Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses

Hermann Brandstätter *
Johannes-Kepler-University, Social and Economic Psychology Unit, Altenbergerstr. 69, 4040 Linz, Austria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Research on personality aspects of entrepreneurship, recently summarized in five meta-analyses, has
Available online xxxx intensified during the past two decades. Internationally, entrepreneurship has been recognized as highly
important for socio-economic prosperity. After discussing a few basic concepts relating task and context
Keywords: of entrepreneurship to personality characteristics the main results of the meta-analyses are reported. In
Entrepreneur the system of the Big Five, personality traits make a difference when entrepreneurs are compared with
Personality managers (C+, O+, E+, N, A). They are also relevant in predicting entrepreneurial intention (C+, O+,
Big Five
N, E+) and entrepreneurs’ performance (C+, O+, E+, N). For other more specific scales that have fre-
Meta-analysis
Review
quently enough been used and could therefore be included in meta-analyses (e.g., readiness for innova-
Small business foundation tion, proactive personality, generalized self-efficacy, stress tolerance, need for autonomy, locus of control)
Achievement motivation have also been reported significant correlations with business creation and business success. Risk pro-
pensity supports business foundation, but not necessarily business success. Achievement motivation is
favourable both for business foundation and business success. The effect sizes are mostly small, some
moderate. Complementing the results of the meta-analyses, some recent single studies on mediator or
moderator effects are briefly reviewed.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction (FFM) of personality and meta-analysis as technique for aggregat-

ing and generalizing the results of many single studies. Concur-
During the past two decades entrepreneurship has become a rently, the interest in, and appreciation of, the psychological sub-
very active field of research in various social science disciplines discipline of personality research has very much changed for the
and a prominent concern of economic policy. Adaptation of eco- better.
nomic systems to changing conditions, innovation of products Most of the studies published during the past two decades have
and services, creation of jobs, and economic growth is assumed already been reviewed in previous meta-analyses (Rauch & Frese,
to be very much dependent on the readiness and willingness of 2007; Stewart & Roth, 2001; Zhao & Seibert, 2006; Zhao, Seibert,
people to start an independent privately owned business and on & Lumpkin, 2010, on personality including risk propensity; Collins,
the founders’ skills and efforts to run it successfully (cf. Böheim, Hanges, & Locke, 2004; Stewart & Roth, 2007, on achievement
Stiglbauer, & Winter-Ebmer, 2009; Erken, Donselaar, & Thurik, motivation). Thus, the present paper focuses on these meta-analy-
2008; Van Praag & Versloot, 2007). This is particularly true in the ses in a form of intuitive meta-synthesis (Sipe & Curlette, 1997) as
field of new technology where entrepreneurial activities demand an attempt to integrate their results in the light of the FFM as ref-
a high level of knowledge in applying research and development erence system for personality traits. Single studies will be reviewed
(R & D) and high creativity in taking advantage of market niches. only when their design or their results are of special interest – this
Decades after Schumpeter (1912/1988) convincingly pointed to will be because they reveal mediator and/or moderator effects in
the importance of the entrepreneur for economic development, the influence of personality traits on entrepreneurial behaviour
looking for personality traits uniquely characteristic of entrepre- that are not frequently enough encountered and are, therefore,
neurs was occasionally the topic of research, albeit one with rather not reported as average effects in meta-analyses.
modest success. Consequently, in the 1970s and 1980s the person- Meta-analyses are commonly designed not to test hypotheses
ality approach to studying entrepreneurial behaviour was discred- but to explore a field of research for congruence or heterogeneity
ited (e.g., Gartner, 1989). However, it gained new momentum in of the results of many single studies reported in the literature.
the 1990s, which according to Zhao and Seibert (2006) probably re- Therefore, it seems neither necessary nor reasonable to explicate
flected the increasing acceptance of the unifying five-factor model in advance theoretical expectations about the effects of personality
traits on entrepreneurial behaviour. Theoretical implications and
interpretations of the results of the meta-analyses will be dis-
* Tel.: +43 7230 8449.
E-mail address: h.brandstaetter@jk.uni-linz.ac.at cussed later.

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007

Please cite this article in press as: Brandstätter, H. Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences (2010), doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007
2 H. Brandstätter / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

That personality has some influence at all should be evident decisions and entrepreneurial success. Obviously, a purely descrip-
from basic characteristics of the entrepreneurial role: initiating a tive notion of traits would be of limited usefulness in personality
life of self-determination and independence (Emotional Stability), research.
finding new opportunities and ways of structuring and developing Going beyond description, one may conceptualize personality
the enterprise (Openness to experience), hard working and persis- traits as complex, genetically co-determined psycho-physiological
tent in goal striving (achievement motivation component of Con- structures (for genetic influences on entrepreneurial activity, see
scientiousness), establishing a social network (Extraversion), and Nicolaou & Shane, 2009) which originate and regulate the individ-
taking the risk of failure (risk propensity, possibly a combination ual ways of experience and action. In this sense, adopted by the
of Emotional Stability, Openness, and Extraversion). author of the present paper, traits are viewed as causes of mental
After clarifying definitions of entrepreneurship and personality and behavioural processes (John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). Experi-
traits each of five meta-analyses are reported with their main re- mental research on individual differences and field studies, includ-
sults, summarized, integrated, and complemented by exemplary ing measures of experiential (cognitive and affective) or psycho-
studies of mediating and moderating effects. This should contrib- physiological process measures, would have to rely on this theoret-
ute to a base of knowledge from which future research can start ically richer notion of personality traits. Of course, the measures of
thinking about unresolved problems, necessary changes in re- the traits are usually based on descriptions of how people think,
search strategies, and promising theoretical and methodological feel, and act in a variety of situations, but these reports are con-
approaches. ceived of as indicators of real internal causes (interacting with
the external causes) of a person’s experiences and actions. Thus,
the intention of establishing a private business is not part of the
2. Some preliminary reflections
definition of the trait Openness, but an effect of this trait.

2.1. Definitions
2.2. Five-factor model of personality traits
2.1.1. The concept of entrepreneurship
Eckhardt and Shane (2003, p. 336) define entrepreneurship ‘‘. . . Since the 1980s, the FFM is the predominant reference system
as the discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of future goods and of personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman, 1990; Gold-
services . . . [by] . . . creation or identification of new ends and berg, 1990; John et al., 2008). Increasingly, research on personality
means previously undetected or unutilized by market partici- of entrepreneurs, too, is based on FFM. Nevertheless, not all per-
pants”. In this perspective, entrepreneurship could be an attribute sonality aspects can be located in the Big Five system, as shown
of managers as well as of business founders, and founding a small by, for instance, Paunonen and Jackson (2000) and Ashton et al.
private enterprise may not be an entrepreneurial activity per se, (2004).
but only if it is clearly characterized by novelty and creativity. Be-
cause such a definition of entrepreneurship, though particularly
relevant in the field of new technologies, would exclude quite a 2.2.1. FFM and other personality traits
number of studies reviewed by extant meta-analyses, and because Some of the rather global personality constructs outside of FFM
it would blur the distinction between managers and entrepreneurs, are rooted in specific theories (e.g., locus of control, self-efficacy,
it is not adopted for the present review. The meta-analyses re- state vs. action orientation, regulatory focus) and have been ap-
ported here deal with personality aspects of (a) founding a small plied now and then in entrepreneurial research where also specific
privately owned business and/or (b) running it successfully as purpose scales like entrepreneurial orientation (Rauch, Wiklund,
owner in the early stages of the enterprise. Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009), proactive personality (Crant, 1996; Fuller
& Marler, 2009), or entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Cassar & Fried-
man, 2009; Townsend, Busenitz, & Arthurs, 2010) are found. More
2.1.2. The concept of personality traits often measures of need for achievement, internal locus of control,
The concepts of personality and personality traits both in psy- risk-taking propensity, and personal initiative (see for example
chological research and in common sense understanding are rather Korunka, Frank, Lueger, & Mugler, 2003) have been used. Some of
fuzzy. In a broad sense, personality traits include abilities (e.g., these personality constructs proved to be weighted composites of
general intelligence as well as numerical, verbal, spatial, or emo- the Big Five (cf. Brandstätter, 2009; Crant, 1996; Zibarras, Port, &
tional intelligence), motives (e.g., need for achievement, power, Woods, 2008).
or affiliation), attitudes (including values), and characteristics of
temperament as overarching style of a person’s experiences and
actions (Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, 2.2.2. FFM and motivational constructs
Agreeableness, and Neuroticism, called the Big Five with the acro- Although ‘dynamic traits’ (Cattell, 1965) are different from per-
nym OCEAN). sonality traits in the narrow sense, there are relationships between
Personality traits may be conceived of as descriptions of a per- the two kinds of traits worthy of consideration. Bipp, Steinmayr,
son’s mean level of her/his states (of Agreeableness, Openness, etc.) and Spinath (2008) show, for instance, that various aspects of
varying across circumstances and events, partly haphazardly achievement motivation as revealed in the prevalence of learning
encountered, partly deliberately chosen or provoked by the person goals, performance approach goals, performance avoidance goals,
(Fleeson, 2001). Correlating personality measures with entrepre- and work avoidance goals correlate with the facets and global
neurial behaviour (foundation decision) and behaviour results scales of the Big Five just as one would expect. Particularly high
(success of the enterprise) should be straightforward. The rather are the correlations between Openness and learning goals
simple question would be whether people who describe them- (r = .40), Neuroticism and performance avoidance goals (r = .45),
selves, for instance, as open to new experience will more often and Conscientiousness and work avoidance goals (r = .30). An-
establish a private business than people low on Openness. Or we other example of the relationship between Big Five and measures
might expect that people high on Conscientiousness will be more of achievement motivation is given by Heggestad and Kanfer
successful with their recently founded small business than people (2000). Thus, it seems justified to deal with the Big Five and mo-
low on Conscientiousness. Nothing is said about the mental and tives in the same vein, although they are kept apart in most empir-
behavioural processes by which these traits influence start-up ical studies and in meta-analyses.

Please cite this article in press as: Brandstätter, H. Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences (2010), doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007
 H. Brandstätter / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2010) xxx–xxx 3

3. Meta-analysis results of entrepreneurship research on that the trait correlated primarily and substantially with only
personality (1990–2010) one of the Big Five. Contrasting entrepreneurs with managers
should most clearly make visible those characteristics of entrepre-
3.1. Risk propensity of entrepreneurs and managers (Stewart & Roth, neurs that promote independent strategic decision making under
2001) risk and strong competition. They are assumed to be crucial for
the survival and growth of the private enterprise as well as for
The first in the series of meta-analyses on entrepreneurs’ per- the family income. About the definition of entrepreneurs and man-
sonality traits performed during the last 10 years is that of Stewart agers Zhao and Seibert (2006, pp. 262/263) say:
and Roth (2001), which included 12 studies (six using the risk scale
‘‘We . . . defined an entrepreneur as someone who is the foun-
of the Jackson Personality Inventory, four the Choice Dilemmas
der, owner, and manager of a small business and whose princi-
Questionnaire, two some other scales). They compared risk pro-
pal purpose is growth . . . We take a relatively broad definitional
pensity between entrepreneurs and managers. Contrasting entre-
approach and include managers of all ranks and functions”.
preneurs with managers makes sense if other conditions such as
gender, education level, professional experience, type of industry, For cross-cultural comparisons, the countries were classified as
and number of employees reporting to the entrepreneur or man- low or high in uncertainty avoidance and low or high in perfor-
ager, respectively, are at least roughly kept equal. It is assumed mance orientation according to the data provided by the project
(a) that jobs characterized by specific demands and opportunities GLOBE (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). After
attract people characterized by specific talents, motives, and per- thorough and careful screening of the English language literature
sonality traits; (b) that starting a professional career is co-deter- 23 independent studies (out of a preliminary number of 47 studies
mined by others’ (employers’ or venture capitalists’) judgements from a variety of countries) met the selection criteria for meta-
about the aptitudes and motives (goals) of an applicant or aspiring analysis.
entrepreneur; (c) that those stay in the occupational group whose Based on an intuitive understanding of the Big Five personality
performance positively impresses their employers or – in the case traits and of the personality implications of entrepreneurial tasks,
of entrepreneurs – the business partners, and those who find complemented by some references to empirical studies, Zhao and
their professional situation more rewarding than alternative posi- Seibert (2006) assumed that entrepreneurs would have higher
tions (cf. the attraction – selection – attrition model of Schneider, scores on Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, and Extra-
1987). version, but lower scores on Agreeableness and Neuroticism.
Based on 14 independent samples of 12 studies with about The averages of effect sizes (entrepreneurs minus managers) d0 ,
3000 participants, the effect size of risk propensity (corrected for corrected for reliabilities of the measures, are .37 (Neuroticism),
reliability) amounts to d0 = .36 (entrepreneurs’ minus managers’ .22 (Extraversion; not significant), .36 (Openness), .16 (Agree-
mean risk propensity scores divided by pooled standard devia- ableness), and .45 (Conscientiousness), just as expected. The effect
tions). The authors looked at possible differences in effect sizes sizes for two components of Conscientiousness, identified by ex-
(a) between types of measurement (Kogan–Wallach Choice Dilem- pert judgements, are .59 (achievement motivation) and .01
ma Questionnaire and the Risk-Taking Scale of the Jackson Person- (dependability).
ality Inventory [JPI]; see Mandrik, 2005, for problems with risk As moderators of the effects of Neuroticism and achievement
measures) and (b) between ‘growth-oriented entrepreneurs’ and motivation in distinguishing entrepreneurs from managers, the
‘income-oriented entrepreneurs’. The effect sizes were higher for two culture dimensions, that is, uncertainty avoidance (‘‘the extent
JPI-risk-taking scale and for growth oriented entrepreneurs. to which a society relies on norms, rules, and procedures to allevi-
By including 13 additional studies in a complementary meta- ate the stress associated with unpredictability in future events”)
analysis on differences in risk propensity between entrepreneurs and performance orientation (‘‘the degree to which a society
and managers, Miner and Raju (2004) arrived at lower effect sizes. encourages and rewards performance improvement and high stan-
However, responding to this critique, Stewart and Roth (2004) con- dards of excellence”) were taken into account (p. 262).
vincingly pointed to problematic criteria by which Miner and Raju It was expected that national cultures characterized by high
categorized participants as entrepreneurs or managers, respec- uncertainty avoidance would show larger differences in Neuroti-
tively. Moreover, according to Stewart and Roth (2004) the Miner cism between entrepreneurs and managers (the latter with higher
Sentence Completion Scale-Form T (risk avoidance subscale), used scores). An argument is that people would manifest more easily
in all studies included in the meta-analysis of Miner and Raju behaviour that is congruent with culture. However, this would
(2004), seems to measure risk perception rather than risk propen- imply that we find more often neurotic behaviour in societies char-
sity and that there are indications of a substantial negative corre- acterized by uncertainty avoidance. How that should lead to a lar-
lation between these two constructs: people underestimating the ger difference in Neuroticism between entrepreneurs and
riskiness of decisions tend to risky actions. Stewart and Roth managers in societies of high uncertainty avoidance is not quite
(2004), supplementing their original meta-analysis (Stewart & clear.
Roth, 2001) with five studies of Miner and Raju (2004) – these A plausible assumption could be that the percentage of people
authors criticized Stewart and Roth (2001) for overestimating the courageous enough to start their own business venture would be
effects of risk propensity – that met their original selection criteria, lower in societies characterized by high uncertainty avoidance
provided evidence for differences in effect sizes between ’objective’ (than in low uncertainty avoidance countries), but there are no
measures of risk propensity (mean d = .31) and ‘projective’ mea- data for testing this hypothesis. The OECD report on entrepreneur-
sures of risk perception (mean d = .35). ship (OECD, 2009) could provide the necessary information. How-
ever, even if there were such culture dependent differences, they
would not imply larger effect sizes of Neuroticism in comparing
3.2. Entrepreneurs’ vs. managers’ Big Five (Zhao & Seibert, 2006) entrepreneurs with managers.
In favour of the moderator hypothesis, however, one could ar-
These authors use the Big Five as reference system for their gue (not argued by the authors in this way) that in a climate of high
meta-analysis. They subsume a personality scale under one of uncertainty avoidance only persons with particularly high Emo-
the Big Five according to empirical evidence found in the literature. tional Stability (Neuroticism reversed) would become entrepre-
A study was selected for the meta-analysis under the condition neurs whereas for managers a higher level of Neuroticism would

Please cite this article in press as: Brandstätter, H. Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences (2010), doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007
4 H. Brandstätter / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

be a minor hindrance in performing their roles. From this perspec- higher (p < .01) with business creation and business success (r = .25
tive the moderator hypothesis may look plausible. and r = .25) than traits rated as unimportant (r = .13 and r = .03).
In respect of performance orientation as cultural dimension one The difference between important and unimportant traits could
could say (not said by Zhao and Seibert (2006)) that entrepreneurs be, at least in part, a consequence of the above mentioned scaling
are more susceptible to the cultural influence of high performance problem.
orientation than managers. This could enlarge the positive differ- In subsets of studies the effect sizes (for business creation and
ence in achievement motivation between entrepreneurs and man- business success) of those eight traits were analyzed that both
agers (particularly high achievement motivation of entrepreneurs were judged as important and were frequently enough studied that
in societies characterized by high performance orientation). Actu- it was justified to compute average effect sizes. These are: need for
ally, the authors report effect size differences in the predicted achievement (.22, .30), innovativeness (.24, .27), proactive person-
direction, more so for uncertainty avoidance than for performance ality (.27, available for success only), generalized self-efficacy (.38,
orientation, but the confidence intervals overlap which means that .25), stress tolerance (.10, .20), need for autonomy (.31, .16), locus
the differences are not significant (p > .05). of control (.19, .13), and risk-taking (.10, .10).
In addition to the two culture dimensions, the authors looked at Most (i.e., 16 out of 19) of the studies analyzed by Zhao and Sei-
the type of personality measures (questionnaire vs. projective bert (2006) were also part of the studies analyzed by Rauch and
techniques) of achievement motivation and dependability (the Frese (2007). Zhao and Seibert (2006) had applied a stricter selec-
two facets of Conscientiousness) as possible moderator of the per- tion criterion for contrasting entrepreneurs with managers than
sonality effects. For achievement motivation both types of mea- Rauch and Frese (2007). Because the studies of Zhao and Seibert
sures resulted in moderate effect sizes (d0 = .54 for projective and (2006) overlap with those of Rauch and Frese (2007) it is not sur-
d0 = .61 for questionnaire measures). A moderator effect was found prising that these meta-analyses arrive at similar conclusions. To-
for dependability: the projective measure gives a significant effect gether the two meta-analyses suggest that founding a business and
of d0 = .22 whereas the questionnaire measure came up with an running it successfully is supported by the same personality traits.
insignificant negative effect. The two confidence intervals do not
overlap suggesting that the moderator effect is significant 3.4. Entrepreneurial intention and performance – Big Five (Zhao et al.,
(p < .05). As one can see again, specific personality constructs 2010)
may have some merits beyond those of the global personality
constructs. The most recent meta-analysis complements that of Zhao and
Seibert (2006) by focussing (a) on the intention to found a busi-
3.3. Specific personality traits predict business creation and success ness, and (b) on entrepreneurial firm performance, again with
(Rauch & Frese, 2007) FFM as reference system, supplemented by risk propensity as per-
sonality trait that cannot be equated with only one of the Big Five.
The meta-analysis of Rauch and Frese (2007) comprises 116 There is no overlap of studies between Zhao and Seibert (2006) and
independent samples from 104 articles. It differs from Zhao and Zhao et al. (2010), whereas many of the studies in Rauch and Frese
Seibert (2006) by (a) using not only entrepreneurial status (entre- (2007) are not only found in Zhao and Seibert (2006) but also in
preneurs vs. managers), but also business success as criteria in esti- Zhao et al. (2010). A study focussing on a specific personality scale
mating the validity of selected personality scales; (b) using Pearson was selected by Zhao et al. (2010) for their meta-analysis only if
correlation coefficients r as effects sizes; and (c) accepting the 51 there were empirically established links between this scale and
different labels of the personality constructs used by the authors predominantly one of the Big Five.
of the single studies without an attempt to locate them in the Entrepreneur is again defined as the founder, who also owns
Big Five system. Thus, scales based on FFM are mixed with scales and manages his small business. The authors distinguish profitabil-
rooted in specific theories (like self-efficacy, delay of gratification, ity/operational effectiveness and firm growth as the two global cat-
goal orientation, proactive personality) or scales characterizing egories of performance measures with two subcategories of the
experience and behaviour in specific classes of situations (like first one: (1) profitability (financial indicators such as sales reve-
stress tolerance, innovativeness, passion for work). nue, profit, liquidity, return on investment, and return on assets)
Assuming that traits judged as particularly relevant for entre- and (2) operational effectiveness (firm size [number of employees],
preneurs would come up with larger effects, 10 experts rated the productivity [output per man hour], firm survival, and subjective
importance of the traits for entrepreneurs on a five-point scale ratings of overall performance). Obviously, these two types of suc-
(very unimportant to very important). Such a scale, however, cess criteria are quite heterogeneous. They were subsumed under
seems to be problematic with traits that have negative connota- the global category profitability/operational effectiveness for the
tions like rigidity, dogmatism, or shyness and traits that are per- meta-analysis in order to arrive at a sufficient number of studies
ceived as dysfunctional for entrepreneurs like conservatism or for testing moderator effects. The second global category is firm
norm orientation. The rating category ‘very unimportant’, applied growth (i.e., relative change in profitability and operational effec-
to negative traits, would imply rather high negative correlations tiveness over time). Profitability/operational effectiveness com-
with business creation and business success, but these traits were bined with relative change form the overarching category
categorized as non-matching (Table 2 of Rauch & Frese, 2007). ‘performance’.
Business creation was coded as dummy variable (1 = entrepre- By relating intuitively the content of personality constructs to
neur, 0 = managers or some other comparison groups). Business the entrepreneurial tasks, and taking into account what other
success was measured partly by key informant ratings of success authors thought about the roles of entrepreneurs and the relevance
and satisfaction, partly by financial outcomes and firm growth. of personality traits, it was predicted that the meta-analysis would
The effect sizes were commonly higher with ratings, possibly as come up with positive effects of Conscientiousness, Openness to
a result of common method. Experience, Emotional Stability (Neuroticism reversed), and Extra-
As average of N-weighted r coefficients across all personality version on both intention and performance, whereas Agreeable-
scales and studies, corrected for reliability of predictors and suc- ness was expected to have negative effects on intention and
cess criteria, is reported: r = .19 for business creation and r = .20 performance. Risk propensity should have positive effects on
for business success. It was expected and found that traits judged intention and negative effects on performance. The meta-analysis
as important or very important correlated on average significantly confirmed all hypotheses that actually cannot be understood in

Please cite this article in press as: Brandstätter, H. Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences (2010), doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007
 H. Brandstätter / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2010) xxx–xxx 5

the strict sense of a priori theoretical reflections, because they enterprise successfully demands careful and prudent decision
seem to be based, at least in part, on knowledge of previous re- making. It reminds one of McClelland’s (1965) idea that entrepre-
search much of which was the object of the meta-analysis. neurs, in particular successful entrepreneurs, have high scores on
Risk propensity is the only personality trait where the correla- achievement motivation, characterized by hope for success rather
tions with intentions and performance were significantly different. than by fear of failure, with a preference for moderate risks as con-
It is a good predictor of intentions, but irrelevant for performance. dition of entrepreneurial success.
Zhao et al. (2010), focussing on entrepreneurial intentions and
3.5. Achievement motivation of entrepreneurs (Stewart & Roth, 2007) performance, and Stewart and Roth (2001), comparing entrepre-
neurs with managers, refer to risk propensity in different studies
There are two meta-analyses on achievement motivation (Col- and with different dependent variables. Nevertheless, both meta-
lins et al., 2004; Stewart & Roth, 2007). Because the second analyses agree on the importance of risk propensity in the context
meta-analysis defines ‘entrepreneur’ and ‘manager’ in a psycholog- of entrepreneurship.
ically more meaningful and precise way and shares a larger part of There is still some debate about the best way to measure risk
studies with the first (10 out of 18), the second is used as main propensity (Miner & Raju, 2004; Stewart & Roth, 2004). Relating
source here. Based on the data of 18 studies (about 3000 partici- measures of risk propensity to the Big Five dimensions as reference
pants), Stewart and Roth (2007) compared achievement motiva- system helps clarifying their construct validity. An example is given
tion of entrepreneurs (i.e., someone who independently owns by Nicholson, Soane, Fenton-O’Creevy, and Willman (2005) who as-
and actively manages a small business) with that of managers. sessed risk propensity by asking people how often they have shown
Achievement motivation was measured partly by questionnaires, risky behaviour in six areas of life (recreation, health, career, fi-
partly by projective techniques. The N-weighted average effect size nance, safety and social risk-taking), resulting in a risk measure that
is d = .35 in favour of the entrepreneurs. The effect size of the seven seems more similar to the Jackson Personality Inventory (JPI) risk
US studies is d = .20, that of all others (n = 11) is d = .54* ( means scale than to Choice Dilemma Questionnaire or Miner’s risk avoid-
that the 90% confidence interval does not include zero). The ance scale. With positive beta-coefficients of Extraversion (.26) and
authors assumed that outside the USA the entrepreneurial climate Openness (.36), and negative beta-coefficients of Neuroticism
is less favourable. Thus, for becoming an entrepreneur one has to (.18), Agreeableness (.31), and Conscientiousness (.20) 41% of
have more of the ‘entrepreneurial traits’. As to measurement type the variance of their risk propensity measure is explained. The neg-
(questionnaires vs. projective tests) no consistent differences were ative coefficient of Conscientiousness is a hint of possible detrimen-
found. Contrasting a subgroup of entrepreneurs (the founders) tal effects on business success when risk propensity is very high.
with the managers, the effect size rises to d = .64*. Moreover, Presumably, not only risk propensity, but also many of other spe-
growth oriented owners differ from income oriented owners by cific (special purpose) personality scales can be reconstructed as
d = .67*. One can see that with rising demands on initiative and weighted composites of the Big Five (cf. Brandstätter, 2009).
self-directed formation of the environment achievement motiva-
tion is becoming increasingly important. 4.2. Achievement motivation

The studies selected by Zhao et al. (2010) – these authors look at

4. Summarizing and integrating the results of the five meta- achievement motivation as a component of Conscientiousness –
analyses and those selected by Stewart and Roth (2007) show no overlap.
Only one article that explicitly deals with personality traits (in
Most attention has been attracted by temperament traits (or the narrow sense) and achievement motives of entrepreneurs is
personality traits in the narrow sense), as represented by the found in both meta-analyses. Obviously, these two areas of re-
five-factor model, or by traits that can be located within the search are unduly separated.
FFM-system as equivalent to one of the five factors (Zhao & Seibert, Stewart and Roth (2007) clearly confirm achievement motiva-
2006; Zhao et al., 2010), or as equivalent to a weighted composite tion as a prominent characteristic of entrepreneurs, in particular
of several FFM-dimensions. Examples of the latter are proactive of entrepreneurs who are the founders of their business and who
personality and innovativeness among the traits dealt with in the are oriented toward growth of their enterprise. Zhao and Seibert
meta-analysis of Rauch and Frese (2007). Though motives (like (2006), analyzing a different set of studies and differentiating
need for achievement, affiliation, or power), values, and attitudes achievement motivation and dependability as components of the
are not independent of temperament traits (Cattell, 1965; Olver global dimension Conscientiousness, report a large superiority of
& Mooradian, 2003; Roberts & Robins, 2000), they are theoretically entrepreneurs (compared to managers) in achievement motiva-
and empirically distinct individual dispositions with different tion. No difference was found in dependability.
causes and effects that may be relevant in different situations As in any correlation or group comparison study, causal infer-
and in different time perspectives. ences are more or less problematic. People who have founded a
business (for whatever reason) might post hoc conclude from this
4.1. Risk propensity very fact that they must be particularly achievement motivated,
otherwise they would not have acted in this way. Logically, such
The meta-analysis of risk propensity (Stewart & Roth, 2001) and an interpretation cannot be excluded, although this causal path
its extension by Stewart and Roth (2004), in response to the criti- seems much less plausible than the other way around. Properly de-
cism of Miner and Raju (2004), provides clear empirical evidence signed longitudinal studies could better clarify this issue (see Es-
that entrepreneurs are more risk prone than managers and that cher et al., 2002; McClelland, 1965; Rauch & Frese, 2000).
growth oriented entrepreneurs are more risk prone than income Longitudinal studies focussing on the personality–entrepreneur-
oriented entrepreneurs. More than managers, entrepreneurs have ship link are still rather rare.
to cope with situations that are unstructured and uncertain about
the outcome of decisions and, therefore, more problematic for risk 4.3. More about entrepreneurs’ motives
averse than for risk prone people. However, according to Zhao et al.
(2010) only entrepreneurial intention, not entrepreneurial perfor- Focussing primarily on achievement motivation as the driving
mance, is (positively) related to risk propensity. Running a new force behind entrepreneurial activities goes back to McClelland

Please cite this article in press as: Brandstätter, H. Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences (2010), doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007
6 H. Brandstätter / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

(1965). However, it would be a mistake to gauge the real impor- cant correlations with intentions (of setting up a business) and
tance of an explanatory variable simply according to a frequency business performance (Zhao et al., 2010). One could think of a cer-
count of articles focussing on that variable. Meta-analyses could tain affinity between Extraversion and proactive personality (i.e.,
even reinforce such a problematic conclusion because it tends to initiating actions on opportunities, shaping the environment
include only frequently performed research. Thus, the effects of according to one’s goals and being persistent in goal striving) for
subcategories of the achievement motive (e.g., hope for success which Rauch and Frese (2007) report higher scores for entrepre-
vs. fear of failure or approach vs. avoidance goals), although theo- neurs than for managers. There is indeed a substantial correlation
retically and practically important, may be missed in meta-analy- between proactive personality and the assertiveness and activity
ses. Other motivational constructs like need for autonomy (Ryan facet of Extraversion (Major, Turner, & Fletcher, 2006), but also
& Deci, 2000) may be important, too. Moreover, limiting the atten- with facets of Openness (actions, ideas, values), Conscientiousness
tion to traits that distinguish entrepreneurs from managers, and (achievement striving, but not dutifulness), and Neuroticism (vul-
not taking into account what they may have in common (cf. Hol- nerability, negative correlation). Obviously, the proactive personal-
land, 1997, for ‘enterprising occupations’), could forfeit a thorough ity scale (Crant, 1996) is like innovativeness (Zibarras et al., 2008) a
understanding of the person by environment interaction in the specific purpose scale encompassing various components that are
field of entrepreneurship. not necessarily correlated.
Starting with McClelland, Koestner, and Weinberger (1989), dif-
ferences in antecedent conditions and consequences of implicit 4.4.4. Agreeableness
(sub-conscious) vs. explicit (reflected) motives (reflected as com- ‘‘. . . contrasts a prosocial and communal orientation toward oth-
ponent of the self-concept) are discussed with steadily increasing ers with antagonism and includes traits such as altruism, tender-
intensity (Brunstein, 2008). One can expect that differences be- mindedness, trust, and modesty”.
tween implicit and explicit motives will be more important in fu- Entrepreneurs have lower scores in this dimension than manag-
ture entrepreneurial research. ers (Zhao & Seibert, 2006) while Zhao et al. (2010) found no signif-
icant correlation between Agreeableness and intentions (of setting
4.4. Big Five up a business) or business performance. Only in the context of a
special mode of multiple regression analysis (adapted for meta-
Having summarized first the meta-analysis results of risk pro- analyses) low significant negative beta-coefficients were found
pensity and achievement motivation with some peripheral connec- for both dependent variables. Support of rather negative effects
tions to the Big Five, now the focus is on the contribution of the Big of Agreeableness can be seen in the positive effects of need for
Five (in the sequence of OCEAN) to a better understanding of the autonomy on business creation and (to a lesser degree) on business
entrepreneurial behaviour. Each paragraph begins with a short def- success reported by Rauch and Frese (2007), since Koestner and Lo-
inition of the trait construct quoted from John et al. (2008, p. 138). sier (1996) provided evidence for a strong negative correlation be-
tween need for autonomy (i.e., to act independently of others or of
4.4.1. Openness to experience social values and expectations) and Agreeableness show.
‘‘. . . describes the breadth, depth, originality, and complexity of
an individual’s mental and experiential life”. According to Zhao and
4.4.5. Neuroticism
Seibert (2006) entrepreneurs have substantially higher scores on
‘‘. . . contrasts Emotional Stability and even-temperedness with
Openness than managers. Zhao et al. (2010) report higher correla-
negative emotionality, such as feeling anxious, nervous, sad, and
tions of Openness with intention and performance than for the
tense”. Zhao and Seibert (2006) report for entrepreneurs lower
other Big Five dimensions. One can see some affinity to innovative-
scores on Neuroticism than for managers and Zhao et al. (2010) re-
ness for which Rauch and Frese (2007) report positive effects on
port negative effects of Neuroticism both on intention to establish
business creation and business success. Correlations between Big
a private business and on performance. This corresponds to the ef-
Five scales and cognitive styles, reported by Zang and Huang
fects of those personality scales, reported by Rauch and Frese
(2001), are fully compatible with the link between innovativeness
(2007), whose labels suggest a certain affinity to Emotional Stabil-
and Openness.
ity (reverse of Neuroticism), i.e., generalized self-efficacy, stress
tolerance, and locus of control (for empirical evidence of this affin-
4.4.2. Conscientiousness
ity see Hartman & Betz, 2007; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002).
‘‘. . . describes socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates
task- and goal-directed behaviour, such as thinking before acting,
delaying gratification, following norms and rules, and planning, 5. Beyond meta-analyses
organizing, and prioritizing tasks”. Conscientiousness is reported
by Zhao and Seibert (2006) as one of the Big Five dimensions where 5.1. Variables mediating the personality trait effects
entrepreneurs are superior to managers. Looking at two facets of
Conscientiousness (i.e., achievement motivation and dependabil- Whereas the meta-analysis approach is quite efficient in detect-
ity), only achievement motivation differentiated entrepreneurs ing, summarizing, and reporting personality main effects, it is less
from managers. Obviously, it can make sense to look for lower level apt in dealing with mediating and moderating effects, mainly be-
components (facets) of well established global dimensions. For cause the number of studies reporting such effects is often not
Conscientiousness as global trait (without distinction of facets) large enough to allow a reliable estimation of means and error
Zhao et al. (2010) report a positive correlation both with intention variances of the effects across studies. It seems, therefore, advis-
to become an entrepreneur and with entrepreneurial performance. able to pay special attention to some single studies that report the-
oretically interesting and practically relevant mediator and
4.4.3. Extraversion moderator effects.
‘‘. . . implies an energetic approach toward the social and mate- An example of the role of mediator variables in a complex de-
rial world and includes traits such as sociability, activity, assertive- sign is a study by Göbel and Frese (1999) who correlate self-reports
ness, and positive emotionality”. on 29 specific personality traits, four human capital variables, and
Entrepreneurs are somewhat more extraverted than managers 13 entrepreneurial strategies (the latter as mediating variables)
(Zhao & Seibert, 2006) and Extraversion shows weak but signifi- with self-reported success (composed of business size, growth,

Please cite this article in press as: Brandstätter, H. Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences (2010), doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007
 H. Brandstätter / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2010) xxx–xxx 7

entrepreneur’s job satisfaction, and income) in a heterogeneous terms of business success) with dynamic, fast changing environ-
sample of German small business entrepreneurs. ments, whereas transactional leadership turned out to be particu-
Marcati, Guido, and Peluso (2008) show that the influence of larly unfavourable in such an environment.
general innovativeness (GI) on the intention to adopt innovations Hmieleski and Baron (2008) present an example of three-way
(as proxy for actual innovative behaviour in one’s firm) is com- interaction of entrepreneurial self-efficacy  dspositional opti-
pletely mediated by domain specific innovativeness (SI). In addi- mism  environmental dynamism on firm performance (revenue
tion, they correlated GI and SI to measures of the Big Five growth and employment growth): in dynamic environments entre-
(n = 188 entrepreneurs of small and medium sized firms of various preneurial self-efficacy (self-ratings of skills in various entrepre-
industries) with the following results: O (.41; .38), C (.51; .21), E neurial activities) has positive effects on performance when
(.24; .39), A (.38; -.34), and N (.22; .07). It would have been optimism is moderate, but negative when it is high. In stable envi-
interesting to see how the Big Five influence (indirectly and di- ronments self-efficacy had only a weak effect on performance and
rectly) the intention to adopt innovations, but this information is was not moderated by optimism. It seems that a very high level of
not given by the authors. dispositional optimism implies overconfidence that is particularly
How the effects of entrepreneurial orientation (with the compo- dangerous in dynamic environments where timely realistic judge-
nents of innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, competitive ments of opportunities and risks are first and foremost important.
aggressiveness, and autonomy) on performance (efficiency,
growth, and profit) of newly founded firms in Taiwan is mediated
by knowledge creation processes (ways of sharing individual 5.3. A look at a complex model of entrepreneurship
knowledge and optimizing its use in solving of organizational
problems) is reported by Li, Huang, and Tsai (2009). Meta-analyses cannot adequately mirror the results of studies
the design of which is highly complex (in terms of number of vari-
ables and connections between the variables). For the sake of brev-
5.2. Variables moderating the personality trait effects ity only one example is presented here that should give an
impression of how such complex models could look like.
Intentions to found a private business can be conceived of as an From the perspective of a theory of action (Frese & Zapf, 1994).
additive effect of perceived desirability (attitude to ownership) and Frese (2009) elaborated on the influence of the entrepreneur’s per-
perceived feasibility (entrepreneurial self-efficacy). However, Fitz- sonality characteristics as well as of human capital on entrepre-
simmons and Douglas (in press), controlling for some other vari- neurial success which is assumed to be mediated by action styles
ables possibly influencing entrepreneurial intentions, found in a like goal orientation and planning (Frese, Stewart, & Hannover,
sample of about 400 MBA students from a variety of countries 1987). Several other individually characteristic ways of informa-
(Australia, China, India or Thailand) a (multiplicative) interaction tion processing and acting in the specific environment are taken
effect of desirability and feasibility: there were main effects of per- into account (Fig. 1). The environment is characterized by the
ceived desirability (b = .36) and perceived feasibility (b = .30) com- developmental stage of the firm (life cycle), the speed of change
plemented by a negative interaction effect desirability  feasibility (dynamism), adverse economic conditions like high competition
(b = .16), all coefficients being highly significant (p < .001). People and lack of resources (hostility), and branch of business (industry).
high on desirability form intentions, even if the perceived feasibil- In combination with personal characteristics, the environment
ity is low, whereas people with low desirability tend to abstain influences entrepreneurial activities which in turn change the
from intentions only when feasibility is low, too. The authors clas- environment. Personality and environment are seen also as moder-
sify entrepreneurs according to their pattern of perceived desir- ators of the influence of ways of actions on business success. All
ability and perceived feasibility. these conditions and processes are embedded in the specific cul-
Ensley, Pearce, and Hmieleski (2006) found that transforma- tural context. For some of the theoretically postulated influences
tional leadership of entrepreneurs was particularly effective (in the authors refer to supporting empirical studies.

Fig. 1. Example of a complex process model of entrepreneurship (Frese, 2009, p. 459).

Please cite this article in press as: Brandstätter, H. Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences (2010), doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007
8 H. Brandstätter / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

5.4. Missing laboratory experiments in entrepreneurship research aim for, what they do, and what they actually achieve. The influ-
ence of personality traits may be stronger with entrepreneurs than
Psychological research on entrepreneurship is almost exclu- with most other professions, because the entrepreneurial role pro-
sively based on questionnaires, usually applied in field studies, vides more freedom in choosing and changing the environment as
whereas econometric research on antecedent conditions and eco- well as in acting according to personal preferences and goals. Help-
nomic consequences of entrepreneurship commonly draws on ing aspiring entrepreneurs not only to learn about economic
macro-economic indicators characterizing national or regional opportunities, legal regulations, and financial support of a start-
economies. The advantage of the experimental approach in testing up, but also about the chances, limits, and risks given with their
causal influences is widely neglected in psychological entrepre- personality structure (cognitive abilities, motives, values, and tem-
neurship research. Experimental economics, too, has rarely fo- perament) can now rely on the results of highly valuable psycho-
cussed on entrepreneurial decision making. Examples of logical entrepreneurship research. This topic is a fine example of
experiments that have some affinity to the tasks of entrepreneurs the value of integrating personality psychology and economic-re-
are Dittrich, Güth, and Maciejovski (2005) for investment decisions lated behaviour.
and Dimov (2007) for entrepreneurial opportunity perception and
action.
References
5.5. Personality in counselling and training aspiring entrepreneurs
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., et al. (2004).
A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from
Research on how personality characteristics influence business psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social
set-up and success can improve counselling of aspiring entrepre- Psychology, 86, 356–366.
Bipp, T., Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2008). Personality and achievement
neurs and the efficiency of business support. Since consulting
motivation: Relationship among Big Five domain and facet scales,
aspiring entrepreneurs has become quite common, thinking about achievement goals, and intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 44,
the opportunities and restraints given with one’s personality struc- 1454–1464.
Böheim, R., Stiglbauer, A., & Winter-Ebmer, R. (2009). On the persistence of job
ture will be a useful part of counselling and self-reflection. Some
creation in old and new firms. Economic Letters, 105, 17–19.
aspiring entrepreneurs will need encouragement, to others warn- Brandstätter, H. (2009). Persönlichkeits-Adjektiv-Skalen (PASK5). Fünf Faktoren
ings of the dangers of overconfidence might be helpful. Modell [Personality Adjective Scales – PASK5. Five Factor Model]. In A.
Glöckner-Rist (Ed.), Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen.
ZIS 13.00. Bonn: GESIS.
Brunstein, J. C. (2008). Implicit and explicit motives. In J. Heckhausen & & H.
6. Conclusions
Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and action (3rd ed., pp. 227–246). Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Analyzing the tasks of entrepreneurs is an indispensable first Cassar, G., & Friedman, H. (2009). Does self-efficacy affect entrepreneurial
step in entrepreneurial research. These tasks vary with circum- investment? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3, 241–260.
Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Harmondsworth: Penguin
stances such as the type of industry (providing service or material Books.
goods, based on new technology or conventional techniques), re- Collins, C. J., Hanges, P. J., & Locke, E. E. (2004). The relationship of achievement
gion, competitors, social networks, founding a business as a matter motivation to entrepreneurial behavior: A meta-analysis. Human Performance,
17, 95–117.
of necessity or opportunity, financial resources, developmental Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R)
stage of the business. But techniques for systematic analyses of and NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Professional manual. Odessa, FL: PAR.
entrepreneurial tasks under various circumstances still wait for Crant, J. M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial
intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34, 42–49.
development. It should be an important project of future psycho- Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five factor model.
logical entrepreneurship research. A systematic analysis of entre- Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.
preneurs’ tasks and socio-economic circumstances will probably Dimov, D. (2007). From opportunity insight to opportunity intention: The
importance of person–situation learning match. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
reveal that as yet neglected personality aspects like cognitive abil- Practice, 31, 561–583.
ities or values are equally important as the Big Five personality Dittrich, D. A. V., Güth, W., & Maciejovski, B. (2005). Overconfidence in investment
dimensions or similar constructs. decisions: An experimental approach. The European Journal of Finance, 11,
471–491.
The prominence of FFM should not hinder development and
Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of
application of special purpose scales, but it should be standard, Management, 29, 333–349.
actually a matter of routine, to include in any entrepreneurship Ensley, M. D., Pearce, C. L., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2006). The moderating effect of
study on individual differences short, but sufficiently reliable and environmental dynamism on the relationship between entrepreneur leadership
behavior and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21,
valid measures of the Big Five. This is the only way to secure com- 243–263.
parability of the results across the variety of personality measures Erken, H., Donselaar, P., & Thurik, R. (2008). Total factor productivity and the role of
and studies, and to learn whether a specific (new) scale is redun- entrepreneurship. Jena Economic Research Papers, 19.
Escher, S., Grabarkiewicz, R., Frese, M., van Steekelenburg, G., Lauw, M., & Friedrich,
dant or has incremental validity beyond the Big Five. C. (2002). The moderator effect of cognitive ability on the relationship between
In the future, longitudinal studies are very much needed in or- planning strategies and business success of small scale business owners in
der to defend causal inferences from personality traits (in the South Africa: A longitudinal study. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7,
305–318.
broader sense) to entrepreneurial intentions, set-up decisions, Fitzsimmons, J. R., & Douglas, E. J. (in press). Interaction between feasibility and
and performance against common objections. Such studies could desirability in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business
also collect data on mental and behavioural processes that might Venturing.
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality
be conceived of as variables that mediate the influence of person- traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social
ality traits on the results of the entrepreneurs’ endeavours. Mental Psychology, 80, 1011–1027.
processes are accessible mainly through self-reports when neuro- Frese, M. (2009). Towards a psychology of entrepreneurship: An action theory
perspective. Foundations and TrendsÒ in Entrepreneurship, 5, 437–496.
physiological measurement techniques are not available or not
Frese, M., Stewart, J., & Hannover, B. (1987). Goal orientation and planfulness:
applicable, whereas behavioural processes can and should be as- Action styles as personality concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
sessed both with self-reports and reports of observers in different 52, 1182–1194.
roles. Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German
approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. Hough (Eds.). Handbook of
There can be little doubt any more that personality traits con- industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 271–340). Palo Alto, CA:
tribute substantially to the way entrepreneurs think, what they Consulting Psychologists Press.

Please cite this article in press as: Brandstätter, H. Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences (2010), doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007
 H. Brandstätter / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2010) xxx–xxx 9

Fuller, B., Jr., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review Nicolaou, N., & Shane, S. (2009). Can genetic factors influence the likelihood of
of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, engaging in entrepreneurial activity? Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 1–22.
329–345. OECD (2009). Measuring entrepreneurship: A digest of indicators (2009 ed.).
Gartner, W. B. (1989). ‘‘Who is an entrepreneur?’’ is the wrong question. Olver, J. M., & Mooradian, T. A. (2003). Personality traits and personal values: A
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 12, 47–68. conceptual and empirical integration. Personality and Individual Differences, 35,
Göbel, S., & Frese, M. (1999). Persönlichkeit, Strategien und Erfolg bei 109–125.
Kleinunternehmern. In K. Moser, B. Batinic, & J. Zempel (Eds.), Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (2000). What is beyond the Big Five? Plenty!
Unternehmerisch erfolgreiches Handeln (pp. 93–113). Göttingen: Hogrefe. Journal of Personality, 68, 821–835.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ‘‘description of personality”: The Big-Five Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2000). Effects of human resources strategies on success of
factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229. small-scale businesses: A longitudinal study. In P. D. Reynolds, E. Autio, C. G.
Hartman, R. O., & Betz, N. E. (2007). The five-factor model and career self-efficacy: Brush, W. D. Bygrave, S. Manigart, H. J. Sapienza, & K. G. Shaver (Eds.), Frontiers
General and domain-specific relationships. Journal of Career Assessment, 15, of entrepreneurship research 2000 (pp. 530–541). Babson Park, MS: Babson
145–161. College, Center for Entrepreneurial Studies.
Heggestad, E. D., & Kanfer, R. (2000). Individual differences in trait motivation: Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship
Development of the motivational trait questionnaire. International Journal of research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’
Educational Research, 33, 751–776. personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work
Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (2008). When does entrepreneurial self-efficacy and Organizational Psychology, 16, 353–385.
enhance versus reduce firm performance? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2, Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial
57–72. orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 761–787.
and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Roberts, B. E., & Robins, R. W. (2000). Broad dispositions, broad aspirations: The
Resources. intersection of personality traits and major life goals. Personality and Social
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Leadership, Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1284–1296.
culture and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
Sage. intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big- 55, 68–78.
Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.
R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research Schumpeter, J. (1912/1988). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Berlin:
(3rd ed., pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Duncker and Humblot.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, Sipe, T. A., & Curlette, W. L. (1997). A meta-synthesis of factors related to
neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a educational achievement: Methodological approach to summarizing and
common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, synthesizing meta-analyses. International Journal of Educational Research, 25,
693–710. 583–698.
Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (1996). Distinguishing reactive versus reflective Stewart, W. H., Jr., & Roth, P. L. (2001). Risk propensity differences between
autonomy. Journal of Personality, 64, 465–494. entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied
Korunka, Ch., Frank, H., Lueger, M., & Mugler, J. (2003). The entrepreneurial Psychology, 86, 145–153.
personality in the context of resources, environment, and the startup process – Stewart, W. H., Jr., & Roth, P. L. (2004). Data quality affects meta-analytic
A configurational approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 23–42. conclusions: A response to Miner and Raju (2004) concerning entrepreneurial
Li, Y. H., Huang, J. W., & Tsai, M. T. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm risk propensity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 14–21.
performance: The role of knowledge creation process. Industrial Marketing Stewart, W. H., Jr., & Roth, P. L. (2007). A meta-analysis of achievement motivation.
Management, 38, 440–449. Differences between entrepreneurs and managers. Journal of Small Business
Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and Management, 45, 401–421.
the Big Five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Townsend, D. M., Busenitz, L. W., & Arthurs, J. D. (2010). To start or not to start:
Psychology, 91, 927–935. Outcome and ability expectations in the decision to start a new venture. Journal
Mandrik, C. A. (2005). Exploring the concept and measurement of general risk of Business Venturing, 25, 192–202.
aversion. Advances in Consumer Research, 31, 531–539. Van Praag, C. M., & Versloot, P. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship: A
Marcati, A., Guido, G., & Peluso, A. M. (2008). The role of SME entrepreneurs’ review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29, 351–382.
innovativeness and personality in the adoption of innovations. Research Policy, Zang, L. F., & Huang, J. (2001). Thinking styles and the five-factor model of
37, 1579–1590. personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 465–476.
McClelland, D. C. (1965). Need achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and
study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 389–392. entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and Psychology, 91, 259–271.
implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690–702. Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2010). The relationship of personality to
Miner, J. B., & Raju, N. S. (2004). Risk propensity differences between managers and entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
entrepreneurs and between low- and high-growth entrepreneurs: A reply in a Management, 36, 381–404.
more conservative vain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 3–13. Zibarras, L. D., Port, R. L., & Woods, S. A. (2008). Innovation and the ‘dark side’ of
Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., & Willman, P. (2005). Personality and personality: Dysfunctional traits and their relation to innovation potential.
domain-specific risk taking. Journal of Risk Research, 8, 157–176. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 201–215.

Please cite this article in press as: Brandstätter, H. Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences (2010), doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007