Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The entrepreneurial process: an integrated model
Chang Hui-Chen & Tsai Kuen-Hung & Peng Chen-Yi
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract In this study, a model for examining the process of how a person becomes anentrepreneur was developed by integrating planned behavior theory (PBT) withmotivation-opportunity-ability (MOA) theory. The model posits that motivation, op-portunity, and ability affect entrepreneurial intentions through personal attitude, sub-jective norms, and perceived behavioral control. A sample of 258 valid questionnaireswas collected from entrepreneurial training-course participants in Taiwan. Based on thissample, a structural-equation analysis reveals several interesting results. First, personalattitude and perceived behavior control have a direct effect on entrepreneurial inten-tions. Second, subjective norms indirectly affect entrepreneurial intentions throughpersonal attitude and perceived behavior control. Third, motivation affects entrepre-neurial intentions through personal attitude and perceived behavioral control. Fourth,ability exhibits a directly positive association with entrepreneurial intentions, andindirectly affects entrepreneurial intentions through perceived behavioral control.Fifth, subjective norms affect entrepreneurial intentions through personal attitude andperceived behavioral control. These findings suggest that our model provides moreinformation than those offered by PBT or MOA in understanding the process ofbecoming an entrepreneur.
Keywords Entrepreneurship .Motivation . Opportunity . Ability . Entrepreneurialintentions . Planned behavior
Int Entrep Manag JDOI 10.1007/s11365-014-0305-8
C. Hui-Chen : T. Kuen-Hung : P. Chen-Yi (*)Department of Business Administration, National Taipei University, 151, University Rd., San ShiaDistrict, New Taipei City 23741, Taiwane-mail: [email protected]
C. Hui-Chene-mail: [email protected]
T. Kuen-Hunge-mail: [email protected]
Introduction
Understanding the process of how a person becomes an entrepreneur is a keyissue to encourage entrepreneurial activity, which is considered to be essential toeconomic growth (Schumpeter 1934; Baumol 1990; Murphy et al. 1991).Academic scholars have investigated the factors that affect decisions related tothe entrepreneurial process by examining individual values and personal charac-teristics such as gender, experience, knowledge, and culture (e.g., Díaz-Garcíaand Jiménez-Moreno 2010; Liñán et al. 2011a, b; Díaz-Casero et al. 2012).Beyond this research stream, several studies have adopted Ajzen’s (1989,1991) planned behavior theory (PBT) to examine how personal attitude, subjec-tive norms, and perceived behavioral control affect the intentions to engage inentrepreneurial behavior (e.g., Krueger et al. 2000; Fayolle and Gailly 2005;Fayolle et al. 2006; Kolvereid and Isaksen 2006; Krueger 2007).
Although constructively using PBT has been effective in entrepreneurial behaviorresearch, it remains limited in the ability to consider environments and resources.According to PBT, human action is guided by three considerations: (a) beliefs aboutthe likely outcomes of certain forms of behavior and the evaluations of these outcomes(behavioral beliefs), (b) beliefs about the normative expectations of others and moti-vation to comply with those expectations (normative beliefs), and (c) beliefs about thepresence of factors that may facilitate or impede performance of certain behavior andthe perceived power of these factors (control beliefs) (Ajzen 2002). From the perspec-tive of learning theory (Kolb et al. 2001), a person’s resources and perception of theenvironment in which he or she functions may affect his or her beliefs. For example,people who possess sufficient resources are likely to believe that they have control overtheir entrepreneurial behavior and are likely to exhibit a favorable predispositiontoward entrepreneurship. Following this logic, integrating motivation, opportunity,and ability (MOA), as well as the three components of PBT, is suggested to be amethod for enhancing the understanding of the decisions involved in the entrepreneur-ial process. Thus, MOA may serve as the antecedents of personal attitude, subjectivenorms, and perceived behavioral control in the decision-making process of becomingan entrepreneur.
In this study, the entrepreneurial process was examined by integrating PBT andMOA. Specifically, we investigate how motivation, opportunity, and ability affectentrepreneurial intentions through personal attitude, subjective norms, and perceivedbehavioral control. This study contributes to the entrepreneurship literature in twoways. First, this study provides a comprehensive framework to explain the process ofbecoming an entrepreneur. Whereas previous entrepreneurial research has focused onthe perspectives of PBT (e.g., Krueger et al. 2000; Fayolle and Gailly 2005; Fayolleet al. 2006; Kolvereid and Isaksen 2006; Krueger 2007), we extended these perspec-tives by introducing the views of MOA. Second, this study sheds new light to thelinkages between the MOA variables and entrepreneurial intentions. Previous studieshave demonstrated the effects of opportunity and motivation on entrepreneurial inten-tions (e.g., Chen et al. 1998; Souitaris et al. 2007; Solesvik 2013). However, they havenot described how these factors affect entrepreneurial intentions through personalattitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. The current study offerscrucial insights into entrepreneurial training with regard to these factors. Therefore,
Int Entrep Manag J
appropriate designs of the entrepreneurship-training courses play an essential role in theentrepreneurial process.
The following sections present the theoretical background and the research hypoth-eses. After describing the research methods used in this study, we present the researchresults based on a measurement model and a structural-equation analysis. We concludewith a discussion of the implications for research and managerial practices, and thendiscuss limitations and offer suggestions for future research.
Theoretical background and hypotheses
Planned behavior theory
PBT has been widely adopted in research of behavioral intentions. This theory arguesthat a person’s behavioral intentions are the result of three antecedents: (a) the attitudetoward behavior (personal evaluation), (b) subjective norms (social pressures), and (c)perceived behavioral control (ability to perform the behavior) (Liñán 2004). In theentrepreneurial context, personal attitude toward a behavior refers to the attractivenessof the proposed behavior or degree to which the person positively or negativelyevaluates the idea of becoming an entrepreneur (Ajzen 1991, 2002; Kolvereid 1996).Perceived behavioral control refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of becoming anentrepreneur (Ajzen 1991). Subjective norms involve measuring the perceived socialpressure from family, friends, or other people that are considered important (Ajzen1991) to become an entrepreneur. Many researchers have applied the theory to analyzenew firm creation and have provided empirical support in the research stream ofentrepreneurial intentions. Tkachev and Kolvereid (1999) tested a sample of 512Russian students from three universities in St. Petersburg, Russia. Their results revealedthat the theory of planned behavior, when not tracking models or demographics,determined employment-choice intentions. Krueger et al. (2000) investigated a sampleof 97 senior university business students facingmajor career decisions. They argued thatpromoting entrepreneurial intentions by promoting public perceptions of feasibility anddesirability is not just desirable; promoting entrepreneurial intentions is also thoroughlyfeasible. Liñán (2004) integrated the theories of Ajzen (1991) and Shapero and Sokol(1982) into entrepreneurial-intention model and tested a sample of 166 universitystudents in Spain to conceptualize and define entrepreneurial education. Liñán (2008)also investigated a sample of 249 university students and found that values and skillsplay a major role in explaining entrepreneurial intentions. Díaz-García and Jiménez-Moreno (2010) analyzed a sample of 967 students pursuing degrees in economics(fourth- and fifth-year students) and business administration (third-, fourth-, and fifth-year students) in the 2006–2007 academic year at one university in Spain. They foundthat gender affects entrepreneurial intentions. Liñán et al. (2011a) empirically analyzed asample of 354 final-year undergraduate students from the Department of Business andEconomic Sciences at one university in Spain. Their results indicated that personalattitude and perceived behavioral control are the most factors that explain entrepreneur-ial intentions. Sánchez (2011) investigated 864 university students in Spain and foundthat students in the entrepreneurship education program group improved their compe-tence in self-employment and intentions toward self-employment. Recently, Liñán et al.
Int Entrep Manag J
(2013) tested the planned behavior theory by analyzing a sample of 1,005 students frombusiness schools and universities across two countries, the United Kingdom and Spain.They found that enhancing the level of knowledge and awareness of entrepreneurshipincreases perceptions of self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions.
However, ambiguity exists regarding the term “intentions”. For example, Ajzen(1991) defined intentions as a summary motivation that is a combination of a person’smotivation, willingness to exert effort, and willingness to overcome difficulties to enacta particular behavior. According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary (2012), inten-tions were defined as “the thing you plan to or achieve; an aim or purpose”, whereas theCambridge Dictionaries Online (2012) defined intentions as “something that you wantand plan to do”. Rhodes et al. (2006) argued that popular-intention measures may notinvolve motivation specifically, especially when attempting to separate motivation fromintentions in measurement. As the items of intentions only partially entail implemen-tation intentions and planning, the measurement of motivation may be compromised(Rhodes et al. 2006). Therefore, several researchers have measured intentions by usingthe measures documented in different models, such as Timmons’ opportunity-resource-team model (Timmons 1999; Song et al. 2008), the MOA model (MacInnis andJaworski 1989; MacInnis et al. 1991), and the motivation-driving model (Carsrudand Brännback 2011; Vroom 1964; Bhola et al. 2006) to measure intentions.
Motivation-opportunity-ability
The MOA model, proposed by MacInnis and Jaworski (1989) and MacInnis et al.(1991), who theorized the degree to which people process information by using variouscombinations of MOAwhen taking action. According to the MOA model, motivationincorporates readiness, willingness, interest, and the desire to engage in informationprocessing. Opportunity has been conceptualized as the extent to which a situation isconducive to achieving a desired outcome. Ability refers to consumer skills or profi-ciencies in interpreting brand information from an advertisement (MacInnis et al.1991). Particularly, opportunity represents the environmental or contextual factors thatenable action (Rothschild 1999). Gruen et al. (2006) claimed that opportunities can leadto desired outcomes. Starting a new venture is a type of action that suggests a personcan both take advantage of opportunities and welcomes uncertainties (McMullen andShepherd 2006). The source of entrepreneurial opportunities can be affected by twomajor factors. The first factor is the change in the external environment, referring to theemergence of new opportunities caused by the change in external factors. For example,new entrepreneurial opportunities can be created by changes in the market, technology,politics, regulations, society, population structure, and industrial structure (Shane2005). Second, individual factors such as personality, prior knowledge, and socialnetworking enable a person to discover, evaluate, and take advantage of opportunitiesduring the process of enterprising (Shane and Venkataraman 2000).
The MOA model has been used in various management disciplines, such as generalmarketing and social marketing. (Binney et al. 2003). The key variables of MOA canalso be found in entrepreneurial-intention research. For example, Chen et al. (1998)evaluated 315 samples from a university and a county Chamber of Commerce in theU.S., and Souitaris et al. (2007) examined 250 students from two universities in theU.K. and France. These studies suggested that opportunity and motivation have
Int Entrep Manag J
positive impacts on entrepreneurial intentions. Solesvik (2013) surveyed 321 threeuniversity students in Ukraine and revealed that personal attitude, subjective norms,and perceived behavioral control mediate the relationship between perceived entrepre-neurial motivation and entrepreneurial intentions. Segal et al. (2005) examined asample of 114 undergraduate business students at Florida Gulf Coast University.They found that ability and motivation positively influence entrepreneurial intentions.Furthermore, Liñán (2008) analyzed a sample of 249 university students and found thatskills positively affect entrepreneurial intentions.
Conceptual framework and hypotheses
Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework of this study. We posit that motivation,ability, and opportunity directly and indirectly affect a person’s entrepreneurial inten-tions through his or her attitude toward entrepreneurship, subjective norms, andperceived behavioral control. We present the framework to guide the development ofresearch hypotheses. Specific hypotheses concerning these relationships are detailed inthe rest of this section together with their underlying rationale.
Song et al. (2008) asserted that opportunity is positively associated with enterpriseachievements, revealing that opportunity plays a considerable role in the process ofentrepreneurship. Ardichvili et al. (2003) considered the knowledge of market oppor-tunities as a catalyst for several entrepreneurial intentions in their model of entrepre-neurial development. In addition, Eckhardt and Shane (2003) argued that opportunitymay drive intentions to create a business. Logically, a relationship can exist betweenopportunity and intentions. If a person notices an opportunity, then the reaction may beto capitalize on the opportunity. Furthermore, personal attitude, perceived behaviorcontrol, and subjective norms (e.g., the belief that an opportunity exists and can beexploited) influence behavioral intentions (Ajzen 1991; Ajzen and Madden 1986).People who have opportunity-driven motivation choose to start their own business by
Personal attitude
Entrepreneurial intentions
Perceived behavioral
control
Subjectivenorms
Ability
Opportunity
MotivationH2a
H2d
H2c
H2b
H1e
H1dH1c
H1b
H3f
H3e
H3a
H3b
H3d
H3c
H1a
H4c(b)H4a
H4c(c) H4b
H4c(a)
Fig. 1 Hypothetical framework
Int Entrep Manag J
taking advantage of an entrepreneurial opportunity, whereas people who possessnecessity-driven motivation choose to start a business because other employmentoptions are either absent or unsatisfactory (Bhola et al. 2006). Therefore, we proposethe following hypotheses:
H1. Opportunity has a positive impact on (a) personal attitude, (b) entrepreneurialintentions, (c) subjective norms, (d) perceived behavioral control, and (e)motivation.
In the MOA model, motivation is viewed as a force that directs people toward goals(Hoyer and MacInnis 1997). Roberston et al. (2003) explained that a business willneither succeed nor begin without motivation. Generally, the possible factors thatinfluence entrepreneurial behavior are the motivation of people and social and envi-ronmental factors (Kavitha et al. 2008). Carsrud and Brännback (2011) suggested thatmotivation may be an antecedent of intentions, and from a psychological point of view,Vroom (1964) suggested that expectancy (i.e., expectations of gain) drives motivationalforce, which influences intentions. Solesvik (2013) argued that a person’s perceivedentrepreneurial motivation refers to their beliefs related about how attractive the idea ofselecting an entrepreneurial career path can be. Besides, the three antecedents of PBTare formed by beliefs (Ajzen 1991). If a person believes that the outcome of his/herentrepreneurship activity in a given environment will be desirable, they are likely tohave a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship (Lent et al. 2000). As to subjectivenorms, refer to how reference persons would view one’s entrepreneurial career choiceas well as one’s motivation to comply with these reference people. And people usuallychoose to perform behaviors that they think they will be able to control and master.Beliefs related to perceived high entrepreneurial motivation may promote individuals’attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control toward entrepreneurship(Solesvik 2013). Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H2. Motivation has a positive impact on (a) personal attitude, (b) entrepreneurialintentions, (c) subjective norms, and (d) perceived behavioral control.
In the MOA model, ability is the extent to which persons have the necessaryresources (e.g., knowledge, intelligence, money) to produce a desirable outcome(Hoyer and MacInnis 1997). Rothschild (1999) revealed that ability represents aperson’s skill or knowledgebase related to action. People who possess skills feel moreconfident in starting a firm (DeNoble et al. 1999). These specific abilities can be moreeasily exercised when a person is an entrepreneur (Liñán 2008). In addition, Sarasvathyet al. (2003) described three types of entrepreneurial possibility: opportunity recogni-tion, opportunity discovery, and opportunity creation. Opportunity recognition refers toa person’s perception of the possibility of creating a business, of improving currentrelations of supply and demand, and of finding potentials for increasing profits(Christensen et al. 1994). Opportunity discovery involves discovering solutions tocurrent problems (Hsieh et al. 2007). Opportunity creation suggests that entrepreneursshould demonstrate foresight to create valuable market opportunities. A person whopossesses considerable work experience, a high level of education, knowledge of themarket, and business practice is likely able to identify an opportunity to start a new
Int Entrep Manag J
business (De Wit and van Winden 1989). Thus, ability can be associated with positivepersonal attitude, subjective norms, entrepreneurial intentions (Scherer et al. 1991;Carsrud 1992; Boyd and Vozikis 1994), perceived behavioral control, and opportunity.Based on these arguments, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H3. Ability has a positive impact on (a) personal attitude, (b) subjective norms, (c)entrepreneurial intentions, (d) perceived behavioral control, (e) motivation, and(f) opportunity.
According to PBT, personal attitude constitutes the perception of desirability, whichaffects entrepreneurial intentions, whereas perceived behavioral control reflects theperception that a person can control his or her entrepreneurial behavior (Ajzen 2002).Subjective norms refer to the perceptions that “reference people” will or will notapprove of the decision to become an entrepreneur (Ajzen 2001). In entrepreneurshipliterature, several studies have revealed no major direct relationship between subjectivenorms and entrepreneurial intentions (Scherer et al. 1991; Cooper 1993; Matthews andMoser 1996; Kennedy et al. 2003; Liñán and Santos 2007). Nevertheless, interestremains in adopting a revised version of the entrepreneurial intention questionnaire(EIQ, Liñán and Santos 2007; Liñán and Chen 2009) to examine these cognitiveconstructs for reference. In summary, we present the following hypotheses:
H4a. Personal attitude has a positive impact on entrepreneurial intentions.H4b. Perceived behavioral control has a positive impact on entrepreneurial intentions.H4c. Subjective norms have a positive impact on (a) entrepreneurial intentions, (b)
personal attitude, and (c) perceived behavioral control.
Methodology
Research design
To ensure accurate translation, we applied a double translation process to translate thequestionnaires between Chinese and English (Douglas and Craig 1983). To identify thesubsets of measures that were unique, we submitted a list of constructs and correspond-ing measurement items to two panels of academic experts in various entrepreneurialfields. The panels critically evaluated each item for clarity, specificity, and representa-tiveness. Based on the feedback from these two panels of experts, we prepared aquestionnaire that included items that were determined to exhibit face validity andhigh consistency with the constructs. The final stage of measurement developmentconsisted of one pretest of the questionnaire conducted with representative respondentsto identify wording problems or ambiguities.
Data sources and sample
Entrepreneurial education and training represent the process of providing people withthe ability to recognize commercial opportunities and the insight, self-esteem,
Int Entrep Manag J
knowledge, and skills necessary to act on them. Entrepreneurial education and traininginclude instruction in opportunity recognition, commercializing a concept, marshalingresources in the face of risk, and initiating a business venture (Jones and English 2004).Most of the subjects analyzed in previous entrepreneurial studies have been studentsand not potential real-world entrepreneurs. Although researchers have stated that suchstudents are on the verge of choosing a profession and belong to the segment of thepopulation that exhibits the highest entrepreneurial inclination (Krueger et al. 2000;Reynolds et al. 2002a; Liñán 2004), several researchers have acknowledged thatsamples involving students may not be representative of the total population. Thesestudies have suggested that comprehensive research samples derived from diverselocations should be included, and that potential or nascent entrepreneurs should beanalyzed (e.g., Liñán 2008; Díaz-García and Jiménez-Moreno 2010; Naktiyok et al.2010).
Consequently, we conducted empirical analysis by using a sample of 3-day basicentrepreneurial-training course participants in Taiwan. This type of basic course hasbeen provided by the Taiwanese government for more than 10 years and is free ofcharge to the public, with no restrictions on participants except that they be 18 years ofage or older. Information about these courses can be obtained from newspapers,television, radio, websites, and government institutions. These courses are designedfor people who may have the motivation to start a new venture and for those who wantto discover practical and useful knowledge related to become an effective entrepreneur.These courses are consistent with entrepreneurial awareness education (Liñán 2004),the purpose of which is to increase the number of people who possess sufficientknowledge of small enterprises, self-employment, and entrepreneurship, and subse-quently allow these people to consider related careers as rational and viable alternativesto typical employment. In addition, this educational campaign does not directly advo-cate the creation of more entrepreneurs. According to intention models, entrepreneurialawareness education acts on one or more of the elements that determine intentions(entrepreneurial knowledge, desirability, or feasibility), but not directly on intentions.Instructors do not attempt to transform participants into entrepreneurs, but insteadenhance their perspectives on choosing professions. Moreover, numerous start-up orself-employment courses, especially those that are short, function as awareness pro-grams (Curran and Stanworth 1989). Furthermore, Krueger et al. (2000) stated that thePBT used in entrepreneurial intention models can be applied to participants of all agesand provide them with broad ranges of experience, intentions, and preferences (Liñán2004). Including study samples who participate in entrepreneurial awareness trainingcan reduce the risk of range restriction. Finally, analyzing samples who participate inthis type of course enables the examination of entrepreneurial processes prior to theperformance of actual entrepreneurial activity, and testing these theories and models onpeople who both possess and do not possess entrepreneurial intentions is necessary(Krueger et al. 2000).
Data were collected using anonymous questionnaires that were completed by theparticipants during basic training courses from late August 2012 to early October 2012.A total of 258 valid responses were included in the hypothesis testing process after 60unqualified and incomplete questionnaires were eliminated, thus yielding an effectiveresponse rate of 81 %. The study sample included respondents with diverse demo-graphic backgrounds, 56.2 % were women, 43.8 % were men, and 74.8 % possessed
Int Entrep Manag J
undergraduate or advanced degrees. The main age group (26–45 years old)comprised 62.0 % of the participants, and the average age of the participantswas approximately 35.3 years. Half of the participants had previously partici-pated in entrepreneurship-training courses, and the other half were participatingin these courses for the first time.
A time-trend extrapolation test (Armstrong and Overton 1977) was performedto detect nonresponse bias. To examine possible nonresponse bias and therepresentativeness of the participating samples, we performed a MANOVA of175 questionnaires obtained from the first week of the courses and the remain-ing 83 questionnaires obtained from the final week of the courses. We com-pared the two groups of questionnaires based on all of the antecedent variables.The results were not significant at the 95 % confidence level, suggesting nosignificant difference between the two groups. We also compared the possibledifferences in age, gender, and education between the first collection of re-sponse samples and the remaining response samples. The results were notsignificant at the 95 % confidence level, suggesting that non-response biaswas not a concern in this study.
Measures
We applied the modified version of the EIQ used by Liñán and Chen (2009), whorecognized possible problems with the EIQ, such as acquiescence bias. Therefore,Liñán et al. (2011c) used a modified version to test regional differences in entrepre-neurial intentions in Spain. In the improved version, items measuring major constructswere randomly ordered and several reversed items were included. The relevant itemsare shown in the Appendix of this paper. Therefore, items A1 to A20 were used tomeasure the four central constructs of PBT: entrepreneurial intentions (A4, A6, A9-reversed-, A13, A17, and A19-rev-), personal attitude (A2-rev-, A10, A12-rev-, A15,and A18), perceived behavioral control (A1, A5-rev-, A7, A14, A16-rev-, and A20),and subjective norms (A3, A8, and A11). Subsequently, motivation was measuredusing nine items (M1–M9) revised from the original items developed by Gruen et al.(2006, 2007) and Moorman (1990). Opportunity was measured by using five items(O1–O5) based on those used by Shane (2003) and Zahra and Bogner (2000). Finally,ability was measured using five items (AB1–AB6) based on those used by DeNobleet al. (1999) and Liñán (2008).
Analyses and results
Measurement model
A total of 258 valid responses were used in the empirical analysis and we employedconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8.7 to examine the reliability andvalidity of the study’s major constructs. The results revealed a satisfactory model fit(χ2=647.63, df=254, χ2/df<3; NFI=0.96; CFI=0.98; IFI=0.98; and RMSEA=0.078).As displayed in Table 1, because Cronbach’s α and the composite reliability of eachconstruct were both greater than 0.7, this measurement was proven to have satisfactory
Int Entrep Manag J
reliability. Because the factor loadings were greater than 0.7, items with loadings lowerthan 0.7 were eliminated (items marked with asterisks). The average variance extracted(AVE) estimates were greater than 0.5, and we also confirmed that the discriminantvalidity regarding the square roots of the average extracted variances exceeded thecorrelations among the constructs (Fornell and Larcker 1981) (Table 2).
Structural model
We used LISREL 8.7 to test the structural model and to verify the research hypotheses.The fit of the structural model was acceptable, with χ2=648.56, df=255, χ2/df<3;NFI=0.96; CFI=0.98; IFI=0.98; and RMSEA=0.078. The estimates for the structuralpath model are illustrated in Fig. 2 and summarized in Table 3, which shows thatopportunity significantly affects motivation (β=0.19, p<.05). We also determined thatmotivation significantly affects personal attitude (β=0.78, p<.01), entrepreneurial
Table 1 Reliability statistics
Construct Item Factor loading Composite reliability AVE Cronbach α
Motivation M1 0.85 0.93 0.70 0.93
M2 0.86
M3 0.80
M5 0.74
M6 0.89
M7 0.87
Opportunity O1 0.75 0.87 0.57 0.87
O2 0.81
O3 0.76
O4 0.76
O5 0.70
Ability AB1 0.83 0.80 0.66 0.80
AB2 0.80
Personal attitude A10 0.75 0.89 0.66 0.89
A12 0.88
A15 0.85
A18 0.77
Perceived behavior control A07 0.75 0.79 0.66 0.79
A14 0.87
Subjective norms A03 0.87 0.88 0.71 0.87
A08 0.78
A11 0.87
Entrepreneurial intentions A04 0.83 0.93 0.80 0.92
A13 0.91
A17 0.94
AVE average variance extracted
Int Entrep Manag J
intentions (β=0.20, p<.05), subjective norms (β=0.40, p<.01), and perceivedbehavioral control (β=0.24, p<.01). In addition, ability significantly affectsopportunity (β=0.67, p<.01), and motivation (β=0.36, p<.01) and also affectssubjective norms (β=0.35, p<.01), perceived behavioral control (β=0.15, p<.01),and entrepreneurial intentions (β=0.30, p<.01). Consistent with previous research(Liñán 2008), both personal attitude and perceived behavioral control positivelyaffected entrepreneurial intentions (β=0.51, p<.01; β=0.22, p<.01), and subjectivenorms positively affected personal attitude (β=0.13, p<.01) and perceived behavioralcontrol (β=0.30, p<.01).
Table 2 Descriptive statistics of the variables
Constructs Mean SD M O A PA PBC SN EI
Motivation (M) 3.95 0.80 0.84
Opportunity (O) 3.86 0.69 0.40a 0.75
Ability (A) 3.52 0.83 0.44a 0.54a 0.81
Personal attitude (PA) 3.87 0.77 0.78a 0.37a 0.41a 0.81
Perceived behavior control (PBC) 3.53 0.72 0.50a 0.40a 0.53a 0.48a 0.81
Subjective norms (SN) 3.53 0.82 0.51a 0.35a 0.45a 0.52a 0.51a 0.84
Entrepreneurial intentions (EI) 3.53 0.99 0.78a 0.43a 0.55a 0.80a 0.64a 0.64a 0.89
The diagonal elements are the square roots of the average extracted variances. The lower-left triangle elementsare correlations among the composite measuresa p<0.01
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
Personal attitude
Entrepreneurial intentions
Perceived behavioral
control
Subjectivenorms
Ability
Opportunity
Motivation0.78
***
0.24***
0.40***
0.20*
0.19*
0.05-0.02
-0.08
0.67***
0.36***
0.09
0.35***
0.30***
0.15**
0.00
0.13** 0.51
***
0.30***
0.22***
0.06
Fig. 2 Structural equations model results
Int Entrep Manag J
Discussion and implications
Discussion
We examined the effects of MOA on personal attitude, subjective norms, and perceivedbehavioral control for determining entrepreneurial intentions. The results indicated thatthe effects of opportunity on personal attitude (H1a), entrepreneurial intentions (H1b),subjective norms (H1c), and perceived behavioral control (H1d) were not supported. Inaddition, opportunity has a positive effect on motivation (H1e). Thus, H1 were partiallysupported. Regarding opportunity (H1b), our result is not consistent with those ofSouitaris et al. (2007) or Liñán et al. (2011b). Souitaris et al. (2007) suggested thatknowledge leads to numerous and highly satisfactory entrepreneurial opportunities, andalso improves the opportunity-identification ability of the people involved, therebyimproving their entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions. Liñán et al. (2011b) confirmedthat perceptions of entrepreneurial opportunities are relevant variables in explaining theentrepreneurial intentions of people across nations. Nevertheless, the results of thisstudy are consistent with the views of Sarasvathy et al. (2003) that opportunity must berecognized, discovered, and created. In addition, motivation can be derived fromopportunity. People who possess high levels of ability demonstrate enhanced motiva-tion or recognize, discover, and create additional opportunities, which can lead to
Table 3 Structural model estimates
Hypothesized path Hypothesis Coefficient t-value
Motivation → Personal attitude H2a 0.78 11.02***
Motivation → Entrepreneurial intentions H2b 0.20 2.27*
Motivation → Subjective norms H2c 0.40 5.60***
Motivation → Perceived behavior control H2d 0.24 3.22***
Opportunity → Personal attitude H1a 0.00 −0.06Opportunity → Entrepreneurial intentions H1b −0.08 −1.50Opportunity → Subjective norms H1c −0.02 −0.19Opportunity → Perceived behavior control H1d 0.05 0.57
Opportunity → Motivation H1e 0.19 2.02*
Ability → Personal attitude H3a 0.09 1.20
Ability → Subjective norms H3b 0.35 3.48***
Ability → Entrepreneurial intentions H3c 0.15 2.36**
Ability → Perceived behavior control H3d 0.30 2.81**
Ability → Motivation H3e 0.36 3.61***
Ability → Opportunity H3f 0.67 8.92***
Personal attitude → Entrepreneurial intentions H4a 0.51 5.06***
Perceived behavior control → Entrepreneurial intentions H4b 0.22 3.85***
Subjective norms → Entrepreneurial intentions H4c 0.06 1.17
Subjective norms → Personal attitude H4d 0.13 2.34**
Subjective norms → Perceived behavior control H4e 0.30 3.66***
*P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001
Int Entrep Manag J
improved personal attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and entre-preneurial intentions.
As expected, the results supported H2, which hypothesizes that motivation affectspersonal attitude (H2a), subjective norms (H2c), perceived behavioral control (H2d),and entrepreneurial intentions (H2b). This result is consistent with that of Solesvik(2013), who revealed that personal attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioralcontrol mediate the relationship between perceived entrepreneurial motivation andentrepreneurial intentions. The results indicated that the effects of ability on subjectivenorms (H3b), entrepreneurial intentions (H3c), perceived behavioral control (H3d),motivation (H3e), and opportunity (H3f) were supported. However, ability didn’t havesignificant impacts on personal attitude (H3a). Thus, H3 were partially supported. Thisresult is not consistent with those of previous studies. Kolvereid (1996) revealed thatattitude mediates the relationship between skills and entrepreneurial intentions. Shaperoand Sokol (1982) and Souitaris et al. (2007) have argued that individual skills directlyaffect attitude and indirectly affect intentions. Scherer et al. (1991), Carsrud (1992),Boyd and Vozikis (1994), and Liñán (2008) have stated that ability may be associatedwith high levels of personal attraction and subjective norms. Regarding ability (H3a),we determined that ability affects personal attitude through opportunity-derived moti-vation, suggesting that a person who possess ability, especially opportunity-sensingability, will enhance the motivation to collect information, and then it could lead to apositive attitude toward entrepreneurship. In addition, as expected, the results of H4 arethe same as those of previous research. Subjective norms didn’t have significantimpacts on entrepreneurial intentions (H4c(a)).
Implications
The integrated framework is important for enhancing theories, and applying thisframework presented in this study can provide a complete understanding of entrepre-neurial process and subsequent behavioral change. The findings of this study haveseveral implications for the commission of research theory and practice development inentrepreneurship field. First, the results show that entrepreneurial motivation and abilityaffect entrepreneurial intentions through the three components of PBT. We also foundthat ability affects entrepreneurial motivation. Personal attitude, subjective norms, andperceived behavior control serve as the intermediary roles in the relationship betweenopportunity-derived or ability-derived motivation and entrepreneurial intentions.Second, the results suggest that ability affects opportunity and motivation and thenimpacts entrepreneurial intentions through personal attitude, subjective norms, andperceived behavior control. A person with a high level of ability will be more likelyto recognize and discover entrepreneurial opportunities, and enhance his or her moti-vation to form personal attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, allof which lead to entrepreneurial intentions. Third, our study suggests that ability has anindirect impact on personal attitude through motivation, instead of a direct influence.This result sheds new light on the Liñán’s (2008) finding, ability improves personalattitude, by an indirect route. Our results suggest that ability not only has a directinfluence on entrepreneurial intentions, but also has multiple impacts through motiva-tion and the components of PBT. These findings do not support the views ofOosterbeek et al. (2010) that persons who possess high ability do not have a high level
Int Entrep Manag J
of entrepreneurial intentions. Finally, our study contributes to the literature onentrepreneurial intentions by presenting the findings based on a sample ofpersons from entrepreneurial-awareness courses. While previous studies of en-trepreneurial intentions focus their subjects on students (e.g., Liñán 2004, 2008;Segal et al. 2005; Souitaris et al. 2007; Díaz-García and Jiménez-Moreno 2010;Liñán et al. 2011a; Sánchez 2011; Liñán, et al. 2013), Liñán (2008), Díaz-García and Jiménez-Moreno (2010), Naktiyok et al. (2010) suggested thatentrepreneurship research samples may target other populations. Our studyadopts this suggestion and the findings mentioned above provide insight intothe process of becoming an entrepreneur.
The findings of this study also have a couple of practical implications. First,our results suggest that opportunity enhances motivation and then impacts en-trepreneurial intentions through the improvement of personal attitude towardsentrepreneurship and perceived behavioral control. These findings call for gov-ernment to encourage people’s entrepreneurial intentions by providing policytools, such as entrepreneurial activity funds and loans, and promote the exchangeand sharing of experiences by guest speakers or entrepreneurs possessing differ-ent expertise or experience. Second, our results also indicate that ability serves asan important antecedent of entrepreneurial intentions: It affects entrepreneurialintentions through multiple (direct and indirect) routes. These findings suggestthat the design of entrepreneurial education and training courses should put stresson improving participants’ abilities by providing the necessary knowledge aboutentrepreneurship and the assistance in developing opportunity-recognized,problem-solving, and decision-making skills, in addition to goals, finance, andother resources of operational management. Third, our results suggest thatmotivation is another key predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. This findingimplies that entrepreneurship courses and training should also aim to changeparticipants’ “hearts and minds”, in addition to improve their entrepreneurialknowledge and skills (Souitaris et al. 2007).
Limitations and future research
Notwithstanding the effort we spent in designing our research, this study leaves severallimitations. First, we assumed that the process of becoming an entrepreneur is deter-mined by the linkages among motivation, ability, opportunity, personal attitude, sub-jective norms, and perceived behavior control. However, other individual characteris-tics and contextual factors such as knowledge, experience, culture, gender, and personalvalues may affect a person’s entrepreneurial intentions. Second, it is crucial to deter-mine whether the results of this study can be generalized and whether conceptualtheories can be developed. Therefore, we recommended that future studies include anexpanded sample size or involve the use of diversified samples to improve the findingsof this study. In addition, the effects of individual characteristics and contextual factorsshould be included in the proposed model. Moreover, additional cross-cultural (i.e.,international) studies may be useful for determining the unique characteristics of theculture that are involved and could be helpful for contextualizing the phenomenon.Finally, a longitudinal study may be undertaken to verify the correspondence betweenintentions and subsequent behavior. A few of the participants in these samples will have
Int Entrep Manag J
already developed entrepreneurial behaviors. Therefore, we can study their intentionsbefore the fulfillment of that behavior.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study develops a model which combines PBT and MOA to improvethe understanding of the processes of becoming an entrepreneur. Our model sheds newlight to the entrepreneurship literature by arguing MOA as the antecedents of plannedbehavior. The results demonstrate that motivation, ability, and opportunity affect aperson’s entrepreneurial intentions through personal attitude, subjective norms, andperceived behavior control. These indirect linkages revealed in this study have not beendocumented on the entrepreneurial literature. Overall, our study not only extends theexisting research based on PBT in investigating the process of becoming an entrepre-neur, but also offers a new direction for future research that explores the contextualeffects in entrepreneurial processes.
Appendix
Measures of constructs
I. How do you assess the related entrepreneurial opportunity in the surroundingenvironment? Indicate from 1 (no aptitude at all) to 5 (very high aptitude).
1 2 3 4 5
O1. There are many entrepreneurial ideas in the surrounding environment. □ □ □ □ □
O2. There are numerous ways to absorb related entrepreneurial information. □ □ □ □ □
O3. I can get sufficient information from a variety sources offering entrepreneurial ideas. □ □ □ □ □
O4. Changes in the external environment offer many creative entrepreneurial ideas. □ □ □ □ □
O5. The development of various technologies helps direct entrepreneurship. □ □ □ □ □
II. How do you rate yourself on the following entrepreneurial motivation? Indicatefrom 1 (no aptitude at all) to 5 (very high aptitude).
1 2 3 4 5
M1. I am interested in finding more information about entrepreneurship. □ □ □ □ □
M2. I want to obtain more information about entrepreneurship. □ □ □ □ □
M3. When I read newspapers and magazines (or television and Internet), I tend to pay moreattention to entrepreneurship-related information.
□ □ □ □ □
*M4. If I want to start a business, I will look up different methods to help my business. □ □ □ □ □
M5. Entrepreneurship is one of the main reasons why I am searching for Information. □ □ □ □ □
M6. Entrepreneurship inspires me. □ □ □ □ □
M7. I am interesting in entrepreneurship. □ □ □ □ □
*M8. Before starting a business, I will chat with people who have entrepreneurial experience. □ □ □ □ □
*M9. I have some friends who have started a business or some friends who are starting abusiness.
□ □ □ □ □
Int Entrep Manag J
III. How do you rate yourself on the following entrepreneurial abilities? Indicate from1 (no aptitude at all) to 5 (very high aptitude).
1 2 3 4 5
AB1. Recognition of opportunity □ □ □ □ □
AB2. Creativity □ □ □ □ □
AB3. Problem solving skills □ □ □ □ □
*AB4. Leadership and communication skills □ □ □ □ □
*AB5. Development of new products and services □ □ □ □ □
*AB6. Networking skills, and making professional contacts □ □ □ □ □
IV. Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about the entre-preneurial behavior including personal attitude, subjective norms, perceived be-havior control, and intentions. Measurement levels are from 1 (total disagreement)to 5 (total agreement).
1 2 3 4 5
*A01. Starting a firm and keeping it viable would be easy for me. □ □ □ □ □
*A02. A career as an entrepreneur is totally unattractive to me. □ □ □ □ □
A03. My friends would approve of my decision to start a business. □ □ □ □ □
A04. I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur. □ □ □ □ □
*A05. I believe I would be completely unable to start a business. □ □ □ □ □
*A06. I will make every effort to start and run my own business. □ □ □ □ □
A07. I am able to control the creation process of a new business. □ □ □ □ □
A08. My immediate family would approve of my decision to start a business. □ □ □ □ □
*A09. I have serious doubts about ever starting my own business. □ □ □ □ □
A10. If I had the opportunity and resources, I would love to start a business. □ □ □ □ □
A11. My colleagues would approve of my decision to start a business. □ □ □ □ □
A12. Amongst various options, I would rather be anything but an entrepreneur. □ □ □ □ □
A13. I am determined to create a business venture in the future. □ □ □ □ □
A14. If I tried to start a business, I would have a high chance of being successful. □ □ □ □ □
A15. Being an entrepreneur would give me great satisfaction. □ □ □ □ □
*A16. It would be very difficult for me to develop a business idea. □ □ □ □ □
A17. My professional goal is to be an entrepreneur. □ □ □ □ □
A18. Being an entrepreneur implies more advantages than disadvantages to me. □ □ □ □ □
*A19. I have a low intention of ever starting a business. □ □ □ □ □
*A20. I know all about the practical details needed to start a business. □ □ □ □ □
Note: * Items with loadings lower than 0.7 were eliminated.
References
Ajzen, I. (1989). Attitude structure and behavior. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.),Attitude structure and function (pp. 241–274). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Int Entrep Manag J
Ajzen, I. (1991). Theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58.Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned
behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: attitudes, intentions, and perceived
behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453–474.Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and
development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105–123.Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing
Research, 14(3), 396–402.Baumol, W. (1990). Entrepreneurship: productive, unproductive and destructive. Journal of Political
Economy, 98(5), 893–921.Bhola, R., Verheul, I., Grilo, I., & Thurik, A. R. (2006). Explaining engagement levels of opportunity and
necessity entrepreneurs. Research report H200610. Zoetermeer: EIM Business and Policy Research.Binney, W., Hall, J., & Shaw, M. (2003). A further development in social marketing: application of the MOA
framework and behavioral implications. Marketing Theory, 3(3), 387–403.Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial
intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 63–77.Carsrud, A. L. (1992). The psychology of entrepreneurship. Stirling: University of Stirling.Carsrud, A. L., & Brännback, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial motivations: what do we still need to know? Journal
of Small Business Management, 49(1), 9–26.Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs
from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295–316.Christensen, P. S., Madsen, O. O., & Peterson, R. (1994). Conceptualizing entrepreneurial opportunity
recognition. In G. E. Hills (Ed.), Marketing and entrepreneurship: Research ideas and opportunities(pp. 61–75). London: Quorum Books.
Cooper, A. C. (1993). Challenges in predicting new firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3),241–253.
Curran, J., & Stanworth, J. (1989). Education and training for enterprise: some problems of classification,evaluation, policy and research. International Small Business Journal, 7(2), 11–23.
De Wit, G., & van Winden, F. (1989). An empirical analysis of self-employment in the Netherlands. SmallBusiness Economics, 1(4), 263–272.
DeNoble, A. F., Jung, D., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1999). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The development of ameasure and its relation to entrepreneurial action. In P. D. Reynolds et al. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepre-neurship research (pp. 73–87). Wellesley: Babson College.
Díaz-Casero, J. C., Ferreira, J. J. M., Mogollón, R. H., & Raposo, M. L. B. (2012). Influence of institutionalenvironment on entrepreneurial intention: a comparative study of two countries university students.International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(1), 55–74.
Díaz-García, M. C., & Jiménez-Moreno, J. (2010). Entrepreneurial intention: the role of gender. InternationalEntrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(3), 261–283.
Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. (1983). Examining performance of U. S. multinationals in foreign markets.Journal of International Business Studies, 14(3), 51–62.
Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3),333–349.
Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2005). Using the theory of planned behaviour to assess entrepreneurship teachingprograms. Working Paper 05/2005, Center for Research in Change, Innovation and Strategy of LouvainSchool of Management.
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship educationprogrammes: a new methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(9), 701–720.
Fornell, C. R., & Larcker, F. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measure-ment error: algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.
Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T., & Czaplewski, A. J. (2006). The impact of customer-to-customeronline know-how exchange on customer value and loyalty. Journal of Business Research,59(4), 449–456.
Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T., & Czaplewski, A. J. (2007). Customer-tocustomer exchange: its MOAantecedents and its impact on value creation and loyalty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,35(4), 537–549.
Hoyer, W. D., & MacInnis, D. J. (1997). Consumer behaviour. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Int Entrep Manag J
Hsieh, C., Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. (2007). Opportunity discovery, problem solving, and the theory ofthe entrepreneurial firm. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1255–1277.
Intentions. (2012). In Cambridge dictionaries online. Retrieved Dec. 8, 2012, from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/ intention?q=intentions.
Intentions. (2012). InMerriam-Webster.com. Retrieved Dec. 8, 2012, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intentions.
Jones, C., & English, J. (2004). A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education. Education andTraining, 46(8/9), 416–423.
Kavitha, R., Anantharaman, R. N., & Sharmila, J. (2008). Motivational factors affecting entrepreneurialdecision: a comparison between Malaysian women entrepreneurs and women non-entrepreneurs.Communications of the IBIMA, 2, 85–89.
Kennedy, J., Drennan, J., Renfrow, P., & Watson, B. (2003). Situational factors and entrepreneurial intentions(pp. 1–12). In Proceedings of the Small Enterprise Association of Australia and New Zealand 16thAnnual Conference, Ballarat, Australia.
Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., &Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential leaning theory: Previous research and newdirections. In R. J. Stemberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive, learning, and thinking styles(pp. 193–210). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship: Theory andPractice, 21(1), 47–57.
Kolvereid, L., & Isaksen, E. (2006). New business start-up and subsequent entry into selfemployment. Journalof Business Venturing, 21(6), 866–885.
Krueger, N. F., Jr. (2007). What lies beneath? The experiential essence of entrepreneurial thinking.Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 31(1), 123–138.
Krueger, N. F., Jr., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions.Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5/6), 411–432.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: a socialcognitive analysis. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 47(1), 36–49.
Liñán, F. (2004). Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education. Piccola Impresa/Small Business,2004(3), 11–35.
Liñán, F. (2008). Skill and value perceptions: how do they affect entrepreneurial intentions? InternationalEntrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(3), 257–272.
Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument tomeasure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 33(3), 593–617.
Liñán, F., & Santos, F. J. (2007). Does social capital affect entrepreneurial intentions? International Advancesin Economic Research, 13(4), 443–453.
Liñán, F., Rodríguez-Cohard, J. C., & Rueda-Cantuche, J. M. (2011a). Factors affecting entrepreneurialintention levels: a role for education. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2),195–218.
Liñán, F., Santos, F. J., & Fernández, J. (2011b). The influence of perceptions on potential entrepreneurs.International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(3), 373–390.
Liñán, F., Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2011c). Regional variations in entrepreneurial cognitions: start-upintentions of university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(3/4), 187–215.
Liñán, F., Krueger, N. F., & Nabi, G. (2013). British and Spanish entrepreneurial intentions: a comparativestudy. Revista de Economía Mundial, 33, 73–103.
MacInnis, D. J., & Jaworski, B. J. (1989). Information processing from advertisements: towards an integrativeframework. Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 1–23.
MacInnis, D. J., Moorman, C., & Jaworski, B. J. (1991). Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation,opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 32–53.
Matthews, C. H., & Moser, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal investigation of the impact of family background andgender on interest in small firm ownership. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(2), 29–43.
McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory ofthe entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.
Moorman, C. (1990). The effects of stimulus and consumer characteristics on the utilization of nutritioninformation. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 362–374.
Murphy, K. M., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1991). The allocation of talent: implications for growth. TheQuarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), 503–530.
Naktiyok, A., Karabey, C. N., & Gulluce, A. C. (2010). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurialintention: the Turkish case. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(4), 419–435.
Int Entrep Manag J
Oosterbeek, H., Van Praag, M., & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship education onentrepreneurship skills and motivation. European Economic Review, 54(3), 442–454.
Reynolds, P. D., Bygrave, W. D., Autio, E., Cox, L. W., & Hay, M. (2002a).Global entrepreneurship monitor:2002 executive report. Babson College/Ewin Marion Kauffman Foundation, London Business School.
Rhodes, R. E., Blanchardb, C. M., Mathesonc, D. H., & Coble, J. (2006). Disentangling motivation, intention,and planning in the physical activity domain. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7(1), 15–27.
Roberston, M., Collins, A., Medeira, N., & Slatter, J. (2003). Barriers to start-up and their effect on aspirantentrepreneurs. Education and Training, 45(6), 308–316.
Rothschild, M. (1999). Carrots, sticks and promises: a conceptual framework for the management of publichealth and social issues behavior. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 24–37.
Sánchez, J. C. (2011). University training for entrepreneurial competencies: its impact on intention of venturecreation. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2), 239–254.
Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., Velamuri, S. R., & Venkataraman, S. (2003). Three views of entrepreneurialopportunity. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research: Aninterdisciplinary survey and introduction, I (pp. 141–160). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Scherer, R. F., Brodzinsky, J. D., & Wiebe, F. A. (1991). Examining the relationship between personality andentrepreneurial career preference. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 3(2), 195–206.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Segal, G., Borgia, D., & Schoenfeld, J. (2005). The motivation to become an entrepreneur. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 11(1), 42–57.Shane, S. A. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual–opportunity nexus. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.Shane, S. A. (2005). Finding fertile ground: Identifying extraordinary opportunities for new ventures. Upper
Saddle River: Wharton School Publishing.Shane, S. A., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of
Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K.
H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72–90). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Solesvik, M. (2013). Entrepreneurial motivations and intentions: investigating the role of education major.
Education and Training, 55(3), 253–271.Song, M., Podoynitsyna, K., van der Bij, H., & Halman, J. (2008). Success factors in new ventures: a meta-
analysis. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(1), 7–27.Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial
intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal ofBusiness Venturing, 22(4), 566–591.
Timmons, J. A. (1999). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the twenty-first century. Burr Ridge:Irwin.
Tkachev, A., & Kolvereid, L. (1999). Self-employment intentions among Russian students. Entrepreneurshipand Regional Development, 11(3), 269–280.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Oxford: Wiley.Zahra, S. A., & Bogner, W. C. (2000). Technology strategy and software new ventures’ performance:
exploring the moderating effect of the competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2),135–173.
Int Entrep Manag J
