Gender Differences in Evaluation of New Business Opportunity

Journal of Business Venturing 29 (2014) 273288
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Venturing
Gender differences in evaluation of new business opportunity: A stereotype

threat perspective
Vishal K. Gupta a,, A. Banu Goktan b, Gonca Gunay c
a
School of Management, State University of New York- Binghamton, Binghamton, NY 13901, United States
b
University of North Texas at Dallas, Dallas, TX, United States
c
Istanbul Bilgi University, Turkey
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This study draws on stereotype threat theory to explore differences between men and women
Received 30 March 2012 on evaluation of new business opportunities. Two controlled experiments, one with business
Received in revised form 10 February 2013 students in Turkey and another with working professionals in the United States, were
Accepted 12 February 2013
conducted. Participants were randomly assigned to specific experimental conditions and their
Available online 7 March 2013
assessment of a new business opportunity was measured after presentation of stereotypical
information. As predicted, men reported higher opportunity evaluation than women when no
Field Editor: J. Jennings
gender stereotypical information was presented, whereas men and women evaluated the
business opportunity equally favorably when entrepreneurs were described using gender-
Keywords: neutral attributes. Interestingly, gender differences in opportunity evaluation were exacerbated
Stereotype threat
when entrepreneurship was linked to masculine stereotypical information, and reversed in
Opportunity evaluation
Experimental research
favor of women when entrepreneurship was linked to feminine stereotypical information.
Practical implications and directions for future research are discussed.
2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Executive summary
Women's participation in entrepreneurship is considerably lower than men in almost all societies. This gender gap in
entrepreneurship causes continuous and intense discussions in academia as well as everyday life. The present study examines
stereotype threat as a mechanism to explain gender differences in opportunity evaluation and shows that it is possible to foster
and alleviate gender differences by presenting appropriate gender stereotypical information. Our study advances understanding
about the dynamics of opportunity evaluation and offers stereotype threat as a topic for further research for those interested in
why men and women show differential inclinations in assessing business opportunities
Drawing on stereotype threat logic, we predict that in the absence of presentation of any stereotypical information about
entrepreneurship, men will report more positive opportunity evaluation than women. This is because entrepreneurship is viewed as a
male typed career and stereotype threat literature posits that in the case of stereotypes that are well-known in society, no direct
reminder is needed for individuals to be affected by it. We also predict that the presentation of masculine stereotypical information will
depress opportunity evaluation for women but boost it form men because of the strong masculine ideology associated with
entrepreneurship. Thus, when reminded of the masculine stereotype related to entrepreneurship, men will show higher and women
will show lower opportunity evaluation than when no stereotypical information is presented. To the contrary, linking entrepreneurship
with feminine characteristics, instead of masculine characteristics, should reverse gender gap in opportunity evaluation. Women will
show higher and men will show lower opportunity evaluation than when no stereotypical information is presented. We expect that
when entrepreneurship is described using gender-neutral characteristics (e.g., creativity) useful for success as an entrepreneur, the
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 607 777 6853; fax: +1 607 777 4422.
E-mail addresses: vgupta@binghamton.edu (V.K. Gupta), Ayse.GoktanBilhan@unt.edu (A.B. Goktan), gonca.gunay3@gmail.com (G. Gunay).
0883-9026/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.02.002
274 V.K. Gupta et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 29 (2014) 273288
difference between men and women's opportunity evaluation will diminish (and possibly disappear) compared to when they were not
presented with gender stereotypical information.
We conducted two separate experiments with varying samples, one drawn from 279 business students in Turkey and the
other from 301 working professionals in the United States (US) to test our hypotheses. Researchers have often called for greater
use of experimental design due to high internal validity of the experimental context (Colquitt, 2008) and its ability to
demonstrate causality in theory testing and development (Spencer et al., 2005). We randomly assigned men and women to one of
the four experimental conditions: masculine stereotype, feminine stereotype, gender-neutral (nullified), and no-stereotype
information (control). We used a one-page (fictitious) news article to manipulate the stereotype threat condition, followed by a
short scenario about a potentially profitable business opportunity. Participants were asked to provide a general evaluation of the
business opportunity described in the scenario using a three-item five-point Likert scale.
Results suggest that differences in opportunity evaluation between men and women are influenced by stereotype threat
condition. Specifically we found that when no stereotypical information was presented, men assessed new business opportunities
more favorably than women. When masculine stereotypical information was presented, men increased and women decreased in
their opportunity evaluation, although the results were stronger for men. Associating entrepreneurship with feminine attributes
altered men and women's opportunity evaluation such that women reported higher and men reported lower evaluation of new
opportunity. Linking entrepreneurship with gender-neutral characteristics eliminated gender differences in opportunity evaluation
where men and women reported similarly favorable evaluation of new opportunities. Results were consistent for data obtained from
a student sample in Turkey as well as from a non-student sample in the US.
These findings have implications for theory, practice, and public policy. We demonstrate the applicability of stereotype threat
logic to professional endeavors and show how opportunity evaluation can be affected by messages given to enterprising
individuals. Our results also suggest a need for public policy targeted at eliminating or reducing gender stereotypical signals in
popular press and mass media so as to level the playing field for men and women. The empirical support we found in the US and
Turkey enhances confidence in the cross-cultural generalizability of the predicted relationships.
2. Introduction
Evaluation of new opportunities is an important part of entrepreneurship (Mitchell and Shepherd, 2010). In recent years,
opportunity evaluation broadly defined as assessment of specific situations to produce future goods and services has emerged as
a major topic of research in entrepreneurship (Haynie et al., 2009). Prior research suggests gender differences in evaluation of new
opportunities (Baker et al., 2003), and that opportunity evaluation may be a critical filter responsible for the differential rate of
entrepreneurship among men and women (De Bruin et al., 2007; Langowitz and Minniti, 2007). However, scholars have little
understanding of the factors and decision processes that influence men and women differently in their identification and evaluation
of new opportunities (but see DeTienne and Chandler, 2007; Diaz-Garcia and Jimnez-Moreno, 2010; Gonzalez-Alvarez and
Solis-Rodriguez, 2011). Favorable evaluation of high-potential business opportunities is a key driving force for new venture creation
and economic growth in countries around the world (Eckhardt and Shane, 2003; Short et al., 2010).
A growing body of social psychological research over the last two decades suggests that group differences between men and
women on gender-typed tasks may be a result of the phenomenon termed stereotype threat (Schmader et al., 2008). According to
stereotype threat research, stereotypes can impact individual outcomes by creating a predicament that applies only in situations
where stereotypes about one's group are relevant (Nguyen and Ryan, 2008). Scholars posit, and evidence indicates, that people
are hindered in situations where the stereotype suggests that the group to which they belong has weaknesses in a particular
domain, and helped when the stereotypic association suggests strength (Spencer and Castano, 2007). Originally developed to
explain racial differences (Whites versus Blacks) in academic performance (Steele, 1997), stereotype threat has also been used to
shed light on disparities between men and women on mathematical problem-solving (Spencer et al., 1999) and rich and poor on
linguistic tasks (Croizet and Claire, 1998). The distinguishing feature of the stereotype threat literature is that it focuses on certain
aspects of the performance situation and provides a situationist account to explain group differences in outcomes (Goff et al.,
2008).
The specific issue we address in the present study pertains to the role of stereotype threat in shaping men and women's evaluation
of new business opportunities. A central characteristic of our approach is that we put the malleable aspects of the situation front and
center in unraveling gender differences in opportunity evaluation. In doing so, we extend stereotype threat research beyond its
traditional focus on test performance (McGlone and Pfiester, 2007) and respond to calls for greater attention to antecedents and
processes related to opportunity evaluation (Haynie et al., 2009). Several researchers have noted that studies delineating specific
mechanisms and processes underlying gender differences in opportunity evaluation can significantly extend the knowledge frontier
in entrepreneurship (Hughes et al., 2012). We believe that appreciation of the gendered nature of opportunity evaluation allows us to
explore a theoretical explanation for the well-known paradox that although entrepreneurship is widely recognized as an attractive
and worthwhile career for men and women alike (Heilman and Chen, 2003), the rate of entrepreneurship among women remains
much lower than men worldwide (Kelley et al., 2011). In all, we contribute to the opportunity evaluation and stereotype threat
literatures by linking two prominent streams of research that have not been connected previously.
We test our predictions in an experimental context, which has the merit of high internal validity (Colquitt, 2008). The power
of experiments to demonstrate causality is well recognized, and researchers have often called for greater use of experimental
designs to facilitate theory testing and development (Spencer et al., 2005). Taking to heart the dictum that external validity is
confirmed only through systematic testing with different subjects and settings (Berkowitz and Donnerstein, 1982), we conducted
V.K. Gupta et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 29 (2014) 273288 275
two separate experiments with varying samples: one drawn from business students in Turkey and the other from working
professionals in the United States (US). Although Turkey and the US are both democratic countries with equal rights for men and
women enshrined in the constitution, they also show significant differences in emphasis on competitive success, material
achievement, and gender egalitarianism (Cetindamar et al., 2012), making them an appropriate context for our study.
We proceed by building the conceptual rationale for stereotype threatopportunity evaluation linkage and generate testable
hypotheses. We then explain the research design and provide results of the hypotheses tests. We conclude with a discussion of
the study findings and its implications for future research and practice.
3. Theory and hypotheses
Recent conceptualizations of entrepreneurship define it as the activities associated with bringing to fruition ideas for new means,
ends, or meansend relationships to sell novel goods and services at greater than their costs of production (Venkataraman, 1997).
This definition suggests that, as a scholarly field, entrepreneurship is concerned with the study of opportunities to introduce new
offerings to the market (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). Researchers believe that opportunity evaluationassessment of a set of
circumstances that, if acted upon, is expected to create value (Eckhardt and Shane, 2003)is one of the most important abilities of
successful entrepreneurs (Mitchell and Shepherd, 2010). Once a potentially profitable business idea has been identified, it needs to be
evaluated as attractive to introduce new goods and services before it can be actually pursued (Shane and Eckhardt, 2005). Thus,
opportunity evaluation involves considering specific business ideas for future gains that might accrue when they are pursued
(McMullen and Shepherd, 2006). For example, evaluation of an opportunity to offer a cure for cancer, or solve students' need for quick
lunch, involves an assessment of their potential future value (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). The concept of opportunity evaluation
has become one of the core intellectual topics for the domain of entrepreneurship. Consequently, there has been considerable interest
in studying the factors, processes, and dynamics that shape people's evaluation of opportunities (Haynie et al., 2009).
Because entrepreneurs act over time, and because the future is inherently unknowable (Chiles et al., 2007), new business
opportunities are typically high in ambiguity and uncertainty (Gregoire et al., 2010). Enterprising individuals evaluate new
opportunities under conditions of limited information and unpredictable outcomes (McMullen and Shepherd, 2006). As a result,
well-learned scripts or prescribed sets of procedures are not very useful in evaluating new opportunities (Baron and Ward, 2004).
Prior research suggests that equivocal and ambiguous settings are particularly amenable to the insidious influence of cognitive
biases and heuristics (Mitchell et al., 2004). In contexts of high unpredictability and ambiguity, cognitive influences can quickly
tip the balance towards specific decisions or behaviorseffects that are unlikely when there is greater certainty and clarity. For
this reason, cognitive biases may have an especially strong role in opportunity evaluation (Baron, 1998). Yet, few studies have
elaborated cognitive influences on men and women's evaluation of new business opportunities (de Bruin et al., 2007), and
scholarly understanding of how specific cognitive factors may bias men and women differently in assessing new business
opportunities remains limited.
Stereotypes refer to cognitive structures containing over-generalized beliefs that ascribe to members of a social group, one and
all, a set of shared attributes of character and propensities of behavior (Ashmore and Del Boca, 1981). Stereotypical beliefs and
expectations are acquired through socialization, and serve a functional purpose in that they help reduce the complexity of
incoming information about the world (Snyder and Miene, 1994). Stereotypes associated with gender are quite common as they
are based on a dichotomous, readily visible, and ubiquitous biological identity. Gender stereotypes consist of shared beliefs about
the characteristics and attributes associated with men and women (Fiske and Taylor, 1991). Expectations and assumptions
concerning the qualities that men and women have, shape perceptions about the type of jobs considered appropriate for them.
This leads to a situation in which the requisite characteristics for some jobs are defined in terms of gender, and those jobs become
typed as masculine or feminine (Heilman, 1997). For example, engineering and construction are considered masculine fields
while nursing and childcare are seen as feminine (Heilman, 1983). Researchers find that professions associated with power,
prestige, and authority, tend to be stereotyped as masculine (Karlin et al., 2002).
The entrepreneur role is often characterized as being masculine (Ahl, 2006; Lewis, 2006; Marlow, 2002). Entrepreneurs are
frequently described as bold, risk taking, and aggressive which are traits stereotypically associated with men (Baughn et al., 2006;
Gupta and Turban, 2012; Mirchandani, 1999). The archetypal image of the entrepreneur is a self-made man with a strong desire to
control and conquer virgin territory (Ashe and Treanor, 2011: 194). Historical descriptions of entrepreneurs and the activities they
pursue are also decidedly masculine (Bird and Brush, 2002). Schumpeter (1934), for example, described the entrepreneur as a man of
daring and decisiveness who delights in risks and dangers. Stories about entrepreneurs in media and popular press feature male
heroic figures, and women are usually absent or cast in marginal roles (Ahl, 2007). The financial risk-taking and economic
achievement often associated with entrepreneurship also adds a prescriptive edge to the stereotype that entrepreneurship is for men
(Thebaud, 2010). All these factors combine to frame entrepreneurship as an arena for men (Jennings and McDougald, 2007). Prior
research suggests that perceptions of entrepreneurship as a male-typed domain may be universal (De Bruin et al., 2006; McAdam and
Marlow, 2012). Notwithstanding some cultural variations between countries in the precise constellation of characteristics attributed
to entrepreneurs (Gupta and Fernandez, 2009; Shinnar et al., 2012), entrepreneurship is associated with men around the world and
masculinity is strongly embedded in prevailing social constructions of entrepreneurship (Greene et al., 2011; Gupta et al., 2009).
Stereotype threat literature posits that in the case of stereotypes that are well-known in society, no direct reminder is needed
for individuals to be affected by it in situations where the stereotype is relevant. For example, stereotypical beliefs referring to
women's supposed lack of ability in math and white males' athletic inferiority are widely known in society, and individuals
belonging to groups stereotyped in this way tend to be as aware of their groups' reputation as anyone else (McGlone and
Pfiester, 2007: 175). These stereotypes are in the air as Steele (1997) argued, and by implication, automatically shape
expectations and aspirations. Researchers believe that stereotypes cue which aspects of one's vast self-knowledge become
dominant in any given situation (Bodenhausen and Macrae, 1998). Because the self is an important guide for ongoing social and
economic behavior, stereotypes affect what one does and how one acts (Hull et al., 2002). Considerable evidence indicates that
most people are well aware of the stereotypes prevalent in their society (Davies et al., 2002; Devine, 1989) and possess
associative memory linkages connecting these stereotypes to the behaviors they imply (Bargh et al., 1996).
When placed in situations where they are confronted with entrepreneurship-related tasks, such as evaluating a new business
opportunity, enterprising individuals must contend with the pervasive cultural stereotype depicting entrepreneurs as embodiment of
masculinity (Marlow, 2002). In such situations, we expect that the strong masculine stereotype underlying entrepreneurship will
shape self-construals that reinforce the role of gender in entrepreneurship situations and influence individuals' opportunity
evaluation even without any reminders. Very few studies have directly compared men and women's opportunity evaluation, and the
limited evidence that exists suggests considerable gap between men and women in evaluating new opportunities under everyday
circumstances (Ettl and Welter, 2010). For example, based on a survey of 27 women and 34 men, Baker et al. (2003) found that men
evaluated business opportunities more favorably than women. We expect that in the absence of presentation of any stereotypical
information about entrepreneurship, men will report more positive opportunity evaluation than women. Thus, we predict:
Hypothesis 1. When men and women are not provided with any gender stereotypical information about entrepreneurship, men
will evaluate a new business opportunity more favorably than women.
3.1. Presentation of masculine and feminine stereotypical information
Moving beyond the generalized sense of (dis)engagement that affects men and women when stereotypes related to their
group are relevant (Goff et al., 2008), stereotype threat researchers propose that making people consciously aware of the
stereotypical beliefs associated with the group to which they belong creates an additional predicament that influences aspirations
and performance (Jamieson and Harkins, 2007). Presentation of stereotypical information makes the relevant stereotype
cognitively accessible and communicates the expectation that one's behavior follows a situation- induced characterization about
one's group identity (Smith, 2006). Notably, people do not need to accept that the stereotype holds true for them personally to be
impacted by situational cues containing stereotypical information (Steele, 1998). As long as the stereotypical information made
salient is considered relevant to a particular task, it can prompt defensive adaptationswhereby a person comes to resemble his
or her reputation, living up or down to social expectations (McGlone and Pfiester, 2007: 175).
When the stereotype conveying negative beliefs about members of a particular group is presented in a situation, it induces an
extra burden that depresses aspirations and performance whereas when the stereotype containing positive beliefs about a group
is presented, it provides a psychological lift that boosts outcomes (Erikkson and Lindholm, 2007). Thus, reminding people of
stereotypes associated with their social group can either discourage or encourage participation in the targeted domain, depending
on whether the stereotypical information conveys a positive or negative message about the social group (Smith and Johnson,
2006). These situational effects come into play when a provoking stereotype is made salient. Several studies speak to the
enormous power that situational cues containing stereotypical information have on members of stereotyped groups (Nguyen and
Ryan, 2008). For instance, reminding people about the math = male but math female stereotype induces women to perform
worse and men to perform better compared to when no stereotypical information is presented (Johns et al., 2008).
Directly linking entrepreneurship with masculine characteristics will make the male stereotype associated with entrepreneurs
cognitively salient. Information reminding people of the masculine stereotype associated with entrepreneurship provides clear
expectations for both men and women. In such situations, women become vulnerable to confirming the negative stereotype
concerning their in-group, while men are endowed with a positive stereotype about their in-group. Because of the strong masculine
ideology associated with entrepreneurship in contemporary society (Jennings and McDougald, 2007), it seems reasonable to expect
that priming gender stereotype about entrepreneurs will depress opportunity evaluation for women but boost it for men. Thus, when
reminded of the widely-known masculine stereotype related to entrepreneurship (Gupta and Turban, 2012), men will show higher
and women will show lower opportunity evaluation than when no stereotypical information is presented. Thus, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2a. Men will report more favorable opportunity evaluation when masculine stereotypical information about
entrepreneurship is presented versus when no stereotypical information is presented.
Hypothesis 2b. Women will report less favorable opportunity evaluation when masculine stereotypical information about
Some researchers suggest that it may be possible to alter the stereotype associated with entrepreneurship (Bird and Brush,
2002). The underlying logic here is that although masculine attributes about entrepreneurs are widely held, feminine
characteristics can also play a role in entrepreneurship (Cliff et al., 2005). Over the years, there have been several attempts to offer
a positive understanding of feminine aspects in entrepreneurship (James, 2012), starting with an appreciation of the role of
feminine values in managing new ventures (Calas et al., 2009; Hanson and Blake, 2005). Bird and Brush (2002), for example,
celebrated women's values as different from men's, and proposed an alternative conceptualization of entrepreneurship that
focuses on, and embraces, feminine attributes. Indeed, a careful reading of the entrepreneurship literature suggests that many of
the qualities considered critical for success as an entrepreneursuch as forming relationships and caring for one's venture are
feminine in nature (Kinyanjui, 2008; Rae, 2009).
We predict that linking entrepreneurship with feminine characteristics, instead of masculine characteristics, will reverse
gender gap in opportunity evaluation. Our prediction is consistent with the position taken by some of the original studies in the
stereotype threat literature, which shows that simply changing the content of the stereotype in a situation is enough to alter
outcomes for members from stereotyped groups (Aronson et al., 1999). Researchers found, for example, that whites engaged
more than blacks on golf when it was described as a task of intellectual ability, and blacks engaged more when golf was linked to
athletic prowess which is consistent with racial stereotypes in contemporary American society (Stone et al., 1999).
Presenting entrepreneurship as a feminine stereotyped domain directs attention towards, and facilitates recall of, information
congruent with the feminine stereotype (Cliff et al., 2005). James (2012), for example, discusses the role of what he refers to as
x factorsattributes and behaviors associated with womenin highlighting important, but rarely explored, aspects of
entrepreneurship. Feminization frames entrepreneurship as women's work and induces expectations that feminine attributes
are needed to succeed as an entrepreneur (Fondas, 1996). An emphasis on stereotypically feminine traits as desired qualities
helps attract more women to the profession because they see that the attributes needed to succeed in that profession fit well
with them. Conversely, men strongly resist doing what is perceived as women's work (Greene et al., 2002) and rarely enter
occupations perceived as feminine (Bradley, 1993). Indeed, researchers have documented that men quickly withdraw from
occupations seen as female-typed (Arndt and Bigelow, 2005). Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3a. Women will report more favorable opportunity evaluation when feminine stereotypical information about
Hypothesis 3b. Men will report less favorable opportunity evaluation when feminine stereotypical information about
3.2. Presentation of gender-neutral stereotypical information
Part of the scientific and popular appeal of stereotype threat as an explanation for group differences is that it can be created in
the situation itself (Schmader et al., 2008). Because the threat is rooted in situational factors, and not in essential differences
between the groups, once situational issues are addressed, any differences in aspirations and performance on stereotyped tasks
should be diminished or eliminated. Some studies suggest nullifying the stereotype applicable in a particular situation as a way to
reduce differences on stereotyped outcomes (Schmader and Johns, 2003). Nullification refers to actively making stereotypical
information irrelevant in a situation, which reduces or eliminates the extra burden imposed by the stereotype and frees
attentional resources for the task at hand (Smith and White, 2002). This should have a significant effect on aspirations and
behaviors in the targeted domain: Lesko and Corpus (2006: 118) were able to eliminate gender differences in mathematical
performance by clearly describing their math test as gender-free, and Aronson et al. (1999) eliminated racial differences in
academic performance by emphasizing the test as non-diagnostic of intellectual ability.
One way to nullify stereotypes is by directly associating relevant gender-neutral characteristics with the stereotyped domain
(Roberson and Kulik, 2007). Describing an otherwise stereotyped domain using gender-neutral attributes, makes the traditional
stereotype irrelevant and emphasizes attributes common to both men and women. Associating gender-neutral descriptors with a
task makes the corresponding attributes cognitively accessible and ameliorates the effects of stereotypes (Smith and White,
2002). We expect that when entrepreneurship is described using gender-neutral characteristics useful for success as an
entrepreneur (e.g., creative), the difference between men and women's opportunity evaluation will diminish (and possibly
disappear) compared to when they were not presented with gender stereotypical information. Thus, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 4. When men and women are provided with gender-neutral information about entrepreneurship, neither group will
evaluate a business opportunity more favorably than the other.
4. Method
Two separate experiments were conducted to test the predicted relationships. Experiments allow researchers to control
extraneous influences and manipulate focal variables, making them an ideal choice to investigate causal relationships (Colquitt,
2008). They are particularly suitable for researchers interested in examining if a predicted relationship does exist in controlled
environments (Gregoire and Shepherd, 2012). Prior research has recommended experimental studies as an appropriate approach
to clarify the causal mechanisms underlying opportunity evaluation (Grichnik et al., 2010), particularly with respect to
understanding variations between men and women in evaluation of new business opportunities (Nicolau et al., 2009).
4.1. Experiment 1
In our first experiment, we tested the predictions in an under-researched international context: Turkey, a rapidly emerging
economy where the rate of total entrepreneurial activity (11.9%) is slightly above the global average of 10.8% (Karadeniz, 2012).
According to Hofstede's (2001) cultural index, Turkey's score of 45 is at about the global average in terms of the emphasis placed
on masculine qualities such as competition and achievement in society. Although the Turkish constitution guarantees equal rights
for men and women, Turkey ranks quite low on measures of gender equality and has a male-dominated business environment
(Cetindamar et al., 2012). In recent years, there has been a growing interest within Turkish society in encouraging
entrepreneurship in general and women's entrepreneurship in particular (Ozar and Bulutay, 2002).
4.1.1. Sample
We sampled business students from a medium-sized private Turkish university. The survey was completed by 279 students
(128 men and 132 women, 19 unreported) in a classroom setting. The average age of our sample was 22 years, with about
6 months of work experience and 2.63 GPA. Young adults in the 1824 age group are known as Generation E, the entrepreneurial
generation, for their high interest in pursuing new business opportunities (Hisrich et al., 2007: 575). About half of the Turkish
population comprises of young adults, with the country experiencing a youth bulge such that the percentage of young adults in
the population is expected to continue increasing in the near future (Kabasakal and Bodur, 2002). There is a favorable
environment for entrepreneurship in Turkey, with young Turks reporting one of the highest rates of entrepreneurship among
emerging economies (Karadeniz, 2012).
4.1.2. Procedure
We invited potential respondents to participate in an experimental study on decision-making. We randomly assigned men
and women to one of the four experimental conditions: masculine stereotype, feminine stereotype, gender-neutral (nullified),
and no-stereotype information (control).
Following prior research (e.g., Pronin et al., 2004), we used a one-page (fictitious) news article to manipulate the stereotype threat
condition (see Appendix A). Short articles have been found to be effective in manipulating stereotype threat (Smith and White, 2002).
We adapted the entrepreneurship articles developed and validated by Gupta et al. (2008) to make them appropriate for the Turkish
context. These articles describe entrepreneurs as aggressive, risk taking, and autonomous in masculine stereotype condition, as
caring, making relationships, and humble in feminine condition, as creative, well-informed, steady, and generous in nullification
condition, and present a brief note on entrepreneurship education in the no-stereotype control condition. Our adaptation involved
making minor changes such as Turkish names in the articleDokuz Eylul University and Professor Gunay, and providing Turkish
examples as appropriate in the article. Participants were told to carefully read the article presented to them, and asked one question on
the content of the article to ensure that they had understood the article (all participants answered the question correctly).
Participants were then asked to read a short case about a potentially profitable business opportunity. The case summarized the
complexities of a new opportunity and specified the context so that all respondents were exposed to the same set of information.
Case method has been used in several entrepreneurship studies (Gupta and Turban, 2012; Zacharakis and Shepherd, 2001). The
short case we used is adapted from Keh et al. (2002) and presented a new business opportunity without any mention of the
industry so as to avoid potential biasing influence of gender-typical industries (e.g., construction or day-care; Haslam and Ryan,
Table 1
Means and standard deviations for opportunity evaluation scores in different conditions of stereotype threat.
Parameters No stereotype control condition Masculine stereotype threat condition Feminine stereotype threat condition Nullified stereotype condition
Data collected from business students in Turkey (Experiment 1)

Men
M 3.62 3.98b 2.89c 3.58
N 19 45 42 22
SD 0.78 0.76 0.64 0.66
Women
M 3.19a 2.86 3.43c 3.51d
N 18 42 49 23
SD 0.55 0.91 0.39 0.8
Missing 2 10 5 2
Data collected from M Turk participants in the United States (Experiment 2)

Men
M 3.87 4.26b 3.41c 3.91
N 29 51 54 18
SD 0.57 0.59 0.83 0.58
Women
M 3.52a 3.26 4.10c 3.79d
N 20 49 49 31
SD 0.55 0.75 0.7 0.70
Note: Sample size, means and standard deviations for opportunity evaluation based on condition. Mean values refer to the average of the 3-item opportunity
evaluation construct.
a
Means for men vs. women in the no stereotype condition are significantly different at p b .05.
b
Means for men in the masculine vs. no stereotype condition are significantly different at p b .10 (in Experiment 1) or p b .05 (in Experiment 2).
c
Means for men (or women) in the feminine vs. no stereotype condition are significantly different at p b .05.
d
Means for men vs. women in the nullified stereotype condition are not significantly different.
2008). Participants were asked to provide a general evaluation of the business opportunity described in the scenario using a
three-item five-point Likert scale (Goktan and Gunay, 2011; = .76). Specifically, participants were asked to indicate the extent
to which they (1) would like to pursue the idea described in the scenario further, (2) can take the idea and turn it into real
business, and (3) can successfully start a new venture based on the idea. Responses on the three items were averaged to form an
overall opportunity evaluation score for each respondent.
4.1.3. Analyses and results

Comparing participants on specific human capital measures, we found that men and women do not differ significantly on age
(Ms = 22.5 and 21.8 years, respectively), GPA (Ms = 2.5 and 2.7 respectively) and self-reported creativity (Ms = 3.68 and 3.83
respectively), but did show significant differences in work experience (Ms = 5.5 and 2.0 months, respectively) with about 40% of
the sample having no work experience.
Our research design is a 2 (respondent gender) 4 (stereotype threat) experiment. Table 1 (Section A) presents opportunity
evaluation means and standard deviation by condition.
We conducted an omnibus 2 (respondent gender) 4 (stereotype threat) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with work
experience, age, GPA, and self-reported creativity as covariates. Results indicated main effect of both gender, F(1, 210) = 7.02,
p b .05, 2 = .03 and stereotype threat, F(1, 210) = 3.88, p b .05, 2 = .05, and more importantly for our research, a significant
gender threat interaction effect, F(3, 210) = 17.30, p b .05, 2 = .20. These results suggest that differences in opportunity
Fig. 1. A. Stereotype threat effect on opportunity evaluation in Turkey. B. Stereotype threat effect on opportunity evaluation in the US.
evaluation between men and women are influenced by stereotype threat condition. Fig. 1A plots mean opportunity evaluation
scores for men and women under specific stereotype threat conditions.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that men will report more favorable evaluation of a new opportunity than women when no
stereotypical information is presented. As expected, we found that in the absence of stereotypical information men reported
significantly more favorable opportunity evaluation scores than women (Ms = 3.62 and 3.19, respectively), t(43) = 2.17, p b .05.
Hypotheses 2a and 2b proposed an interaction between gender and stereotype threat such that presentation of masculine
stereotype about entrepreneurs will boost men's and depress women's opportunity evaluation compared to no-stereotype
condition. As expected, we found a significant gender threat interaction effect, F(1, 100) = 4.64, p b .05, 2 = .04. Specifically,
men reported marginally more favorable opportunity evaluation when presented with the masculine stereotype compared to
when no stereotypical information is presented (Ms = 3.98 and 3.62, respectively), t(65) = 1.77, p b .1 (Hypothesis 2a).
Opportunity evaluation among women was lower when presented with a masculine stereotype compared to no stereotypical
information, but the difference was not significant (Ms = 2.86 and 3.19 respectively, t(63) = 1.59, ns) (Hypothesis 2b).
Hypotheses 3a and 3b proposed an interaction between gender and stereotype threat such that presentation of feminine
stereotype about entrepreneurs will boost women's and depress men's opportunity evaluation compared to no-stereotype
women reported significantly more favorable opportunity evaluation when presented with the feminine stereotype about
entrepreneurs compared to when no stereotypical information is presented (Ms = 3.43 and 3.19, respectively), t(70) = 2.06,
p b .05 (Hypothesis 3a). For men, opportunity evaluation when presented with the feminine stereotype about entrepreneurs was
significantly lower than when no stereotypical information was presented (Ms = 2.89 and 3.62, respectively), t(63) = 4.02, p b .05
(Hypothesis 3b).
Hypothesis 4 predicted that the nullified condition would eliminate the gender difference in opportunity evaluation. We
conducted an ANCOVA with the control and nullified stereotype conditions. Although the interaction between gender and
stereotype threat was non-significant, t-comparisons revealed that men and women reported statistically similar opportunity
evaluation (Ms = 3.58 and 3.51, respectively), t(37) = .79, ns. Thus, the significant gender difference in the control condition was
eliminated in the nullified condition.
4.1.4. Discussion
The results of Experiment 1 were generally supportive of our hypotheses. As expected, men and women differed in their
opportunity evaluation under normal, everyday conditions. This gender gap in favor of men was somewhat exacerbated when
masculine stereotypical information was made salient, although the change was not statistically significant. It is possible that the
masculine stereotype about entrepreneurship is so strong in Turkey that reminding people about it does not make much of a
difference to its salience. Linking entrepreneurship with feminine attributes shifted the advantage in terms of greater
opportunity evaluation to women, and presenting gender-neutral characteristics as descriptive of entrepreneurs eliminated the
gender gap.
Prior research has found stereotype threat effects in student samples drawn from many western countries, including the US,
Germany, the Netherlands, and France (Nguyen and Ryan, 2008). Whether stereotype threat would hold in non-western
countries, especially those with socio-cultural contexts that are different from western societies, has been an open issue that we
redressed by conducting the experiment with Turkish business students. We found that predictions based on stereotype threat
are supported in Turkey, a country with a very different socio-cultural context than where most stereotype threat studies have
been conducted. Yet, lingering questions remain about the reliability and generalizability of stereotype threat to non-student
populations.
Researchers have found evidence for stereotype threat effects with student samples drawn from a variety of populations, such
as high school seniors, business and psychology majors, elite and state colleges, and so on (Huget and Regner, 2007). One
unintended consequence of this sampling from well-defined student populations is a concern about the applicability of
stereotype threat logic to other settings (Cullen et al., 2004). A body of research that relies solely on evidence collected from
students may be too narrow a base on which to rest our theories of human behavior (Gupta and Turban, 2012). Evidence indicates
that gender stereotypes held by college students are consistent with beliefs held by others in a society (Eagly and Steffen, 1984)
and remain quite stable over time (Holt and Ellis, 1998). Nevertheless, there are reasons to question the generalizability of
stereotype threat in other settings, such as with non-student populations (Sackett, 2003). Mature individuals with experience in
the real world may be less susceptible to presentation of stereotypical information, and so would resist the situational
experiences created by stereotype threat (Bergeron et al., 2006). Compared to students simply expected to answer questions in
the classroom, men and women who volunteer as research participants in the real world may be more motivated to direct their
effort and attention to an assigned task (Sackett, 2003).
The next experiment tested stereotype threat effects in a sample of US-based individuals with an average of about 10 years of
work experience. In addition to using a non-student sample, our second experiment departed from the first in another notable
way: Measurement of the opportunity evaluation dependent variable. The 3-item scale used in experiment 1 can be criticized for
confounding ability with assessment (we thank an anonymous reviewer for highlighting this problem). Accordingly, the second
experiment employed a different measure of opportunity evaluation. Using two distinct measures for opportunity evaluation had
the additional benefit of enhancing generalizability as we could test whether the hypothesized relationships received consistent
support across the two measures.
4.2. Experiment 2
We conducted the second experiment in the US. According to Hofstede's (2001) cultural index, the US has a score of 62 which
is well above the global average in terms of societal emphasis on masculine qualities such as competition and achievement.
Although the US projects a gender egalitarian face internationally, there is notable segregation in gender roles both in the
workplace and in the family (Judge and Livingston, 2008). With the worst economic crisis since the great depression and the
consequent rise in unemployment, there is a growing interest within the US society to encourage entrepreneurship among both
men and women. Notably, the rate of total entrepreneurial activity in the US is 12.3% which is higher than other countries at the
same economic level and significantly greater than the average of 6.9% for innovation-driven economies in general (Kelley et al.,
2011).
4.2.1. Sample
We recruited the sample from Amazon M Turk, a crowd-sourcing web service that coordinates supply and demand of tasks
requiring human intelligence to complete (often referred to as Human Intelligence Tasks or HITs) (Horton et al., 2011). Benefits
associated with the service include ready access to a large and diverse pool of potential participants, and the ability to maintain
complete anonymity of participants' identity. Recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of using Amazon M Turk as a reliable
source of data for experimental research (Eriksson and Simpson, 2010; Inbar et al., 2012; Paolacci et al., 2010). Although the M
Turk population is not representative of any geographic area, population segment, or even the online population (Mason and Suri,
2012), M Turk respondents are significantly more diverse than samples obtained from any one organization with data quality
comparable to that of responses collected physically through traditional lab experiments (Sprouse, 2011). A few attempts have
been made to use M Turk to replicate classic studies and results seem to neatly parallel established findings (e.g., Paolacci et al.,
2010). Commenting on the increasing popularity of M Turk, Mason and Suri (2012) contend that M Turk has gradually gained
acceptance as a valid research environment for social scientists to conduct experiments.
Amazon does not provide details about the exact size and composition of the M Turk workforce, but researchers have found
that a large proportion of the workers is from the US (Eriksson and Simpson, 2010). Amazon allows survey participation to be
restricted to people from a specific country, so researchers can maintain a homogeneous sample. We invited only US-based
individuals to participate in a research study related to business decision-making in exchange for cash payment of 2 USD. Amazon
M Turk allows for rejection of work that does not meet expected standards or requirements which in turn lowers a worker's
approval rating. We required a minimum of 98% approval rating to eliminate respondents who have not shown good performance
in the past. We considered responses from only those participants who completed the entire survey, met our time controls, and
correctly answered our manipulation check question. The average time to complete the survey was 11 minutes as we expected.
Of the 301 respondents who completed the survey satisfactorily, about 50% were male and average age was 32 years. The average
work experience for our participants was about 10 years, with 42% working in the public sector. A quarter of the sample was
engaged in retail or service jobs, 73% self-reported having income around the national average, and 40% had completed an
undergraduate program. Seventy-seven percent of the sample was Caucasian, and 47% resided in the Eastern Time Zone.
4.2.2. Procedure
Social scientists have long recognized that if two different situations are interpreted in much the same manner, experiences
can be generalized from one situation to the other (Berkowitz and Donnerstein, 1982). In this vein, recent entrepreneurship
research has emphasized the need to demonstrate that findings obtained in one study are paralleled by observations made using
different samples and settings (Gregoire and Shepherd, 2012). Accordingly, we followed the same procedure as Experiment 1
with some variations: We retained the English version of the material developed by Gupta et al. (2008) for stereotype
manipulation, but for opportunity evaluation, we translated (through double back-translation for superior accuracy) the
German-language case description developed by Grichnik et al. (2010) into English. After reading the case (Appendix C),
participants answered three questions about (a) how positive, (b) how promising, and (c) how good they judged the opportunity
to be ( = .85; Grichnik et al., 2010). Correlation between this measure and the one used in the Turkish experiment was positive
and significant ( = .61, p b .01).
4.2.3. Analyses and results

We examined participants on specific human capital measures, and found that men and women differed significantly on age
(Ms = 29.3 and 35.2 years, respectively) and work experience (Ms = 9.0 and 12.5 years, respectively), but did not differ on
highest degree completed, field of work, and socioeconomic status.
Table 1 (Section B) presents opportunity evaluation means and standard deviation by condition for US participants. We
conducted an omnibus 2 4 analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with age and work experience as covariates. Results indicated a
main effect of gender, F(1, 290) = 4.63, p b .05, 2 = .02, and more important for our research, a significant gender threat
interaction effect, F(3, 290) = 25.19, p b .05, 2 = .20. These results indicate that differences in opportunity evaluation between
men and women were influenced by stereotype threat condition. Fig. 1B plots mean opportunity evaluation scores for men and
women under specific stereotype threat conditions in the US.
Hypothesis 1 proposed that men will report more favorable evaluation of a new opportunity than women when no-stereotypical
information is presented. As hypothesized, when no stereotypical information is presented, men reported significantly greater
opportunity evaluation than women (Ms = 3.87 and 3.52, respectively), t(47) =2.28, p b .05.
Hypotheses 2a and 2b predicated an interaction between gender and stereotype threat such that presentation of masculine
stereotype about entrepreneurs will boost men's and depress women's opportunity evaluation compared to no-stereotype
men reported significantly more favorable opportunity evaluation when presented with the masculine stereotype about
p b .05 (Hypothesis 2a). For women, opportunity evaluation when presented with the masculine stereotype about entrepreneurs
was lower than, but not significantly different from, when no stereotypical information is presented (Ms = 3.24 and 3.52,
respectively), t(67) = 1.45, ns (Hypothesis 2b).
Hypotheses 3a and 3b proposed an interaction between gender and stereotype threat such that presentation of feminine
stereotype about entrepreneurs will boost women's and depress men's opportunity evaluation compared to no-stereotype
women reported significantly more favorable opportunity evaluation when presented with the feminine stereotype about
p b .05 (Hypothesis 3a). For men, opportunity evaluation, when presented with the feminine stereotype about entrepreneurs was
significantly lower than when no stereotypical information is presented (Ms = 3.42 and 3.87, respectively), t(81) = 2.69, p b .05
(Hypothesis 3b).
Hypothesis 4 predicted that the nullified condition would eliminate the gender difference in opportunity evaluation. We
conducted an ANCOVA with the control and nullified stereotype conditions. Although the interaction test was non-significant,
t-comparisons revealed that men and women reported statistically similar opportunity evaluation (Ms = 3.91 and 3.79,
respectively), t(47) = .68, ns. Thus, the significant gender difference in the control was eliminated in the nullified condition.
4.2.4. Discussion
Results of Experiment 2 supported our predictions. Consistent with our reasoning, we found that when no stereotypical
information was presented, men assessed new business opportunities more favorably than women. Men and women assimilated to
the presentation of masculine stereotypical information about entrepreneurship such that men increased and women decreased in
their opportunity evaluation, although the results were stronger for men. Further, associating entrepreneurship with feminine
attributes altered men and women's opportunity evaluation such that women reported higher and men reported lower evaluation of
new opportunities. Finally, linking entrepreneurship with gender-neutral characteristics eliminated gender differences in opportunity
evaluation such that men and women reported similarly favorable evaluation of new opportunities. Thus, in addition to the support we
found with data obtained from a student population in Turkey, we also found support for our hypotheses in data obtained from a
non-student population in the US.
5. General discussion
Although women's participation in entrepreneurship varies across countries, it is considerably lower than men in almost all
societies (Kelley et al., 2011). This gender gap in entrepreneurship and the limited number of women founding growth-oriented new
ventures causes continuous and intense discussions in academia as well as everyday life. Various explanations such as inherent ability
and orientation (Lim and Envick, 2011), biology and hormones (White et al., 2006), and institutions and environment (Shinnar et al.,
2012) have been offered previously to explain the glaring and persistent differences in men and women's entry into entrepreneurship.
A heretofore unexplored explanation for the gender gap in entrepreneurship is that in situations where business opportunities are
evaluated, men and women are affected by prevailing stereotypes that ascribe masculine attributes and qualities to successful
entrepreneurs. The current paper theorizes the role of stereotype threat in fostering and alleviating gender differences in new
opportunity evaluation. To test our predictions, we conducted two experimental studiesone with a Turkish student sample and
another with a non-student US samplewhich augments confidence in the external validity of our findings and provides a solid
foundation for future theory development.
We found that men reported more favorable opportunity evaluation than women without any reminder of the masculine
stereotype (control condition) as well as when masculine stereotypical information was presented. These results suggest that,
whether or not stereotypes about entrepreneurship are made salient in a situation, they shape attitudes and behaviors of enterprising
individuals. Reminders about the masculine entrepreneurship stereotype exacerbate the gender gap in opportunity evaluation by
further encouraging men's and discouraging women's assessment of new opportunities. Scholars recognize that entrepreneurship
has long been conceptualized within a gendered framework that embodies the normative actor by and through stereotypical
masculine characteristics (Gupta and Turban, 2012; Ogbor, 2000). Our findings offer the insight that this gendered ideology also
extends to evaluation of business opportunities. We contribute to the small, but growing body of research, which illuminates the role
of cognitive biases in shaping opportunity evaluation (Baron and Ward, 2004). By focusing on the role of masculine stereotypes about
entrepreneurship, we are able to empirically demonstrate that the words used to describe entrepreneurs in everyday life, including
mass media, books, and classrooms (Ahl, 2007), insidiously contribute to fostering gender differences in opportunity evaluation.
Considering that there is a steady diet of cultural stereotypes in most modern societies, it is disconcerting how readily these
stereotypes influence aspirations and behaviors in achievement-oriented activities like evaluating new business opportunities.
We also found that when entrepreneurship was associated with feminine stereotypical information, women's opportunity
evaluation was encouraged but men's was discouraged. These results indicate that it is possible to alter the gender gap in
opportunity evaluation by emphasizing the role of feminine attributes in entrepreneurship. In recent years, there has been some
interest in challenging the normative expectations that associate entrepreneurship with male and masculine (Ahl, 2007; James,
2012). Accordingly, we engage in an exercise to reframe entrepreneurship in a different conceptual space than is the norm in extant
literature in this area (De Bruin et al., 2007). At its most fundamental, our reframing of entrepreneurship as associated with feminine
stereotypical characteristics demonstrates the usefulness of feminizing entrepreneurship. Researchers have documented many
instances where previously male-dominated professions have successfully feminized (Arndt and Bigelow, 2005), such as book editing
(Reskin, 1990) and bank teller (Strober and Arnold, 1987). Future studies can delve deeper into how feminization of entrepreneurship
can transmit the feminine ethos to enterprising individuals and encourage greater participation of women in entrepreneurship
(Linstead & Brewis, 2004). Emphasizing the feminine perspective of entrepreneurship in a very visible way should also open new
avenues for researchers to unravel hitherto marginalized worldviews, concerns, and activities (Ashe and Treanor, 2011; Rindova et al.,
2009).
Our results also revealed that describing entrepreneurs using gender-neutral attributes (stereotype nullification) eliminated
group differences such that men and women were not statistically different in their evaluation of new opportunity. It seems that
when the predicament generated due to gender characterizations is eliminated, men and women who are otherwise equivalent on
age, education, and experience, do not differ in their tendency to favorably evaluate business opportunities. Therefore, in a perfect
world (where no stereotypes are in the air; Aronson and Steele, 2005) equivalent men and women would provide very similar
evaluations of new opportunities. From a practical standpoint, these findings reveal the benefits of associating entrepreneurship with
gender-neutral attributes. Nullifying stereotypes about entrepreneurs may be a very challenging task (Ogbor, 2000), but it seems to
offer a potent weapon to level the playing field for men and women.
Our study directly contributes to the literature on opportunity evaluation (Mitchell and Shepherd, 2010). Assessment of new
opportunities remains an under-studied component of entrepreneurship (Haynie et al., 2009), and almost nothing has been
published about causes and antecedents of gender differences in opportunity evaluation. Our study shows that the impact of the
predicament generated by gender stereotypes on men and women's evaluation of new business opportunities deserves attention.
Preoccupation with the fear of confirming a negative stereotype creates an extra tensionover and above that associated with
other obstacles that hamper opportunity evaluationfor members of negatively stereotyped groups (such as women in
entrepreneurship). At the same time, being endowed with a positive stereotype provides a psychological boost that can facilitate
opportunity evaluation, as is the case for men in entrepreneurship. Thus, our study represents a next step in understanding the
dynamics of opportunity evaluation and offers stereotype threat as a topic for further research for those interested in why men
and women show differential inclinations in assessing business opportunities.
Our study also advances knowledge in the stereotype threat literature. Some have raised concerns that stereotype threat has
been limited to explaining group differences in intellectual performance and primarily tested only in test-taking situations
(Nguyen and Ryan, 2008). By examining the operation of stereotype threat in opportunity evaluation context, we redress
concerns that dependent measures used in stereotype threat research have been narrow in scope (Shapiro and Neuberg, 2007:
110). In addition, the vast majority of stereotype threat studies are limited to studying beliefs that are widely-held in society
(Schmader et al., 2008). To diminish, as much as possible, the role of deep internalization of stereotypes or of social status
ascribed to one's group, we predicted and found evidence for both when the masculine stereotype about entrepreneurship is
presented as well as when the feminine stereotype is presented. By documenting the susceptibility of men and women to rarely
discussed feminine stereotypical information about entrepreneurs, we provide a conservative test of the theoretical tenet that
stereotype threat is situational and does not result from some kind of chronic vulnerability or long-term socialization. Finally,
stereotype threat has received a great deal of support in the US, but it has not been well-studied in international contexts
(Erikkson and Lindholm, 2007). The present study found support for the predictions in the US and Turkey, which gives confidence
in stereotype threat as a universal theory that may be valid internationally.
6. Limitations and directions for future research
Our research has some limitations that need to be acknowledged. One shortcoming pertains to the generic nature of the
opportunity evaluation task that lacked much contextual information. Presenting more in-depth information may, however, be
difficult without linking the opportunity to a specific industry (e.g., health and beauty products or design and manufacturing of
high-tech building products; Haslam and Ryan, 2008), which creates the possibility of stereotype threat stemming from the
industry. Mayer and Hanges (2003) distinguish between two forms of stereotype threatspecific and generalthat correspond to
wariness directed towards the industry and wariness towards the broader societal context. The independent and combinative
effects of stereotype threat stemming from the industry and from the society on opportunity evaluation should be elaborated and
explored in future research.
The dynamics of how exactly stereotype threat influences opportunity evaluation remains somewhat unclear. Prior research
suggests that the impact of stereotype threat may be via different pathways: (a) physiological responses that directly impinge
prefrontal processing, (b) tendency to actively monitor performance, and (c) self-regulation efforts (Schmader et al., 2008). It is
possible that one or more of these processes are triggered when people are evaluating new opportunities. It is also possible that
other affective, cognitive, and physiological processes overlooked or ignored in prior research may be set in motion by stereotype
threat (Smith, 2006). As Schmader (2001) noted, stereotype threat appears to be a multifaceted experience that does not lend
itself to one phenomenological explanation. Furthermore, individuals are also unaware of the processes through which stereotype
threat shapes their aspirations and behaviors (McGlone and Pfiester, 2007). Entrepreneurship scholarship would be advanced if
researchers were to explore novel approaches that shed light on the subliminal processes through which stereotype threat effects
actualize in different settings.
Criticisms of experimental studies in the social sciences often fault them for their artificiality or, in more sophisticated terms, for
their lack of external validity (Colquitt, 2008). Generalizing results from our experimental contextwhether it be university students
completing the survey in response to instructor request or M Turk respondents participating for financial incentiveto the real world
of ordinary people engaged in their daily lives requires caution (Mason & Watts, 2009). When business opportunities are evaluated in
the real world serious financial, professional, political, and social stakes may be involved that cannot possibly be adequately captured
using hypothetical tasks in an experimental setting created for research purposes (Gupta and Turban, 2012). Examining the role of
stereotype threat in generating and reinforcing differences between men and women in opportunity evaluation in the real world
would significantly advance the knowledge base in this area.
A final limitation pertains to our focus on a business opportunity with commercial potential for evaluation. This selection was
driven by the knowledge that most theoretical and empirical research related to the opportunity-construct concentrate on those
that generate economic value (Fauchart and Gruber, 2011). It is not clear how results would be different if the focus were to shift
to evaluation of social opportunities, that is, assessment of ideas for creating social value (Hechavarria et al., 2012). It is possible
that when opportunities are bereft of economic benefits and focused on social change, men and women may automatically invoke
a feminine frame (Calas et al., 2009), especially in societies that emphasize environmental preservation and sustainability above
material success (Hofstede, 1998). There is considerable interest in social entrepreneurship and the opportunities for social
change that exist around the globe (Zahra et al., 2008). Studies that explore the role of stereotype threat in evaluating social
opportunities and examine the operation of gendered ideologies in the field of social entrepreneurship are needed to shed light in
this area.
7. Conclusion
Our research highlights the contextual influence of stereotype threat on evaluations of new business opportunities. We find
that salience of masculine stereotypical information boosts men's opportunity evaluation, and that this advantage can be
transferred to women through highlighting feminine entrepreneurial characteristics. Thus, simply changing the stereotype in a
particular situation can create a situational predicament that encourages women and discourages men with regard to evaluating
new business opportunities. When contextual factors such as stereotypical information made salient in a situation influences
evaluation of new business opportunity as we found, it suggests that stereotype threat is one mechanism to explain gender
differences in opportunity evaluation. Notably, it is possible to reduce and alleviate these gender differences by presenting
appropriate gender stereotypical information. The empirical support we found in the US and Turkey enhances confidence in the
cross-cultural generalizability of stereotype threat predictions. We hope that future studies will direct greater attention to the role
of stereotype threat in shaping gender differences in entrepreneurship.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of the action editor, Jennifer Jennings, and three anonymous reviewers. We also
appreciate the comments and suggestions provided by Daniel Turban, Francis Yammarino, Chris Robert, Alice Wieland, Sandra
Mortal, Alka Gupta, and Nachiket Bhawe at various points in this project. Of course, all mistakes and errors remain our own.
Appendix A. Masculine stereotype manipulation article (Turkish version)
Vehbi Koc and Nejat Eczacibasi: Go Get 'em! Entrepreneurs Show Characteristics of Turkish Masculinity, Bogazici Study Shows
by Deniz Ozturk.
Over the last couple of decades, there has been a renewed interest in pursuing an entrepreneurial path. As more and more big
corporations lay off employees, experienced employees and new graduates find starting their own business a more attractive and
viable career option. How does one know if they have what it takes to start a business? There are a few things all successful
entrepreneurs have in common. One does not have to have all these characteristics to be a good candidate for entrepreneurship,
but it probably wouldn't hurt.
1. Entrepreneurs are aggressive: Entrepreneurs are born fighters and have aggression in their blood. As one successful
entrepreneur famously said I wanted to become an entrepreneur and if I had to step on somebody to become successful, I
swear to God I was ready to stomp on the guy. They will do anything to achieve their objective.
2. Entrepreneurs are risk-takers: Entrepreneurs take risks by launching new ventures under great uncertainty and, often, with
limited resources. Not only this, most successful entrepreneurs tend to engage in risk-taking activities even outside business.
For example, one successful entrepreneur likes to go bungee jumping, another has a passion for high-speed all-terrain motor
bike racing, and yet another gets an adrenalin rush by hunting for sharks.
3. Entrepreneurs are autonomous: Entrepreneurs do not count on getting support from others and believes that everybody is
looking out for themselves. They believe that they alone control their destiny and no one else can tell them what to do or how
to do it. I do not have any supporting family or friends. The credit for what I have goes only to me and no one else is what
many successful entrepreneurs claim.
A recent study by researchers led by Professor Deniz Ozturk at Bogazici University shows that most entrepreneurs possess
these three characteristics to a large extent and these characteristics help entrepreneurs succeed in their businesses. The research
findings were not surprising, Ozturk said, as they confirmed what Turks have believed all along- So far as entrepreneurship is
concerned, it pays to have masculine characteristics. The study will appear in an upcoming issue of International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Education.
Notes (not included in the experiment):
1. Deniz Ozturk is a gender-neutral Turkish name used in all four manipulation articles in the experiment. Bogazici University is
considered one of the best institutions for higher education in Turkey.
2. Vehbi Koc and Nejat Eczacibasi are two well-known male Turkish entrepreneurs. The feminine stereotype article used the
names of two well-known female Turkish entrepreneursArzuhan Dogan Yalcindag and Guler Sabanci. The phrase Go Get
'em was replaced with In touch with their feelings in the feminine condition.
3. One male (Vehbi Koc) and one female (Guler Sabanci) example was mentioned in the gender-neutral article.
Appendix B. Short case for opportunity evaluation (Turkish version)
Umit Dogan is a successful retired executive with over four decades of experience in top management positions of many highly
successful companies. Umit now spends time encouraging young people around the world start new businesses. Umit believes
that guiding and mentoring young people will help them start their own business.
Umit has an idea for a new business and has already asked around to see if it is a good idea. Some associates and other experts
who are quite knowledgeable about the business have given very positive feedback on the idea. Umit does not believe in-depth
research will help find out any new information about the challenges and problems associated with starting this business and
published data are too general to be useful. However, based on the positive feedback from people, Umit believes that this idea has
tremendous potential and this business can bring tremendous success to those who are willing to work for it. Umit is enthusiastic
about the business and feels that it is the perfect opportunity for a young person interested in starting a new business.
There are a few large businesses in the same industry but they have not targeted the market segment that Umit is aiming for.
This segment of the population certainly needs this product. Umit is unsure whether the market is still growing or matured. If the
market has reached maturity, it is likely for a new business to be squeezed out of the market. If the market is still growing, the
new business will be able to survive the entry of large companies into this market segment. Umit believes that there are only a
few small businesses that are still surviving in this part of the industry.
Umit estimates it will take at least TRY 150,000 to finance the new business. As Umit has only TRY 40,000 in savings, the rest of
the investment funds will have to be borrowed from the bank or partners. The local government and some regional banks have
already agreed to provide some support for the venture, provided the person starting it has the right attributes and qualities to
take this responsibility.
Notes (not included in the experiment):
1. The case is adapted from Keh et al. (2002)
2. Umit Dogan is a gender-neutral Turkish name.
3. TRY is short for Turkish Lira, currency of Turkey since 2005. At the current exchange rate, 1TRY = .55 USD.
4. This case is written in a way that encourages respondents to enter into the spirit of the case, and identify themselves with the
dilemmas that the character faces (Keh et al., 2002: 133).
Appendix C. Short case for opportunity evaluation (US experiment)
Chris Smith was the first employee at a small firm Hova Inc. when it started two years ago. Chris joined the company
immediately after finishing the bachelors program at a public university and has since worked very closely with the Hova founder.
Chris is responsible for developing new products at Hova. A new product offering developed by Chris has received positive
feedback from colleagues and friends. Many customers have shown great interest in the new offering and expressed a willingness
to pay a higher price for this product than for the existing product. Since only minor additional investment costs are necessary,
profitability is likely to increase. For a more detailed market analysis, however, resources are missing. Publicly available data are
too general to derive sound conclusions on how successful the product variation could be. Nevertheless, Chris is confident that
high returns can be achieved. However, sales and returns of the existing product are easier to forecast than the corresponding
numbers for the new product offering.
To date, Chris has not found any company which already offers the product variation. However, it is likely that other
companies in the industry will follow the first mover in offering the new product if entry barriers are not erected. Chris has also
been unable to figure out the size of the potential market. It is also unclear how the market will develop in the next months and
years. It may be expected that the market demand will at least be similar to, if not greater than, the demand for the existing
product.
Chris expects that the final development and introduction of the new product will cost about USD 50,000. Hova is interested in
taking the product to market but is tight on liquidity. Chris too does not have immediate access to personal funds for this amount.
It is clear that money will be an issue in developing the offering further and external funding or loan will be needed for this
purpose.
Note (not included in the experiment):
1. Adapted from Grichnik et al. (2010)

2. Chris Smith is a gender-neutral American name.
3. This case is written in a way that encourages respondents to enter into the spirit of the case, and identify themselves with the
dilemmas that the character faces (Keh et al., 2002: 133).
References
Ahl, H., 2006. Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30 (5), 595621.
Ahl, A., 2007. Sex business in the toy store: a narrative analysis of a teaching case. Journal of Business Venturing 22, 673693.
Arndt, M., Bigelow, B., 2005. Professionalizing and masculinizing a female occupation: the reconceptualization of hospital administration in the early 1990s.
Administrative Science Quarterly 50, 233261.
Aronson, J., Steele, C.M., 2005. Stereotypes and the fragility of academic competence motivation, and self-concept. In: Elliot, A.J., Dweck, C.S. (Eds.), Handbook of
Competence and Motivation. The Guilford Press, NY, pp. 436456.
Aronson, J., Lustina, M.J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C.M., Brown, J., 1999. When white men can't do math: necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35, 2946.
Ashe, F., Treanor, L., 2011. Situating the subject: gender and entrepreneurship in international contexts. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 3,
185199.
Ashmore, R.D., Del Boca, F.K., 1981. Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and stereotyping. In: Hamilton, D.L. (Ed.), Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and
Intergroup Behavior. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 135.
Baker, T., Aldag, R., Blair, E., 2003. Gender and entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 23, 689702.
Bargh, J.A., Chen, M., Burrows, L., 1996. Automaticity of social behavior: direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 71, 230244.
Baron, R.A., 1998. Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: why and when entrepreneurs think differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing 12,
275294.
Baron, R.A., Ward, T.B., 2004. Expanding entrepreneurial cognition's toolbox: potential contributions from the field of cognitive science. Entrepreneurship Theory
& Practice 28, 553573.
Baughn, C.C., Chua, B.L., Neupert, K.E., 2006. The normative context for women's participation in entrepreneurship: a multicountry study. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 30, 687708.
Bergeron, D.M., Block, C.J., Echtenkamp, A., 2006. Disabling the able: stereotype threat and women's work performance. Human Performance 19, 133158.
Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., 1982. External validity is more than skin deep. Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments. The American Psychologist
37, 245257.
Bird, B., Brush, C., 2002. A gendered perspective on organizational creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 26 (3), 4165.
Bodenhausen, G.V., Macrae, C.N., 1998. On social judgment and social justice: further reflections on stereotyping and its avoidance. In: Wyer Jr., R.S. (Ed.),
Stereotype Activation and Inhibition: Advances in Social Cognition, vol. 11. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 243256.
Bradley, H., 1993. Across the great divide. In: Williams, C.L. (Ed.), Doing Woman's Work. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 1027.
Calas, M.B., Smircich, L., Bourbe, K.A., 2009. Extending the boundaries: reframing entrepreneurship as social change through feminist perspectives. Academy of
Management Review 34, 552569.
Cetindamar, D., Gupta, V.K., Karadeniz, E.E., Egrican, N., 2012. What the numbers tell: the impact of human, family and financial capital on women and men's entry
into entrepreneurship in Turkey. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 24, 2951.
Chiles, T.H., Bluedorn, A.C., Gupta, V.K., 2007. Beyond creative destruction and entrepreneurial discovery: a radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship.
Organization Studies 28, 467493.
Cliff, J.E., Langton, N., Aldrich, H.E., 2005. Walking the talk: gendered rhetoric vs. action in small firms. Organization Studies 26, 6391.
Colquitt, J.A., 2008. Publishing laboratory research in AMJ: a question of when, not if. Academy of Management Journal 51, 616620.
Croizet, J.C., Claire, T., 1998. Extending the concept of stereotype threat to social class: the intellectual underperformance of students from low socioeconomic
backgrounds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24 (6), 588594.
Cullen, M.J., Hardison, C.M., Sackett, P.R., 2004. Using SAT-grade and abilityjob performance relationships to test predictions derived from stereotype threat
theory. The Journal of Applied Psychology 89, 220230.
Davies, P.G., Spencer, S.J., Quinn, D.M., Gerhardstein, R., 2002. Consuming images: how television commercials that elicit stereotype threat can restrain women
academically and professionally. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, 16151628.
De Bruin, A., Brush, C., Welter, F., 2006. Introduction to the special issue: towards building cumulative knowledge on women's entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice 31 (3), 323339.
De Bruin, A., Brush, C., Welter, F., 2007. Advancing a framework for coherent research on women entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 31 (3),
323339.
DeTienne, D., Chandler, G., 2007. The role of gender in opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31 (3), 365.
Devine, P.G., 1989. Stereotypes and prejudices. Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56, 518.
Diaz-Garcia, M.C., Jimnez-Moreno, J., 2010. Entrepreneurial intention; The role of gender. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 6, 261283.
Eagly, A.H., Steffen, V.J., 1984. Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46
(4), 735754.
Eckhardt, J., Shane, S., 2003. The importance of opportunities to entrepreneurship. Journal of Management 29 (3), 333349.
Erikkson, K., Lindholm, T., 2007. Making gender matter: the role of gender-based expectancies and gender identification on women's and men's math
performance in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 48, 329338.
Eriksson, K., Simpson, B., 2010. Emotional reactions to losing explain gender differences in entering a risky lottery. Judgment and Decision Making 5, 159163.
Ettl, K., Welter, F., 2010. How female entrepreneurs learn and acquire (business-relevant) knowledge. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business 10, 6582.
Fauchart, E., Gruber, M., 2011. Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: the role of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal
54, 935957.
Fiske, S.T., Taylor, S.E., 1991. Social cognition, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Fondas, N., 1996. Feminization at work: career implications. In: Arthur, M.B., Rousseau, D.M. (Eds.), The Boundaryless Career: A New Employment Principle for a
New Organizational Era. Mc-Graw Hill Book Company, New York, NY, pp. 282294.
Goff, P.A., Steele, C.M., Davies, P.G., 2008. The space between us: stereotype threat and distance in interracial contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
94, 91107.
Goktan, A.B., Gunay, G., 2011. Is entrepreneurial cognition culturally bound? A comparative study conducted in Turkey and United States. Journal of Small
Business & Entrepreneurship 24, 455470.
Gonzalez-Alvarez, N., Solis-Rodriguez, V., 2011. Discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities: a gender perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems 111,
755775.
Greene, A., Ackers, P., Black, J., 2002. Going against the historical grain: perspectives on gendered occupational identity and resistance to the breakdown of
occupational segregation in two manufacturing firms. Gender, Work and Organization 9, 266285.
Greene, F.J., Han, L., Marlow, S., 2011. Like mother, like daughter? Analyzing maternal influences upon women's entrepreneurial propensity. Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice 35, 125.
Gregoire, D.A., Shepherd, D.A., 2012. Technologymarket combinations and the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities: an investigation of the
opportunity-individual nexus. Academy of Management Journal 55, 753786.
Gregoire, D.A., Shepherd, D.A., Lambert, L.S., 2010. Measuring opportunityrecognition beliefs. Illustrating and validating an experimental approach. Organizational
Research Methods 13, 114145.
Grichnik, D., Smeja, A., Welpe, I., 2010. The importance of being emotional: how do emotions affect entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation and exploitation?
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 76, 1529.
Gupta, V.K., Fernandez, C., 2009. Cross-cultural similarities and differences in characteristics attributed to entrepreneurs: a three nation study. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies 15 (3), 304318.
Gupta, V.K., Turban, D., 2012. Evaluation of new business ideas: do gender stereotypes play a role? Journal of Managerial Issues 24 (2), 140156.
Gupta, V.K., Turban, D.B., Bhawe, N.M., 2008. The effect of gender stereotype assimilation and reactance on entrepreneurial intentions. The Journal of Applied
Psychology 93 (5), 10531061.
Gupta, V.K., Turban, D., Wasti, S.A., Sikdar, A., 2009. The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 33 (2), 397417.
Hanson, S., Blake, M., 2005. Changing the gender of entrepreneurship. In: Nelson, L., Seager, J. (Eds.), A Companion to Feminist Geography. Blackwell Publishing,
Malden, MA, pp. 179193.
Haslam, S.A., Ryan, M.K., 2008. The road to the glass cliff: differences in the perceived suitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and
failing organizations. The Leadership Quarterly 19, 530546.
Haynie, J.M., Shepherd, D.A., McMullen, J.S., 2009. An opportunity for me? The role of resources in opportunity evaluation decisions. Journal of Management
Studies 46, 337361.
Hechavarria, D.M., Ingram, A., Justo, R., Terjesen, S., 2012. Are women more likely to pursue social and environmental entrepreneurship? In: Hughes, K.D.,
Jennings, J.E. (Eds.), Global Women's Entrepreneurship Research: Diverse Settings, Questions, and Approaches. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 135151.
Heilman, M.E., 1983. Sex bias in work settings: the lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior 5, 269298.
Heilman, M.E., 1997. Sex discrimination and the affirmative action remedy: the role of sex stereotypes. Journal of Business Ethics 16 (9), 877889.
Heilman, M.E., Chen, J.J., 2003. Entrepreneurship as a solution: the allure of self-employment for women and minorities. Human Resource Management Review
13, 347364.
Hisrich, R., Langan-Fox, J., Grant, S., 2007. Entrepreneurship research and practice: a call to action for psychology. The American Psychologist 62 (6), 575589.
Hofstede, G., 1998. Masculinity/femininity as a dimension of culture. In: Hofstede, G. (Ed.), Masculinity and Femininity: The Taboo Dimension of National Culture.
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 328.
Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Holt, C.L., Ellis, J.B., 1998. Assessing the current validity of the Bem-sex role inventory. Sex Roles 39, 929941.
Horton, J.J., Rand, D.G., Zeckhauser, R.J., 2011. The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics 14 (3), 399425.
Huget, P., Regner, I., 2007. Stereotype threat among schoolgirls in quasi-ordinary classroom circumstances. Journal of Educational Psychology 99 (3), 545560.
Hughes, K.D., Jennings, J.E., Brush, C., Carter, S., Welter, F., 2012. Extending women's entrepreneurship research in new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory &
Practice 36, 429442.
Hull, J.G., Slone, L.B., Meteyer, K.B., Matthews, A.R., 2002. The nonconsciousness of self-consciousness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83 (2),
406424.
Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D.A., Cushman, F., 2012. Benefiting from misfortune: when harmless actions are judged to be morally blameworthy. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin 38, 5262.
James, A., 2012. Conceptualizing woman as an entrepreneurial advantage: a reflexive approach. In: Hughes, K.D., Jennings, J.E. (Eds.), Global Women's
Entrepreneurship Research: Diverse Settings, Questions, and Approaches. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 226240.
Jamieson, J.P., Harkins, S.G., 2007. Mere effort and stereotype threat performance effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93, 544564.
Jennings, J.E., McDougald, M.S., 2007. Work-family interface experiences and coping strategies: implications for entrepreneurship research and practice. Academy
of Management Review 32, 747760.
Johns, M., Inzlicht, M., Schmader, T., 2008. Stereotype threat and executive resource depletion: examining the influence of emotion regulation. Journal of
Experimental Psychology 137, 691705.
Judge, T.A., Livingston, B.A., 2008. Is the gap more than gender: a longitudinal analysis of gender, gender role orientation, and earnings. The Journal of Applied
Psychology 93, 9941012.
Kabasakal, H., Bodur, M., 2002. Arabic cluster: a bridge between East and West. Journal of World Business 37, 4054.
Karadeniz, E., 2012. Entrepreneurship in Turkey 2010: The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Babson College, Boston (MA).
Karlin, C.A., England, P., Richardson, M., 2002. Why do women's jobs have low pay for their educational level. Gender Issues 20, 323.
Keh, H.T., Foo, M.D., Lim, B.C., 2002. Opportunity evaluation under risky conditions: the cognitive processes of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice
27 (2), 125149.
Kelley, D.J., Brush, C.G., Greene, P.G., Litovsky, Y., 2011. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2010 Women's Report. Babson College and Universidad del
Desarrollo.
Kinyanjui, M.N., 2008. From home to jua kali enterprise success: entrepreneurship and gender identity. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business 5, 401411.
Langowitz, N., Minniti, M., 2007. The entrepreneurial propensity of women. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 31 (3), 341364.
Lesko, A.C., Corpus, J.H., 2006. Discounting the difficult: how high math-identified women respond to stereotype threat. Sex Roles 54, 113125.
Lewis, P., 2006. The quest for invisibility: female entrepreneurs and the masculine norm of entrepreneurship. Gender, Work and Organization 13, 453469.
Lim, S., Envick, B.R., 2011. Gender and entrepreneurial orientation: a multicountry study. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 7, 115.
Linstead, A., Brewis, J., 2004. Beyond boundaries: towards fluidity in theorising and practice. Gender, Work and Organization 11, 335362.
Marlow, S., 2002. Women and self-employment: a part of or apart from theoretical construct? The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 3, 8391.
Mason, W.A., Watts, D.J., 2009. Financial incentives and the performance of crowds. Association for Computing Machinery Explorations Newsletter 11 (2),
100108.
Mason, W., Suri, S., 2012. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods 44 (1), 123.
Mayer, D.M., Hanges, P.J., 2003. Understanding the stereotype threat effect with culture-free tests: an examination of its mediators and measurement. Human
Performance 16, 207230.
McAdam, M., Marlow, S., 2012. Sectoral segregation or gendered practices? A case study of roles and identities in a copreneurial venture. In: Hughes, K.D.,
Jennings, J.E. (Eds.), Global Women's Entrepreneurship Research: Diverse Settings, Questions, and Approaches. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 189203.
McGlone, M., Pfiester, R.A., 2007. The generality and consequences of stereotype threat. Sociology Compass 1, 174190.
McMullen, J.S., Shepherd, D.A., 2006. Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review 31,
132152.
Mirchandani, K., 1999. Feminist insight on gendered work: new directions in research on women and entrepreneurship. Gender, Work and Organization 6 (4),
224235.
Mitchell, J.R., Shepherd, D.A., 2010. To thine own self be true: images of self, images of opportunity, and entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing 25,
138154.
Mitchell, R.K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P.P., Morse, E.A., Smith, B., 2004. The distinctive and inclusive domain of entrepreneurial cognition research.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28 (6), 505518.
Nguyen, H.D., Ryan, A.M., 2008. Does stereotype threat affect cognitive ability test Performance of minorities and women? A meta-analytic review of experimental
evidence. The Journal of Applied Psychology 93, 13141334.
Nicolau, N., Shane, S., Cherkas, L., Spector, T.D., 2009. Opportunity recognition and the tendency to be an entrepreneur: a bivariate genetics perspective.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 110, 108117.
Ogbor, J.O., 2000. Mythicizing and reification in entrepreneurial discourse: ideology-critique of entrepreneurial studies. Journal of Management Studies 37,
605635.
Ozar, S., Bulutay, T., 2002. An international comparative analysis of gender differences in employment. State Institute of Statistics (SIS), Ankara.
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., Ipeirotis, P.G., 2010. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making 5, 411419.
Pronin, E., Steele, C.M., Ross, L., 2004. Identity bifurcation in response to stereotype threat: women and mathematics. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
40, 152168.
Rae, D., 2009. Entrepreneurship: too risky to let loose in a stormy climate. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 10, 137141.
Reskin, B.F., 1990. Culture, commerce, and gender: the feminization of book editing. In: Reskin, B.F., Roos, P.A. (Eds.), Job Queues, Gender Queues. Temple
University Press, Philadelphia, pp. 93110.
Rindova, V., Barry, D., Ketchen, D.J., 2009. Entrepreneuring as emancipation. Academy of Management Review 34, 477491.
Roberson, L., Kulik, C.T., 2007. Stereotype threat at work. Academy of Management Perspectives 21, 2440.
Sackett, P.R., 2003. Stereotype threat in applied selection settings: a commentary. Human Performance 16, 295309.
Schmader, T., 2001. Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38,
194201.
Schmader, T., Johns, M., 2003. Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85,
440452.
Schmader, T., Johns, M., Forbes, C., 2008. An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review 115, 336356.
Schumpeter, J., 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Shane, S., Eckhardt, J., 2005. The individual-opportunity nexus. Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research 1, 161191.
Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review 25, 217226.
Shapiro, J.R., Neuberg, S.L., 2007. From stereotype threat to stereotype threats: implications of a multi-threat framework for causes, moderators, mediators,
consequences, and interventions. Personality and Social Psychology Review 11, 107130.
Shinnar, R.S., Giacomin, O., Janssen, F., 2012. Entrepreneurial perceptions and intentions: the role of gender and culture. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 36,
465493.
Short, J.C., Ketchen, D.J., Shook, C.L., Ireland, R.D., 2010. The concept of opportunity in entrepreneurship research: past accomplishments and future challenges.
Journal of Management 36 (1), 4065.
Smith, J.L., 2006. The interplay among stereotypes, performance-avoidance goals, and women's math performance expectations. Sex Roles 54, 287296.
Smith, J.L., Johnson, C.S., 2006. A stereotype boost or choking under pressure? Positive gender stereotypes and men who are low in domain identification. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology 28, 5163.
Smith, J.L., White, P.H., 2002. An examination of implicitly activated, explicitly activated, and nullified stereotypes on mathematical performance: it's not just a
female's issue. Sex Roles 47, 179191.
Snyder, M., Miene, P., 1994. On the functions of stereotypes and prejudices. In: Zanna, M.P., Olson, J.M. (Eds.), The Psychology of Prejudice: The Ontario
Symposium. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Spencer, B., Castano, E., 2007. Social class is dead. Long live social class! Stereotype threat among low socioeconomic status individuals. Social Justice Research 20,
418432.
Spencer, S.J., Steele, C.M., Quinn, D.M., 1999. Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 3, 428.
Spencer, S.J., Zanna, M.P., Fong, G.T., 2005. Establishing a causal chain: why experiments are often more effective than meditational analysis in examining
psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89, 845851.
Sprouse, J., 2011. A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods 43,
155167.
Steele, C.M., 1997. A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape the intellectual identities and performance of women and African-Americans. The American
Psychologist 52, 613629.
Steele, J., 1998. Stereotyping and its threat are real. The American Psychologist 53, 680681.
Stone, J., Lynch, C., Sjomeling, M., Darley, J.M., 1999. Stereotype threat effects on black and white athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 77, 12131227.
Strober, M.H., Arnold, C.L., 1987. The dynamics of occupational segregation among bank tellers. In: Brown, C., Pechman, J.A. (Eds.), Gender in the Workplace.
Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 107154.
Thebaud, S., 2010. Gender and entrepreneurship as a career choice: do self-assessments of ability matter? Social Psychology Quarterly 73, 288304.
Venkataraman, S., 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: an editor's perspective. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and
Growth 3, 119138.
White, R.E., Thornhill, S., Hampson, E., 2006. Entrepreneurs and evolutionary biology: the relationship between testosterone and new venture creation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 100, 2134.
Zacharakis, A., Shepherd, D., 2001. The nature of information and overconfidence on venture capitalists' decision making. Journal of Business Venturing 16,
311332.
Zahra, S.A., Rawhouser, H.N., Bhawe, N., Neubaum, D.O., Hayton, J.C., 2008. Globalization of social entrepreneurship opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal 2, 117131.

Gender Differences in Evaluation of New Business Opportunity

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Gender Differences in Evaluation of New Business Opportunity

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Journal of Business Venturing 29 (2014) 273288

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Venturing

Gender differences in evaluation of new business opportunity: A stereotype

3. Theory and hypotheses

3.1. Presentation of masculine and feminine stereotypical information

3.2. Presentation of gender-neutral stereotypical information

Data collected from business students in Turkey (Experiment 1)

Data collected from M Turk participants in the United States (Experiment 2)

4.1.3. Analyses and results

4.2.3. Analyses and results

6. Limitations and directions for future research

Appendix A. Masculine stereotype manipulation article (Turkish version)

Appendix B. Short case for opportunity evaluation (Turkish version)

Appendix C. Short case for opportunity evaluation (US experiment)

Note (not included in the experiment):

1. Adapted from Grichnik et al. (2010)

Você também pode gostar