IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aml/intbrm/v6y2015i3p45-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How does Optimism impact on Entrepreneurs’ Overconfidence?

Author

Listed:
  • Sergio Margarita

    (University of Torino, Italy, Italy)

  • Luisa Tibiletti

    (Department Management, University of Torino, Italy, Italy)

  • Mariacristina Uberti

    (University of Torino, Italy, Italy)

Abstract

Optimism and overconfidence are well documented cognitive biases in the entrepreneurship literature (see Shepherd et al., 2015). Although these sentiments are typically thought to be almost overlapped, empirical studies make evidence of their different construct (see Trevelyan, 2008, 2011). In the paper at hand we investigate the descriptive and normative motivations inducing misconfidence biases to arise. First, we introduce the definition of optimism as underestimation of the task difficulty to meet a strategic Key Performance Indicator (KPI). Second, we define overconfidence as the tendency to overestimate the probability to achieve an uncertain task. To calculate this probability we set up a prescriptive benchmarking-based model. Third, we spotlight situations in enterprise risk management (ERM) where misconfidence biases in judgment emerge. Complementing Bordley et al. (2015) and Tibiletti and Uberti (2015) results, we show that overconfidence arises in presence of two extreme circumstances: (1) underestimation of task difficulty coupled with extremely poor entrepreneurial projects, and (2) overestimation of task difficulty coupled with extremely good entrepreneurial projects. Our theoretical findings match with accounted biased behaviors recognized among entrepreneurs known as the escalation and de-escalation of commitment effect biases. The study is based on the normative foundation for overconfidence set up by Bordley et al. (2015) and casts light on which circumstances that occurs. Our results have also practical implications. In fact, it is important for entrepreneurs be aware of situations where self-confidence is normatively biased.

Suggested Citation

  • Sergio Margarita & Luisa Tibiletti & Mariacristina Uberti, 2015. "How does Optimism impact on Entrepreneurs’ Overconfidence?," International Journal of Business Research and Management (IJBRM), Computer Science Journals (CSC Journals), vol. 6(3), pages 45-53, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:aml:intbrm:v:6:y:2015:i:3:p:45-53
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cscjournals.org/manuscript/Journals/IJBRM/Volume6/Issue3/IJBRM-188.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.cscjournals.org/library/manuscriptinfo.php?mc=IJBRM-188
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karl Borch, 1968. "Decision Rules Depending On The Probability Of Ruin," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 1-10.
    2. Robert Bordley & Marco Licalzi & Luisa Tibiletti, 2017. "A Target-Based Foundation for the “Hard-Easy Effect” Bias," Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, in: Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin & Hakan Danis & Ender Demir & Ugur Can (ed.), Country Experiences in Economic Development, Management and Entrepreneurship, pages 659-671, Springer.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Arvid Hoffmann & Sam Henry & Nikos Kalogeras, 2013. "Aspirations as reference points: an experimental investigation of risk behavior over time," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 193-210, August.
    5. Robert Bordley & Marco LiCalzi, 2000. "Decision analysis using targets instead of utility functions," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 23(1), pages 53-74.
    6. Alberto Galasso & Timothy S. Simcoe, 2011. "CEO Overconfidence and Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(8), pages 1469-1484, August.
    7. Francesca Beccacece & Alessandra Cillo, 2006. "Applying the Benchmarking Procedure: A Decision Criterion of Choice Under Risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 75-91, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Riccardo Camilli & Alessandro Mechelli & Alessandra Stefanoni & Fabrizio Rossi, 2023. "Addressing Managerial Loss Aversion for the Corporate Value Creation Process: A Critical Analysis of the Literature and Preliminary Approaches," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert Bordley & Marco Licalzi & Luisa Tibiletti, 2017. "A Target-Based Foundation for the “Hard-Easy Effect” Bias," Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, in: Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin & Hakan Danis & Ender Demir & Ugur Can (ed.), Country Experiences in Economic Development, Management and Entrepreneurship, pages 659-671, Springer.
    2. LiCalzi, Marco & Sorato, Annamaria, 2006. "The Pearson system of utility functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 560-573, July.
    3. Ilia Tsetlin & Robert L. Winkler, 2007. "Decision Making with Multiattribute Performance Targets: The Impact of Changes in Performance and Target Distributions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(2), pages 226-233, April.
    4. Marco LiCalzi, 2005. "A language for the construction of preferences under uncertainty," Game Theory and Information 0509002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Krzysztof Kontek & Michal Lewandowski, 2018. "Range-Dependent Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2812-2832, June.
    6. Bai, Tian & Wu, Meng & Zhu, Stuart X., 2019. "Pricing and ordering by a loss averse newsvendor with reference dependence," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 343-365.
    7. Steven Haberman & Elena Vigna, 2002. "Optimal investment strategies and risk measures in defined contribution pension schemes," ICER Working Papers - Applied Mathematics Series 09-2002, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    8. Yan Li & David Ahlstrom, 2020. "Risk-taking in entrepreneurial decision-making: A dynamic model of venture decision," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 899-933, September.
    9. Alessandra Milazzo & Elena Vigna, 2018. "The Italian Pension Gap: a Stochastic Optimal Control Approach," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 553, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    10. Gerard P. Hodgkinson & Barbara Burkhard & Nicolai J. Foss & Dietmar Grichnik & Riikka M. Sarala & Yi Tang & Marc Van Essen, 2023. "The Heuristics and Biases of Top Managers: Past, Present, and Future," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(5), pages 1033-1063, July.
    11. Kai Barron & Christina Gravert, 2022. "Confidence and Career Choices: An Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(1), pages 35-68, January.
    12. Bordley, Robert F., 2005. "Econophysics and individual choice," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 354(C), pages 479-495.
    13. Enrico G. De Giorgi & David B. Brown & Melvyn Sim, 2010. "Dual representation of choice and aspirational preferences," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2010 2010-07, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    14. Enrico Diecidue & Jeroen Van De Ven, 2008. "Aspiration Level, Probability Of Success And Failure, And Expected Utility," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(2), pages 683-700, May.
    15. Astrid Gamba & Elena Manzoni & Luca Stanca, 2017. "Social comparison and risk taking behavior," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(2), pages 221-248, February.
    16. Mark Schneider & Robert Day, 2018. "Target-Adjusted Utility Functions and Expected-Utility Paradoxes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 271-287, January.
    17. Zahra Murad & Martin Sefton & Chris Starmer, 2016. "How do risk attitudes affect measured confidence?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 21-46, February.
    18. Alessandro Milazzo & Elena Vigna, 2018. "The Italian Pension Gap: A Stochastic Optimal Control Approach," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-20, April.
    19. Stefan Zeisberger, 2022. "Do people care about loss probabilities?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 185-213, October.
    20. Hong-Bin Yan & Van-Nam Huynh & Yoshiteru Nakamori, 2012. "A group nonadditive multiattribute consumer-oriented Kansei evaluation model with an application to traditional crafts," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 195(1), pages 325-354, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Optimism and Overconfidence; Benchmarking Procedure; Escalation and Deescalation of Commitment; Regulatory Focus Theory; Strategic Key Performance Indicators.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M0 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aml:intbrm:v:6:y:2015:i:3:p:45-53. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nabeel Tahir (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.