Sabrina Sihombing-Pelita Harapan

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur? An Examination of the Theory of Trying Sabrina O. Sihombing

International Seminar “Becoming The Key Player in New Globalism” 63rd FEB Unhas 1

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur?An Examination of the Theory of Trying

Sabrina O. SihombingUniversity of Pelita Harapan

[email protected]

AbstractBeing an entrepreneur is one goal of many students after completing thestudy. This is because entrepreneurships offer many benefits such asowning business and a possibility of having significant financial rewardsthan working for others. Entrepreneurship is also known as a key forinnovation and the wealth of nations. Much research has applied thetheory of planned behavior (TPB) to predict intention to becomeentrepreneurs. However, no researches have applied the theory of trying(TT) to understand intention to become entrepreneur. The aim of thisresearch to assess applicability of the theory of trying to predict intentionto become entrepreneurs. A self-administered questionnaire was used tocollect the data for this study. Questionnaires were distributed torespondents by the drop-off/pick-up method and a total of 146 usablequestionnaires were used in the analysis. The data was then analyzed usingstructural equation modeling. Three out of six hypotheses were supported.Those hypotheses are the relationship between attitude toward becomingan entrepreneur and intention to try becoming an entrepreneur, therelationship subjective norms and intention to try becoming anentrepreneur, and the relationship between attitude toward success andexpectation of success and attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur. Thispaper also provides discussion and offers directions for future research.

Key words: theory of trying, theory of planned behavior, intention,entrepreneur



Introduction

Entrepreneur is a word that attracts many people from different fields nowadays. Peoplein government fields believe that entrepreneurs as one main factor that can contribute tothe development of nations. Academicians believe that entrepreneurs as people who canfind many potential things to be done. Furthermore, entrepreneurship is then offered inmany universities. Not only that, entrepreneurship is now also offered as a subject in highschool (Kompas, 2011).

Being an entrepreneur is also as one goal of many students after completing the study.This is because entrepreneurships offer many benefits such as owning business and apossibility of having significant financial rewards than working for others.Entrepreneurship is also known as a key for innovation and the wealth of nations(Bouncken, Zagvozdina, Golze, and Mrozewska, 2009).

Many entrepreneurship researches have focused on student intention to becomeentrepreneur (e.g., Izedonmi and Okafor, 2010; Zain, Akram, and Ghani, 2010; Weber,von Graevenitz, and Harhoff, 2009; Veciana, Aponte, and Urbana, 2005; Krueger, Reilly,and Carsrud, 2000). This is because intentions have proven as the best predictor ofplanned behavior whereas entrepreneurship is the type of planned behavior (Krueger etal., 2000). Therefore, several studies apply the theory of planned behavior (TPB) tounderstand student intention to become entrepreneur (e.g., Brannback, Krueger, Carsrud,Kickul, and Elfving, 2007; Linan and Chen, 2006; Krueger et al., 2000). However, to thebest of our knowledge, there is no empirical research have attempted on examining thetheory of trying to predict student intention to become entrepreneur. Nevertheless thetheory of trying is as a refinement of the TPB which final performance is assumed to bepreceding by a series of attempt and trials (Brannback et al., 2007). Furthermore, Carsrudand Brannback (2011) pointed out that researches based on the theory of trying have beencarried out to predict low-level goals such as loosing weight and using a piece ofsoftware. Therefore, there is a need to apply the theory to predict higher level goals sucha becoming an entrepreneur (Carsrud and Brannback, 2011).

This paper is organized as follows. First, justifications of the research are presented.Then, the literature review on about entrepreneur definition and entrepreneur intentionsand the theory of trying are provided. The next section is research method followed byresults of this research. Finally, this paper provides conclusions of this research.

Justifications to the research

This research can be justified on these two grounds as follows: (1) the need to test thetheory of trying in different contexts and (2) potential contributions of the research fortheory and practice.

The need to test the theory of trying in different contexts. Theory of trying (hereafter TT)was developed by Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990). The objective of TT is to explain goal-directed behaviors. As stated above, Carsrud and Brannback (2011) pointed out thatresearches based on the theory of trying have been carried out to predict low-level goalssuch as loosing weight and using a piece of software. Therefore, there is a need to applythe theory to predict higher level goals such a becoming an entrepreneur. Furthermore,



the importance of theory testing is also pointed by Petty and Cacioppo (1996, p.6) asfollows:

“Our advice is not to give up theory testing but to pursue theory testingthoughtfully with an eye toward understanding the many things that can belearned by failure of the theory and to be as critical of successes as of failures.”

Potential contributions for theory and practice. From a theoretical point of view, theresults of this study give contributions to the understanding of students’ intention tobecome entrepreneurs. Since not many studies on students’ intention based on the theoryof trying, it is hoped that the result of this research give contribution to the application ofthe theory of trying to predict students’ intention to become entrepreneur. In the specific,the findings of this research could give some insights to entrepreneurship literature inIndonesian context. From a practical point of view, this research gives insight touniversity about students’ intention to become entrepreneurs.

Literature review

Entrepreneur definitions

The term of entrepreneur is derived from the French word “entreprendre” which means“to undertake” (Kuratko, 2008). There are many definitions about entrepreneur becausethere is no single definition of entrepreneur has been uniformly accepted in the literature(Kuratko, 2008). For example, Virtanen (1997) stated that an entrepreneur is a personwho has entrepreneurial mind with a strong need for achievement. In a similar vein withVirtanen, Kao et al. (2002) defined entrepreneur as a person who undertakes a wealth-creating and value-adding process, through developing ideas, assembling resources andmaking things happen.

Entrepreneurial intention

Entrepreneurial intention is considered as the first step in becoming as entrepreneur (Leeand Wong, cited by Linan and Chen, 2006). Intention is defined as “instructions peoplegive to themselves to behave in certain ways” (Triandis, 1983 cited by Bagozzi and Yi,1989). Therefore, it can be stated that intentions represent people plans to perform theirbehavior. Intention is also as the immediate determinant of behavior (Bagozzi and Yi,1988).

There are two theories that are widely used to predict behavioral intention. Thosetheories are the theory of reasoned action (TRA, Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) and thetheory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1988). According to TRA that individual’s action isinfluenced by behavioral intention. Behavioral intention, in return, is a function ofattitude toward performing the behavior and subjective norm (Figure 1). Attitude towardperforming the behavior is defined as a favorable or unfavorable evaluation of thebehavior. Furthermore, subjective norm is defined as perceived social pressure to performor not to perform the behavior.



Figure 1. Theory of Reasoned Action

Source: Ajzen and Fishbein (1980, p.8)

TRA is one of the theories that have achieved recognition as a fundamental theory toexplain human behavior (Bagozzi, 1992). However, the theory also was criticizedespecially in understanding behavior. TRA is considered as a theory that can explain onlyvolitional behavior, that is, behavior is assumed to be under one’s control (Bagozzi, 1992;Ajzen, 1988). Furthermore, Bagozzi (1992) also pointed out that reasoned behaviors arenot subject to performance impediments. On the other hand, impediments to performbehavior do exist. People may feel they have little power over their behavior. Therefore,Ajzen (1988) then added one variable (that is, perceived behavioral control) in TRA toovercome the main limitation of TRA. In the specific, perceived behavioral control isadded in attempt to deal with situations in people may lack complete volitional controlover the behavior of interest (Ajzen, 2002). Perceived behavioral control is defined asperceived capability to perform the behavior. Then, this newer theory was entitled as theTheory of Planned Behavior (TPB) as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Theory of Planned Behavior

BehavioralIntention

Source: Ajzen (1988,p.133)

Attitudes towardperforming the

behavior

Subjective norms

BehavioralIntention

Behavior

Perceivedbehavioral control

Attitudes towardperforming the

behavior

Subjective norms

BehavioralIntention

Behavior



Theory of Trying

The theory of trying (TT) was developed by Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990) to predict goaldirected behavior (Figure 3). The TT was developed by using the theory of reasonedaction (TRA) as a theoretical basis. According to Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990) statedthat TRA should be revised. This is because behavior can not be limited into volitionalbehavior (i.e., behavior is assumed to be under one’s control) or non volitional control (asin the theory of planned behavior). However, behavior should be viewed as a process oftrying to achieve a goal. Therefore, behavior in TT is viewed as a series of attempt andtrials. Thus, Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990) suggested that effort or trying to achieve thegoal should replace behavior as the dependent criterion. Therefore, the theory of tryingcan be stated as follows: trying to achieve a goal is determined by intention to try, whichin turn is determined by attitude and social norm toward trying (Bagozzi and Warshaw,1990).

Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990) also pointed out the importance of past behavior as thedetermination of behavior. The consideration of past behavior can predict behavioralintention is also based on the assumption that people behavior is largely learned behavior(Hawkins and Mothersbaugh, 2010). Extensive research has shown that past behavior is asignificant predictor of intention or behavior (e.g., Huang and Wu, 2011; Kim andChung, 2011; Ewing, 2000; Gabler and Jones, 2000; Ouellette and Wood, 1998; Bagozziet al., 1992).

There are different conceptualization of attitude in TRA, TPB, and TT (Table 1). InTTA and TPB, attitude is conceptualized as a unidimension construct which attitude asaffection. On the other hand, attitude was proposed by Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990) intheir TT as multiple attitudes which contain three different forms of attitude. Those formsof attitude are attitude toward goal success, attitude toward goal failure, attitude towardprocess of pursuing a goal. Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990, p.135) also stated that theintroduction of multiple attitude is a central feature of the model.

Table 1. The differences between the Theory of Planned behavior and the theory oftrying

Critical differences Theory of Planned Behavior Theory of TryingBehavior

Attitude

2 types of behavior:volitional andnonvolitional.

Take final performance ofactions as the dependentvariable.

Actions as a singleperformance of guidedbodily movement.

Unidimensional

2 types of behavior:intended actions andunintended actions

Conceive of action as aprocess or a striving.

Action as one attempt ormore, or as a sequence ofattempts, to achieve a finalperformance.

Multidimensional (3components of attitude:



Perceived behavioral control

Past behavior

The inclusion of perceivedbehavioral control in thetheory.

Intention and behavior areinfluences by past behaviorthrough backgroundfactors.

attitude toward success,attitude toward failure, andattitude toward process).

The integration ofexpectations of success andfailure.

The inclusion of pastbehavior through frequencyof past trying and recencyof past trying.

Source: Bagozzi (1992), Bagozzi dan Warshaw (1990), Ajzen (1988)

Figure 3. Theory of Trying

Source: Bagozzi (1992), Carsrud and Brannback (2011)

Attitude towardsuccess

Subjective normtoward trying

Attitude towardprocess

Expectation ofsuccess

Recencyof pasttrying

Expectation offailure

Attitudetoward trying

Frequency ofpast trying

Intentionto try

Attitude towardfailure

Trying



Research model and hypotheses

Based on the theory of trying, six hypotheses can be stated as follows:

H4a

H3H4b

H1

H4c

H2

H1: There is significant and positive relationship between attitude toward becoming anentrepreneur and intention to try becoming an entrepreneur.

H2: There is significant and positive relationship between subjective norms towardbecoming an entrepreneur and intention to try becoming an entrepreneur.

H3: There is significant and positive relationship between frequency of past trying andintention to try becoming an entrepreneur.

H4a: There is significant and positive relationship between attitude toward trying andsucceeding and attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur.

H4b: There is significant and positive relationship between attitude toward trying butfailing and attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur.

H4c: There is significant and positive relationship between attitude toward process andattitude toward becoming an entrepreneur.

Attitude towardsuccess

Subjective normtoward trying

Attitude towardprocess

Expectation ofsuccess

Expectation offailure

Attitude towardtrying

Intention to try

Attitude towardfailure

Frequency ofpast trying



Method

Samples. Subjects were drawn from purposive sampling method of students which inbusiness school in one private university in West Java. There are two major criteriaguided the selection of the respondents. First, respondents are students from managementdepartment. The reason students from management department because the subject ofentrepreneurship is given to management students but not to accounting students. Second,respondents should at least in their sixth semester. This is because in that semester almoststudents have completed their entrepreneurship subject. Furthermore, most students intheir sixth semester will finish their course soon and think about their future.

Instrument Development. There are two main steps in developing the research instrument.The first step is identifying salient beliefs of the target outcome. In the specific, thisresearch applied the procedure that recommended by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) toidentify salient beliefs of the target outcome, that is, becoming an entrepreneur. Anexploratory study was conducted to identify salient beliefs of becoming an entrepreneur.In that study, respondents were asked to list the advantages, disadvantages, and anythingelse they associated separately with trying and succeeding, trying but failing, and tryingper se to be an entrepreneur after graduation. Then, beliefs that most frequentlymentioned outcome were chosen. In the specific, responses had to be mentioned by atleast 20 percent of the sample (Bagozzi and Warshaw, 1990).

The resulting salient beliefs are as follows. Salient beliefs for trying and succeedingare feel proud, feel happy, and feel satisfaction. Salient beliefs for trying but failing arefeeling disappointed, feel unhappy, and feel bad. Salient beliefs for the process itself arefeel happy, feel good, and feel glad.

The second step is questionnaire development. There are 9 sections in thequestionnaire. As suggested by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), this research questionnairecontained subheadings that identified constructs under considerations. For instance, thethree indicators about trying and succeeding were accompanied by a bold notation thatread “attitude toward trying and succeeding”. Five points Likert scale statements andsemantic differential scale were applied in this research.

The first section was subjective norms toward trying. Subjective norms toward tryingare the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior (Bagozzi,1992). Sample statement for this section was "Most people who are important to me thinkthat I should try to be an entrepreneur.” There were a total of three statements in thissection.

The second section of the instrument measures the students’ intention to try to becomean entrepreneur. There were three statements in this section. A sample statement ofstudents’ intention was “my professional goal is to becoming an entrepreneur”.

The third to six sections of the questionnaire measured the students' attitudes towardtrying to be an entrepreneur. There are 3 components of attitude toward trying: attitudetoward trying and succeeding, attitude toward trying but failure, and attitude towardprocess. Sample statements for attitudes were “All things considered, my trying tobecome an entrepreneur after graduation make me feel bad/good” (attitude towardtrying), “My trying and succeeding at becoming an entrepreneur after graduation wouldmake me feel not proud/proud” (attitude toward trying and succeeding), “My trying but



failing at becoming an entrepreneur after graduation would make me feel notdisappointed/disappointed” (attitude toward trying but failing), and “My trying tobecoming an entrepreneur after graduation, ignoring whether or not I actually succeed atbecoming an entrepreneur, would make me feel sad/happy” (attitude toward process).

The seventh section of the instrument measures the students’ expectation of success.Only one indicator used to measure respondents’ expectation of success, that is,“Assuming I try to become an entrepreneur after graduation, it is likely/unlikely that Iactually would become an entrepreneur”. The eight sections assess the students’expectation of failure. One statement applied in this research, that is, “Assuming I try tobecome an entrepreneur after graduation, it is likely/unlikely that I actually would failbecome an entrepreneur” to become an entrepreneur. The last section was about pastbehavior. Only one statement in this section regarding how often they try to become anentrepreneur in last 1 year.

In developing this research questionnaire, this research followed suggestion fromBeatson, Coote, and Rudd (2006) and Sekaran and Bougie (2010), that is, wheneverpossible and appropriate, the measures used in this questionnaire were adapted fromexisting scales drawn from marketing and management literature. Thus, all constructs’indicators were adapted from Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990), Linan and Chen (2000), andAriff et al. (2010).

Pretesting. Malhotra (2010) pointed out that pretesting can be applied to identify andeliminate potential problems. Furthermore, Malhotra also pointed out that a questionnaireshould not be used in the field survey without adequate pretesting. The questionnaire thenwas pretested on 33 students. This research applied Cronbach to assess the reliability ofthe instrument. Furthermore, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was applied to validatethe instrument. The result showed that Cronbach was in the range from 0.783 to 0.952.

Analysis Data. A structural equation modeling using AMOS 5 was conducted to test therelationship between constructs. For the overall fit of the model, this research severalindices such as CMIN/DF, GFI, AGFI, and RMSEA.

ResultsResponse rate. Of the 200 questionnaires dropped to the respondents, 146 were returnedand usable, giving 73 percent usable response rate. In terms of gender, 48.6 % were maleand 51.4% were female. More than half (61.6%) of the sample were students from batch2008.

Statistic descriptive. The means, standard deviations, and correlations for subjectivenorms, attitude toward trying, intention to try, attitude toward trying and succeeding,attitude toward trying but failing, and attitude toward process is shown in Table 2.



Table 2. Means, standard deviation and matrix correlations

Variable Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Subjective norms 4.24 0.58 1Attitude toward trying 4.18 0.64 0.458** 1Intention to try 3.93 0.83 0.505* 0.591** 1Attitude toward trying 4.53 0.59 0.375** 0.494** 0.289** 1

and succeedingAttitude toward trying 3.84 0.88 0.241** 0.205* 0.108 0.320** 1

but failingAttitude toward process 3.57 0.78 0.119 0.105 0.099 0.145 0.061 1

**. Correlation is significant at the level 0.01 level (2-tailed)*. Correlation is significant at the level 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Reliability and validity. The first stage of the analysis is to assess the reliability andvalidity of the measures. The reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) were range from 0.711 to0.895, satisfying the criteria of 0.7 (Hair, Money, Samouel, and Page, 2007).This studyalso measures convergent validity and discriminant validity. Convergent validity wasachieved as by applying a confirmative factor analysis (CFA) for the measurementmodel. The results indicated that all factor loadings were significant and varied from 0.58to 0.90. Furthermore, the goodness-of-fit statistics were CMIN/DF = 1.509; GFI = 0.947;AGFI = 0.901; and RMSEA = 0.059. These results showed that the convergent validitywas achieved. After examining convergent validity, discriminant validity was assessed byobserving the correlations between constructs (Table 2). The result shows that nocorrelations between construct achieve higher value which could indicate that theindicators for a variable also measure another variable (Hair et al., 2007).

This study also assessed a type of validity called nomological validity. According toBagozzi et al. (2006), nomological validity can be assessed through a consistent patternbetween criterion and predictors. In the specific, the research constructs are supposed tobe theoretically related. In other words, in this research context, nomological validitywould be demonstrated, for example, if the scores of the measure relationship betweenattitudes toward becoming an entrepreneur were positively and significantly correlatedwith intention to try. The results (Table 3) show that all of the scores of the measurerelationship between variables were significant. Therefore, nomological validity wasevidenced in this study.

Test of the hypotheses. Structural equation modeling was performed to test therelationship between constructs. This research applied the two-stage structural equationmodeling procedure recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). In the specific, themeasurement model was assessed in the first stage. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)was applied in this step to test whether all constructs exhibited sufficient reliability andvalidity. The next step is the structural model. In this model, the hypothesized



relationships between constructs are tested. Table 3 show results of the structuralequation model that most hypotheses (H2a, H2b, H3, H5a, and H5b) were supported.

Table 3. Parameter Estimates for Structural Paths

Hypo-theses Path Standardized CR Absolute fit

regression

Weight

H1 INT <-- ATT 0.557 5.499 GFI = 0.921

H2 INT <-- SN 0.265 2.844 AGFI = 0.864

H3 INT <-- FREQ 0.128 1.735* CMIN/DF = 1.692

H4a ATT <-- ASES 0.496 5.770 RMSEA = 0.069

H4b ATT <-- AFEF 0.003 0.038*

H4c ATT <-- ATP 0.063 0.767*

LegendINT : intention to tryATT : attitude toward tryingSN : subjective normsFREQ : frequency of past tryingASES : attitude toward trying and succeeding x expectation of successAFEF : attitude toward trying but failing x expectation of failureATP : attitude toward process* Hypotheses was not supported

Hypothesis 1 stated that there is significant and positive relationship between attitudetoward becoming an entrepreneur and intention to try becoming an entrepreneur. Thishypothesis was supported as the loading of INT ATT path was 0.557 (CR = 5.499).This research also supported hypothesis 2 which stated the relationship betweensubjective norms and intention to try (CR = 2.844). However, hypothesis 3 was notsupported as the loading of INT FREQ was 0.063 (CR = 1.735).

Attitude in the theory of trying is a multiple components. Therefore, hypothesis 4 (a,b,c) proposed that there is significant and positive relationship between each componentof attitude and attitude toward trying. Table 1 shows hypothesis 4a which stated that therelationship between attitude toward success and expectation of success and attitudetoward trying was supported (CR = 5.770). However, hypothesis 4b (the relationshipbetween attitude toward failure and expectation of failure and attitude toward trying) andhypothesis 4c (attitude toward process and attitude toward trying) were not supported (theloading of ATT AFEF path was 0.003 and CR = 0.038 and the loading of ATT ATP path was 0.063 and CR = 0.767).

DiscussionWhat is really matter to be an entrepreneur? This research shows that attitude as the mostimportant predictor of intention to try to become an entrepreneur. Attitude plays animportant role in determining whether somebody can become an entrepreneur or not.When a person has a positive attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur, s (he) may moreeasily to achieve his or her goal to becoming an entrepreneur. On the other hand, when aperson has a negative attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur, then s (he) may notbecome an entrepreneur. Myer (1999, p.130, emphasis added) pointed out how attitude



direct behavior by stating “Attitudes as efficient way to size-up the world. When we haveto respond quickly to something, how we feel about it can guide how we react.” Severalfamous people that can inspire entrepreneurs are such as Colonel Sanders (the founder ofKentucky Fried Chicken) and Thomas Edison (electricity). In his life, Colonel Sandersmaintain a positive attitude despite his many rejections and believe in himself and hissecret chicken recipe. Thomas Edison also has positive attitude toward his goal. Heattempted and failed several hundred times and then succeeds.

This research shows that attitude toward trying but failing (AFEF) and attitude towardprocess (ATP) were not significant dimensions of attitude toward trying. A main reasonfor not significant relationship between AFEF and ATP toward attitude toward trying isthe nature of the sample (students). In other words, becoming an entrepreneur is onemajor aim of students after completing their study. Therefore, they have positive attitudetoward becoming an entrepreneur. They will keep faith that they will succeed but not fail.Therefore, this research shows significant relationship between attitude toward trying andsucceeding and attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur. On the other hand, this studyshows that there is no significant relationship between attitude toward trying but failingand attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur.

The relationship between attitude toward process (ATP) and attitude towardbecoming an entrepreneur was also not significant. Again, the nature of the sample can bea major reason for that insignificant relationship. In other words, students have desiresand plans to eventually become an entrepreneur. When they still as students, they mayhave no attention toward process becoming an entrepreneur. Becoming an entrepreneur isa goal that some students may think later after completing their studies. Many studentsthink that they have limited skill and experience to become an entrepreneur. Therefore,they may find some experiences before they really run their own business.

This research also showed that the relationship between frequency past trying andintention to try was not significant. As stated above, the research sample (i.e., students)may become one factor for the insignificant relationship. Students usually have limitedpast experience to try to become an entrepreneur in the last 1 year (mean = 1.4).

Conclusions and limitationsIn this paper, theory of trying is examined to predict students’ intention to try becomingentrepreneurs. The results show that attitude toward trying is as main predictor ofintention to try becoming an entrepreneur. Furthermore, subjective norms toward tryingare also a significant predictor of intention to try. This research also shows that onlyattitude toward trying and succeeding is a significant dimension of attitude toward trying.

This research is not without limitations. First, this research applied non-probabilitydesign sampling (i.e., purposive sampling). Therefore, the results of the study limit thegeneralisability of the findings. Second, this study applied all variables in the theory oftrying except recency of past trying and trying in order to fit with students’ conditions.However, this research still contributes to give a snapshot in examining the theory oftrying in entrepreneurship context.



References

Anonymous. 2011. Kesadaran baru di SMAN 79, Kompas, Sabtu, 7 Mei, hal.12

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Ajzen, I. 2002. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and thetheory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665-683.

Ariff, A.H.M., Bidin, Z., Sharif, Z. and Ahmad, A. 2010. Predicitng entrepeneurshipintention among Malay University Accounting students in Malaysia. UNIFAR e-journal, 6, 1. Available at:http://ejournal.unirazak.edu.my/articles/Predicting_Entrepreneur_p16n1Jan10.pdf.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. 1989. The degree of intention formation as a moderator of theattitude-behavior relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 4, 266-279.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. 1990. Trying to consume. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 17, 2, 127-140.

Bagozzi, R.P. 1992. The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. SocialPsychology Quarterly, 55, 2, 178-204.

Bagozzi, R.P., Baumgartner, H. and Yi, Y. 1992. State versus action orientation and thetheory of reasoned action: an application to coupon usage. The Journal of ConsumerResearch, 18, 4, 505-518.

Bagozzi, R.P., Gurhan-Cali, Z. and Priester, J.R. 2009. The social psychology ofconsumer behaviour. UK: Open University Press.

Beatson, A., Coote, L.V. and Rudd, J.M. 2006. Determining consumer satisfaction andcommitment through self-service technology and personal service usage. Journal ofMarketing Management, 22, 853-882.

Bouncken, R.B., Zagvozdina, J., Golze, A. and Mrozewska, A. 2009. A comparativestudy of cultural influences on intentions to found a new venture in Germany andPoland. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 3, 1, 47-65.

Brannback, M., Krueger, N., Carrsrud, A., Kickul, J. and Elfying, J. 2007. “trying” to bean entrepreneur? A “goal-specific” challenge to the intentions model. Available at:http://ssrn/com/abstract=1135224. Downloaded on 15 March 2011.

Carsrud, A. and Brannback, M. 2011. Entrepreneurial motivations: what do we still needto know? Journal of Small Business Management, 49, 1, 9-26.



Chen, C.C., Greene, P.G. and Crick, A. 1998. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacydistinguish entrepreneurs from managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 4, 295-316.

Ewing, M.T. 2000. Brand and retailer loyalty: past behavior and future intentions.Journal of Product & Brand management, 9, 2, 120-127.

Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. 2000. Competing models ofentrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 411-432.

Gabler, J. and Jones, M.Y. 2000. Behavior and behavioral intentions in a retail setting.ANZMAC 2000 Visionary Marketing for the 21st century: facing the challenge.Available at:http://www.wmib.vuw.ac.nz:8081/www/ANZMAC2000?CDsite/.../g/Gabler1.PDF.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R.L. 2006. MultivariateData Analysis. 6th edition. NJ: Pearson Education.

Hair, J.F., Money, A.H., Samouel, P. and Page, M. 2007. Research Methods for Business.England: John Wiley & Sons.

Hawkins, D.I. and Mothersbaugh, D.L. 2010. Consumer Behavior: Building MarketingStrategy, 11th ed., NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Huang, Y. and Wu, Y.J. 2010. Decision making in online auctions. ManagementDecision, 49, 5, 1-25.

Izedonmi, P.F. and Okafor, C. 2010. The effect of entrepreneurship education onstudents’e entrepreneurial intentions. Global Journal of Management and BusinessResearch, 10, 6, 49-60.

Kao, R.W.Y. 1993. Entrepreneurship, a wealth creation and value adding process.Singapore: Prentice-Hall.

Kao, R.W.Y., Kao, K.R., and Kao, R.R. 2002. Entrepreneurism: a philosophy and asensible alternative for the market economy. London: Imperial College Press.

Kim, H.Y. and Chung, J. 2011. Consumer purchase intention for organic personal careproducts. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28, 1, 40-47.

Kuratko, D.F. 2008. Entrepreneurship 8e: Theory, Process, Practice. Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Lee, J. 1997. The motivation of women entrepreneurs in Singapore. International Journalof Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 3,2, 93-110.



Lim, S.F., Smith, K. and Bottomley, C. 2003. Successful graduate female entrepreneurs –The Scottish experience. Paper presented at 16th Annual Conference on SmallEnterprise Association of Australia and New Zealand, 28 Sept – 1 Oct, Ballarat,Australia.

Linan, F. and Chen, Y. 2006. Testing the entrepreneurial intention model on a two-country sample. Document de Trball num.06/7. Department d’Economia del’Empresa. Available at: http://selene.uab.es/dep-economi-empresa/.

Myers, M. 2000. Qualitative research and the generalizability question: standing firmwith proteus. The Qualitative Report, 4, 3/4. Available at:http://www.nova.edu./ssss/QR/QR4-3/myers.html.

Ouellette, J.A. and Wood, W. 1998. Habit and intention in everyday life: the multipleprocesses by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin,124,1, 54-74.

Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R. and Wrightsman, L.S. 1991. Criteria for scale selection andevaluation. In Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. San Diego:Academic Press.

Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. 2010. Research Methods for Business: A Skill BuildingApproach. 4th ed., New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Shane, S., Locke, E.E. and Collins, C.J. 2003. Entrepreneurial motivation. HumanResource Management Review, 13, 257-279.

Triandis, H.C. 1980. Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior, pp. 195-259 in Beliefs,attitudes, and values. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Edited by H.E.Howe andM.M. Page. Lincoln University of Nebraska Press.

Urban, B., Van Vuuren, J. and Owen, R.H. 2008. Antecedents to entrepreneurialintentions: testing for measurement invariance for cultural values, attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs across ethnic groups. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 6,1, 1-9.

Veciana, J.M., Aponte, M. and Urbano, D. 2005. University students’ attitudes towardentrepreneurship.: a two countries comparison. International Entrepreneurship andManagement Journal, 1, 165-182.

Virtanen, M. 1997. The role of different theories in explaining entrepreneurship.Available at: http:///www.usasbe.org/knowledge/.../USABE1997proceedings-P109

Weber, R., von Graevenitz, G. and Harhoff, D. 2009. The effects of entrepreneurshipeducation. Available at http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/.



Zain, Z.M., Akram, A.M. and Ghani, E.K. 2010. Entrepreneurship intention amongMalaysian Business Students. Canadian Social Science, 6, 3, 34-44.

Documents

Sabrina Sihombing-Pelita Harapan