Kalra 1

Ashmit Kalra

Ms. Bocchino

Writing 2

1 May 2024

The Entrepreneurial Mindset: Cognitive Business in Psychology

Achieving a sense of success and accomplishment is a feeling that arguably can’t be

topped by any other, and throughout all of human history, we as people have gone to great

lengths to feel some type of intrinsic victory. As a part of human nature, the pursuit of success

through passion and dedication allows for us to grow as individuals, and it’s important to

understand how our minds are framed when we work to achieve success. In particular, the

“economic” way of thinking, also known as the entrepreneurial mindset, has been analyzed in

many disciplines as a guiding factor in how people succeed, specifically in the disciplines of

business & psychology. In the business-related article “Unraveling the Entrepreneurial Mindset,”

authors Donald F. Kuratko, Greg Fisher, and David B. Audretsch attempt to literally unravel the

concept of the entrepreneurial mindset and what exactly it is. Conversely, from the discipline of

psychology, the article “A Mind for Money: Dynamic Mindset Effects on Smart Risk Taking”

involves authors Johanna Rahn, Alexander Jaudas, and Anja Achtziger writing about the

connection between this mindset and success levels from risk-taking behavior based on a

real-life study. These articles both talk about the cognitive connection to success from the

entrepreneurial mindset, but are from two different yet interconnected academic perspectives.

The business-related article provides conceptual frameworks as the authors aim to define the key

aspects of the entrepreneurial mindset, while the psychology-related article provides an actual

study from the scholars where they test a connection between the participants’ type of mindset
 Kalra 2

and their success rates in the field. Thus, these two articles showcase the difference between

these two disciplines, given that the business research provides a deeper understanding of what

the entrepreneurial mindset is, while the psychological research discusses real-life implications

of how this way of thinking works. Moreover, they also represent the difference in the scholarly

communities they create, as disciplinary differences can translate to how researchers in business

work in understanding current ways of thinking and analyzing what these concepts are for the

business world, while researchers in psychology work in advancing and furthering these

understandings through testing hypotheses and conducting studies.

Firstly, the entrepreneurial mindset as a concept by itself is initially discussed and

introduced differently in each of the two articles, particularly in the sense that the business article

talks about the mindset from an entrepreneurial, business-driven standpoint, while the

psychology article talks about it from a study-driven perspective and what the real-life effects of

adopting an entrepreneurial mindset are. This shows the difference between the disciplines as

looking at causes vs. effects when analyzing the link between growth mindsets and success. The

business authors introduce their article with how entrepreneurship contributes to success directly

and focus on analyzing the causal part of this link, highlighting other aspects such as innovation

and organizational cultures that can be seen as a direct cause of success in the business world.

Meanwhile, the psychologists introduce their article with risk-taking activities and success rates

that come from having a growth mindset, analyzing the effects of this connection. Authors Rahn,

Jaudas, and Achtziger write in their psychology article, “A Mind for Money: Dynamic Mindset

Effects on Smart Risk Taking,” about how “the [entrepreneurial] mindset has been found to

generate positive illusions of personal control and to reduce the perceived level of vulnerability
 Kalra 3

to risks.”1 In this quote, the authors emphasize the effects of the entrepreneurial mindset and the

implications of this that have shown up in general psychological studies. While their study

includes different types of mindsets (implemental and deliberative), their hypothesis is based on

the results that they’ve generally seen in case studies before, setting the stage for the ring-toss

game study that they conduct as they’re looking to specify a difference in the effects of different

mindsets on risk-taking, rather than focusing their article solely on the distinct attributes from

these mindsets. On the other hand, authors Kuratko, Fisher, and Audretsch of the business article

“Unraveling the Entrepreneurial Mindset” write about what they believe the entrepreneurial

mindset to be – a cause of success, which is demonstrated in the psychological studies. Looking

at the cause rather than the effects, they open up the article by talking about entrepreneurship and

business ventures as a whole, such as how “[i]nnovation is critical to entrepreneurship

(Schumpeter 1942) and a primary instrument of competition for many firms.”2 This is

demonstrative of how business scholars take the more conceptual approach and refine their

understandings of the business world, seeing how other scholars approach this mindset and using

their own cognition to create a new lens, while psychologists build off of past studies to conduct

new ones with their knowledge and the research they have access to.

Past / current research in the entrepreneurial mindset is also shown differently between

these two articles and disciplines – the authors of the business article simply examine the

entrepreneurial mindset with three key elements of ways of thinking, while the authors of the

psychology article take a broader approach and discuss a difference in implemental (growth

mindset, which can be inferred to as entrepreneurial) and deliberative mindsets. The authors

1
Johanna Rahn, Alexander Jaudas, and Anja Achtziger, “A Mind for Money: Dynamic Mindset Effects on Smart
Risk Taking,” Journal of neuroscience, psychology, and economics 9, no. 3–4 (2016): 146.
2
Donald F. Kuratko, Greg Fisher, and David B. Audretsch, “Unraveling the Entrepreneurial Mindset,” Small
business economics 57, no. 4 (2021): 1681.
 Kalra 4

interpret past research differently given that the business scholars analyze one single mindset and

break it down with multiple lenses, while the psychologists compare and contrast multiple

mindsets to see their differences rather than solely focusing on one. This can then be viewed as a

difference in the two disciplines and scholarly communities, seeing how the business authors

derive subcategories from a single way of thinking vs. how the psychology authors analyze

multiple ways of thinking and compare. The main argument from the business scholars is that the

entrepreneurial mindset should be viewed holistically through three lenses: the cognitive,

behavioral, and emotional aspects. They note that past research / concepts involve looking at the

mindset through only one lens, and they emphasize now that that should no longer be the case.

For example, when looking at prior research on entrepreneurial cognition, they wrote that “it

remain[ed] less clear as to how this “cognitive difference” [led] to entrepreneurs’ efforts and

actions,” which became one of the reasons they wrote the article.3 This “cognitive difference” is

the concept they believe in that entrepreneurs think differently than other individuals, but they

noticed how prior research didn’t explain much of this, so they decided to elaborate on this

cognitive aspect of entrepreneurial thinking. With this, they elaborated on a subcategory of this

mindset, while comparatively, the authors of the psychology article analyzed multiple categories

of mindsets. Those scholars wrote about how “in comparison to the deliberative mindset, there is

evidence that an implemental state of mind can lead to more effective goal striving and better

performance outcomes” when analyzing past research.4 This highlights past studies and what

previous researchers have “discovered” about growth mindsets. The topic of mindsets in general

can be considered a widely studied topic in psychology, and the way that the authors write about

3
Donald F. Kuratko, Greg Fisher, and David B. Audretsch, “Unraveling the Entrepreneurial Mindset,” Small
business economics 57, no. 4 (2021): 1683.
4
Johanna Rahn, Alexander Jaudas, and Anja Achtziger, “A Mind for Money: Dynamic Mindset Effects on Smart
Risk Taking,” Journal of neuroscience, psychology, and economics 9, no. 3–4 (2016): 146.
 Kalra 5

a variety of mindsets and the advantages of one vs. how business scholars focus on the variety of

features of a single mindset showcases a difference in these disciplines and scholarly

communities.

With the methodology of the scholars’ research, it’s evident that the psychological article

involves a much more statistical approach and a testing of hypotheses to deduce information

from conducting a study, while the business article simply provides a refined understanding of

past research in entrepreneurship. Because of this difference in methodology, the articles show a

gap in between the research in these disciplines where psychology seems to be more engaged in

research to derive new findings that future studies can develop off of, while studies in business

seem to simply be advancing already-known theoretical concepts, but simply creating a new lens

from different scholars. The business scholars make their argument by “consolidating and

integrating ideas from across diverse literatures that make reference to the entrepreneurial

mindset,” which can be interpreted as refining past understandings of the world and contributing

new pieces of knowledge to readers.5 This can best represent the entrepreneurship community

with the integration of mass media, such as rising podcasts that aim to teach people about

business strategies and entrepreneurship books such as “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” being written. On

the other hand, the psychologists here are testing their hypothesis by carrying out a real-life study

with participants through which conditions can be set so results can come out as causation, not

just correlation. Compared to just consolidating ideas, the bulk of the psychology article is about

their ring-toss game study, as the scholars write how “this method of using a game with the goal

of hitting a peg with a ring, was chosen because it would allow us to investigate the findings of

McClelland and Watson (1973) regarding the possible effects of high achievement motivation on

5
Donald F. Kuratko, Greg Fisher, and David B. Audretsch, “Unraveling the Entrepreneurial Mindset,” Small
business economics 57, no. 4 (2021): 1682.
 Kalra 6

risk taking and performance.”6 They elaborate on the specifics of their study with logistics, from

the 91 participants involved to hit rates in the three tested groups. The presence of a study and

logistics themselves shows a key difference in the disciplines and these articles, but the quote

also says that they were investigating past research, which can then be interpreted as there being

a similarity given that both groups of scholars are refining past findings in their own lens to

answer their research questions, and that the main difference is just the methodology.

The findings of these articles can be seen as what brings these disciplines together and

achieving some form of similarity in research, as the authors of both articles write how a growth

mindset is linked to success, from looking at theoretical concepts and making general

assumptions to interpreting results of a mindset-based study. There is still a “difference” in the

similarity given that the same findings are derived from different observations, as the business

approach is, again, more conceptual while the psychology approach is more statistical,

showcasing again the difference in the disciplines and their scholarly communities. The business

scholars’ main findings involved how the entrepreneurial mindset should not be seen through

just one lens anymore in entrepreneurial research. Their conceptual view involves “propos[ing] a

unified view of what constitutes the entrepreneurial mindset — thoughts, action, and feelings,”

as opposed to entrepreneurs simply having unique thoughts, actions, or feelings.7 The scholars

reiterate and redefine a previous concept of success being linked to a growth mindset, and show

how the business community creates observations on top of previous observations to further

understand how our world works. On the other hand, the psychologists completed their study and

found a great amount of evidence for that same link, as they conclude by saying their study

6
Johanna Rahn, Alexander Jaudas, and Anja Achtziger, “A Mind for Money: Dynamic Mindset Effects on Smart
Risk Taking,” Journal of neuroscience, psychology, and economics 9, no. 3–4 (2016): 146.
7
Donald F. Kuratko, Greg Fisher, and David B. Audretsch, “Unraveling the Entrepreneurial Mindset,” Small
business economics 57, no. 4 (2021): 1688.
 Kalra 7

“suggested that implemental participants are prone to smart risk taking and therefore should

choose medium to high risks, perform well, and earn higher profits than control participants.

Meanwhile, we expected deliberative participants to shy away from risk taking, choose lower

risks and perform worse than the control group, and have lower profits than participants in the

control condition and the implementation mindset condition.”8 Compared to the conceptual

approach from the business scholars, this full-blown study was able to prove their own

hypothesis and support that generalized success-growth mindset link with statistically significant

evidence. Interpreting data from multiple variables such as risk, hit rates, profits, and

win/stay/lose indicators, this shows how there’s a huge difference in the way these disciplines

analyzed the entrepreneurial mindset, but were still able to come out with the same findings.

Ultimately, this represents how these scholarly communities were able to create a sense of shared

knowledge and outcomes from different approaches.

The analysis of the entrepreneurial mindset, regardless of the discipline it’s being

examined through, still leads to the same findings – that success is a direct outcome of having an

entrepreneurial mindset, and we can find success in all areas of our lives if we adopt a

growth-based way of thinking. But, despite shared findings, the different approaches from the

two articles showcase a difference in the two disciplines of business and psychology, given that

the researchers in business examined theoretical concepts about entrepreneurship and refined

them under a new lens, while the psychologists carried out a real-life study and tested their

knowledge with hypotheses and interpreting new results. Thus, these differences also represent

how the scholarly communities from these disciplines differ, as business-related analysis

redefines the what of the subject while the psychological analysis refines the how. With all of

8
Johanna Rahn, Alexander Jaudas, and Anja Achtziger, “A Mind for Money: Dynamic Mindset Effects on Smart
Risk Taking,” Journal of neuroscience, psychology, and economics 9, no. 3–4 (2016): 147.
 Kalra 8

this in mind, perhaps the most important takeaway is that combining research across more than

just one discipline can lead to even more substantial findings, and looking at different

perspectives holistically can further contribute to the understanding of our world today.
 Kalra 9

References

Kuratko, Donald F., Greg Fisher, and David B. Audretsch. “Unraveling the Entrepreneurial

Mindset.” Small business economics 57, no. 4 (2021): 1681–1691.

Rahn, Johanna, Alexander Jaudas, and Anja Achtziger. “A Mind for Money: Dynamic

Mindset Effects on Smart Risk Taking.” Journal of neuroscience, psychology, and

economics 9, no. 3–4 (2016): 145–156.