Upload
juan-a-moriano
View
6.046
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Interest in entrepreneurship is growing in many countries due to the close link between new venture creation and economic development (Reynolds, Bygrave, Autio, Cox and Hay, 2002). From a psychological standpoint, the entrepreneurship research resorts to psychosocial variables, such as motivations, personality traits, attitudes, abilities, and others, to account for the entrepreneurial behavior. Psychological literature has shown that intentions are the best predictor of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Venture creation emerges over time and involves a considerable planning, making entrepreneurship a type of planned behavior (Bird, 1988; Katz and Gartner, 1988; Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud, 2000) for which intention models are ideally suited. In this study the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) is the framework to explain the entrepreneurial intention. A sample of 2195 Spanish students (57.9% female), with an average age of 22 years and currently facing important career decisions, filled out a survey with different scales tapping intentions, attitudes, social norms and self-efficacy. Relationships between attitudes, social norms, self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention were examined through SEM (Structural Equation Modeling). Although, only 13.5% of the students showed more intention to work as self-employees than as employees, attitudes, subjective norms and self-efficacy explained about 25% of the variance of entrepreneurial intention, thus confirming the validity of the proposed model.
Citation preview
Juan A. Moriano, José F. Morales & Francisco J. Palací
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED)
ISTAMBUL 13th MAY 2005
The XII. European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology
PREDICTING ENTREPRENEURIAL
INTENTION FROM THE THEORY OF
PLANNED BEHAVIOR
The study of entrepreneurship within Psychology field is characterized by:
1. A lot of descriptive and partial studies “Entrepreneurial Personality”
2. These studies have received several methodological and theoretical critiques
(Baron, 2002; Gartner, 1988; Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner y Hunt, 1991;
Shane y Venkataraman, 2000; Shaver y Scott, 1991)
3. Lack of solid theories that consolidate the previous studies
Therefore comes the necessity to go deeper into the study of
entrepreneurship and to apply models from Social Psychology field.
These models need to take into account not only the personal
characteristics, but also the social variables and the interaction
between them in order to explain and predict entrepreneurial behavior.
Therefore comes the necessity to go deeper into the study of
entrepreneurship and to apply models from Social Psychology field.
These models need to take into account not only the personal
characteristics, but also the social variables and the interaction
between them in order to explain and predict entrepreneurial behavior.
INTRODUCTION
WORK GOALS
To analyze the applicability of a Social Psychology Model in order to explain and predict the entrepreneurial intention
Subjective Norms
Self-EfficacyAttitudes
EntrepreneurialIntention
THEORETICAL REVIEW
ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION
Entrepreneurship is the type of planned behavior for which intention models are ideally suitable (Bird, 1988; Katz and Gartner, 1988)
INTENTION MODELS:INTENTION MODELS:
1. Shapero’s Model of the “Entrepreneurial Event” (SEE) (Shapero, 1975)
2. Model of Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas (Bird, 1988)
3. The Expectancy Theory Model (Vesalainen and Pihkala, 1999)
4. The Utility Maximization Model of Career Choice (Douglas, 2002)
5. Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991)
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKTheory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991)
AttitudeAttitude
Subjective Norm
Subjective Norm
Perceived Behavioral Control
Perceived Behavioral Control
Intention Behavior
StudyRegression Coefficients Adjusted R²
AttitudeSubjective
NormPBC
Entrepreneurial Intention
Tkachev & Kolvereid (1999) .11* .28* .44* .45
Autio et al. (2001) .24*** .02* .36*** .30
METHOD
The sample size was 2190 Spanish students
41.1% were men and 57.9% were women
The average age was 22 years old
The students were mostly university students (63.3%) and technical college students (26.8%)
Most of the participants were unemployed and dedicated only to their studies (84.5%)
Participants
METHOD
1. Personal data: Gender, age, level of education and work situation
2. Entrepreneurial intention
a) Direct measure
What is your career intention? (in a scale from 1 to 10)
a) Start your own business or work on your own
b) Work as an employee in a private company
c) Work as a government employee
b) Indirect measure
A scale consisted of 6 items which evaluate in an indirect way the entrepreneurial intention.
For example, “I have a specific idea for starting a new venture”
Measures
3. Attitudes scales
a) General attitude towards Self-Employment
b) Attitude funtions of Self-Employment (Grande, 2001)
c) Specific attitudes towards: Achievement, Innovation, Independence, Change, Risk and Salary (EAO, Robinson et al., 1991)
4. Subjective Norm
a) Social legitimacy of Entrepreneurship
b) Social Support
c) Entrepreneurship Support from the Educational Center
5. Perceived Behavioral Control
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy Scale (De Noble, Jung, Ehrlich, 1999)
Measures
METHOD
• The entrepreneurial intention obtained the lowest average score.
• Only 13.5% of the participants have higher intention of working as self-employed than as employed.
• Differences between men and women:
a) Men: Higher entrepreneurial intention
b) Women: Higher intention to work in a private company or for the government
RESULTS: ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION
Figure 1. Career Intention
Note. 10-point scale ranging from 1 (not interested) to 10 (totally interested).*** Mean differences significant at p < .001
7.69
5.98
5.24
4 5 6 7 8
Car
eer
Inte
ntio
n
Entrepreneur
Government Employee
Employee in privatecompany
18.5% of the men prefer to become an entrepreneur in compare with 9.8% of the women
RESULTS: ATTITUDES
Variable Factors ItemsReliability
CoefficientsMean SD
Correlation with Entrepreneurial
Intention
General attitude towards Self-Employment
Government level
3 .64 4.01 0.65 .170**
People level 2 .51 3.56 0.72 .259**
Attitude funtions of Self-Employment
Personal development
8 .73 3.85 0.48 .229**
Community contribution
3 .44 3.61 0.55 .100**
Disadvantages 6 .56 3.50 0.43 .084**
Social status 3 .57 3.10 0.76 .084**
Specific attitudes
Achievement 6 .59 4.02 0.43 .087**Innovation 5 .56 3.76 0.52 .177**Independence 5 .59 3.21 0.61 .154**Risk 4 .41 3.34 0.63 .154**Initiative 2 .32 3.48 0.79 .187**
Salary 5 .60 3.16 0.70 .068**
Note. 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) ** Coefficients significant at p < .01
RESULTS: SUBJECTIVE NORM
Variable Factors ItemsReliability
CoefficientsMean SD
Correlation with Entrepreneurial
Intention
Social legitimacy of Entrepreneurship
- 2 - 3.21 0.93 .071**
Social Support
Family 3 .75 4.16 0.81 .191**
Friends and professors
3 .60 3.67 0.56 .099**
Entrepreneurial Support from Educational Centers
Encouraging 3 .75 1.96 0.87 .165**
Activities 2 .54 1.76 0.75 .062**
Note. 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
** Coefficients significant at p < .01
RESULTS: PERCEIVED BEHAVIORAL
CONTROLVariable Factors ItemsReliability
CoefficientsMean SD
Correlation with entrepreneurial
intention
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy
Developing new products
4 .75 3.15 0.59 .205**
Initiating investor relationships
6 .75 3.39 0.53 .189**
Developing critical human resources
4 .68 3.15 0.65 .132**
Building an innovative environment
3 .66 3.38 0.60 .191**
Defining core porpose
4 .58 3.32 0.73 .177**
Coping with unexpected changes
2 .40 3.01 0.65 .179**
Note. 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
** Coefficients significant at p < .01
Attitudefuntions
CCe6
INe5
ESe4
Specificattitudes
INIe11
,39CRe10
,40ILe9
ITe8
LPe7
GeneralattitudeAPe2
AGe1
ATTITUDE
,88
,73
,87
res1
res2
res3
EAe16
AAe15
CPe14
NFe13
SUBJECTIVENORM
,66
,27
,16
,63
,59
PERCEIVEDBEHAVIORAL
CONTROL
TEe22
LCe21
EIe20
RH
IRe18
e19
DPe17
,74
,49
,62
,61
,58
INTENTION
IA
e24
IE
e23
res5
,78
,15
,24
,23
,46
,21
,32
,52
,65
,50
,13
,55
,67
,60
,17
,19
IDe3 ,80
-,27
,30
-,17
,36
,16
STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING
THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR (TPB)
.27
Figure 2. Intention model from Theory of Planned Behavior
Model Fit
Indexes: RMR (.03), GFI (.93), AGFI (.91) and
RMSEA (.04)
Standardized Regression Weights
Attitude: .32 ***
Subjective Norm: .15 *
Perceived Behavioral Control: .21 **
Explained Variance by the Model
27% of entrepreneurial intention variance
* p<.05 ** p <.01 *** p < .001
AttitudeFuntions
CCe6
INe5
ESe4
SpecificAttitude
INIe11
,39CRe10
,40ILe9
ITe8
LPe7
GeneralAttitudeAPe2
AGe1
ATTITUDE
,87
,75
,88
res1
res2
res3
EAe16
AAe15
CPe14
NFe13
SUBJECTIVENORM
,16
,63
,59
INTENTION
IA
e24
IE
e23
res5
,96,21
,24
,33
,42
,12
,57
,58
,15
,18
IDe3
,51
,28
,79
,66
,66
-,27-,17
,16
,36
THEORY OF REASONED ACTION (TRA) Figure 3. Intention model from Theory of Reasoned Action
Modelo Fit
Indexes: RMR (.04), GFI (.95), AGFI (.93)
and RMSEA (.04)
Standardized Regression Weights Attitudes: .33 ***
Subjective Norm: .21 **
Explained Variance by the Model
18% of entrepreneurial intention variance
.18
STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING
* p<.05 ** p <.01 *** p < .001
RESULTS: MULTIPLE-GROUP ANALYSIS
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN
Model Fit for Men Group
Indexes: RMR (.04), GFI (.89), AGFI (.87) y RMSEA (.05)
Standardized Regression Weights Attitudes: .32 ***
Subjective Norm: .18 *
Perceived Behavioral Control: .20 **
Explained Variance by the Model
31% of entrepreneurial intention variance
Model Fit for Women Group
Indexes : RMR (.03), GFI (.95), AGFI (.94) y RMSEA (.04)
Standardized Regression Weights
Attitudes: .34 ***
Subjective Norm: .18 **
Perceived Behavioral Control: .14 *
Explained Variance by the Model
24% of entrepreneurial intention variance
* p<.05 ** p <.01 *** p < .001
CONCLUSIONS
How is the entrepreneurial intention of Spanish students? How is the entrepreneurial intention of Spanish students?
• The participating Spanish students have low entrepreneurial intention in general. Their favorite occupational choice is to work in a private company.
• The model proposed by the TPB explains 27% of the variance in the entrepreneurial intention.
• The alternative model proposed by the TRA explains only 18% of the variance in the entrepreneurial intention.
• The TPB model was validated in groups of men and women. However, the explained variance of entrepreneurial intention was bigger in men group.
• Attitude is the most influential component with the biggest impact on the entrepreneurial intention in every group (women and men)
Is the Theory of Planned Behavior able to explain entrepreneurial Is the Theory of Planned Behavior able to explain entrepreneurial intention? intention?
What is the best predictor of entrepreneurial intention?What is the best predictor of entrepreneurial intention?
CONCLUSIONSHow is the subjective norm towards entrepreneurial behavior?How is the subjective norm towards entrepreneurial behavior?
• This variable shows the lowest impact on entrepreneurial intention
• There is a low social legitimacy of entrepreneurship in Spain.
• Social support has a positive effect on the entrepreneurial intention. Especially, when this support comes from the family.
• Entrepreneurship Support from the Educational Center has a positive effect as well. However, the participating students indicate that there is not enough encouragement for the entrepreneurship as an occupational choice in their educational centers.
• Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy is an important predictor of entrepreneurial intention.
• If this component is eliminated from the model then the entrepreneurial intention explained variance goes down from 27% to 18%.
• This variable has a bigger impact on entrepreneurial intention in men group than in women group.
How is the Perceived Behavioral Control?How is the Perceived Behavioral Control?