Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure

In entrepreneurship, fear of failure is deemed to be one of the most common fears amongst entrepreneurs (Cacciotti & Hayton, 2015) and most stigmatized business outcomes (Shepherd & Haynie, 2011). When entrepreneurs are afraid to fail, it decreases their intrinsic motivation and hinders their ability to take business risks, ultimately directing them away from situations where there is a potential for failure (Cacciotti & Hayton, 2015; Kollmann et al., 2017). Fear of failure can also be classified as risk aversion (Wagner & Stenberg, 2004) as it causes entrepreneurs’ to be less likely to act on innovative opportunities where failure is possible, or even causes one not to even take the risk to start a business at all (Koudstaal et al., 2015). Therefore, fear of failure can result in actual failure because it hinders the risk taking upon which most entrepreneurs thrive (Autio & Pathak, 2010; Wagner & Stenberg, 2004).

This stigma of failure is both a socio-cultural trait and a psychological barrier to entrepreneurship (Arenius & Minniti, 2005; Martins, 2004; Sandhu, Sidique, & Shoaib, 2011; Shinnar et al., 2012). This multifaceted discomfiture is because failure is can hurt self-perception or impact the way that outsiders perceive them (Conroy, Metzler & Willow, 2002; Cacciotti et al., 2016). Social stigmatization, for example, can involve the perceptions of stakeholders (Cacciotti et al., 2015) or fear that one could jeopardize social ties such as business partners or family (Kollmann et al., 2017). The EOS Gallup Europe Survey (2007; 2010; 2013) shows that people may reduce the amount of business they do with entrepreneurs who have failed, thus compounding the social stigma associated with entrepreneurial failure. Fear of failure is also associated with cognitive cues that rely on entrepreneurs’ self-definition (Ucbasaran, Shepherd, Lockett, & Lyon, 2009) and their self-doubt (Neff, 2003). The way entrepreneurs perceive their own strengths also affects their perception of failure,

(8)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 8 for example, entrepreneurs’ confidence with the validity of the business idea or the feasibility of supporting their venture (Cacciotti & Hayton, 2015).

Within the context of fear, individuals can perseverate on the thoughts that cause negative reactions (Brewer & Gardner, 1989; March & Olsen, 1979) such as grief, doubt, and fear (Foo, 2011; Grichnik et al., 2010; Shepherd 2003; Shepherd et al., 2007, 2009, 2011; Welpe et al., 2012). If entrepreneurs’ attribute emotion to these fixed constructs, it is likely for them to be emotionally affected by external stimuli (Tiedens & Linton, 2001). When an entrepreneur begins to first feel the first signs of these negative emotions, they may consequently focus on the negative thoughts: what failure would mean in their specific situation. As one ruminates on these potential threats, they may place a greater focus on defensive action (Frijda, 1986; Izard & Ackerman, 2000) rather than taking entrepreneurial risks. In other words, if entrepreneurs’ thoughts and reactions are negative; it can lead an entrepreneur to place a great focus on negative situations when faced with the first signs of failure.

Entrepreneurs thrive by making quick decisions and acting once an opportunity is recognized (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). This perspective allows entrepreneurs to analyze and take swift decisive action with a limited amount of information (Arenius et al., 2005). As these constructs are generally internalized and eventually generalized (Stern, 1985), it can be helpful in quick decision-making but can also result in a preference and resistance to a particular behavior (Damasio, 1994; Koudstaal et al., 2015). Entrepreneurs build mental connections from past situations and naturally use them to avoid failure (Conroy & Elliot, 2004; Elliot & Church, 1997). To prevent or change these automatic responses, new cues must be activated (Smith & Shoda, 2009; Kollmann et al., 2017). If new cues are not activated, an entrepreneur could continue the cycle of ruminating on the same negative consequences of failure.

Research has shown evidence that entrepreneurs’ perception of failure causes them to act in contradictory ways (Covington, 1992; Elliot et al., 1997). Therefore, it is important to understand entrepreneurial motivations (Cacciotti et al., 2016) to make sense of entrepreneurs’ thought process when dealing with failure. As fear of failure is a multifaceted construct, the entrepreneurs’ perception of failure is dependent on their individual circumstances (Chell & Baines, 2000) and therefore, failure can produce many diverse responses in entrepreneurs. When faced with failure, entrepreneurs’ can retract from entrepreneurship all together, they could learn how to

(9)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 9 understand their own emotional responses regarding fear of failure or lastly, they could learn to cope with potential failure in a different way, for example, engaging in meditation.

Loving-Kindness Meditation & Fear of Failure

As the entrepreneurial landscape is fraught with uncertainty, pitfalls and risk, fear of failure is something that entrepreneurs must accept. Loving-Kindness meditation can potentially serve as a coping mechanism to deal with this perpetual fear of failure. Meditation bolsters one the strength to gain awareness of the present moment, allowing them to make well-informed decisions that do not rely so heavily on heuristics (Jacob, Jovic, & Brinkerhoff, 2009). If entrepreneurs learn to avoid ruminating on negative thoughts, they are more likely to face the situation adaptively and objectively (McCullough, Orsulak, Brandon & Akers, 2007) and mitigate their feelings of inadequacy (Neff & Vonk, 2009; Smeets et al., 2014). Though fear of failure has been studied extensively and has demonstrated a negative effect on entrepreneurs (Mitchell & Shepherd, 2010; Klaukien & Patzelt, 2009; Minniti & Nardone, 2007), there has been less research on how to deal with fear of failure. Loving-Kindness Meditation is a learnable practice (Neff & Germer, 2013), therefore it has the potential to aid entrepreneurs in coping with fear of failure.

Loving-Kindness Meditation is achieved by using silent mental phrases to cultivate love, kindness and compassion for oneself to be happy and free from suffering (Salzberg, 2004) and then extending those feelings to others (Kang, Gray & Dovidio, 2015; Logie & Frewen, 2015). These feelings of warmth and compassion would emanate to the people one associates with, both close and distant, and then to humanity as a whole (Hoffmann et al., 2011). Studies have shown that even after a 5 minute LKM intervention, individuals had more positive feelings towards themselves and compassionate feelings towards others (Tan, Lo, Macrae, 2014, Hutcherson et al., 2008) as well as more present focused thoughts (Mogilner, Cassie, Kamvar, Sepandar, Aaker, Jennifer 2011). Loving-Kindness Meditation has been found to decrease the spiral of self-doubt and negative emotion (Feldman et al., 2010; Hofmann et al., 2011) and is particularly designed to evoke positive feelings (Fredrickson et al., 2008). LKM is even thought to even reshape emotional personality traits (Davidson et al., 2003), therefore potentially helping individuals gain a new perspective on dealing with fear of failure in entrepreneurship.

(10)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 10 Loving-Kindness Meditation helps one to become increasingly conscious of their own physical and emotional reactions in their environment (Bandura, 1986). This awareness helps people to better understand their limitations (Mauer, 2009; Neff, 2003). LKM helps one have more confidence in determining which specific endeavors to undertake and which resources to utilize when faced with challenges (Bandura, 1986). This is an essential component of making informed entrepreneurial decisions. Additionally, LKM has also been linked to goal mastery and self-improvement (Neff, Hsieh, & Dejitterat, 2005), traits likely to boost confidence in the face of fear and failure.

Loving-Kindness Meditation has been researched extensively in regard to increasing self-compassion (Boellinghaus, Jones & Hutton, 2012). Self-compassion reduces negative mindsets such as anxiety, depression, social comparison, rumination, self-judgment (Neff, 2003; Neff & Vonk, 2009; Neff & McGehee, 2010) and a hypercritical focus on thoughts and emotions (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991). Additionally, self-compassion represents a balanced focus on the concern for oneself and the concern for others (Blatt, 1995), helping one increase their empathy, social support and connection to others (Fredrickson et al., 2008; Hofmann & Hinton, 2011; Hutcherson, Seppala & Grossman, 2008). In entrepreneurship, these social ties are a fundamental source of knowledge, trusted feedback, and new ideas (Elfring & Hulsink, 2003). When interpreted in the context of the entrepreneurial landscape, LKM-induced self-compassion is also likely a factor in minimizing fear of failure as it reduces negative emotions and strengthens social relationships.

LKM is found to increase and sustain self-compassion after two months (Weibel, 2007), therefore helping one have more self-clarity and to take a “problem-focused” approach when faced with a dilemma (Neff, 2003). Therefore, this study proposes that when fear of failure occurs, LKM could entrepreneurs’ greater awareness and the ability to step back and view a situation holistically. This could potentially lead entrepreneurs to balance expectations of success and mitigate work-related anxiety (Stumpf, Brief & Hartman, 1987). LKM also allows one the ability to extend kindness to oneself and recognize their struggle as part of the greater human experience (Neff, 2003; Goldstein & Michaels, 1985). This social support is also proposed as a viable channel for entrepreneurs’ to understand failure with a more rational view.

(11)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 11 Loving-Kindness Meditation is hypothesized to reduce entrepreneurial fear of failure decreasing the anxiety of failure by helping one to understand their struggles in a broader context. Failure is not seen as detrimental but a necessary step in entrepreneurial progress. The substantiated benefit of LKM and its proposed effect on entrepreneurial fear of failure leads to the following hypothesis:

H1: Loving-Kindness Meditation mitigates entrepreneurial fear of failure when encountering a threatening venture obstacle.

Entrepreneurial fear of failure and the intention to start again

The way entrepreneurs’ interpret failure influences their motivational goals and provides incentives to act upon and seek change (Elfenbein, 2007; George, 2011; Roseman, Wiest & Swartz, 1994). Fear of failure can deter entrepreneurs from acting on future entrepreneurial goals (Sandhu et al., 2011), avoiding performance goals (Elliot & McGregor, 2001) or withdrawing from potential opportunities all together (Atkinson 1957; Elliot, 1997; Elliot, 2006; Elliot & Church, 1997). After experiencing the first sign of failure, one can become focused and energized (Elliot et al., 1997; Elliot, 1999) because of an increased cognitive focus on the negative consequences of failure (Elliot & Thrash, 2002). As entrepreneurs’ experience familiar negative thought patterns and feelings, they may be motivated to escape and abandon the entrepreneurial pursuit (Elliot et al., 1997; Kollman et al., 2017). This motivation produces a flight response (Frijda et al., 1989), which may deter entrepreneurs’ away from engaging in subsequent risk taking activity after experiencing an initial failure.

Lebel (2017) calls for a more systematic understanding of how negative emotions influence behavior, because they can spur constructive responses such as proactivity. Den Hartog & Belschak (2007) found a positive relationship between negative emotions and proactivity, though this has not yet been investigated within the entrepreneurial domain. To bridge this literary gap, this study will investigate how an entrepreneurial fear of failure can spur proactive behavior. Proactive behavior is generally associated with a flight response, or avoidant tendencies (Frijda et al., 1989). This proactivity has also been found to signalize one to change the current situation (Lebel, 2017).

As negative emotions can result in one withdrawing from an opportunity (Kollmann et al., 2017), fear of failure is argued to decrease one’s willingness to

(12)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 12 engage in entrepreneurship altogether (Allen, Langowitz & Minniti, 2007). Therefore, when entrepreneurs’ face negative emotions like fear of failure, they can perceive the situation as an opportunity to look forward rather than dwelling negatively on the past (Grant & Ashford, 2008). A focus on the future enables making strategic decisions in a goal-oriented and specific manner (Shipp, Edwards, & Lambert, 2009; Parker & Collins, 2010). If one were motivated by predictable success and stable circumstances, they would most likely not be content pursuing additional ventures as there is such great ambiguity and uncertainty in the field.

By translating failure relevant cues into action, entrepreneurs can take fear of failure and transform it into proactivity, a lesson learned for future success (Elliot, 1999; Conroy & Elliot, 2004; Wright et al., 2009), a behavior that is open and focused on the future (Parker & Collins, 2010). As the entrepreneurial landscape deals with so much turbulence (Moskowitz & Vissing-Jørgensen, 2002), it is argued that entrepreneurship is a difficult path to choose if one were driven to be successful (Hall & Woodward, 2010). In an entrepreneurial venture, there is perpetual risk and uncertainty (Åstebro, Herz, Nanda & Weber, 2014), proposing that it can be more effective to let go than to continue dealing with recurrent obstacles (Lapierre & Allan, 2006). In other words, taking part in entrepreneurship drives awareness to the challenges faced in the field; after one experiences failure the first time, it helps to give a realistic perspective of the career and may dissuade them from ever undertaking a similar risk.

Therefore, it is proposed that experiencing a past failure could help to enlighten entrepreneurs on the probability of success and the perpetual uncertainty that is the very essence of an entrepreneurial venture. At the first sign of failure, entrepreneurs could be energized to either avoid failure or continue on to achieve future success (Elliot, 1999; Conroy & Elliot, 2004;). As this proactive behavior can activate a flight response (Lebel, 2017; Frijda et al., 1989), this study proposes that entrepreneurs’ fear of failure could deter an individual from the field of entrepreneurship entirely. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H2: Entrepreneurial fear of failure decreases entrepreneurs' intention to start another venture (after experiencing failure).

(13)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 13

Methodology

Given the theoretical framework above, Hypothesis 1 proposes that Loving-Kindness Meditation reduces entrepreneurial fear of failure and Hypothesis 2 proposes fear of failure decreases one’s intention to start again after experiencing an initial failure. In this research, fear of failure will serve as a mediator between LKM and one’s intention to start again. This is depicted in the conceptual model below (see Figure A).

Methods

An experiment was conducted with 100 entrepreneurs, 49 of which were exposed to an audio clip on Loving-Kindness Meditation and 51 to a control condition about mediation. The 100 participants were then dummy coded either a “0” (control condition) or a “1” (LKM). Following the audio clip and a fear-inducing scenario, the study measured participants on their fear of failure and intention to start again.

Prior to starting the study, participants were briefed in a general way to prevent socially desirable responding. The introductory text, specified in Appendix C, stated that the study was designed to measure how meditation influences the way one responds to a specific entrepreneurial situation. They were told they would need headphones and that the study would take roughly 25 minutes in total.

Sample

A priori sample size calculation was made with G*Power 3.1. These numbers were created by aiming for a medium effect size of d= .05 (Cohen, 1988) as a meta-analysis showed confidence intervals between .15 and .75 (Galante, Galante, Bekkers & Gallacher, 2014). A one-tailed t-test was conducted with α = .05 and an 80% power as a standard scientific measurement (Field, 2009), requiring a targeted size of 102 participants. These calculations are shown in Appendix B.1.

Loving-Kindness

Meditation Intention to Start Again

Fear of Failure

Figure A. Conceptual model

(14)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 14 Participants were primarily found through convenience sampling of personal networks: social media (Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn); posts by the research team and several meditation centers located in Amsterdam. Also, two co-working spaces in Amsterdam were visited for sampling purpose. Additional distribution details are elaborated in Appendix A.2.

As shown in Appendix A.3, 291 participants opened the initial survey of which only 194 completed the initial checks. These initial checks ensured that the participant was over 18 years old and fulfilled the requirement of being an entrepreneur. To encompass the broad interpretations of entrepreneurship, it was defined as a person who is currently the owner (one who helps manage) a business or foundation, including self-employment of any goods or services. Only 117 of the participants completed the experimental condition within 536 and 901 seconds, ensuring that they were present for the entire duration of the study with minimal distractions. To further ensure minimal distraction, participants were filtered out for not completing two out of two of the attention checks. Furthermore, participants were omitted if they did not speak English at least moderately well (level 3) on the 1-5 Likert-scale. This left us with exactly 100 participants to analyze.

Material

The remaining 100 participants, aged between 22 and 70 years (M=34.99, SD=13.2), of which were 57% men. The entrepreneurs stated to have an average number of co-founders of 1.73, including themselves. Also, it appeared that 73.2% of the past entrepreneurial ventures were successful and another 25% categorized as failures. The firm’s legal status and industry classifications are shown in Appendixes A.4 and A.5, respectively. The study also inquired the meditation experience of all 100 participants to ensure that the LKM and control groups were homogenous as displayed in Appendix A.6. As the groups were reasonably homogenous, no participants were excluded on their previous meditation experience. As analyzed and displayed in Table 1, the control variables between the LKM condition and the control condition are analyzed for major variances.

Procedure

Once the baseline and control measures were evaluated, participants were exposed to one of two 9-minute audio clips: the LKM or control condition. The LKM audio sample by Williams and Penman (2011) can be found at https://anon.to/r6cdxx.

(15)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 15 The control clip, a TED talk by Andy Puddicombe (2012), can be found at https://anon.to/TuobrF.

Measures

Entrepreneurial fear of failure. After being exposed to the audio clip, the

entrepreneurs were exposed to a ‘drop in demand’ scenario to induce fear of failure. In this audio clip, the participant was described a scenario where in there was a decrease in demand for the goods or services. In order to think thoroughly about situation and how it would effect their personal circumstances, the participant were asked to describe one specific consequence it would have on them. These text responses were not analyzed any further; this exercise was merely to get the participant to ponder how this failure would impact them and their specific business .

To measure the entrepreneurs’ fear of failure, participants were given the Achievement Motives Scale designed by Lang & Fries (2006).. They were given a 7- point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). All three studies by Kollmann et al., (2017), on the revised fear of failure scale, returned a Cronbach’s α greater than .70. This study returned a Cronbach’s α of .83, which gives the indication of good internal consistency (De Vellis, 2016).

Intention to start again. After the entrepreneurs experienced fear of failure

and thought about what failure would mean in their specific circumstances, they were faced with the decision of starting another entrepreneurial venture. To measure this, the entrepreneurs were posed the question, “How likely or unlikely would you be to start another (new) business following such a situation?” Their likelihood to start again was measured on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 10. The results of the 100 entrepreneurs retuned a mean of 7.21 and a standard deviation of 2.

Trait mindfulness. The shortened Mindful Attention Awareness Scale

(MAAS) by Dane and Brummel (2013) was used as a baseline measure for the trait mindfulness in the workplace. More specifically, this baseline was used to determine how mindful the participants were, prior to listening the audio fragment, using a 6-point Likert-scale. In Dane and Brummel their (2013) study, the reliability (Cronbach’s α) for the original study was .73. This study offered a Cronbach’s α =. 75 as shown in Appendix C. De Vellis (2016) stated that values above .7 show good internal consistency; therefore, the used scale was proven to be effective.

Manipulation check. Participants were exposed to several manipulation

(16)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 16 asked questions such as, “I was focused on my breathing,” and were asked to answer on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The manipulation checks by Hafenbrack, Kinias & Barsade (2014) returned a Cronbach’s α of .77, whereas this study returned a solid .85, confirming a reliable scale. As displayed in Appendix B.3, after being introduced to the fearful scenario, the manipulation checks between the LKM and control group differed. Therefore, the manipulation can confidently be stated as effective.

Scenario Check. To gauge the participant’s response to the fear-inducing

scenario, they were also exposed to 4 scenario checks to ensure that both groups interpreted the scenario the same way. The scenario check asked questions such as, “I felt that I could vividly imagine the scenario and identify with the situation as it was described” and to answer on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). As displayed in Appendix B.4, an independent samples t-test revealed that both groups did understand the scenario the same way (p-value < .01).

(17)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 17

Table 1

Randomization checks

Variables t-test Welch Statistic df f-test (Levene’s Test) Shapiro-Wilk Test

Age -1.26 1.59 96.62 4.504* .801***

Trait Mindfulness Pre .187 .035 97.61 .044 .984

Fear of Failure -2.47 6.04 91.14 2.640 .984

Intention to Start Again .872 .75 92.56 3.821 .929***

Number of Co Founders -.923 .86 94.59 .007 .669***

Past Successful Ventures -.381 .15 95 .002 .554***

Past Venture Failures 1.87 3.41 98 13.41 .402***

χ2- Test Meditation Experience 3.59 6 Gender 2.70 1 Nationality 5.72* 1 English Understanding 5.37 3 Industry 18.32 16 Education 5.20 7 Legal Structure 7.47 4

Note. N=100, The control group was coded “0“ (N=49) and the LKM group coded “1“ (N=51).

ANOVA F-test is the Levene’s test for equality of variances df=1. Significant results from the Shapiro-Wilk Test suggest that results deviate from normality. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. (2-tailed significance).

(18)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 18

Results

Randomization Check. To ensure that the two groups were homogenous prior to

administering the audio clips, the LKM and the control groups were compared on a list of independent control variables. As shown in Table 1, a t-test revealed that age, trait mindfulness, number of co-founders, past successful ventures and past venture failures did not differ between the treatment and control groups. The chi-square tests revealed that meditation experience, gender, industry, education and legal structure also did not differ between groups. However, the chi-square test revealed that nationality between groups was significant (p≤.05).

Normality. To test that the data was normally distributed, the Shapiro-Wilk

test was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that only two of the seven constructs showed normality, these results are shown as significance in Table 1. This therefore suggests that a majority of the constructs have a positive skew from a normal distribution. As this distribution was not normal, a bootstrapping procedure was because it does not make assumptions about the distribution of the variables (Preacher & Hayes, 2004).

Homogeneity of Variances. The Levene’s test was used to test the

homogeneity of variances. This test in Table 1 revealed that six of the seven constructs were not significant, suggesting that the assumption of the homogeneity of variances was correct.

Correlations. The means, standard deviations and correlations are shown in

Table 2. The correlation table shows that all correlation coefficients remain below .70, therefore decreasing the odds of multicollinearity in the regression (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). To confirm that the manipulation was effective, correlations were found between the post MAAS score and condition (R=.612, p<.01). There was also a significant correlation between fear of failure and the experiment group (R=-.242, p<.05), which implies that LKM is correlated with entrepreneurs’ fear of failure. As expected, given the existing research in the field, the participants’ MAAS and meditation experience (R=-.202, p<.05), MAAS and age (R=-.257, p<.01), age and past successful ventures (R=.389, p<.01) as well as number of past venture failures (R=.216, p<.05) were also significant.

The correlation matrix revealed no significance between intention to start again and the MAAS scores or fear of failure. This suggests that there may not be any correlation between these variables on a 5% significance level. However, a significant

(19)

Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure | 19

correlation was found between intention to start again and legal structure (R=-.237, p<.05), age (R=-.201, p<.05) and gender (R=-.224, p<.05), shown in Table 2. This implies that there may be other factors that influence entrepreneurs’ decision to start again. These correlations will be further elaborated on in the discussion.

(20)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 20 Table 2

The intercorrelations, means, and standard deviations, for the variables

Mean (SD) Control LKM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1) Condition N=49 N=51 - 2) MAAS Pre 3.503 (1.486) 5.379 (.904) -.019 - 3) MAAS Post 4.081 (1.084) 5.027 (.695) .612** -.114 - 4) Industry 13.88 (5.56) 14.51 (5.48) .058 .090 .018 - 5) Legal Structure 4.02 (1.32) 3.92 (1.46) -.034 .014 -.060 .225* - 6) Number of Co Founders 1.63 (.906) 1.82 (1.144) .093 -.097 .011 -.163 -.079 - 7) Meditation Experience 1.51 (1.757) 1.31 (1.726) -.057 -.202* .187 -.053 -.075 .034 -

8) Past Successful Ventures .6875 (.879) .775 (1.342) .039 -.081 .034 -.070 -.027 -.112 .107 -

9) Age 33.31 (12.03) 36.61 (14.127) .126 -.257** -.004 .183 .033 -.145 .100 .389** -

10) Past Venture Failures .3878 (.95342) .1176 (.38195) -.186 -.053 .022 -.030 .064 -.151 .102 .257* .216* -

11) What is your gender? (1=male) 34.7% (.48) 51.9% (.505) .164 -.025 .130 .289** .199* -.204* -.066 .079 .182 -.104 -

12) Nationality (1=Dutch) 52.9% (.5) 66.7 (.476) -.239* -.264** -.018 .004 .282** .081 .169 -.059 -.015 .298** -.055 -

13) English Understanding 5.18 (.88) 4.86 (.87) -.182 -.301** -.073 -.019 .203* -.049 .126 -.162 -.069 .320** .026 .640** -

14) Manipulation Check Sum 3.503 (1.486) 5.379 (.904) .466** -.063 .898** -.065 -.105 -.004 .193 -.003 -.077 .001 .106 .064 .003 -

15) Fear of Failure 15.938 (6.459) 18.8 (5.0833) .242* -.449** .149 -.047 -.096 -.048 .137 .106 .213* .051 -.096 -.048 .023 .012 -

16) Intention to start again 7.39 (2.197) 7.04 (1.788) -.088 -.181 .011 -.066 -.237* -.188 .132 -.003 -.201* .088 -.224* .036 .015 .109 .109 - Note, N=100

(21)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 21

Hypothesis testing

It was hypothesized that LKM would decrease entrepreneurial fear of failure (Hypothesis 1) and that fear of failure would have a negative effect on entrepreneurs’ likelihood to start again (Hypothesis 2). To test this relationship, a process regression model was used. In Model 4 (PROCESS macro for SPSS), the hypotheses were tested with 5000 bootstrap samples to measure the effects on LKM and starting again with fear of failure as a mediator (Hayes, 2013).

The results demonstrate that the direct effect between LKM and entrepreneurial fear of failure was proven significant (β = 2.87, SE= 1.16, CI [.56, 5.17], p<.05). This relationship supports Hypothesis 1, that LKM reduces entrepreneurial fear of failure. Therefore, this allows us to reject the null Hypothesis H0.

Hypothesis 2 stated that entrepreneurial fear of failure is negatively associated with entrepreneurs' intention to start another venture after experiencing failure. Hypothesis 2 was proven insignificant (β = -.48, SE=.03, CI [-.03, .12] p=.24).

Therefore, the study fails to reject the null hypothesis H0.

As shown in Figure B and given that Hypothesis 2 was insignificant, this suggests that the relationship between LKM and intention to start again is not mediated by fear of failure. Specifically, the correlation between LKM and intention to start again was proven insignificant both indirectly (c=-.3485, SE=.4, CI [-1.142, .445] p=.3855) and directly (c’=-.4812, SE=.41, CI [-1.296, .3335] p=.244).

Loving-Kindness Meditation

Fear of Failure

Hypothesis 1:

β=2.87* SE=1.16

Intention to Start Again

Hypothesis 2: β =.046 SE=.0347 c’=-.4812 SE=.41 c=-.3485 SE=.4 Figure B:

Mediation Model (Hayes, 2013 Model 4): Fear of failure as a mediator of the relationship between the condition (LKM vs Control) and intention to start again. C represents the total effect between LKM and intention to start again and c’ represents the direct effect between the condition and entrepreneurs’ decision to start again. The standard error and unstandardized regression coefficients symbolizes the effect with 5000 bootstrap samples. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

(22)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 22

Discussion

The subject of entrepreneurial fear of failure has primarily existed with what the construct means rather than how entrepreneurs can deal with it (Cacciotti et al., 2015). Given the generally negative effect that fear of failure has on entrepreneurs (Mitchell & Shepherd, 2010; Klaukien & Patzelt, 2009; Minniti & Nardone, 2007), this paper investigates the implications fear of failure has on entrepreneurial decision making and how fear of failure can have a potential positive affect on an entrepreneur. As one’s perception of fear of failure can have contradictory effects on entrepreneurs’ given their personal characteristics (Mitchell & Shepherd, 2011), this study helps to bridge this gap by offering LKM as a specific coping solution to reduce entrepreneurial fear of failure while as examining the effect of fear of failure on entrepreneurs’ decision to start again.

Consistent with expectations, Hypothesis 1 revealed that after being exposed to Loving-Kindness Meditation, the entrepreneur's fear of failure was reduced. Direct effects showed (β = 2.87, SE= 1.16, CI [.56, 5.17], p<.05), meaning that fear of failure was reduced by 2.87 points for entrepreneurs’ exposed to the LKM condition. Therefore, it can be concluded that LKM has a positive impact on reducing entrepreneurial fear of failure. This is consistent with related studies as self-compassion is proven to decrease fear of failure (Neff, 2003) and is a strong component of LKM (Neff & Germer, 2013; Sutcliffe et al., 2016). There are likely other benefits of LKM that can decrease entrepreneurs’ fear of failure, however, such as decreased rumination (Feldman et al., 2010; Hofmann et al., 2011), increased positive emotions (Fredrickson et al., 2008) and a decrease in future focus (Galante et al., 2014; Hutcherson et al., 2008). This study examines the researched benefits of Loving-Kindness Meditation and how they can all play a role in decreasing entrepreneurial fear of failure.

This paper adds to the support for Loving-Kindness Meditation as the practice does not have any known disadvantages (Neff, 2005). The study takes theoretical research on the constructs of LKM, fear of failure and entrepreneurship and combines them to propose a specific coping strategy in both theory and practice. This research therefore helps to bring awareness to LKM as a strategy to reduce entrepreneurial fear of failure. Furthermore, the practice of meditation has gained growing respect and support in the corporate world (Good, Lyddy, Glomb, Bono, Brown, & Duffy, 2016;

(23)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 23 Sutcliffe et al., 2016), this study helps to expand acceptance to Loving-Kindness Meditation in professional settings. Through applying LKM to the entrepreneurial sector, this experiment helped to spread awareness to a global entrepreneurial network, potentially helping them understand how LKM can benefit their entrepreneurial outlook individually.

As LKM was proven successful in decreasing entrepreneurial fear of failure, it was hypothesized that fear of failure would also influence entrepreneurial decision-making as it is linked to both behavioral and psychological outcomes (Cacciotti et al., 2016). After examining a multifaceted view of entrepreneurial fear of failure, it was proposed that fear of a repeat failure would have an influence on entrepreneurs’ decision to start again after experiencing failure. This hypothesis was motivated by the fact that entrepreneurs are motivated at the first sign of failure to achieve future success or eliminate failure (Elliot, 1999). Proactive behavior generally activates a fight response (Lebel, 2017; Frijda et al., 1989) and drives individuals to seek change (Elfenbein, 2007; George, 2011).

Interestingly, a relationship between entrepreneurs’ fear of failure and their intention to start again, as proposed in Hypothesis 2, was not found (β =-.48, SE=.03, CI [-.03, .12] p=.24). The interpretation and reaction to fear of failure is contingent on how one responds to negative performance feedback and setbacks (Dweck & Leggett 1988; Martin & Marsh, 2003) as well as their personal entrepreneurial motivations (Mitchell & Shepherd, 2011). There are many factors influencing one’s intention to start again such as felt responsibility (Lebel, 2017; Schilpzand, Hekman, & Mitchell, 2015), one’s social environment (Schilpzand et al., 2015), and a prosocail motivation (Batson, 1987). Entrepreneurs learn to evaluate and weigh the probability of success and failure (Haynie, Shepherd, McMullen, 2009) and are driven to different aspects of an entrepreneurial career. For example, motivation to engage is partially influenced by entrepreneurs’ non-pecuniary benefits (Moskowitz & Vissing-Jørgensen, 2002), but also motivated by other aspects of failure, such as safety and security (Brockner, Higgins, & Low 2004). Given the number of factors that may potentially influence entrepreneurial engagement, a single construct was likely too ambiguous to detect a specific influence on how starting again is influenced by fear of failure.

As fear of failure is often stigmatized to have a negative impact on entrepreneurial activity (Koudstaal et al., 2015), this study points out an optimistic perspective for failure, recognizing that failure also brings benefits to entrepreneurs’

(24)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 24 and their decision-making by motivating them to take action on a career change. Ultimately, this perspective develops the research that negative emotions help an individual to seek change for future success (Elfenbein, 2007; Lebel, 2017) and develop a future focused perspective (Parker & Collins, 2010). Regardless of the correlation, this research adds support to the complex relationship between entrepreneurs’ fear of failure and their decision to start another venture after experiencing failure. Specifically, this study adds sustenance to the claim that entrepreneurship is not the best career path for guaranteed success (Hall & Woodward, 2010).

Even though no direct correlation was found between the intention to start again and fear of failure, this study revealed several variables that were correlated with the decision to start again. As presented in Table 2, there is a correlation between one’s intention to start again and legal status (R= -.237, p<.05), signifying that one’s current entrepreneurial standing can influence how one interprets the decision to start again. As the study inquired about past venture successes, failures, and whether it is too soon to tell, this offers future opportunities for asking specific questions about entrepreneurs’ current ventures. It may also lead to additional insights regarding their decision to start again. Entrepreneurs’ decision to start again following a failed entrepreneurial venture was also correlated with gender (R=-.224, p<.05). Research by Wagner, (2007) found that females have a higher fear of failure than their male counterparts. This insight opens discussion for future studies on how gender may influence one’s perception of failure and future opportunities for understanding the relationship between fear of failure and starting again. Finally, age and one’s intention to start again (R= -.201, p<.05) was significant, substantiating research by Carstensen, Isaacowitz & Charles (1999) which states that age has an effect on emotions; for example, how older people have more self-acceptance and are more present-focused. Despite the insignificant correlation between intention to start again and fear of failure, this study adds theoretical insight to the construct and can help explain specific factors that influence entrepreneurs’ decision to start again in future studies.

The insignificant correlation between entrepreneurial fear of failure and one’s intention to start again is also contingent on the external effects of the study, such as the education and resources of the researcher. The outcome in this study is dependent on the measures used and had another scale been implemented, a different outcome could have been detected. Although this study evaluated several explanations for why

(25)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 25 there may be a correlation between entrepreneurial fear of failure and intention to start again, it calls for additional research detecting a correlation between the two constructs.

This study helped to contribute in terms of theory and practice but did carry some additional limitations, which suggest opportunities for measuring the construct of fear of failure in future studies. First, this test was conducted using convenience sampling which have a high potential for error for sampling errors (Blumberg, Cooper, & Schindler, 2014). Furthermore, the respondents were found primarily through personal networks, potentially leading to socially desirable responding. Given that the average survey was 23.57 minutes and that entrepreneurs are naturally busy people; the MAAS Scale was shortened and Dane and Brummel (2013)’s shortened MAAS test was only measured prior to the participants listening to the audio. Fear of failure was measured only after the audio clip and therefore, the study failed to measure a baseline measure between groups to assure homogeneity. As the participants’ fear of failure may not have been initially equal, it could have led to some confounding results not detected in the study.

Although the study controlled for nationality, it is important to consider how nationality could influence one’s perception of failure as it correlated with the condition (R=-.239, p<.05) (42.9% of the control and 66.7% of the LKM sample identified as Dutch). Research has found that nationality and culture can also impact ones ability to focus on the past or future (Shipp et al., 2009), therefore influencing individuals’ goal selection (Helfrich, 1996; Kluckhorn & Strodtbeck, 1961). The correlation between nationality and initial MAAS score in this study (R=-.264, p<.01) substantiates this claim because those who are mindful and present tend to experience less stress and more acceptance of their individual situation (Fredrickson et al., 2008; Feldman et al., 2010). Within the context of nationality, this means that some cultures may push people to pursue ambitious career choices in hopes for great success, where other cultures can condition people to seek stability. Similarly, one’s nationality could also partially explain the difference between nationality and legal structure (R=.282, p<.01) as well as past venture failures (R=.3, p<.01) because diverse societies have unique perceptions towards failure and entrepreneurs who fail, both in terms of formal business regulations and social stigmas (Armour & Cumming 2008; Simmons et al., 2014; Sutton & Callahan 1987). As the greatest number of participants from this

(26)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 26 study came from the Netherlands and the United States, the contrast in these nation’s cultures most likely results in a different interpretation of failure.

This paper serves to investigate entrepreneurial fear of failure and the implications it may have on entrepreneurs in both theory and practice. The study successfully answered one component of the research question, confirming that LKM does indeed mitigate entrepreneurs’ fear of failure. Though the relationship between fear of failure and starting again was not proven significant, it offered valuable insight on how fear of failure can serve as a potential motivational tool for entrepreneurs. In addition, this paper could be a springboard offering opportunities to research the constructs in future studies.

Conclusion

Based on prior research, this study took a sociocultural view on fear of failure as a combination of social and cognitive cues (Cacciotti et al., 2015; Shepherd, 2015). As fear of failure generally has a negative impact entrepreneurial activity (Koudstaal et al., 2015), this study examined how entrepreneurial fear of failure can be better coped with or interpreted with a positive perspective. Specifically, this study examined the influence of fear of failure on entrepreneurs’ decision to start again after experiencing failure and how Loving-Kindness Meditation can mitigate fear of failure. In this study, it was hypothesized and concluded that LKM does serve as a coping mechanism to reduce entrepreneurial fear of failure. Though this study was unable to detect whether entrepreneurs’ fear of failure is negatively correlated with the intention to start again, it added to the nascent research on the relationship between negative emotions and proactivity (Lebel, 2017). This study adds insight on how fear of failure can potentially dissuade entrepreneurs from exploring risky business ventures, as they are motivated to achieve a different definition of success. Overall, this study offered a dynamic view on entrepreneurial fear of failure, recognizing LKM as an effective coping mechanism and an opportunity to understand how fear of failure can be beneficial to entrepreneurs in practice.

(27)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 27

References

Allen, I. E., Langowitz, N., & Minniti, M. (2007). Global entrepreneurship monitor. 2006 report on women and entrepreneurship.

Arenius, P., Minniti, M., (2005). Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Bus. Econ. 24, 233–247.

Armour, J., & Cumming, D. (2008). Bankruptcy law and entrepreneurship. American Law and Economics Review, 10(2), 303–350.

Åstebro, T., Herz, H., Nanda, R. & Weber, R. (2014). Seeking the Roots of

Entrepreneurship: Insight from Behavioral Economics. American Economic Association. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(3), 49-70.

Autio, E. and Pathak, S. (2010). Entrepreneur’s exit experience and growth aspirations. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 30(5), Article 2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive

theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baum, J.R., Locke, E.A., Smith, K.G., (2001). A multidimensional model of venture growth. Acad. Manag. J. 44 (2), 292–303.

Bélanger, J.J., Lafreniere, M.A.K., Vallerand, R.J., Kruglanski, A.W., (2013). Driven by fear: the effect of success and failure information on passionate individuals' performance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104 (1), 180–195.

Blumberg, B., Cooper, D.R., & Schindler, P.S. (2014). Business Research Methods (4th European ed.). London: McGraw Hill.

Boellinghaus, I., Jones, F. W., & Hutton, J. (2014). The role of mindfulness and loving-kindness meditation in cultivating self-compassion and other-focused concern in health care professionals. Mindfulness, 5(2), 129-138.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 83–93.

Brockner, J., Higgins, E.T., Low, M.B., (2004). Regulatory focus theory and the entrepreneurial process. J. Bus. Ventur. 19, 203–220.

Cacciotti, G., & Hayton, J. C. (2015). Fear and entrepreneurship: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(2), 165- 190.

Cacciotti, G., Hayton, J. C., Mitchell, J. R., & Giazitzoglu, A. (2016). A

reconceptualization of fear of failure in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(3), 302-325.

(28)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 28 Carstensen, L. L. (2009). A long bright future: An action plan for a lifetime of

happiness, health, and financial security. New York, NY: Broadway Books. Chen, C. C,. Greene, PG,. Crick A (1998) Does Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy

Distinguish Entrepreneurs from Managers? Journal of Business Venturing 13: 295–316.

Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy–altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 481– 494. Conroy, D.E., (2003). Representational models associated with fear of failure in

adolescents and young adults. J. Pers. 71 (5), 757–784.

Conroy, D.E., Elliot, A.J., (2004). Fear of failure and achievement goals in sport: addressing the issue of the chicken and the egg. Anxiety Stress Coping 17 (3), 271–285.

Conroy, D. E., Poczwardowski, A., & Henschen, K. P. (2001). Evaluative Criteria and Consequences Associated with Failure and Success for Elite Athletes and Performing Artists. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 13, 300-322.

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26: 435–462.

Dane, E. (2013). Things seen and unseen: investigating experience-based qualities of attention in a dynamic work setting. Organ. Stud. 34:45–78

Dane, E., & Brummel, B. J. (2014). Examining workplace mindfulness and its relations to job performance and turnover intention. Human Relations, 67(1), 105-128.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2007). Personal initiative, commitment and affect at work. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 80: 601–622.

DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and Applications (Vol. 26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

Dweck, C.S., Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, pp. 256–273.

Elfring, T., & Hulsink, W. (2003). Networks in Entrepreneurship: The Case of High-technology Firms. Small Business Economics, 21, 409-422.

Elfenbein, H. A. (2007). Emotion in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1: 315–386.

Elliot, A.J., (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educ. Psychol. 34 (3), 169–189.

(29)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 29 Elliot, A. J., Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance

achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218-232.

Elliot, A.J., Thrash, T.M., (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82 (5), 804–818.

Elliot, A.J., Thrash, T.M., (2004). The intergenerational transmission of fear of failure. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30 (8), 957–971.

EOS Gallup Europe (2007). Flash Eurobarometer No. 192. Entrepreneurship survey of the EU 25. Brussels: Eurostat.

EOS Gallup Europe (2013). Flash Eurobarometer, No. 354. Entrepreneurship in the EU and beyond. Brussels: Eurostat.

EOS Gallup Europe. (2010). Flash Eurobarometer No. 283. Entrepreneurship in the EU and beyond. Brussels: Eurostat.

Feldman, G., Greeson, J., & Senville, J. (2010). Differential effects of mindful breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, and loving-kindness meditation on decentering and negative reactions to repetitive thoughts. Behaviour research and therapy, 48(10), 1002-1011.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage Publications. Foo, M. D. (2011). Emotions and entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(2), 375-393.

Fox, S., Spector, P. E. 1999. A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 915–931.

Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press. Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion,

appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 212–228.

Galante, J., Galante, I., Bekkers, M. J., & Gallacher, J. (2014). Effect of kindness-based meditation on health and wellbeing: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 82(6), 1101. Goldstein, A. P., & Michaels, G. Y. (1985). Empathy: Development, training, and

consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Good, D. J., Lyddy, C. J., Glomb, T. M., Bono, J. E., Brown, K. W., Duffy, M. K., ... & Lazar, S. W. (2016). Contemplating mindfulness at work: an integrative review. Journal of Management, 42(1), 114-142.

(30)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 30 Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational

synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 48–58.

Hafenbrack, A. C., Kinias, Z., Barsade, S. G. (2014). Debiasing the mind through meditation: Mindfulness and the sunk-cost bias. Psychological Science, 25(2), 369-376.

Haynie, J.M., Shepherd, D.A., McMullen, J.S., (2009). An opportunity for me? The role of resources in opportunity evaluation decisions. J. Manag. Stud. 46 (3), 337–361.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Model templates for PROCESS for SPSS and SAS.

Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(1), 1-22.

Hayton, J. C., Cacciotti, G., Giazitzoglu, A., Mitchell, J. R., Ainge, C. (2013). Understanding fear of failure in entrepreneurship: A cognitive process framework. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 33(6), 1.

Hofmann, S. G., Grossman, P., Hinton, D. E. (2011). Loving-kindness and

compassion meditation: Potential for psychological interventions. Clinical psychology review, 31(7), 1126-1132.

Hutcherson, C. A., Seppala, E. M., & Gross, J. J. (2008). Loving-kindness meditation increases social connectedness. Emotion, 8(5), 720.

Jacob, J., Jovic, E., & Brinkerhoff, M. (2009). Personal and Planetary Well-being: Mindfulness Meditation, Pro-environmental Behavior and Personal Quality of Life in a Survey from the Social Justice and Ecological Sustainability

Movement. Social Indicators Research, 93(2), 275–294.

Kish-Gephart, J. J., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Edmondson, A. C. (2009). Silenced by fear: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29: 163–193.

Kollmann, T., Stöckmann, C., & Kensbock, J. M. (2017). Fear of failure as a mediator of the relationship between obstacles and nascent entrepreneurial activity—An experimental approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(3), 280-301.

Koudstaal, M., Sloof, R., & Van Praag, M. (2015). Risk, uncertainty, and

entrepreneurship: Evidence from a lab-in-the-field experiment. Management Science, 62(10), 2897-2915.

Krueger, N., (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrep. Theory Pract. 18 (1), 5–22. Lapierre, L. M., & Allan, T. D. (2006). Work-supportive family, family-supportive

supervision, use of organizational benefits, and problem-focused coping: Implications for work-family conflict and employee well-being. Joumat of Occupationat Health Psychology, 11, 169-181.

(31)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 31 Lang, J. W., & Fries, S. (2006). A revised 10-item version of the Achievement

Motives Scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 216-224.

Lebel, R. D. (2017). Moving beyond fight and flight: A contingent model of how the emotional regulation of anger and fear sparks proactivity. Academy of Management Review, 42: 190–206.

Man, T.W. Y., Lau, T., Snape, E. (2008). Entrepreneurial competencies and the performance of small and medium enterprises: An investigation through a framework of competitiveness. Journal of Small Business and

Entrepreneurship, 21, 257–276

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1979). Ambiguity and choice in organizations (2nd ed.). Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W. (2003). Fear of failure: friend or foe? Australian

Psychologist, 38, pp. 31–38

Martins, S. (2004). Barriers to Entrepreneurship and Business Creation. Arouca: European Entrepreneurship Cooperation.

Mauer, R. (2009) Understanding the Entrepreneurial Mind pp 233-257 | Self-Efficacy: Conditioning the Entrepreneurial Mindset.

Mogilner, C., Kamvar, S. D., Aaker, J.(2011), “The Shifting Meaning of Happiness,” Social Psychological and Personality Science , 2 (4), 395–402.

Moskowitz, T. J., Vissing-Jørgensen, A. (2002). The Returns to Entrepreneurial Investment: A Private Equity Premium Puzzle? National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Woking Paper, No. 8876.

Neff, K. (2003a). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and identity, 2(2), 85-101.

Neff, K. (2003b). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and identity, 2(3), 223-250.

Neff, K. D., Hsieh, Y. P., & Dejitterat, K. (2005). Self-compassion, achievement goals, and coping with academic failure. Self and identity, 4(3), 263-287. Neff, K. (2016). Self-compassion. Mindfulness in Positive Psychology: The Science

of Meditation and Wellbeing, 37.

Neff, K., & Vonk, R. (2009). Self-compassion versus global self esteem: two different ways of relating to oneself. Journal of Personality, 77, 23–50.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Responses to depression and their effects on the duration of depressive episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 569–582. Ohman, A., & Mineka, S. 2001. Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved

(32)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 32 Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating

multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36: 633–662.

Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.

Puddicombe, A. (2012). All it takes is 10 mindful minutes. London: TED Talks. Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff,K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construction and

factorial validation of a short form of the Self-Compassion Scale. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. 18, 250-255.

Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 206–221.

Salzberg, S. (2002). Loving kindness: The revolutionary art of happiness. Shambhala Publications.

Sandhu, M.S., Sidique, S.F. and Shoaib, R. (2011). Entrepreneurship barriers and entrepreneurial inclination among Malaysian postgraduate students. Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 17, pp. 428–449.

Schilpzand, P., Hekman, D. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (2015). An inductively generated typology and process model of workplace courage. Organization Science, 26: 52–77.

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25: 217–226.

Shepherd, D. A., & Haynie, J. M. (2011). Venture failure, stigma, and impression management: A self‐verification, self‐determination view. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(2), 178-197.

Shepherd, D.A. (2003). Learning from business failure: propositions of grief recovery for the self-employed. Academy of Management Review, 28, pp. 318–328. Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2009). Conceptualization and

measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past,

present, and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 1-22.

Simmons, S., Wiklund, J., & Levie, J. (2014). Stigma and entrepreneurial failure: implications for entrepreneurs’ career choices. Small Business Economics, 42(3), 485–505.

Smeets, E., Neff, K., Alberts, H., & Peters, M. (2014). Meeting suffering with kindness: Effects of a brief self‐compassion intervention for female college students. Journal of clinical psychology, 70(9), 794-807.

(33)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 33 Smith, R.E., Shoda, Y., (2009). Personality as a cognitive-affective processing

system. In: Corr, P.J., Matthews, G. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 473–488.

Sutcliffe, K. M., Vogus, T. J., & Dane, E. (2016). Mindfulness in Organizations: A Cross- Level Review. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 55-81.

Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community. (2008) Rev. 2.

Sutton, R. I., & Callahan, A. L. (1987). The stigma of bankruptcy: spoiled organizational image and its management. The Academy of Management Journal, 30(3), 405–436.

Tan, L. B., Lo, B. C., & Macrae, C. N. (2014). Brief mindfulness meditation improves mental state attribution and empathizing. PloS one, 9(10), e110510.

Tiedens, L.Z., Linton, S., 2001. Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: the effects of specific emotions on information processing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81(6), 973–988.

Ucbasaran, D., Shepherd, D.A., Lockett, A., Lyon, J., (2013). Life after business failure: the process and consequences of business failure for entrepreneurs. J. Manag. 39, 163–202.

Weibel, D. T. (2008). A loving-kindness intervention: Boosting compassion for self and others. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 68(12), 8418.

Williams, M., & Penman, D. (2011). Mindfulness: A Practical Guide to Finding Peace in a Frantic World. London: Piatkus Books.

(34)

RUNNING HEAD: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 34

Appendices

Appendix A: Additional Information & Descriptive Variables

Appendix A.1

Abbreviations used in text

FoF = Fear of Failure

LKM = Loving-Kindness Meditation

MAAS = Mindful Attention Awareness Scale

Appendix A.2

Survey distribution platforms, locations + approximate percentage of surveys completed per distribution

10% Facebook (Personal accounts - Danielle & Pauline) + several shares from network • Successful Dropouts

• Free Stuff Amsterdam • Expat Republic Amsterdam • That Chick in Amsterdam 2% Instagram (Personal accounts with links to bio) 5% Coworking Spaces

• SPACES Zuidas Amsterdam • Impact Hub Amsterdam

10% Linkedin (Personal accounts - Danielle & Pauline) + several shares

70% Reaching out to personal networks (Family friends, global networks) • Contacted through Facebook, Whatsapp, Email, LinkedIn Messages

Appendix A.3

Participant Exclusion Criteria

Exclusion Criteria Number excluded Participants Remaining

Opened Questionnaire 0 291

Did not begin survey 67 224

Not an entrepreneur or <18 83 122

Time spent on study (Between 536 and 901 seconds) 24 112

English > moderately well (3+) 7 105

Failed to meet both attention checks 5 100

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Ten minste één bad of douche voor algemeen gebru i k op elke acht kamers die niet van een privé-bad of -douche zijn voorzien, met dien verstande dat per etage een bad of dou- che

The analysis time for a given resolution is a complex function of stationary phase selectivity, column radius, and thickness of the stationary phase film.. Variation of

Drawing on studies on the process perspective of value creation in mergers and acquisitions, on corporate reputation and behavioral studies of management and economics, the aim of

The following research question is formulated to further examine the short sale announcement returns: Does the ownership concentration and ownership type have

Keywords – Entrepreneurship, Fear of Failure, Opportunity Perception, Entrepreneurial Activity, Sub-Saharan Africa, Unemployment, Economic Development.. Paper Type –

Both questionnaires measure the attitude towards behavior and perceived behavioral control, prior experience and intention towards entrepreneurship.. To measure the

While the functionality of health related software applications (i.e., health and fitness apps) on smartphones is already quite impressive today, wearables have the potential

problems and formulation of research questions an introductory chapter about domain specific computing, observed problems and formulation of research questions an introductory