Journal of Enterprising Culture

Vol. 19, No. 2 (June 2011) 125–146

DOI: 10.1142/S0218495811000726

AFFECT: HOW DOES IT INFLUENCE ONE’S

ENTREPRENEURIAL COGNITIONS?

SEAN WALKER
Department of Management
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901–4627, USA
scwalker@siu.edu

Speculation to the antecedents of an entrepreneurs’ superior ability to recognize

and exploit opportunities has been prominent in the entrepreneurship literature.
Research is now turning more toward the cognitive antecedents (affect). Stem-
ming from the theoretical contribution of Baron (2008), this article tested the
ability of positive/negative affect to subliminally prime individuals via a paraf-
oveal vigilance task in an attempt to influence their entrepreneurial cognitions.
Through the utilization of both static and longitudinal measures, the findings
show that one’s entrepreneurial cognitions can be influenced subliminally.
Implications and future directions are discussed.

Keywords: Priming; affect; entrepreneurial cognitions.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years entrepreneurial scholars have conducted a wealth of studies

in an attempt to understand why entrepreneurs are so successful and
initially focused on the physiological traits of the entrepreneur. A more
recent trend of research has shifted to focus on an entrepreneurs’ cognitive
abilities (Alvarez and Busenitz, 2001; Baron and Ward, 2004; Foo, 2010;
Grichnik et al., 2010; Haynie and Shepherd, 2009; Ireland et al., 2003;
Mitchell et al., 2002a,b; Sarasvathy, 2001; Shepherd and Krueger, 2002).
This research has focused on the cognitive aspects as they relate to a
knowledge base (Shane, 2000), heuristics (Alvarez and Busenitz, 2001),
cognitive adaptability (Haynie and Shepherd, 2009) and as a potential
derivative of one’s education (Hornaday and Aboud, 1971).
The call for more research on the strategic implications of entrepre-
neurship dates back 40 years to Hornaday and Bunker (1970) and as

125
Sean Walker

recently as the special edition in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice in

Winter edition of 2002. Specifically, as Mitchell et al. (2002a) note,
research needs to be conducted that will provide a better understanding of
information processing and entrepreneurial cognitions. Furthermore, they
note that the “cognitive viewpoint may be seen to serve well as an effective
tool in probing and explaining…previously unexplained phenomena within
the entrepreneurship research domain (95).”
Since the Winter 2002 issue, some scholars have begun focusing on the
cognitive side of entrepreneurial decision making, specifically, the impact
of different variables on the cognitions of entrepreneurs. Of importance to
this research is the work of Baron (2008) who proposed multiple
relationships on the impact affect would have on the entrepreneurial pro-
cess. Positive affect is a pleasant feeling state or good mood (Estrada et al.,
1997) whereas negative affect is an unpleasant feeling state or bad mood.
Research has shown that such affect can influence one’s decision making
(Isen, 1993), opportunity evaluation (Foo 2010; Grichnik et al., 2010),
creativity (Kashdan et al., 2004; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Staw et al.,
1994), performance on cognitive tasks (Cropanzano and Wright, 1999;
Erez and Isen, 2002), supervisor performance evaluations (Wright and
Staw, 1999), likelihood of exhibiting organizational citizenship behaviors
(Lyubomirsky et al., 2005), job satisfaction (Weiss, 2002), negotiation and
conflict resolution strategies (Baron et al., 1990; Barsade, 2002; Lyubo-
mirsky et al., 2005), self-esteem (Tarlow and Haaga, 1996), and perform-
ance on mental tasks (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). These studies are
important because as Stevenson and Jarillo (1990) posited, the nature of the
entrepreneur is not necessarily static. In other words, it may be possible to
teach employees how to behave or think more entrepreneurially. The cur-
rent research seeks to provide another stepping stone toward influencing
these entrepreneurial cognitions. Specifically, this research examines how
subliminally priming traits of positive versus negative affect influence one’s
decisions about being proactive, creative, and taking risks. The current
findings contribute to the entrepreneur literature by illustrating how the
presence of affective traits are able to influence an individual’s entrepre-
neurial cognitions and provides another piece of the puzzle as to what
makes an entrepreneur different from other business people.

The Automatic Nature of Environmental Cues

Nonconscious thought processes have been characterized as unintentional,
unaware, attentionally inefficient, and uncontrollable (Posner and Snyder,

126
 Affect: How Does It Influence One’s Entrepreneurial Cognitions?

1975; Shiffrin and Schneider, 1977) and can be traced back to the Freudian
concept of hidden, motivated influences of thought and William James’
concept of habit (Wegner and Bargh, 1998). Research in the social psy-
chology literature has focused primarily on perceptions are able to impact
an individual’s behavior. Specifically, over the past thirty years, scholars
(Berkowitz, 1984; Chartrand and Bargh, 1999; Dijksterhuis and van
Knippenberg, 1998) have empirically refined one of the most notable
contributions of William James (1890), specifically, his concept of ideo-
motor action. James’ (1890) posited that merely thinking of performing an
action or behavior would increase the likelihood one would perform that act
or behavior. Berkowitz (1984) utilized ideomotor action logic to discuss the
increased proclivity of viewers to exhibit aggressive behaviors after viewing
violence via mass media. Berkowitz posited that these violent images
would spread throughout an individual’s memory, thus activating other
violent memories. As the memories led to ever more images of violence or
the intensity increased, it is likely that the viewer would be led to behave in
such a manner. Bargh et al. (1996) asserted that “cognitions about a type of
behavior can come not only from internal sources … but also from external
sources, such as perceiving that type of behavior enacted by others
(p. 232).” In support of what has been termed the perception-behavioral
link, Chartrand and Bargh (1999) discussed and found support for what
they referred to as the chameleon effect, the “nonconscious mimicry of the
postures, mannerisms, facial expressions, and other behaviors of one’s
interaction partners, such that one’s behavior passively and unintentionally
changes to match that of others in one’s current social environment (893)”
thus giving itself the name chameleon. The authors and others have found
strong support for the perception-behavior link has been generated
(see Aarts and Dijksterhuis, 2000, 2003; Bargh et al., 2001; Dijksterhuis
and van Knippenberg, 1998).
These findings suggest that when an individual is exposed to a certain
stimulus they will be more likely to act in accordance with the stimulus. As
such, the more they are exposed to it, the easier and more efficiently it will
be activated within the individual’s mind. In regards to the current context,
it may be that being exposed to certain types of stimuli (such as affective
traits) may cause an individual to behave in a manner conducive with the
types of behaviors related to the valence (i.e. positive or negative) of that
affect. In other words, as will be discussed later in the paper, different types
of behaviors are experienced when one is in a positive affective state as
opposed to a negative affective, as such, the presentation of these traits
should activate these behaviors. When it is the organizational culture that is

127
Sean Walker

priming the individual, it is possible that this culture will transfer to the
individual, a process termed emotional contagion theory (Hatfield et al.,
1994). Emotional contagion theory states that one’s emotions tend to
transfer to those around them, thus if an entrepreneur is exuding a high level
of negative emotions, it is likely that this will transfer to those he or she is
dealing with. Furthermore, this negative emotion is likely to serve as a
prime for those the individual is dealing with, thus activating certain cog-
nitions or behaviors, and causing the spread of the negative affective state.
Logic for emotional contagion can be traced to the Spreading Activation
Model (Collins and Loftus, 1975). The model argues that trait concepts
(nodes) are more closely encoded in the mind dependent on the similarity of
the concepts. As den Heyer and Briand (1986) noted, “distance represents
the degree to which two concepts are related (315)” thus as the level of
distinction between concepts increase, the more distal the concepts will be
stored in the mind. This logic implies an inverse relationship between
likelihood of being activated and proximity of two trait concepts. Thus
when a closely related trait is activated, the permeability for the activation
of similar traits is lowered thus facilitating the activation of similar traits. In
the current context, that would suggest that the presentation of affective
stimuli (e.g. observation of positive or negative mood states exhibited by
others) is more likely to activate similar affective states in the mind. Put
another way, being exposed to a pleasant mood of another will be highly
likely to activate a similar mood and affective state within the mind based
on the proximity of the trait concepts within the mind.

Affect as an Environmental Cue

Researchers have shown that affect influences different dimensions of one’s
cognitive processes within organizational contexts (Borman et al., 2001;
Staw et al., 1994). Through the development and discussion of the Affect
Infusion Model (Forgas, 1995), Forgas and George (2001) assert that the
degree of environmental volatility and complexity influences the ability or
likelihood that affect is able to influence the individual. Specifically, the
authors suggest that more complex tasks that require more thoughtful
processing are most likely to be influenced by affect, whereas more sim-
plistic tasks will likely show little or no affect infusion. The logic behind
this is that as complexity increases, the individual will have to devote more
of the limited cognitive resources to successfully complete the task. There-
fore, the more cognitive taxed the individual is, the more fatigued they will
become, thus increasing the chance for stimuli to influence the individual.

128
 Affect: How Does It Influence One’s Entrepreneurial Cognitions?

Furthermore, the nature of the task also explains why affect is relevant to
entrepreneurship. Those tasks that require high levels of creativity (Isen,
1993), the utilization of persuasive strategies (Baron, 2008), emphasize
decision making and judgments (Ireland et al., 2003; Lyubomirsky et al.,
2005), and on the successful development of interpersonal relationships
(Diener and Seligman, 2002; Harker and Keltner, 2001) are shown to be
greatly influenced by affect. All of which are highly salient to entrepreneurs.
It is also important to assess the ability of affect to influence the specific
context of the tasks. Research has shown that affect can also influence one’s
perceptions of the familiarity of people (Garcia-Marques et al., 2004),
evaluations of strangers, acquaintances, and self-concept (Bower, 1991),
favorability toward job applicants (Burger and Caldwell, 2000), entrepre-
neurial alertness (Isen, 2002), creativity (Estrada et al., 1997), engage in
heuristic processing (Baron, 2008; Petty et al., 1994), memory storage
(Eich, 1995), memory retrieval (Baron, 2008; Eich, 1995), strategies
involved in coping with stress (Carver and Scheier, 2001), attributions of
positive or negative valence to others motives (Forgas, 2000), and nego-
tiation effectiveness (Forgas, 1998; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005).
Baron (2008) discusses two underlying mechanisms that facilitate the
influence of affect on one’s cognitions, such as those discussed above. The
first stems from mood-dependent retrieval (Baddeley, 1990; Eich, 1995).
One’s current mood serves to prime specific memories and/or associations
the individual has linked with that mood (Baron, 2008). Essentially, if one
is experiencing a specific mood, then the most likely memories to be
recalled are those memories cognitively linked with that mood. In other
words, if an individual is in a pleasant mood, then it is likely he/she will
experience pleasant memories. Research on this retrieval mechanism has
shown that memory is improved when the current mood matches the mood
they were in when the information was encoded into the mind (Forgas,
2000). A similar line of research on affect-congruence has focused on the
facilitation of affectively related memory stemming from the affective state
one is in. In other words, if an individual is in a mood currently, they will be
faster at recalling similar mood states than individuals who are not in that
mood state (see Baddeley, 1990). Research has shown that individuals in
positive moods are able to retrieve positive information faster, while indi-
viduals in bad moods are able to retrieve negative information faster
(Forgas et al., 1984; Forgas and Bower, 1987). As it is likely that entre-
preneurs will encode information of successes (i.e. business deals) in a
positive mood (as it is unlikely that an individual would experience success
when in a bad mood), then it seems highly likely that the presentation of

129
Sean Walker

positive affective states or moods should be able to quickly and efficiently

activate cognitions and behaviors the entrepreneur used to reap the success.
In other words, to the extent that an entrepreneur can more quickly and
accurately activate the cognitions and behaviors that led them to experience
success, they will be able to experience more success (i.e. such as the
recognition of when to push supply chain partners on negotiating prices).
The second mechanism Baron (2008) discusses is the influence affect
has on cognition via heuristic cues. Baron (2008) states, based on the affect-
as-information mechanism (Clore et al., 1993; Martin and Stoner, 1996)
that when one experiences positive affect, that individual is likely to exude
favorable judgments. Furthermore, research has shown that one’s affect is
able to indicate to the individual, in a rather quick manner, the type of
response required to handle simple and/or complex situations (Frijda,
1986; Oatley and Jenkins, 1992; Oatley et al., 2006; Schwarz, 1990). In
other words, positive affect may cue an entrepreneur into believing there is
no threat from the external environment, thus enacting more schematic and
heuristic based information processing such as an increased proclivity or
willingness to take risks or be more creative, as these types of cognitions
lead to behaviors that have worked in the past.

Affect and Its Influence on Entrepreneurship

Research has also shown that affect is able to influence important mech-
anisms that lead to more effective entrepreneurial processes. Specifically,
affect has been shown to impact opportunity recognition (Bhave, 1994;
Herron and Sapienza, 1992), creativity (Isen, 2000), demonstration of
enthusiasm (Baron, 2008), the extensiveness of one’s interpersonal
relationships (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Staw et al., 1994), decision
making strategies (Forgas and George, 2001; Isen, 1993; Lyubomirsky
et al., 2005), problem solving skills (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005), personal
health (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005), and coping strategies for stress (Carver
and Scheier, 2001).
Of importance here is a focus on those processes that have been noted in
the literature as integral for entrepreneurial success, and that are likely to be
influenced by affect. Because of this, we focus on opportunity recognition,
proactiveness, risk-taking (Shane, 2003) and creativity, as they aid in
making decisions in uncertain environments, which are the contexts upon
which entrepreneurs commonly are exposed to. Forgas (1998) found that
happy individuals’ negotiation strategies were more likely to be coopera-
tive, were more likely to plan to make deals, and to honor deals than

130
 Affect: How Does It Influence One’s Entrepreneurial Cognitions?

individuals in either a control condition or those rated as sad. This suggests

that entrepreneurs experiencing positive affect during negotiations may
have an increased rate of deal making, more positive perceptions of the deal
outcomes and process for all parties involved, and an increased likelihood
of continued partnership in the future. To the extent that an entrepreneur is
exposed to positive affect, these cognitions should be easily activated for
the entrepreneur, thus allowing them to continue to think in a similar
manner. As such, to the extent that both individuals in the relationship
perceive the situation to be positive, both individuals will be more likely to
focus on the positive aspects of the relationship, thus leading to a more
positive perception of the relationship. Bower (1991) had a similar sup-
position when looking at the power of affect to activate certain cognitions
when one is reading. Specifically Bower stated, “happy readers are more
influenced by the positive parts of a mixed message (p. 31),” thus leading to
the inclination that the presence of a positive affective state will increase the
positive perceptions of the transaction by those involved. Furthermore,
entrepreneurs may see these negotiations as opportunities to build social
networks in which they can exploit at a later date (Singh, 2000), thus
leading to a more hands-on or proactive approach as they seek to protect
these successful relationships.
Affect has also been shown to impact an individual’s risk preference.
Research has shown that when subjects were betting chips that represented
their participative worth in a study, individuals induced with positive affect
were more risk averse (bet less and required higher probability of success). On
the other hand, when making the same assessments on a hypothetical scen-
ario, individuals induced with positive affect had higher proclivities to take
more risk (as discussed in Isen, 1993). As Isen noted, “people who are feeling
happy risk losing that state… therefore, with more to lose… they are more
risk averse (270).” For entrepreneurs it might be that they view incoming
information and their potential reactions to this information more from a
hypothetical standpoint, thus leading to an increased proclivity for assuming
risk. Conversely, it may be that they abstract their level of contentment from
the current situation to focus on a future scenario. In other words, instead of
focusing on losing what they have right now, it may be that entrepreneurs
worry more on losing the potential gains in the future of a current action.
It is important to note that while the focus has been on the assumed
positive effects that positive affect has on these entrepreneurial cognitions,
negative affect has also been shown to “positively” influence some of these
cognitions. The logic for such a relationship comes from Martin, Ward,
Achee, and Wyer (1993) mood-as-input model. The crux of the model is

131
Sean Walker

that people use mood as an informational stimuli such that a positive mood
indicates “all is well” and no change is required. On the other hand, a
negative mood implies that “not all is well” and changes need to be made.
George and Zhou (2002) provided preliminary support for this logic by
conducting a cross-section study of a manufacturing organization, in which
they found that the recognition of a negative mood led to the acknowl-
edgement that the workers needed to work harder to find a creative
solution. As Amabile (2005) notes, the recognition of a negative mood
state increases the individuals motivation to be creative. Thus it seems
reasonable that this increased motivation would also impact the individual’s
willingness to take risks and be proactive as it facilitates the achievement of
the desired end result. For example, Foo et al. (2009) found that negative
affect significantly influenced effort toward a task that occurred immedi-
ately. Specifically, the authors found an increase in the effort level exerted
by entrepreneurs on a venture task that occurred immediately. Furthermore,
Foo (2010) found a significant link between trait anger and trait happiness
with investment preference thus supporting the logic that risk preference is
malleable based on the emotion of the individual is experiencing. These
results pose an interesting question that this research will be able to provide
initial evidence toward, “which level of affect is more likely to activate
important entrepreneurial cognitions?” This is important because the cur-
rent debate in the literature has mixed results as to the effects of both
positive versus negative affect.
Considering all of this research, the logic posited here is that it may be
that motivational levels may be an integral cog in the malleability of
entrepreneurial cognitions. Put another way, affective priming activates an
increased motivational level thus leading the individual to be more likely to
be proactive, creative, and take risks. Thus, specific focuses is placed on the
influence of affective priming on three important dimensions: (1) proac-
tiveness, (2) innovativeness (creativity), and (3) risk-taking. As such, it is
expected that:
Hypothesis 1a: Those individuals in the Positive Affect (PA) condition will
have higher Entrepreneurial Cognition (EC) scores (be more creative, have
a higher propensity for risk and more proactive) in time 2 than time 1.
Hypothesis 1b: Those individuals in the Negative Affect (NA) condition
will have lower Entrepreneurial Cognition (EC) scores (be less creative,
have a lower propensity for risk and less proactive) in time 2 than time 1.
Hypothesis 2: Those individuals in the PA (NA) condition will have higher
(lower) E.C. scores than those individuals in the neutral condition.

132
 Affect: How Does It Influence One’s Entrepreneurial Cognitions?

METHODOLOGY

Data and Sample

Participants. Upper level undergraduate business students (N ¼ 143) par-
ticipated in exchange for extra credit. 3 participants were excluded due to
technical errors during the priming procedure. Furthermore, 12 additional
participants were eliminated during data analysis as the number they gen-
erated during the visual acuity task was incorrect and we could not con-
clude with any certainty whether or not they were truly paying attention to
the number task or trying to decipher the flashes. This resulted in a final
sample size of 128, in which 86 were male and 42 were female with a mean
age of 21.95 years. 85 (66.4%) participants are currently employed, 45
(35.2%) had previous managerial experience, and 15 (11.8%) previously
terminated an employee.
Visual Acuity Test. The visual acuity task (adopted from Bargh and
Pietromonaco, 1982), and (Chartrand and Bargh, 1999) was a parafoveal
priming procedure in which participants were exposed to a number in the
center of the screen and flashes on each side of the screen. In the present
study, participants were asked to sum numbers (0, 1, and 2) presented in the
center of the screen while indicating which side of the screen a flash
appeared (i.e., to hit p if on the right side and q if on the left side). The task
presented 75 numbers (on screen for 1.5 seconds each) and 75 stimuli
flashes (on screen for 60 milliseconds each) that took approximately 2
minutes total to the participants. For each condition, five semantically
related words were presented 15 times each in a random order. The primes
utilized for this study were drawn from the PANAS mood scale (Watson
et al., 1988) which provides the individual with a list of words that relate to
feelings and emotions that the individual must assess based on their pre-
sence of those feelings over a specific temporal time period (i.e. have you
experienced these today, in the last week, last month). For the positive
condition the traits were: excited, inspired, proud, active, and attentive; for
the neutral condition: clear, watch, entertain, prepare, and neutral; and for
the negative condition: irritable, ashamed, nervous, jittery, and afraid. The
summation task was used as a manipulation check to insure that participants
were focusing their attention on the number task and not the flashes on the
side of the screen. This technique has proven effective in terms of activating
trait concepts outside of one’s awareness in past research (e.g., Authors,
2010) and as such was deemed suitable for this study.
Measures. The Covin and Slevin (1989) entrepreneurial orientation scale
(see Appendix A) was amended because the original scale was worded

133
Sean Walker

from an organizational standpoint and we wish to assess the individuals’

entrepreneurial orientation, not the organizations. Therefore, all items were
re-worded to reflect an individual unit of analysis. The scale utilizes a five
point Likert scale, with three items measuring creativity, three items
measuring proactiveness, and two items measuring risk-taking. To calculate
the individual’s value on the scale, we took the average value by summating
all answers and dividing by the number of questions asked (8). Therefore,
scores could range between 1 and 5.
A second measure included was the PANAS (Watson et al., 1988) and as
we did not want to confound the priming manipulation via the adminis-
tration of this scale before the priming such that the individuals may merely
recite their scores from the first administration at the beginning of the
session to the second administration, we decided on administering these
two separate scales. Studies have shown that one’s affect and the big five
personality traits are significantly correlated (see McCrae and Costa, 1991;
Saucier, 1992; Wayne et al., 2004) and as such we feel confident that this
serves as an adequate baseline measure for us to assess the individual’s
baseline affective state that day. The PANAS scale consists of a number of
words that describe different feelings and emotions in which the individual
marks to the extent in which they are currently experiencing one of those
feelings or emotions. The scale utilizes a five point Likert scale, with ten
items measuring positive affect and ten additional items measuring negative
affect. The scale was added in order to provide further assurance of suc-
cessful priming manipulation. Essentially, if the priming procedure holds,
those individuals primed with positive affect (negative affect) should have
higher scores on the positive affect (negative affect) part of the scale while
engendering lower scores on the negative affect (positive affect) part of the
scale than those in the negative affect (positive) affect condition.
Procedure. Participants were initially contacted in class and administered
a modified version of the Covin and Slevin (1989) entrepreneurial orien-
tation scale. Upon completion of the survey, they were asked if they wanted
to participate in an out-of-class follow-up extra credit opportunity that
would take place one to four weeks later.
Participants took part in the laboratory experiment one at a time. When
they arrived outside of the conference room (testing room) they were met
by the experimenter who accompanied them into the room and explained
the procedure. They were then informed that the experiment was assessing
the relationship between visual acuity and its impact on the effectiveness of
decisions made within an organizational context. Participants were then
asked if they wished to proceed with the study, filled-out the consent form,

134
 Affect: How Does It Influence One’s Entrepreneurial Cognitions?

and a demographic data sheet. Upon completion, the participants were

informed that the study consisted of two tasks: (1) the visual acuity test and
(2) two surveys on organizational decision making issues. In terms of the
visual acuity test participants were informed that visual acuity was the
ability of an individual to focus on one task visually while attending to a
second visual task at the same time and were provided the example of
driving down the road, while focusing on the road, noticing a deer or
another car out of the corner of their vision. The experimenter then
explained the instructions for the visual acuity test, allowed them to conduct
a practice session (which contained five stimuli flashes), until they
felt comfortable with the task. The researcher then informed the participants
that he would be leaving the room as to not influence their results in
any way. The participant would leave the room upon completing the
visual acuity test to notify the researcher of the summation task result and
collect the survey (the second administration of the EO scale). After
completion they were asked to come back to the office to notify the
researcher they were done. Following the completion of the final EO
measure, participants were administered the PANAS mood scale. It was
decided to administer this at the end of the survey in order to not confound
the effects of the priming procedure, as previously discussed. Since the
entire process took less than 20 minutes, it is likely that the priming effects
will still be prevalent as shown in the literature (see Dijksterhuis and van
Knippenberg, 1998).
The respondents underwent funneled debriefing as facilitated in social
psychology studies of priming (see Bargh and Chartrand, 2000; Bargh
et al., 2001; Chartrand and Bargh, 1999; Bargh et al., 1996). After this, the
purpose of the study was fully explained, all questions or comments were
addressed, and they were thanked for their participation in the study.

RESULTS

The means of the PANAS scales generated by the participants were ana-
lyzed via a between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA). Where
appropriate, we used Tukey’s post-hoc contrasts on priming condition to
determine which cells were significantly different from each other. There
was a main effect for priming condition, Fð2, 122Þ ¼ 3:09, p < 0:05 such
that individuals exposed to the negative affect condition had higher negative
affect scores (1.67) than those in the neutral condition (1.66, ns) and those
in the positive affect condition (1.48, p < 0:05).

135
Sean Walker

In order to test Hypotheses 1a-1b, the means of the scales generated by

the respondents were analyzed via a paired-samples t-test to assess the
difference between the findings from time 1 to time 2 in terms of Entre-
preneurial Orientation score for each of the three conditions. Furthermore,
reliability analysis on the overall scale generated
¼ 0:67 and 0.71, 0.63,
and 0.62 for creativity, proactiveness, and risk taking respectively, which
are considered acceptable (Nunnally, 1978). Hypothesis 1a, which pre-
dicted those in the PA condition would have higher scores in time 2
compared to time 1, was strongly supported. The findings show that the
scores at time 2 (3.56) were significantly higher (t < 3:076, p ¼ 0:004)
than the scores at time 1 (3.36). Hypothesis 1b, which predicted those in the
NA condition would have lower scores in time 2 than time 1, was not
statistically supported. The predicted direction was generated as EO scores
in time 2 (3.13) were lower than those in time 1 (3.18) but this was not
statistically significant ( p ¼ 0:57). To further test our hypotheses, we
conducted T-tests on each of the three components within the scale (i.e.
creativity, proactive, risk taking) for both the positive and negative affect
conditions. For the negative affect condition, scores decreased from time 1
to time 2 for in both the creativity (3.10 to 2.98 respectively) and risk (2.93
to 2.84 respectively) scales, but contrary to prediction it increased for
proactive (3.43 to 3.47) respectively. However, none of these were stat-
istically significant; therefore it is not appropriate to further interpret the
findings. In the positive affect condition, we found the predicted direction
from time 1 to time 2 for all scales with proactive (3.62 to 3.75 respectively)
and risk taking (3.14 to 3.31 respectively) being nonsignificant but did find
significance ( p < 0:01) for creativity (3.23 to 3.48 respectively). These
results provide partial support for Hypotheses 1a and 1b.
To test Hypothesis 2, we analyzed the means of the scales via a one-way
between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) upon which we assessed
differences between the 3 priming conditions. We also used Tukey’s post-
hoc contrasts on the priming conditions to determine which cells were
significantly different from each other. Table 1 presents the means and
standard deviations, by landmine condition, for all three entrepreneurial
cognition variables. There was a significant main effect for the priming
condition, Fð2, 122Þ ¼ 4:01, p < 0:05 such that those individuals in the PA
condition had higher entrepreneurial orientation scores (3.54) than those in
the neutral condition (3.38, ns) and those in the NA condition (3.13,
p ¼ 0:007). These findings provide strong support for Hypothesis 2. To
further test our hypotheses, we conducted a MANOVA with the three
subdimensions of the Covin and Slevin scale as dependent measures. There

136
 Affect: How Does It Influence One’s Entrepreneurial Cognitions?

Table 1. Entrepreneurial Cognitions.

Prime Valence Mean (S.D.)

Measure Neutral Negative Positive

Creativity 3.17 (0.81)* 2.98 (0.52)* 3.48 (0.52)**

Proactive 3.73 (0.83)* 3.48 (0.86)* 3.75 (0.76)*
Risk Taking 3.19 (0.91)* 2.84 (0.76)** 3.31 (0.74)*

*Means and (Standard Deviations).

**Subscripts represent that those means that do not share a common
subscript are significantly different from one another at p < 0:05.

was a significant main effect for condition, Wilks Lambda F ¼ 2:64,

p < 0:016. Based on this we conducted a follow-up univariate analysis. For
creativity, there was a significant main effect, Fð2, 125Þ ¼ 6:17, p < 0:01
such that those individuals in the positive affect condition had significantly
higher scores (3.48) than those in the neutral (3.17, p < 0:05) and those in
the negative affect condition (2.98, p < 0:001). For risk taking there was a
significant main effect for condition, Fð2, 125Þ ¼ 3:57, p < 0:05 such that
those individuals in the positive affect condition had significantly higher
scores (3.31) than those in the negative affect condition (2.84, p < 0:01).
There was also a significant difference such that those in the negative affect
condition (2.84) were significantly lower than those in the neutral condition
(3.19, p < 0:05). Finally, there was no significant main effect for proactive,
Fð2, 125Þ ¼ 1:36, n.s. These results provide partial support for Hypothesis 2.

DISCUSSION

These findings suggest reasonable support that one’s entrepreneurial cog-

nitions can be manipulated via the subliminal priming of positive (negative)
affect. They showed that one’s pre-test level administered at least one week
before the laboratory experiment was significantly different from those
same scores after being primed during the manipulation but those con-
ditions within the laboratory setting were shown to be significantly
different. In other words, the expected effects of priming individuals with
PA increased the individuals EO score from time 1 to time 2 and also
generated higher scores than those individuals in the neutral condition.
Specifically, the results showed that the individual’s assessment of
willingness to be creative was highly susceptible to change from time 1 to

137
Sean Walker

time 2. Although the findings did not reach statistical significance, we

found the expected directionality for all of the relationships except those
individuals in the NA condition when looking at one’s willingness to act
proactively. Furthermore, we also found a significant difference for priming
condition such that those individuals in the positive affect condition had
higher scores on all of the scales than those in the other conditions while
those in the negative affect condition had the lowest.
Previous research assessing the ability of positive affect to influence
entrepreneurial processes has found that affect can and does influence
creativity (Estrada et al., 1997; Isen, 2000; Kashdan et al., 2004; Lyubo-
mirsky et al., 2005; Staw et al., 1994), negotiation and conflict resolution
strategies (Baron et al., 1990; Barsade, 2002; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005),
entrepreneurial alertness (Isen, 2002), favorable perceptions of others
(Burger and Caldwell, 2000), and the brevity of one’s interpersonal
relationships (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Staw et al., 1994). These
results provide additional support for these findings (i.e. creativity) and new
support for a potential link between positive affect and one’s proactiveness
and risk aversion. In other words, the current findings showed that indi-
viduals primed with positive affective traits were more willing to act
proactively and take risks. This is meaningful because one of the most
prominent traits of an entrepreneur is their drive and willingness to take
risks (i.e. such as maxing out credit cards and taking loans on house for a
business gamble). Although not directly tested here, it may be that these
individuals intent to behave in such a manner is increased as the positive
traits serve to increase confidence in one’s ability to succeed.
There are several strengths to our study as it was administered. First, the
utilization of subliminal priming allows for empirical assessment of how
environmental cues such as affect can influence an individual’s entrepre-
neurial orientation. Specifically, subliminal priming provided a useful
measure for assessing Baron’s (2008) postulation that heightened states of
positive affect will increase one’s entrepreneurial orientation. Second, the
number of participants utilized (nearly 100) in the study enhances the
validity of our findings. Third, in anticipation that some individuals may be
biased toward one end of the EO scale or the other, we measured EO at two
time periods in order to have a baseline EO score from which to compare.
Furthermore, the average time between the two assessments was 20 days,
thus providing some degree of confidence that the individuals would not
replicate their responses. Fourth, as with all experimental studies, labora-
tory settings allow for the controlling of many potentially confounding
variables.

138
 Affect: How Does It Influence One’s Entrepreneurial Cognitions?

This study is not without limitations. First, it was not possible to account
for a baseline measure for the PANAS scale on the day of the experimental
setting. Because the priming traits were derived from the PANAS scale we
did not want to expose the individuals to these words beforehand as it might
allow them to detect that the flashes on the computer screen were in fact
words from the PANAS scale. Although this may be a concern, we addressed
this in two ways. We designed the study (in accordance with other priming
studies) to include a neutral priming condition. This allows for a comparison
between the priming conditions and the neutral condition to detect if the
manipulation did in fact work. Our results showed that the positive priming
condition engendered higher scores whereas the negative condition engen-
dered lower scores than those in the neutral condition, thus we are reasonably
confident that our manipulation worked. In addition, our use of the big five
personality traits to measure each participant’s baseline affect is consistent
with the extant literature (see McCrae and Costa, 1991; Saucier, 1992;
Wayne et al., 2004). Second, although management studies commonly use
college students, it could be argued that students may not fully appreciate the
importance of entrepreneurship in the workplace. Third, although it seems
theoretically logical that motivation may be the key cog in this process (as it
is activated by affective priming), it was not directly measured and as such
should be done in future research. Finally, there is some concern about the
generalizability of laboratory results to the general population. However, this
experiment employed a number of experimental controls to eliminate various
alternative explanations of our findings, and used did so using a fairly large
sample of participants in empirically testing Baron’s propositions.
There are several avenues of future research stimulated from these
findings. First, a behavioral measure to see if those with a higher EO score
is able to detect and decode information more quickly such as a reaction
time test for individuals primed with traits of PA or NA followed by an
informational detection task. This might shed some light on the true
implications of how PA allows entrepreneurs to perform at a higher level.
Second, as many employees and entrepreneurs perform their everyday tasks
in a group setting, priming individuals in a multiple person context would
also behoove researchers. This can be done either through a subliminal
priming procedure by utilizing the computer based learning modules that
many retailers use or by an observational analysis. For example, in the
instance of the latter idea, an observation of employees’ interactions for
positively or negatively valenced experiences and then measuring their
performance (i.e. productivity and efficiency) on tasks that require some
degree of risk-taking, creativity, or proactiveness could be utilized. This

139
Sean Walker

methodology for assessing the influence of the affective environment would

also address the issues many may have about the generalizability of finding
stemming from laboratory settings. Third, this study provides initial evi-
dence of the influence of affective priming on entrepreneurial cognitions.
Thus, these initial findings should urge scholars studying affect to consider
more of its nonconscious implications. Also, future studies in the affect
literature should focus on the ability of priming to influence other entre-
preneurial cognitions as well as entrepreneurial behaviors. Finally, and
potentially the most interesting avenue of future research, will be to assess
the extent in which one’s entrepreneurial personality (orientation) is in fact
state or trait like. Although most consider one’s personality to be relatively
trait like (i.e. static), the fact that we were able to manipulate this level via a
subliminal priming technique implies otherwise. In fact, the volatile nature
of one’s entrepreneurial orientation may explain why some entrepreneurial
success is also so volatile. In other words, it may be that their performance
rises and falls with their orientation based on their affective states. To study
this, researchers should utilize a longitudinal study that will focus on the
individuals orientation score over an extended period of time (i.e. 6–12)
months to assess fluctuations in orientation and performance. This future
avenue is possibly most relevant to the current findings, as many of the
hypothesized relationships did not bear out, it may be this is an artifact of
the type of study. In other words, the priming manipulation occurred at one
time and measured the individuals change based off a single presentation of
affective traits. It is quite possible that the habitual presentation of such
traits would intensify the effects found here. Therefore, it would be
meaningful to conduct future research that measures the ability of these
primes to influence individuals over time, in order to assess the influence of
these primes over time. In the context of the current study, it may be that the
habitual presence of an affective culture will intensify the effects of the
insignificant relationships, thus uncovering a more accurate link between
affect and entrepreneurial cognitions.
There are also several significant practical implications from these
findings. First, this research suggests that individuals experiencing positive
affective states will be more likely to take risks and be creative. This is
important because it suggests that companies that foster positive organiz-
ational cultures may be able to use affective priming to make their
employees think more entrepreneurially. This would be highly important in
professions that require a high degree of creativity and risk taking such as
consulting, advertisement, and new business ventures. This is important
because the increased level of creativity one experiences from a positive

140
 Affect: How Does It Influence One’s Entrepreneurial Cognitions?

affective environment may spur enhanced and efficient idea generation.

Second, this research suggests the possibility of morphing employees from
“the ugly duckling to the beautiful swan” as some employees have several
key gifts but may not, by nature, tend to take much risk or think creatively.
The utilization of affective priming could then benefit both the company
(increased performance by the employee and lower attrition rates) and the
employee (providing them a change to move up the corporate ladder).
Furthermore, the expansion of the breadth of entrepreneurial cognitions in
the organization (as the entrepreneur will not be the only one doing so
anymore) should also increase the long-term viability of the organization.
This research provides initial evidence for the influence of affective
priming on entrepreneurial cognitions. Hopefully this will spark future
research in both the entrepreneurship and affect literatures to focus on the
impact of nonconscious thought processes have on key dependent measures
in the literature.

APPENDIX A: Entrepreneurial Orientation Scale

(1) In general, I would favor…

A strong emphasis on the 1 2 3 4 5 A strong emphasis on R&D
marketing of tried and true technological leadership,
products or services and innovations
(2) In general, how many new lines of products or services should your
company have marketed during the past 3 years?
No new lines of products or 1 2 3 4 5 Very many new lines of
services products or services
Changes in product or service 1 2 3 4 5 Changes in product or service
lines have been mostly of has usually been quite
minor nature dramatic
(3) In dealing with competitors, I think my company should…
Typically responds to actions 1 2 3 4 5 Typically initiates actions to
which competitors initiate which competitors then
respond
Is very seldom the first 1 2 3 4 5 Is very often the first business
business to introduce new to introduce new products
products or services, or services, administrative
administrative techniques, techniques, operating
operating technologies, etc. technologies, etc.

141
Sean Walker

Appendix A. (Continued )

Typically seeks to avoid 1 2 3 4 5 Typically adopts a very

competitive clashes, competitive, “undo-the-
preferring a “live-and-let competitors” posture
live” posture
(4) In general, I would favor
A strong proclivity for low 1 2 3 4 5 A strong proclivity for high
risk projects (with normal risk projects (with chances
and certain rates of return) of very high returns)
(5) In general, I believe that…
Owing to the nature of the 1 2 3 4 5 Owing to the nature of the
environment, it is best to environment, bold,
explore it gradually via wide-ranging acts are
cautious, incremental necessary to achieve the
behavior firm’s objectives

APPENDIX B: A Model of Affective Priming

Mood
Priming + State +
Positive
Positive Affect
Affect
Entrepreneurial
Orientation
Mood -
Negative
Affect + State
Negative
Affect

142
 Affect: How Does It Influence One’s Entrepreneurial Cognitions?

References

Aarts, H. and Dijksterhuis, A. (2000). Habits as knowledge structures: Automaticity in

goal-directed behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78:53–63.
Aarts, H. and Dijksterhuis, A. (2003). The silence of the library: Environment, situational
norm, and social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84:18–28.
Alvarez, S.A. and Busenitz, L.W. (2001). The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory.
Journal of Management 27:755–775.
Amabile, T.M., Barsade, S.G., Mueller, J.S. and Staw, B.M. (2005). Affect and Creativity
at Work. Administrative Science Quarterly 50:367–403.
Authors [names removed to preserve anonymity]. (2010). The Influence of Nonconscious
Processes on Perceptions of Terminations and Downsizing. Academy of Management
Annual Conference, Montreal.
Baddeley, A.D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bargh, J.A. and Chartrand, T.L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to
priming and automaticity research. In Reis H. and Judd C. (Eds.), Research Methods
in Social Psychology, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 253–284.
Bargh, J.A., Chen, M. and Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct
effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 71:230–244.
Bargh, J.A., Gollwitzer, P.M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K. and Trotschel, R. (2001). The
automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 81:1014–1027.
Bargh, J.A and Pietromonaco, P. (1982). Automatic information processing and social
perception: The influence of trait, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
43:437–449.
Baron, R.A. (2008). The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Man-
agement Review 33:328–340.
Baron, R.A., Fortin, S.P., Frei, R.L., Hauver, L.A. and Shack, M.L. (1990). Reducing
organizational conflict: The role of socially-induced positive affect. International
Journal of Conflict Management 1:133–152.
Baron, R.A. and Ward, T.B. (2004). Expanding entrepreneurial cognition’s toolbox:
Potential contributors from the field of cognitive science. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice 553–573.
Barsade, S.G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group
behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly 47:644–675.
Bhave, M.P. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal of
Business Venturing 9:223–242.
Borman, W.C., Penner, L.A., Allen, T.D. and Motowidlo, S.J. (2001). Personality pre-
dictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment
9:52–69.
Bower, G.H. (1991). Mood congruity of social judgments. In Forgas, J.P. (Ed.), Emotion
and Social Judgments, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Burger, J.M. and Caldwell, D.F. (2000). Personality, social activities, job-search behavior
and interview success: Distinguishing between PANAS trait positive affect and NEO
extraversion. Motivation and Emotion 24:51–62.

143
Sean Walker

Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. (2001). Optimism, pessimism, and self-regulation. In
Chung, E.C. (Ed.), Optimism and Pessimism: Implications for Theory, Research, and
Practice, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Chartrand, T.L. and Bargh, J.A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior
link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
76:893–910.
Clore, G.L., Schwarz, N. and Conway, M. (1993). Affective Causes and Consequences of
Social Information Processing. In Wyer, R.S. and Srull, T.K. (Ed.), Handbook of
Social Cognition: Basic Processes, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale,
NJ, pp. 323–417.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and
benign environments. Strategic Management Journal 10:75–87.
Cropanzano, R. and Wright, T.A. (1999). A 5-year study of change in the relationship
between well-being and job performance. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice
and Research 51:252–265.
Diener, E. and Seligman, M.E.P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science
13: 81–84.
Dijksterhuis, A. and van Knippenberg, A. (1998). The relation between perception and
behavior or how to win a game of Trivial Pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 74:865–877.
Eich, E. (1995). Searching for mood dependent memory. Psychological Science 6:67–74.
Erez, A. and Isen, A.M. (2002). The influence of positive affect on the components of
expectancy motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology 87:1055–1067.
Estrada, C.A., Isen, A.M. and Young, M.J. (1997). Positive affect facilitates integration of
information and decreases anchoring in reasoning among physicians. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 72:117–135.
Foo, M.D. (2010). Emotions and entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice.
Foo, M.D., Uy, M.A. and Baron, R.A. (2009). How do feelings influence effort? An
empirical study of entrepreneurs’ affect and venture effort. Journal of Applied
Psychology 94:1084–1094.
Forgas, J.P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model. Psychological Bul-
letin 117:39–66.
Forgas, J.P. (1998). On feeling good and getting your way: Mood effects on negotiator
cognition and bargaining strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
74:565–577.
Forgas, J.P. (2000). Feeling and thinking: Affective influences on social cognition.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Forgas, J.P., Bower, G.H. and Krantz, S. (1984). The influence of mood on perceptions of
social interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 20:497–513.
Forgas, J.P. and Bower, G.H. (1987). Mood effects on person perception judgments.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53:53–60.
Forgas, J.P. and George, J.M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior in
organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes 86:3–34.
Frijda, N.H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

144
 Affect: How Does It Influence One’s Entrepreneurial Cognitions?

Garcia-Marques, T., Mackie, D.M., Claypool, H.M. and Garcia-Marques, L. (2004). Posi-
tivity can cue familiarity. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin 30:585–593.
Grant, R. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 109–122.
Grichnik, D., Smeja, A. and Welpe, I. (2010). The importance of being emotional: How do
emotions affect entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation and exploitation? Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization 76(1):15–29.
Harker, L. and Keltner, D. (2001). Expressions of positive emotion in women’s college
yearbook pictures and their relationship to personality and life outcomes across
adulthood. Personality Processes and Individual Differences 80:112–124.
Haynie, M. and Shepherd, D.A. (2009). A measure of adaptive cognition for entrepre-
neurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33:695–714.
Herron, L. and Sapienza, H.J. (1992). The entrepreneur and the initiation of new venture
launch activities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 17:49–55.
Hornaday, J.A. and Aboud, J. (1971). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs,
Personnel Psychology 24:141–153.
Hornaday, J.A. and Bunker, C.S. (1970). The nature of the entrepreneur. Personnel
Psychology 23:47–54.
Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A. and Sirmon, D.G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship:
The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management 29:963–989.
Isen, A.M. (1993). Positive affect and decision making. In Lewisk, M. and Haviland-
Jone’s, J.M. (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions, Chichester, UK: Wiley, pp. 261–277.
James, W. (1890). Principles of Psychology, New York: Holt.
Kashdan, T.B., Rose, P. and Fincham, F.D. (2004). Curiosity and exploration: Facilitating
positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. Journal of
Personality Assessment 82:291–305.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. and Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect:
Does happiness lead to success. Psychological Bulletin 131:803–855.
Martin, L.L. and Stoner, P. (1996). Mood as input: What we think about how we feel
determines how we think. In Martin, L.L. and Tesser, A (Eds.), Striving and feeling:
Iterations among goals, affect, and self-regulation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: The full five-factor model
and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17:227–232.
Mitchell, R.K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P.P., Morse, E.A. and Smith, J.B.
(2002a). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of
entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 27:93–104.
Mitchell, R.K., Smith, J.B., Morse, E.A., Seawright, K.W., Peredo, A.M. and
McKenzie, B. (2002b). Are entrepreneurial cognitions universal? Assessing entrepre-
neurial cognitions across cultures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 26:9–32.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organiz-
ational advantage. Academy of Management Review 23:242–266.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oatley, K. and Jenkins, J.M. (1992). Human emotions: Function and dysfunction. Annual
Review of Psychology 43:55–85.
Oatley, K., Keltner, D. and Jenkins, J.M. (2006). Understanding emotions. Oxford:
Blackwell.

145
Sean Walker

Petty, R.E., Priester, J.R. and Wegener, D.T. (1994). Cognitive processes in attitude
change. In Wyer, R.S. and Srull, T.K. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Cognition:
Applications, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Posner, M.I. and Snyder, C.R.R. (1975). Attention and Cognitive Control. In Solso R.L.
(Ed.), Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola Symposium, Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum, pp. 55–85
Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from
economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management
Review 26:243–263.
Saucier, G. (1992). Benchmarks: Integrating affective and interpersonal circles with
the big-five personality factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
62:1025–1035.
Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of
affective states. In E.T. Higgins and R. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and
Cognition: Foundations of Social Behaviour 2:527–561. New York: Guilford Press.
Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities.
Organization Science 11:448–469.
Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus.
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Shepherd, D.A. and Krueger, N.F. (2002). An intentions-based model of entrepreneurial
teams’ social cognition. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 27:167–185.
Shiffrin, R.M. and Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and Automatic Human Information
processing II: Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory.
Psychological Review 84:127–190.
Singh, R.P. (2000). Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition through social networks.
New York: Garland Publishing.
Staw, B.M., Sutton, R.I. and Pelled, L.H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favor-
able outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science 5:51–71.
Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo, J.C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial
management. Strategic Management Journal 11:17–27.
Tarlow, E.M. and Haaga, D.A.F. (1996). Negative self-concept: Specificity to depressive
symptoms and relation to positive and negative affectivity. Journal of Research in
Personality 30:120–127.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A. and Tellegen, A. (1988). The development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 54:1063–1070.
Wayne, J.H., Musisca, N. and Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in
the work-family experience: Relationships of the big five to work-family conflict and
facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior 64:108–130.
Wegner, D.M. and Bargh, J.A. (1998). Control and automaticity in social life. In D.T. Gilbert,
S.T. Fiske and G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology 1:391–445.
Weiss, H.M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and
affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review 12:173–194.
Wright, T.A. and Staw, B.M. (1999). Affect and favorable work outcomes: Two longi-
tudinal tests of the happy-productive worker thesis. Journal of Organizational
Behavior 20:1–23.

146
Copyright of Journal of Enterprising Culture is the property of World Scientific Publishing Company and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.