The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review.
Abstract
Research examining the relative risk-taking propensities of entrepreneurs and managers has produced conflicting findings and no consensus, posing an impediment to theory development. To overcome the limitations of narrative reviews, the authors used psychometric meta-analysis to mathematically cumulate the literature concerning risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers. Results indicate that the risk propensity of entrepreneurs is greater than that of managers. Moreover, there are larger differences between entrepreneurs whose primary goal is venture growth versus those whose focus is on producing family income. Results also underscore the importance of precise construct definitions and rigorous measurement.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META‐ANALYSIS
BARRICK, M. R., & MOUNT, M. K. (1991) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x · Cited by 8,689
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043445 · Cited by 3,706
Reconceptualizing the Determinants of Risk Behavior
Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258646 · Cited by 2,057
Risk Taking Propensity of Entrepreneurs.
Brockhaus, R. H. (1980) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/255515 · Cited by 1,733
Cited by
The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265 · Cited by 2,996
Social Entrepreneurship: Why We Don't Need a New Theory and How We Move Forward From Here
Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. (2010) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2010.52842950 · Cited by 1,527
Understanding the Impact of Convergent Validity on Research Results
Carlson, K. D., & Herdman, A. O. (2012) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428110392383 · Cited by 642
Antecedents of trust in the sharing economy: A systematic review
ter Huurne, M., Ronteltap, A., Corten, R., & Buskens, V. (2017) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.1667 · Cited by 456
Looking Toward the Future of IT–Business Strategic Alignment Through the Past: A Meta-Analysis1
Gerow, J. E., Grover, V., Thatcher, J., & Roth, P. L. (2014) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2014/38.4.10 · Cited by 277
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Stewart, W. H., & Roth, P. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2001
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 145-153
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2018330327
- Cited by
- 939
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 19.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.145
- The paper
- Stewart, W. H., & Roth, P. L. (2001). Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.145
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
