(Photo by Unsplash+ in collaboration with Getty Images)
Proving people wrong can be a powerful motivator
In A Nutshell
- Entrepreneurs who recalled being told they would fail reported higher levels of persistence than a control group in three separate studies.
- The effect works through a psychological process called reactance: when someone challenges a founder’s freedom to pursue their venture, many push back harder.
- The less credible the critic, the stronger the urge to prove them wrong.
- The drive to prove others wrong can become unhealthy; researchers caution founders to check in with knowledgeable advisors and guard against obsessive thinking or doubling down on a venture that may need a second look.
Most people assume doubt is a dream killer. Tell someone their startup won’t survive, and logic says they’ll walk away. New research says otherwise. In three studies of entrepreneurs, those who had been told they were going to fail tended to push harder and stick with their ventures longer than those who faced no such skepticism at all.
Researchers call this the “underdog effect,” and their findings, published in the Journal of Business Venturing, may change how investors, mentors, and family members approach delivering critical feedback to the founders in their lives. Far from breaking a founder’s spirit, negative expectations can act like fuel, turning doubt into determination.
Across three studies involving more than 1,400 entrepreneurs, a team led by Timothy L. Michaelis at North Carolina State University found consistent evidence that being told one will fail appears to trigger a psychological response that increases the drive to keep going. Drawing on Psychological Reactance Theory, a well-established framework from social psychology, the researchers explain that when people feel their freedom to act is being challenged, many push back, sometimes harder than before. For entrepreneurs, that challenge takes the form of being told they will never make it.
How the Underdog Effect Was Tested in Real Entrepreneurs
In the first study, 424 entrepreneurs were divided into groups. One group was prompted to recall and write about a specific time someone told them they would fail at being an entrepreneur. A control group received no such prompt. All participants then answered questions measuring their current commitment to pushing their business forward.
Entrepreneurs who recalled being told they would fail reported markedly higher persistence than those in the control group. Also notable: in this sample, entrepreneurs who said they had never been told they would fail trended somewhat lower on persistence than even the control group, though that result stopped just short of statistical significance.
Post-experiment interviews conducted as part of Study 2 reinforced that pattern. “In every business somebody told me that we’re going to fail, which I enjoy… That’s my motivation,” one participant said. Another put it plainly: “I actually like when people think [my venture] is not going to work… it fuels me. It makes me go harder just to prove them wrong.”
Why the Source of Doubt Changes Everything for Entrepreneurs
A second study, drawing on 579 entrepreneurs, dug into the mechanics of the effect. It confirmed that recalling failure messages triggered higher psychological reactance, which fed into a stronger desire to prove the doubter wrong. Credibility of the person delivering the bad news also mattered.
When entrepreneurs viewed the critic as lacking relevant experience or knowledge, the urge to prove them wrong intensified. One entrepreneur explained it this way: “[The message] didn’t come from someone in the industry. It didn’t come from someone who had a business themselves. It was kind of one of those like ‘consider the source’ type of situations.”
When the source was seen as knowledgeable, however, entrepreneurs were more likely to sit with the feedback rather than fight against it. That finding carries practical weight for anyone giving advice to a founder. Investors or mentors with established credibility are actually more likely to have their concerns taken seriously, while off-hand negativity from unqualified sources may produce the opposite of the intended effect.
From Doubt to Hustle: Three Pathways to Entrepreneur Persistence
A third study followed 417 entrepreneurs across three months, tracking how the underdog effect translated into actual behavior. Researchers identified three routes connecting the need to prove others wrong with long-term persistence.
One of the clearest patterns involved what researchers call “entrepreneurial hustle,” Entrepreneurs who scored higher on the desire to prove others wrong also hustled more in the following month, and that hustle predicted greater persistence three months out.
Two indirect pathways also emerged. Entrepreneurs driven by underdog expectations spent more time consuming entrepreneurship-related media, including podcasts, business shows, and YouTube channels, and reported higher levels of obsessive thinking about their ventures. Neither activity amounts to directly working on the business, but both kept founders mentally engaged and invested. One participant described pinning a photo of a rival’s company next to his computer screen as daily motivation: “Every day when I look at my computer, I see him and his company. And that was motivation, you know, enough to forge on and trudge on every day and try to prove him wrong.”
Fifteen in-depth interviews with entrepreneurs recruited through university and alumni networks in the Midwest reinforced the survey data. About half recalled specific moments of being told they would fail, and each described how those experiences sharpened their commitment rather than diminishing it.
When Proving Someone Wrong Becomes Its Own Problem
Not every instance of stubborn persistence is a sound strategy. The authors caution that reactance-driven commitment can cause founders to double down on ventures that might be better reconsidered, staying in the fight to prove a point rather than making a clear-eyed call. Researchers suggest checking in regularly with credible, knowledgeable advisors to make sure the emotional drive to prove someone wrong isn’t crowding out rational judgment.
For investors, mentors, and family members, the takeaway is about framing. Blanket negativity can trigger the underdog effect. Specific, constructive criticism from a credible source is far more likely to be absorbed. For many founders, being dismissed turns out to be exactly the kind of motivation that money, passion, and self-belief cannot always supply on their own.
Disclaimer: This article is based on peer-reviewed research and is intended for general informational purposes only. The findings reflect results from specific study samples and may not apply to all entrepreneurs or business contexts. Nothing in this article should be taken as professional business, financial, or psychological advice.
Paper Notes
Limitations
The authors acknowledge several limitations. Studies 1 and 2 relied on self-reported and self-sorted data, meaning participants determined whether they had experienced underdog expectations, which introduces some possibility of selection effects. Matching analyses confirmed results held up, but the authors caution against fully causal interpretations. The three-month window in Study 3 is relatively short, leaving open how long the underdog effect persists beyond that period. Interview participants were recruited primarily from Midwest entrepreneur networks and skewed toward white, male founders, limiting demographic breadth. All three samples came from Western cultural contexts, and the authors note the findings may not generalize to more collectivist societies where social conformity shapes responses to failure expectations differently. The research also did not vary the intensity, framing, or delivery format of failure messages, leaving open whether face-to-face criticism, written feedback, or online commentary would produce meaningfully different outcomes.
Funding and Disclosures
The paper does not report external funding sources. The corresponding author is Timothy L. Michaelis at North Carolina State University ([email protected]). Study 3 was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework prior to data collection, and the authors indicate data will be made available upon request. No conflicts of interest are declared.
Publication Details
Authors: Timothy L. Michaelis (North Carolina State University), April J. Spivack (Hanken School of Economics, Finland), Nicholas A. Smith (Northern Illinois University), Jeffrey M. Pollack (North Carolina State University), Jon C. Carr (North Carolina State University), and Alexander McKelvie (Syracuse University). | Journal: Journal of Business Venturing, Volume 41 (2026), Article 106581. | Title: “I’ll prove you wrong! The underdog effect as an antecedent to entrepreneurial action and venture persistence.” | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2026.106581 | Published online: February 5, 2026. Received January 17, 2025; accepted January 20, 2026.
