Table 2 Micro-mechanisms, triggers, and... | Emerald Publishing

Table 2

Micro-mechanisms, triggers, and boundary conditions of deparadoxification and adaptive paradoxification

Mechanism	Triggering cues	Temporal profile	Cognitive operations (anchor citations)	Outputs	Boundary conditions (anchor citations)
Deparadoxification (t₀–t₁, pre-/initial entry)	High uncertainty + limited/misaligned experience; need to sustain confidence and act despite knowledge gaps	Emerges before and during initial entry	Reducing uncertainty-induced discomfort (Luhmann, 1991); reliance on narrative fallacies for coherence (Taleb, 2007); selective attention and availability heuristics (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979); framing markets as psychically proximate (Clark et al., 2018)	Positively charged “make-happy” biases: overconfidence, (over)optimism, psychic proximity	Stronger when similarity cues (e.g. cultural familiarity, prior travel, perceived closeness) are salient and external challenge is weak (Johnson and Fowler, 2011); weaker when advisors or environmental turbulence highlights contradictions (Knudsen, 2006)
Adaptive paradoxification (t₂, post-entry)	Post-entry negative events (e.g. losses, partner conflict, unmet expectations) that disconfirm prior assumptions (Pedersen and Petersen, 2004)	Arises after setbacks when the concealed paradox resurfaces	Attribution of failure as internal vs. external (Bandura, 2000); frame revision (Tversky and Simonson, 1993); paradoxical reframing (Miron-Spektor and Paletz, 2017); recalibration into cautious optimism (Fraser and Greene, 2006; Wallston, 1994), diffidence (Bandura, 2000), and psychic distance bias (Sinha et al., 2015)	Bias recalibration; heuristics evolve from reactive (escapism, ROR, ALL) to more strategic application	Stronger when failures are recognized as stemming from own assumptions, feedback is timely (Schneider et al., 2016), and resources are scarce; weaker when failures are attributed solely to external factors, when resource availability allows inertia, or network ties buffer critical feedback (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013)

Mechanism	Triggering cues	Temporal profile	Cognitive operations (anchor citations)	Outputs	Boundary conditions (anchor citations)
Deparadoxification (t₀–t₁, pre-/initial entry)	High uncertainty + limited/misaligned experience; need to sustain confidence and act despite knowledge gaps	Emerges before and during initial entry	Reducing uncertainty-induced discomfort (Luhmann, 1991); reliance on narrative fallacies for coherence (Taleb, 2007); selective attention and availability heuristics (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979); framing markets as psychically proximate (Clark et al., 2018)	Positively charged “make-happy” biases: overconfidence, (over)optimism, psychic proximity	Stronger when similarity cues (e.g. cultural familiarity, prior travel, perceived closeness) are salient and external challenge is weak (Johnson and Fowler, 2011); weaker when advisors or environmental turbulence highlights contradictions (Knudsen, 2006)
Adaptive paradoxification (t₂, post-entry)	Post-entry negative events (e.g. losses, partner conflict, unmet expectations) that disconfirm prior assumptions (Pedersen and Petersen, 2004)	Arises after setbacks when the concealed paradox resurfaces	Attribution of failure as internal vs. external (Bandura, 2000); frame revision (Tversky and Simonson, 1993); paradoxical reframing (Miron-Spektor and Paletz, 2017); recalibration into cautious optimism (Fraser and Greene, 2006; Wallston, 1994), diffidence (Bandura, 2000), and psychic distance bias (Sinha et al., 2015)	Bias recalibration; heuristics evolve from reactive (escapism, ROR, ALL) to more strategic application	Stronger when failures are recognized as stemming from own assumptions, feedback is timely (Schneider et al., 2016), and resources are scarce; weaker when failures are attributed solely to external factors, when resource availability allows inertia, or network ties buffer critical feedback (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013)