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. 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.
    2. 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..
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Ok, Efe A., 2005. "Rational choice with status quo bias," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 1-29, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Jon Elster, 1998. "Emotions and Economic Theory," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 47-74, March.
    11. Sarta, Andrew & Durand, Rodolphe & Vergne, Jean-Philippe, 2020. "Organizational Adaptation," HEC Research Papers Series 1375, HEC Paris.
    12. Sarta, Andrew & Vergne, Jean-Philippe & Durand, Rodolphe, 2017. "Organizational Adaptation," HEC Research Papers Series 1249, HEC Paris.
    13. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Roee Teper, 2010. "Probabilistic Dominance and Status Quo Bias," Working Paper 5864, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.
    4. 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.
    5. Babaioff, Moshe & Dobzinski, Shahar & Oren, Sigal, 2022. "Combinatorial auctions with endowment effect," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 255-273.
    6. Riella, Gil & Teper, Roee, 2014. "Probabilistic dominance and status quo bias," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 288-304.
    7. Jialu Liu & Keehyung Kim, 2023. "Designing contests for data science competitions: Number of stages and the prize structures," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(11), pages 3752-3772, November.
    8. Döring Thomas, 2013. "John Maynard Keynes als Verhaltensökonom – illustriert anhand seiner Analyse des Versailler Vertrags / John Maynard Keynes as Behavioral Economist – Represented by his Analysis of the Treaty of Versailles," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 64(1), pages 27-52, January.
    9. Patricia Tovar, 2004. "The Effects of Loss Aversion on Trade Policy and the Anti-Trade Bias Puzzle," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 499, Econometric Society.
    10. 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).
    11. Pradeep Kautish & Arpita Khare & Rajesh Sharma, 2022. "Health insurance policy renewal: an exploration of reputation, performance, and affect to understand customer inertia," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(3), pages 261-278, September.
    12. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    13. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2018. "Nudging in education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-342.
    15. Chorvat, Terrence, 2006. "Taxing utility," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-16, February.
    16. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    17. Walter Bossert & Yves Sprumont, 2009. "Non‐Deteriorating Choice," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(302), pages 337-363, April.
    18. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.
    19. Lucy F. Ackert & Bryan K. Church & Richard Deaves, 2002. "Bubbles in experimental asset markets: Irrational exuberance no more," FRB Atlanta Working Paper 2002-24, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    20. Agnes Tomini, 2025. "Self-protection and self-insurance in an age of anxiety," AMSE Working Papers 2514, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.

    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.