Killer experiment showing differences in decision making between economic entrepreneurs & social entrepreneurs - eg, emotional engagement ('hot' cognition) GREAT co-authors, Isabell Welpe & Dietmar Grichnik - they are bloody brilliant!

1. Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference (BCERC) Anticipated Outcome Emotions and Cognitive Appraisal: Assessing Social and Economic Dimensions of Social Entrepreneurial Opportunities Norris Krueger Dietmar Grichnik Isabell Welpe

2. Theoretical Background Studying the entrepreneurial process from both perspectives – cognitive and emotional – calls for situations in which both must arguably be salient. We thus focus on social entrepreneurial opportunities . Cognitive appraisal theory assumes that people appraise events using cognitions and emotions (Scherer, 2005) with respect to their importance and desirability (primary appraisal) and the ability to react (secondary appraisal) (Smith & Lazarus, 1993). Entrepreneurs perceive, evaluate, and exploit opportunities from a rational cognitive perspective (e.g., Brannback, et al., 2007; Busenitz et al. 2003; Camerer, 2006; Krueger, 2007) Entrepreneurs anchor their decisions with strong emotional components (Krueger, Kickul, Gundry & Verma, 2007; Simms & Robinson 2007; Zahra, et al. 2008; Krueger, 2007). These theories are under-utilized in (social) entrepreneurship (even e.g., perceived desirability (e.g., Krueger 2000); coping (e.g., Shepherd 2004).

3. Research Questions Role of Emotions : Which roles play selected positive and negative emotions perceived by social entrepreneurs and opponents for opportunity evaluation and exploitation? Nature of Social Entrepreneurs : Is there a difference between social entrepreneurs and opponents? How do both groups differ from each other? Role of Opportunity‘s Characteristics : How does the opportunity‘s social impact perceived by social entrepreneurs and opponents influence opportunity evaluation and opportunity exploitation?

4. Working Model Opportunity evaluation Opportunity exploitation Perceived social impact Perceived profit Perceived probability (nascent) social entrepreneurs vs. opponents Negative emotions (nascent) social entrepreneurs and opponents Postive emotions H1a - H1c H5a+ H6a- H2a- H2b- H3a+ H3b+ H4a+ H4b+ H5b+ H6b-

5. Working Assumptions 3. Role of Emotions : H5: Positive emotions like joviality, self-assurance, attentiveness, and serenity positively influence the opportunity‘s evaluation and exploitation. H6: Negative emotions like fear, sadness, serenity, shyness, fatigue, and guilt negatively influence the opportunity‘s evaluation and exploitation 1. Nature of Social Entrepreneurs : H1: Social Entrepreneurs focus more on the (a) opportunity‘s perceived social impact than opponents do while not focussing on (b) the perceived profit and (c) the probability of success. 2. Role of Opportunity‘s Characteristics : H2: Social Entrepreneurs‘ perceived profit more negativly influences the (a) opportunity evaluation and (b) their exploitation than the opponents‘ one. H3: Social Entrepreneurs‘ perceived social impact more positivly influences the (a) opportunity evaluation and (b) their exploitation than the opponents‘ one. H4: Social Entrepreneurs‘ and opponents‘ perceived success positivly influences the (a) opportunity evaluation and (b) their exploitation.

6. Results 1a Nature of Social Entrepreneurs : check_profit represents the perceived profit after manipulating the characteristics of the respective scenario check_social represents the perceived social impact after manipulating the characteristics of the respective scenario check_success represents the perceived probability of success after manipulating the characteristics of the respective scenario

7. Results 1b Nature of Social Entrepreneurs : The group of (nascent) social entrepreneurs perceives a higher profit (5.98) as opponents do (4.72) indicating that social entrepreneurs are not – in sharp contrast to our prospects – uninterested in a social opportunity‘s economic profit in the context of manipulated scenarios‘ characteristics. The group of (nascent) social entrepreneurs perceives a higher social impact (6.68) as opponents do (5.86) indicating that social entrepreneurs are – in accord with our prospects – more confident about the social impact of their social opportunity in the context of manipulated scenarios‘ characteristics. The group of (nascent) social entrepreneurs perceives a higher probability of success (5.87) as opponents do (4.60) indicating that social entrepreneurs are – in contrast with our prospects – more confident about the probability of success of their social opportunity in the context of manipulated scenarios‘ characteristics.

8. Results 2a Role of Opportunity‘s Characteristics :

9. Results 2b Role of Opportunity‘s Characteristics : The perceived economic profit only significantly (at 12.50% level) influences the opportunity exploitation of social entrepreneurs in a negative way indicating that social entrepreneurs – in accord with our prospects – do not exploit their social opportunity due to economic reasons. The perceived social impact of social entrepreneurs significantly influences the opportunity evaluation and opportunity exploitation – in accord with our prospects – in a positive way indicating that social entrepreneurs are influenced by their subjective perceived social impact. In contrast, the perceived social impact of opponents significantly influences the opportunity evaluation – in accord with our prospects – in a negative way and opportunity exploitation – again in accord with our prospects – negatively but not significantly indicating that opponents are negatively influenced by their subjective perceived social impact. The perceived probability of success of social entrepreneurs and opponents significantly influences the opportunity evaluation and opportunity exploitation – in accord with our prospects – in a positive way indicating that both groups are influenced by the subjective perceived probability of success.

10. Results 3a Role of Emotions : Factor analysis of positive emotions indicates good fit of joviality, self-assurance, and attentiveness: Factor analysis of negative emotions indicates good fit of fear, sadness, shyness, fatigue, and guilt Hence, we concentrate on three positve emotions and four negative emotions and excluded serenity.

11. Results 3b Role of Emotions perceived by social entrepreneurs vs. opponents :

12. Results 3c Role of Emotions perceived by social entrepreneurs and opponents :

13. Results 3d Role of Emotions perceived by social entrepreneurs vs. opponents : The emotions perceived by social entrepreneurs significantly influence their opportunity exploitation: self-assurance positively attentiveness negatively (misunderstanding of attentiveness in a negative way?) fear negatively sadness negatively shyness positively (introvert social entrepreneurs?) guilt positively (necessity social entrepreneurs?) The emotions perceived by social entrepreneurs do not significantly influence their opportunity evaluation. The emotions perceived by opponents do not significantly influence their opportunity exploitation. The emotions perceived by opponents do not significantly influence their opportunity evaluation. Social entrepreneurs are more emotion-driven as opponents are.

14. Backup

16. Descriptive Statistics

17. Internal Reliability of Constructs

18. Pearson Correlations

19. Manipulation Checks Descriptive Statistics Minimum Maximum Sum Mean Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Profit high check_profit 2,00000 10,00000 232,66667 6,84314 0,32007 Profit low check_profit 0,00000 10,00000 202,00000 4,59091 0,37100 Impact high check_social 4,00000 10,00000 268,16667 7,66190 0,28652 Impact low check_social 0,00000 10,00000 224,00000 5,33333 0,45822 Probability high check_success 1,33333 10,00000 238,66667 6,28070 0,33699 Probability low check_success 0,00000 9,33333 176,66667 4,52991 0,38270