The Einstellung effect, mental rigidity and decision-making in startup accelerators
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-06-2020-0079Palavras-chave:
Decision-making, Cognitive biases, Startups, Innovative projects, Einstellung effect, Mental rigidityResumo
Purpose – This paper aims to investigate the decision-making on new ventures of eight directors or
managers of Brazilian accelerators, aiming to understand if the Einstellung effect – mental rigidity – operates
during the judgment of new ventures to accelerate.
Design/methodology/approach – Through a quasi-experiment design, the study was conducted with
directors or managers of Brazilian accelerators, who were separately interviewed and responded to a
psychological test, previously consented, as well as to a simulated decision-making questionnaire.
Findings – The selection process, with the criteria for decision-making, functions as a “template” for the
recognition of potentially successful companies and is, indeed, subject to various cognitive biases, among
which, the Einstellung effect, characteristic of mental rigidity.
Research limitations/implications – The main contribution of the present study is to identify the
cognitive mechanisms, which can negatively affect the evaluation of innovative projects and propose ways
that can counteract or mitigate them.
Originality/value – The psychological approach to decision-making, usually studied in chess game
context or problem-solving, was applied to a relatively unexplored field that is startups to accelerate. Its
originality remains at the interdisciplinary approach, combining knowledge from psychology, decisionmaking and entrepreneurship
Downloads
Referências
Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational, Harper-Collins.
Ariely, D. (2010). The upside of irrationality, Harper-Collins.
Baggetta, P., & Alexander, P. A. (2016). Conceptualization and operationalization of executive function.
Mind, Brain, and Education, 10(1), 10–33, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12100.
Barlach, L., & Plonski, G. A. (2018). From creativity to innovation: tracking rejected ideas. Proceedings
of the 20th International Conference on Creativity and Innovation Management, New York, NY,
Retrieved from https://publications.waset.org/abstracts/81958/from-creativity-to-innovationtracking-rejected-ideas
Besnard, D., Greathead, D., & Baxter, G. (2004). When mental models go wrong: co-occurrences in
dynamic, critical systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60(1), 117–128,
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.09.001.
Blair, C. (2016). Developmental science and executive function. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 25(1), 3–7, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415622634.
Breakwell, G. M., Hammond, S. E., Fife-Schaw, C. E.
Carr, P. B., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Stereotype threat and inflexible perseverance in problem solving.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 853–859, doi: https://doi.org/10.C1016/j.
jesp.2009.03.003.
Craik, K. J. W. (1943). The nature of explanation, Cambridge University Press.
Flor, C. S., Santos, G. S. P., Zanini, M. C., Ehlers, A. C. S. T., & Teixeira, C. S. (2018). As aceleradoras
brasileiras: levantamento Para identificação do foco, atuação e distribuição territorial. Revista
Livre de Sustentabilidade e Empreendedorismo, 3(2), 77–96. Retrieved from www.relise.eco.br/
index.php/relise/article/view/111
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision-making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4),
–42, doi: https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732.
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2017). Unity and diversity of executive functions: individual differences
as a window on cognitive structure. Cortex, 86, 186–204, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cortex.2016.04.023.
Gardner, H. (2008). The five minds for the future. Schools – Schools, 5(1/2), 17–24. www.journals.
uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/591814. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/591814.
Grammenos, D. (2014). Stupidity, ignorance, and nonsense as tools for creative thinking. Interactions,
(5), 54–59, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2647582.
Greenberg, J., Reiner, K., & Meiran, N. (2012). Mind the trap: mindfulness practice reduces cognitive
rigidity. PLoS ONE, 7(5), doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036206.
Jeffrey, S. A., Lévesque, M., & Maxwell, A. L. (2016). The non-compensatory relationship between risk
and return in business angel investment decision making. Venture Capital, 18(3), 189–209, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2016.1172748.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and
consciousness, Harvard University Press.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow, Macmillan.
Kaufmann, G. (2004). Two kinds of creativity – but which ones? Creativity and Innovation
Management, 13(3), 154–165, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-1690.2004.00305.x.
Levitt, E. E., & Zuckerman, M. (1959). The Water-Jar test revisited: the replication of a review.
Psychological Reports, 5(3), 365–380, doi: https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1959.5.3.365.
Liotas, N. (2014). Gestalt practice and arts-based training for leadership, innovation and change
management skills. Industry and Higher Education, 28(3), 171–175, doi: https://doi.org/10.5367/
ihe.2014.0204.
Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: the effect of einstellung. Psychological
Monographs, 54(6), i–95, doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093502.
Lupton, E. (2011). Graphic design thinking: beyond brainstorming, Princeton Architectural Press.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society, Van Nostrand.
Mallorquí-Bagué, N., Tolosa-Sola, I., Fernandez-Aranda, F., Granero, R., Fagundo, A. B., LozanoMadrid, M., & Sanchez-Gonzalez, J. (2018). Cognitive deficits in executive functions and decisionmaking impairments cluster gambling disorder Sub-types. Journal of Gambling Studies, 34(1),
–223, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-017-9724-0.
Miletic, S., & van Maanen, L. (2019). Caution in decision-making under time pressure is mediated by timing
ability. Cognitive Psychology, 110, 16–29, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2019.01.002.
Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H., & Ariely, D. (2007). Less is more: the lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity
breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 97–105, doi: https://doi.org/
1037/0022-3514.92.1.97.
Nyhus, E., & Barcelo, F. (2009). The Wisconsin card sorting test and the cognitive assessment of
prefrontal executive functions: a critical update. Brain and Cognition, 71(3), 437–451, doi: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.03.005.
Rogers, J., & Révész, A. (2020). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs. J., McKinley & H., Rose
(Eds), The routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics. Routledge.
Seabra, A. G., Laros, J. A., Macedo, E. C., & Abreu, N. (2014). Inteligência e funções executivas: Avanços e
desafios Para a avaliação neuropsicologica, Memnon.
Shyti, A., & Paraschiv, C. (2014). Risk and ambiguity in evaluating a new venture: an experimental
study. In Proceedings of the DRUID Society Conference, Copenhagen. Retrieved from https://
conference.druid.dk/acc_papers/k7tjootl4j6epd3pgukkghdr3xi5.pdf
Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R., & Balz, J. P. (2013). Choice architecture, In E. Shafir (Ed., The behavioral
foundations of public policy (pp. 428–439). Princeton University Press.
Thaler, R. H., Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., & Schwartz, A. (1997). The effect of myopia and loss
aversion on risk taking: an experimental test. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2),
–661, doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555226.
Thaler, R. (2017). Interview. Nobel prize conversations. Retrieved from www.nobelprize.org/prizes/
economic-sciences/2017/thaler/interview/
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of
performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39(7), 1275–1289, doi: https://
doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science,
(4157), 1124–1131, doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
Van Gijs, W. (2016). 10 Great ideas that were originally rejected. Retrieved from www.
innovationexcellence.com/blog/2016/12/19/10-great-ideas-that-were-originally-rejected/
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
• O(s) autor(es) autoriza(m) a publicação do artigo na revista;
• O(s) autor(es) garante(m) que a contribuição é original e inédita e que não está em processo de avaliação em outra(s) revista(s);
• A revista não se responsabiliza pelas opiniões, ideias e conceitos emitidos nos textos, por serem de inteira responsabilidade de seu(s) autor(es);
• É reservado aos editores o direito de proceder ajustes textuais e de adequação do artigos às normas da publicação.
