Table 1 Literature streams, core... | Emerald Publishing

Table 1

Literature streams, core assumptions, gaps, method theory integration, and this paper's contributions

Literature stream	Core assumptions	Limitations/gaps	Method theory integration	How this paper addresses gaps
Experiential knowledge (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977; Lafuente et al., 2021; Faroque et al., 2023)	Experiential knowledge drives further commitment to internationalization Experience accumulation reduces uncertainty, always viewed as an asset	Assumes experiential knowledge is only an asset, never a liability Limited attention to post-entry failures and setbacks	Paradox theory and cognitive bias theory together reframe experiential knowledge as both asset and liability, showing how it can also foster biases in IE	Explains post-entry de-escalation of commitment by introducing experience as a source of bias as well as knowledge
Internationalization experience (Sapienza et al., 2006; Autio et al., 2000; Kuivalainen et al., 2012)	Founder’s previous experience confers vision, agility, and networks Previous experience enables early and rapid internationalization	Assumes prior experience is only an asset, never a liability Neglects cognitive misalignment between prior experience and current context	Paradox theory reframes prior experience as both enabling and misleading; allows for considering contradictions stemming from limited or irrelevant experience being overapplied in IE	Defines the experience gap paradox, where narrow or irrelevant founder experience paradoxically creates confidence; introduces deparadoxification to explain how biases (e.g., overconfidence) temporarily mask contradictions
Managerial cognition and biases (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979; Baron, 2007; Maitland and Sammartino, 2015; Clark et al., 2022; Niittymies, 2020)	Decision-making under uncertainty is prone to systematic biases Biases may be adaptive (fast-and-frugal) or distortive (heuristics-and-biases)	Role of biases in IE underdeveloped Biases often treated as static and context-free Limited focus on bias evolution over internationalization	Cognitive bias theory explains how biases emerge at different IE stages; paradox theory explains how contradictory tensions persist and resurface in IE	Introduces bias evolution – showing how founders’ biases shift across stages; explains recalibration via deparadoxification and adaptive paradoxification
Paradox theory in management (Lewis, 2000; Smith and Lewis, 2011; Waldman et al., 2019)	Contradictory yet interrelated tensions persist Paradoxes can be generative rather than paralyzing	Typically applied at organizational level Limited micro-level application Rarely linked to entrepreneurial cognition in internationalization	Paradox theory explains enduring contradictions while cognitive bias/heuristics specify the micro-level decision processes through which such tensions are managed in IE	Extends paradox theory to individual-level cognition and decision-making in internationalization; explains how paradoxes are masked (deparadoxification) and later surfaced (adaptive paradoxification)
Post-entry decision-making (Bingham and Eisenhardt, 2011; Surdu et al., 2019; Hunt et al., 2021)	Heuristics guide strategic choices such as persistence, exit, and re-entry Experiential learning refines decision rules	Focuses on firm-level strategies Underexplores micro-level cognitive processes Lacks consideration of bias evolution	Cognitive bias/heuristic research explains how decision rules emerge in IE, while paradox theory shows how evolving tensions shape heuristic use. Heuristics are therefore not only decision tools but also outcomes of evolving biases and paradox management	Illustrates heuristic evolution: heuristics shift from reactive (escapism, ROR, ALL) to strategic use as biases evolve

Literature stream	Core assumptions	Limitations/gaps	Method theory integration	How this paper addresses gaps
Experiential knowledge (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977; Lafuente et al., 2021; Faroque et al., 2023)	Experiential knowledge drives further commitment to internationalization Experience accumulation reduces uncertainty, always viewed as an asset	Assumes experiential knowledge is only an asset, never a liability Limited attention to post-entry failures and setbacks	Paradox theory and cognitive bias theory together reframe experiential knowledge as both asset and liability, showing how it can also foster biases in IE	Explains post-entry de-escalation of commitment by introducing experience as a source of bias as well as knowledge
Internationalization experience (Sapienza et al., 2006; Autio et al., 2000; Kuivalainen et al., 2012)	Founder’s previous experience confers vision, agility, and networks Previous experience enables early and rapid internationalization	Assumes prior experience is only an asset, never a liability Neglects cognitive misalignment between prior experience and current context	Paradox theory reframes prior experience as both enabling and misleading; allows for considering contradictions stemming from limited or irrelevant experience being overapplied in IE	Defines the experience gap paradox, where narrow or irrelevant founder experience paradoxically creates confidence; introduces deparadoxification to explain how biases (e.g., overconfidence) temporarily mask contradictions
Managerial cognition and biases (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979; Baron, 2007; Maitland and Sammartino, 2015; Clark et al., 2022; Niittymies, 2020)	Decision-making under uncertainty is prone to systematic biases Biases may be adaptive (fast-and-frugal) or distortive (heuristics-and-biases)	Role of biases in IE underdeveloped Biases often treated as static and context-free Limited focus on bias evolution over internationalization	Cognitive bias theory explains how biases emerge at different IE stages; paradox theory explains how contradictory tensions persist and resurface in IE	Introduces bias evolution – showing how founders’ biases shift across stages; explains recalibration via deparadoxification and adaptive paradoxification
Paradox theory in management (Lewis, 2000; Smith and Lewis, 2011; Waldman et al., 2019)	Contradictory yet interrelated tensions persist Paradoxes can be generative rather than paralyzing	Typically applied at organizational level Limited micro-level application Rarely linked to entrepreneurial cognition in internationalization	Paradox theory explains enduring contradictions while cognitive bias/heuristics specify the micro-level decision processes through which such tensions are managed in IE	Extends paradox theory to individual-level cognition and decision-making in internationalization; explains how paradoxes are masked (deparadoxification) and later surfaced (adaptive paradoxification)
Post-entry decision-making (Bingham and Eisenhardt, 2011; Surdu et al., 2019; Hunt et al., 2021)	Heuristics guide strategic choices such as persistence, exit, and re-entry Experiential learning refines decision rules	Focuses on firm-level strategies Underexplores micro-level cognitive processes Lacks consideration of bias evolution	Cognitive bias/heuristic research explains how decision rules emerge in IE, while paradox theory shows how evolving tensions shape heuristic use. Heuristics are therefore not only decision tools but also outcomes of evolving biases and paradox management	Illustrates heuristic evolution: heuristics shift from reactive (escapism, ROR, ALL) to strategic use as biases evolve