IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v15y2025i9p331-d1731798.html

Opportunities, Threats, and Strategic Choice: The Modifying Role of Emotion

Author

Listed:
  • Camilla Aarøen

    (Department of Strategy and Management, Norwegian School of Economics, Helleveien 30, 5045 Bergen, Norway)

  • Marcus Selart

    (Department of Strategy and Management, Norwegian School of Economics, Helleveien 30, 5045 Bergen, Norway)

Abstract

Business models often transform due to adaptation in response to external changes. However, relatively little is known about what causes these types of adaptations. We suggest that threat-rigidity as well as prospect theory have the potential to explain what causes business model adaptation in response to gains and losses. Firm leaders’ inclination to adapt their business model is sensitive to risk that is perceived as a gain or a loss in the macro-economic environment. We apply threat-rigidity and prospect theories to examine the relationship between risk perception and business model adaptation. We also investigate if emotion has explanatory value for how managers adapt to business models. We test our hypotheses in a field experiment involving 95 Scandinavian managers. Here, we relate managers’ inclinations to adapt to different business models under different risk scenarios. The results reveal that, in general, managers are more risk seeking in gain scenarios than in loss scenarios. This finding is in line with the threat-rigidity theory. In addition, emotional style is found to relate more to risk aversion than to risk seeking in the domain of potential gain. We argue that emotional style has explanatory value for how managers adapt to business models, because emotions are key influencers on risk perception.

Suggested Citation

  • Camilla Aarøen & Marcus Selart, 2025. "Opportunities, Threats, and Strategic Choice: The Modifying Role of Emotion," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:15:y:2025:i:9:p:331-:d:1731798
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/15/9/331/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/15/9/331/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bohnsack, René & Pinkse, Jonatan & Kolk, Ans, 2014. "Business models for sustainable technologies: Exploring business model evolution in the case of electric vehicles," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 284-300.
    2. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Ok, Efe A., 2005. "Rational choice with status quo bias," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 1-29, March.
    3. Sarta, Andrew & Vergne, Jean-Philippe & Durand, Rodolphe, 2017. "Organizational Adaptation," HEC Research Papers Series 1249, HEC Paris.
    4. Nils Stieglitz & Thorbjørn Knudsen & Markus C. Becker, 2016. "Adaptation and inertia in dynamic environments," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(9), pages 1854-1864, September.
    5. Ramon Casadesus‐Masanell & Feng Zhu, 2013. "Business model innovation and competitive imitation: The case of sponsor‐based business models," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 464-482, April.
    6. Gaël Le Mens & Michael T. Hannan & László Pólos, 2015. "Age-Related Structural Inertia: A Distance-Based Approach," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 756-773, June.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    8. Andreas Oehler & Stefan Wendt & Florian Wedlich & Matthias Horn, 2018. "Investors' Personality Influences Investment Decisions: Experimental Evidence on Extraversion and Neuroticism," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 30-48, January.
    9. Gerard George & Adam J. Bock, 2011. "The Business Model in Practice and its Implications for Entrepreneurship Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 35(1), pages 83-111, January.
    10. Fernandez, Raquel & Rodrik, Dani, 1991. "Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1146-1155, December.
    11. Jon Elster, 1998. "Emotions and Economic Theory," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 47-74, March.
    12. Sarta, Andrew & Durand, Rodolphe & Vergne, Jean-Philippe, 2020. "Organizational Adaptation," HEC Research Papers Series 1375, HEC Paris.
    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. Alexandru Ursu & Petru L. Curșeu & Sabina R. Trif & Alina Maria Cociș (Fleștea), 2025. "Cryptocurrencies and the Entrepreneurial Mindset: The Role of Financial Literacy in Driving Adoption," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, October.

    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. Meier, Armando N. & Schmid, Lukas & Stutzer, Alois, 2019. "Rain, emotions and voting for the status quo," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 434-451.
    2. Bergers, Dominic, 2022. "The status quo bias and its individual differences from a price management perspective," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    3. Walter Bossert & Yves Sprumont, 2009. "Non‐Deteriorating Choice," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(302), pages 337-363, April.
    4. Daniele Pennesi, 2013. "Endogenous Status Quo," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 314, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    5. Coskun-Setirek, Abide & Tanrikulu, Zuhal, 2021. "Digital innovations-driven business model regeneration: A process model," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    6. Eiichi Tomiura & Banri Ito & Hiroshi Mukunoki & Ryuhei Wakasugi, 2016. "Individual Characteristics, Behavioral Biases, and Trade Policy Preferences: Evidence from a Survey in Japan," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 1081-1095, November.
    7. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    8. Venkatachalam, L., 2008. "Behavioral economics for environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 640-645, November.
    9. Amaral, Christopher & Kolsarici, Ceren, 2020. "The financial advice puzzle: The role of consumer heterogeneity in the advisor choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    10. Thomas Demuynck, 2014. "The computational complexity of rationalizing Pareto optimal choice behavior," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(3), pages 529-549, March.
    11. Bouncken, Ricarda B. & Fredrich, Viktor & Pesch, Robin, 2016. "Configurational answer to the ongoing riddle of formal and/or emergent planning practices," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3609-3615.
    12. Ortoleva, Pietro, 2010. "Status quo bias, multiple priors and uncertainty aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 411-424, July.
    13. Collins, Jill P. & Vossler, Christian A., 2009. "Incentive compatibility tests of choice experiment value elicitation questions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 226-235, September.
    14. D'Orlando, Fabio & Ferrante, Francesco, 2009. "The demand for job protection: Some clues from behavioural economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 104-114, January.
    15. Faroque, Anisur R. & Shimul, Anwar Sadat & Xu, Hangjun & Kuivalainen, Olli & Murshed, Feisal & Sundqvist, Sanna, 2025. "Innovate or exploit? Unveiling the international entrepreneurial odyssey through the lens of status quo bias," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(4).
    16. Roee Teper, 2010. "Probabilistic Dominance and Status Quo Bias," Working Paper 5864, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.
    17. Alshyab, Nooh, 2013. "The Political Economy of Reform and Development of the Washington Consensus," MPRA Paper 46014, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Xi Zhi Lim, 2021. "Ordered Reference Dependent Choice," Papers 2105.12915, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    19. Lamiraud, Karine & Oxoby, Robert & Donaldson, Cam, 2016. "Reference Dependence and Incremental WTP," ESSEC Working Papers WP1609, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    20. Heinemann, Friedrich, 2004. "Explaining Reform Deadlocks," ZEW Discussion Papers 04-39, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jadmsc:v:15:y:2025:i:9:p:331-:d:1731798. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.