The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
We Ask Men to Win and Women Not to Lose: Closing the Gender Gap in Startup Funding
Abstract
Male entrepreneurs are known to raise higher levels of funding than their female counterparts, but the underlying mechanism for this funding disparity remains contested. Drawing upon regulatory focus theory, we propose that the gap originates with a gender bias in the questions that investors pose to entrepreneurs. A field study conducted on question-and-answer interactions at TechCrunch Disrupt New York City during 2010 through 2016 reveals that investors tend to ask male entrepreneurs promotion-focused questions and female entrepreneurs prevention-focused questions, and that entrepreneurs tend to respond with matching regulatory focus. This distinction in the regulatory focus of investor questions and entrepreneur responses results in divergent funding outcomes for entrepreneurs whereby those asked promotion-focused questions raise significantly higher amounts of funding than those asked prevention-focused questions. We demonstrate that every additional prevention-focused question significantly hinders the entrepreneur’s ability to raise capital, fully mediating gender’s effect on funding. By experimentally testing an intervention, we find that entrepreneurs can significantly increase funding for their startups when responding to prevention-focused questions with promotion-focused answers. As we offer evidence regarding tactics that can be employed to diminish the gender disadvantage in funding outcomes, this study has practical as well as theoretical implications for entrepreneurship.
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
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03206553 · Cited by 17,383
Weber, R. (1990) · doi:10.4135/9781412983488 · Cited by 7,750
Higgins, E. T. (1997) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.52.12.1280 · Cited by 6,775
Self-citationWhat do venture capitalists do?
Gorman, M., & Sahlman, W. A. (1989) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/0883-9026(89)90014-1 · Cited by 1,371
Regulatory Focus Theory: Implications for the Study of Emotions at Work
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2972 · Cited by 964
Self-citationKark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2007.24351846 · Cited by 818
Eggers, J. P., & Kaplan, S. (2009) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0401 · Cited by 774 · cited 1×
“1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 outcomes (Eggers & Kaplan, 2009; Nadkarni & Barr, 2008).”
Cited by
Huang, L., Joshi, P., Wakslak, C., & Wu, A. (2021) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2018.1417 · Cited by 116
Self-citationThe sustainable start‐up paradox: Predicting the business and climate performance of start‐ups
Leendertse, J., van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Eveleens, C. P. (2021) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.2667 · Cited by 64
Do (women’s) words matter? The influence of gendered language in entrepreneurial pitching
Balachandra, L., Fischer, K., & Brush, C. (2021) · Journal of Business Venturing Insights · doi:10.1016/j.jbvi.2021.e00224 · Cited by 61
Jachimowicz, J. M., To, C., Agasi, S., Côté, S., & Galinsky, A. D. (2019) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.06.002 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Kanze, D., Huang, L., Conley, M. A., & Higgins, E. T.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Journal
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2018-04
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 586-614
- ISSN
- 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-0989
- OpenAlex
- W2609660963
- Cited by
- 700
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 67.62
- 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: We Ask Men to Win and Women Not to Lose: Closing the Gender Gap in Startup Funding. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5465/amj.2016.1215
- The paper
- Kanze, D., Huang, L., Conley, M. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2018). We Ask Men to Win and Women Not to Lose: Closing the Gender Gap in Startup Funding. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1215
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.