Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn

Executive Summary

Fostering entrepreneurship has become an important topic for current policy makers of the

EU. In order to reach the Lisbon employment rate target in 2010, the EU needs to create some 22 million jobs. With a net employment growth of 0.6 million in 2002, this seems like a difficult task. Entrepreneurship education is thought to be the solution for this urgent need for new jobs. Since the number of European students interested in becoming entrepreneurs is significantly lower than their US counterparts, entrepreneurship education should be further stimulated across Europe. However, to increase the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education, more research is needed to identify the antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions among students. It is important to know what drives a students’ decision towards selfemployment. In order to contribute to an improvement of entrepreneurship education in the

Netherlands, this thesis explores the influence of students’ personality and participation in entrepreneurship education on their entrepreneurial intentions. The data were collected with a questionnaire among 125 students of the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration of Universiteit Maastricht. The regression results give further evidence for the usefulness of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) in explaining entrepreneurial intentions. The results confirm the importance of a student’s personality, as measured with proactive personality and willingness to take risks, in the entrepreneurial intentions framework. An even stronger relationship has been recognized for participation in entrepreneurship education. Although it cannot be stated that entrepreneurship education influences a student’s personality, it does attract students with a certain personality. Since an ‘entrepreneurial personality’ increases the ultimate entrepreneurial intentions, entrepreneurship education would be more effective for a certain group of ‘promising’ students. Universiteit Maastricht should attract these students to participate in entrepreneurship education. To achieve this, a thorough expansion of entrepreneurship courses and activities is needed. The image of entrepreneurship as an interesting career alternative should improve and the Universiteit

Maastricht should emphasize an ‘entrepreneurial atmosphere’. Furthermore, teachers with an extensive knowledge and experience in entrepreneurship should reveal the ‘right’ students and encourage them to participate in entrepreneurship courses, business plan competitions, etc. Still, further research is needed to fully understand to true influence of entrepreneurship education on personality traits. Can education really influence a student’s personality?


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION________________________________________________________ 3

2. ENTREPRENEURSHIP __________________________________________________ 7

2.1

D EFINITION _________________________________________________________________ 7

2.2

T HE IMPORTANCE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP _______________________________________ 8

3. ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS _____________________________________ 11

3.1

P REVIOUS RESEARCH ________________________________________________________ 11

3.1.1

T HEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOUR ________________________________________________ 12

3.1.2

M ODEL OF ENTREPRENEURIAL EVENT _____________________________________________ 14

3.2

L ATEST MODEL OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION _______________________________ 15

4. ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION _____________________________________ 18

4.1

T HE DEVELOPMENT OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION __________________________ 18

4.1.1

C URRENT ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION DEFINED _________________________________ 19

4.1.2

D UTCH INITIATIVES ____________________________________________________________ 21

4.2.

E FFECTIVENESS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION : T HE ONGOING DEBATE _________ 22

5. RESEARCH METHODS _________________________________________________ 25

5.1

R

ESEARCH MODEL

__________________________________________________________ 25

5.2

S AMPLE AND PROCEDURE ____________________________________________________ 26

5.3

H YPOTHESES _______________________________________________________________ 27

5.3.1

D EPENDENT VARIABLES _________________________________________________________ 28

5.3.2

I NDEPENDENT VARIABLES _______________________________________________________ 29

5.4

I

NSTRUMENT

_______________________________________________________________ 29

5.5

A NALYSIS _________________________________________________________________ 30

6. RESULTS _____________________________________________________________ 31

6.1

R ESPONSE AND MISSING VALUES _______________________________________________ 31

6.2

O MITTED VARIABLES ________________________________________________________ 31

-1-


6.3

D ESCRIPTIVES , RELIABILITY , AND EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS ________________________ 32

6.3.1

D ESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ________________________________________________________ 32

6.3.2

C RONBACH

’

S ALPHA

’

S __________________________________________________________ 33

6.3.3

C ORRELATIONS AND CROSS TABULATION __________________________________________ 35

6.4

R EGRESSION AND HYPOTHESES TESTING ________________________________________ 36

6.4.1

H YPOTHESES 1 TO 4 ____________________________________________________________ 36

6.4.2

H YPOTHESES 5 AND 6 ___________________________________________________________ 40

6.4.3

H YPOTHESES 7 AND 8 ___________________________________________________________ 42

6.4.4

P ARTICIPANTS VS .

NON PARTICIPANTS _____________________________________________ 43

6.4.5

E STIMATED REGRESSION MODEL __________________________________________________ 45

6.5

L IMITATIONS ______________________________________________________________ 48

7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ______________________________________ 50

REFERENCES ___________________________________________________________ 53

APPENDIX A: GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP MONITOR INDEXES _________ 60

APPENDIX B: ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE ________ 62

APPENDIX C: QUESTIONS OVERVIEW ____________________________________ 66

APPENDIX D: STATISTICS OUTPUT ______________________________________ 70

Deze scriptie is afkomstig van: http://www.studiosus.nl

Online Scripties & Verslagen

-2-


1. Introduction

European students do not consider entrepreneurship as a priority in life. Only 10% of the

European students are interested in becoming entrepreneurs within three years after graduation (Twaalfhoven, 2003). Dutch academic students score even lower (9%) than their

European counterparts (Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2002). This thesis explores the entrepreneurial intentions among Universiteit Maastricht students in more detail.

In January 2003 the European Commission (2003a) presented the ‘Green paper on entrepreneurship in Europe’. According to this paper, the European Union (hereafter EU) should become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world.

To create this, Europe needs to foster entrepreneurial drives more effectively. Especially with the enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe in May 2004, it needs to stimulate entrepreneurship in order to reap the benefits of the larger European market. With an average unemployment rate of 8.1% among the ‘former’ fifteen member states, and around 15% among the acceding countries, there is an urgent need for new jobs (European Commission,

2003a). The unemployment rate among the younger age groups is even worse. In particular for the Netherlands, the unemployment rate for the ‘fifteen to twenty-four’ age group is 10% higher compared to the level of the mid 1990s (European Commission, 2003b).

1

Entrepreneurship is an important tool to create new jobs, and can therefore benefit Europe’s unemployment rate. However, the survey of the European Commission (2003a) states that

37% of the Europeans are considering or have considered becoming entrepreneurs, yet only

15% turns these aspirations into reality. Obviously, these figures need to change in order to create the new jobs that the EU needs.

University professors and other interest groups became involved in the so-called public debate following the ‘Green paper on Entrepreneurship in Europe’ (European Commission,

2003a). GrowthPlus

2

(2004) explains the phenomenon described in this paper as the

1 This is confirmed by recent unemployment figures for the Netherlands. According to ‘Centraal Bureau voor de

Statistiek’ (Statistics Netherlands), the average Dutch unemployment rate between July and Sept 2004 is 6.0%.

The youngest age group (15-24) has the highest rate 13.1% ( http://www.cbs.nl/en/figures/keyfigures/index.htm

).

2 The GrowthPlus association aims to promote entrepreneurship throughout Europe and advises policy makers on how to improve the environment for growth companies.

-3-


‘entrepreneurship deficit’, caused due to a lack of entrepreneurship and a lack of fast-growth companies in Europe. Research from GrowthPlus (2004) shows that the number of adults who participated in business start-ups is 2.4% in the EU compared to 8.5% in the United

States of America (hereafter US). GrowthPlus (2004) mentions a number of factors, which influences this ‘entrepreneurship deficit’. Important factors are the availability of venture capital and the business environment created by regulations and tax measures from the governments. Though, GrowthPlus (2004) mentions the ‘skills deficit’ of European entrepreneurs as the main cause for this situation. Universities can play a significant role in improving the skills of upcoming entrepreneurs. Other reactions confirm the important role of universities in solving the ‘entrepreneurship deficit’.

In November 2003, Twaalfhoven (2003) held a presentation on entrepreneurship in Europe.

Twaalfhoven (2003), a successful entrepreneur himself, also directed the cause of the urgent need for entrepreneurs to the technical and business universities in Europe . According to

Twaalfhoven (2003), European universities lack a critical mass of people with adequate experience and knowledge in entrepreneurship. Furthermore, his research shows that in comparison with the US, the number of European students interested in becoming entrepreneurs is significantly lower. Therefore, improving entrepreneurship education can be a tool to stimulate this interest of students.

While there has been significant previous research on the causes and effects of entrepreneurship, only a limited number of studies focused on entrepreneurial intent among students (Lüthje & Franke, 2003) .

Some models on entrepreneurial intent have been developed, though it is still widely unknown whether personality traits or contextual founding conditions drive the students’ career decision towards self-employment (Lüthje & Franke,

2003). The former mentioned personality traits have a strong impact on the attitudes towards self-employment. These entrepreneurial attitudes show a direct effect on intentions. Thus, the students’ personality is considered to have an indirect effect (through attitudes) on his or her intentions to start a new venture (Lüthje & Franke, 2003). The latter mentioned contextual founding conditions consist of for instance: legal conditions, financial support, infrastructure, economic environment, education, etc. These contextual founding conditions have a direct effect on intentions to start a new venture.

-4-


Current research is still not totally clear about whether personality traits or rather academic entrepreneurship education have the strongest impact on students’ entrepreneurial intentions.

University courses and activities would be less likely to stimulate start-ups, if the underlying intentions were more personality than education focused. Since, personality traits are often thought to be rather constant over time, it will be difficult to stimulate university spin-off companies when students do not have the personality needed to become successful entrepreneurs. For this reason it is important to know the exact relationship between personality traits, entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. In order to contribute to an improvement of entrepreneurship education in the Netherlands, this thesis explores the influence of personality traits and the participation in entrepreneurship courses on entrepreneurial intentions among Universiteit Maastricht students.

The research in this thesis studies two effects. On the one hand, the effects of personality traits and participation in entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intentions of students. On the other hand, the moderating effects of personality traits on the attitude towards entrepreneurship and the participation in entrepreneurship education are investigated.

Students who participated in entrepreneurship courses might have certain common personality characteristics. On the contrary, entrepreneurship education could positively influence certain entrepreneurial characteristics of students.

The above presented research attempts to answer the following question:

Is the students’ entrepreneurial intent determined by his or her personality, or can academic entrepreneurship education influence this decision ?

To collect data for this explorative study, 125 students of the Faculty of Economics and

Business Administration of Universiteit Maastricht filled out a questionnaire about their entrepreneurial intentions. The questionnaire was developed with the use of previous research

(e.g. Autio, Keeley, Klofsten, & Ulfstedt, 1997; Lüthje & Franke, 2003).

In order to support the problem statement three sub-questions will be discussed:



What is the concept and importance entrepreneurship?



How can intentions explain the decision toward self-employment?

-5-




How does entrepreneurship education stimulate entrepreneurship?

The thesis starts with an opening chapter 2 on the importance of entrepreneurship, which answers the first sub-question. Chapter 3 continues with the second sub-question on the intention towards self-employment. A recent model on entrepreneurial intentions is discussed in this chapter. Chapter 4 explains the importance of entrepreneurship education in more detail. It discusses current literature in entrepreneurship education and will have a closer look at entrepreneurship education in the Netherlands. Chapter 5 focuses on the research methodology. This chapter explains the research plan and discusses the development of the questionnaire. Chapter 6 contains the analyses and results of the collected data. The limitations attached to this research are stated at the end of this chapter. Chapter 7 finishes with a discussion, conclusions, and recommendations for further research.

-6-


2. Entrepreneurship

To provide an understanding of the term entrepreneurship this chapter explains the definition in more detail. A further clarification of the importance of entrepreneurship for the EU is given as well. This chapter answers the following sub-question: What is the concept and importance of entrepreneurship?

2.1 Definition

The word entrepreneur is French and, literally translated, means “ between-taker

” or “ gobetween

.” The definition of entrepreneurship has evolved over time as the world’s economy has changed as well. In 1934, Schumpeter defined the entrepreneur as “ an innovator who develops untried technologies

”. More than 50 years later Gartner (1988) defined entrepreneurship as “ the creation of new organizations

”.

3

Although researchers have been inconsistent with their definitions of entrepreneurship, they often contain similar elements, such opportunity recognition, newness, organizing, creating and risk taking. Developing a worldwide accepted definition turns out to be difficult; however the following definition by

Hisrich and Peters (2002, p.10) contains the most important elements:

“Entrepreneurship is the process of creating something new with value by devoting the necessary time and effort, assuming the accompanying financial, psychic, and social risks, and receiving the resulting rewards of monetary and personal satisfaction and independence”.

This definition stresses four aspects of being an entrepreneur. First of all, entrepreneurship involves the creation of something new with value to the entrepreneur and to the audience.

This audience can be any individual that is concerned with the new product or service.

Second, entrepreneurship requires the devotion of the necessary time and effort. Making a new idea operational and bringing it to market is a process with which most entrepreneurs have many difficulties. The third aspect of entrepreneurship is the assumption of the necessary risks. The risks involved in an entrepreneurial process could take many forms; often they have a financial, psychological or social nature. Finally, the entrepreneur receives the rewards for his efforts. Monetary rewards are frequently identified as the indicator for

3 Definitions obtained from http://www.westaction.org/definitions/def_entrepreneurship_1.html

.

-7-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn success of the entrepreneur. Nevertheless, most entrepreneurs indicate independence and personal satisfaction as the most important personal rewards.

2.2 The importance of entrepreneurship

Many researchers recognize entrepreneurship as being of fundamental importance for our economy. For both start-up companies and existing firms, entrepreneurship spurs business expansion, technological progress and wealth creation (Lumpkin & Dress, 1996). History shows numerous examples of the importance of entrepreneurship.

For the Netherlands an excellent example of early entrepreneurship can be found in the history of the United East India Company (hereafter VOC), which developed into the largest commercial enterprise in the world during the 17 th

and 18 th

century. When the Portuguese excluded Dutch merchants from lucrative trade with Asia, several Amsterdam merchants decided to break this monopoly. After the ‘first shipment’ in 1595 other merchants soon followed this lucrative voyage. Johan van Oldebarnevelt launched the revolutionary idea of merging all local trade companies, or so-called chambers, into the VOC. The ‘seventeen gentlemen’, who represented the directors of the participating chambers, directed the VOC.

The trading network of the VOC set new standards in the organization and management of overseas trade between Europe and Asia. For two centuries with almost 4800 voyages to Asia this enormous enterprise survived and brought wealth and prosperity to the Netherlands.

4

At present, the importance of entrepreneurship goes much further. Fostering entrepreneurship has become an important topic for current policy makers of the EU. It turns out that policy can contribute to boosting the level of entrepreneurship. While the internal market of the EU expanded from 380 million people to 450 million after the enlargement, a lot of opportunities for entrepreneurial initiatives have been created. In order to reach the Lisbon employment rate target in 2010, the enlarged EU has to create some 22 million jobs. This seems to be a difficult task, taking into account the EU employment growth of 0.4% in 2002, which is equivalent to a net EU job creation of 0.6 million (European Commission, 2003a).

Nevertheless, promoting entrepreneurship is thought to be the method to create the jobs that the EU needs. The new policies of the EU focus on the development of a friendly environment for starting businesses. This means that administrative procedures and

4 Information obtained from http://www.duyfken.com/voyagie/thevoyagie/voc-history.html

.

-8-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn regulations should not hinder the entrepreneurs to turn their ambitions into successful new ventures. Supportive frameworks will be developed as well. Business start-ups have difficulties in getting the seed and early-stage finance they need, therefore risk sharing between public and private sectors can help increase the availability of finance (European

Commission, 2003a).

The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (Reynolds, Bygrave, & Autio, 2004) (hereafter GEM) also reports on the current importance of entrepreneurship. The GEM is an annual survey on the level of entrepreneurial activity among 40 countries. According to GEM, entrepreneurship boosts investments, jobs, and growth through knowledge, innovation and business dynamics. The GEM developed two important indexes: the Total Entrepreneurial

Activity index and the Firm Entrepreneurial Activity index. The former provides a measure of those active in starting new businesses; the latter describes the firms that expect to have an innovative impact on the market and growth. Appendix A (1 & 2) gives a graphical representation of both indexes. The Netherlands is considered to belong to the group of the least entrepreneurial countries (Reynolds et al., 2004).

Apart from the European Commission and the GEM (Reynolds et al., 2004), various authors discussed the value of entrepreneurship to our society. When reviewing the literature on the importance of entrepreneurship for countries, four consequences of entrepreneurial activity should be highlighted:



Entrepreneurial activity represents a major provider of new jobs . New firms appear to provide 2% to 15% of the current jobs in the GEM countries (Reynolds et al., 2004).

This job creation is highly correlated with the level of entrepreneurial activity. A thorough assessment of Appendix A (3 & 4) reveals that large differences exist between the 40 countries. The indicators for entrepreneurial activity confirm these differences (Reynolds et al., 2004). Fölster (1999) also confirms that increased selfemployment has a positive effect on overall employment.



Entrepreneurial activity represents one of the major engines of economic growth .

Wennekers and Thurik (1999) investigated previous research in order to link entrepreneurship with economic growth. The newness through start-ups and

-9-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn innovations as well as the competition are the most relevant factors that link entrepreneurship with economic growth. Carree, Van Stel, Thurik, and Wennekers

(2001) conclude that a long-term equilibrium relation exist between economic growth and self-employment. The fact that entrepreneurial activity in the Netherlands is mostly opportunity-based rather than necessity-based strengthens this relationship as well. Opportunity-based entrepreneurship is a consequence of economic growth development, since the main opportunity is an unmet demand for goods and services

(Bosma & Wennekers, 2002).



Entrepreneurship is crucial to competitiveness . The European Commission (2003a) states that entrepreneurial activities boost productivity, which increases the competitive pressure. Therefore other firms are forced to react with innovations or higher efficiency. Improving competitiveness of firms enhances the competitive strengths of an economy as a whole. Thus, the competitiveness effect of entrepreneurship is linked with economy growth.



Entrepreneurship unlocks personal potential . Independence and self-realization are often recognized to be important rewards for an entrepreneurial success. The

European Commission (2003a) states that self-fulfilment is an important consequence of entrepreneurship. Becoming an entrepreneur stems not only from economic necessity, some people just cannot find the satisfaction they need, in a regular job.

The job-satisfaction among entrepreneurs is even higher than among employees. In a survey from the European Commission (2003a), 45% of the self-employed with employees reported being satisfied with their job, compared to 27% among the employed.

What is the concept and importance of entrepreneurship?

Although entrepreneurship is still considered a rather vague concept, fostering entrepreneurship is a topic with increasing relevance to the European Union. Entrepreneurship is seen as an important tool to create the new jobs that the European Union needs for the Lisbon employment rate target in 2010.

Moreover it increases economic growth, competitiveness, and unlocks personal potential.

Albeit the absence of a clear definition, it is the outcome that makes entrepreneurship important.

-10-


3. Entrepreneurial intentions

For a better understanding of entrepreneurial behaviour this chapter provides some highlights of previous research on entrepreneurial intentions, and will explain a recent model of entrepreneurial intention in more detail. This chapter answers the following sub-question:

How can intentions explain the decision toward self-employment?

3.1 Previous research

Intention stems from intentionality, which is a state of mind directing a person’s attention toward a specific goal in order to achieve something. The entrepreneurial process is a way of thinking: a way of thinking that emphasizes opportunities over threats. Identifying opportunities is clearly an intentional process, and, therefore, entrepreneurial intentions are important for the explanation of entrepreneurship (Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000).

A variety of intention models have been developed in previous research. As indicated by

Peterman and Kennedy (2003) most models of entrepreneurial intention focus on the preentrepreneurial event and make use of attitude and behaviour theory (Ajzen, 1991; see also section 3.1.1), and self-efficacy and social learning theory (Bandura, 1997). More and more theorists explain entrepreneurial intentions as a variable within larger psychological models: e.g. Davidsson (1995) developed a so-called economic-psychological model of factors influencing individuals’ intentions to start a new business. Autio et al. (1997) tested this model with a group of university students. Intentional elements, such as expectations, attention, and belief, appear to have a strong impact on our behaviour.

Various other models of entrepreneurial intent have been developed as well. Shapero (1975; see also section 3.1.2) developed a model, tested by Krueger (1993), on the influence of desirability and feasibility to a business start-up. Bird (1988) suggested a model of intentional action, and more recently Lüthje and Franke (2003; see also section 3.2) proposed a structural model of entrepreneurial intent. Though already in 1988, Bird (1988) developed a model of

‘Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas’ (Bird, p.444), in which she observed that most intention-based models contain at least one of the following two dimensions:

-11-




First of all, entrepreneurial intention models frequently contain elements of rationality versus intuition (Bird, 1988). On the one hand entrepreneurs base their decisions with rational, analytic, and cause-and-effect-oriented processes. The development of a business plan, resource acquisition, and goal directed behaviour, are examples of rational intentions. On the other hand, intuitive, holistic, and contextual thinking influences entrepreneurs’ intentions and consecutive actions.

Entrepreneurs have a vision about their venture, a feeling that their venture will succeed. The entrepreneurs’ vision is often based on this intuitive thinking.



Second, intention models include a dimension of location . The internal locus is the entrepreneurs’ intention and the external locus can be the market environment, governmental regulations, etc. Bird and Jelinek (1988) also mention the difference between the individuals with certain characteristics, abilities and perceptions, and the context in which they find themselves. They stress that successful entrepreneurs distinguish themselves from less successful ones by the interaction of their internal and external locus.

While, Bird’s (1988) model of implementing entrepreneurial ideas has to be validated empirically (Shook, Priem, & McGee, 2003), the next part explains two widely recognized well-tested intention-based models (3.1.1 and 3.1.2), which are useful for the understanding of entrepreneurial intention.

3.1.1 Theory of planned behaviour

Entrepreneurial intentions have a psychological nature. “Psychologists have proven that intentions are the best predictors of any planned behaviour , particularly when the behaviour is rare, hard to observe, or involves unpredictable time lags” (Krueger et al., 2000, p.411).

Since new business ventures are not developed in a day, entrepreneurship could be seen as a type of planned behaviour. In order to understand the behaviour of people, Ajzen (1991) developed the ‘Theory of Planned Behaviour’ (hereafter TPB). The TPB of Ajzen (1991, see figure 1) helps to understand how we can change the behaviour of people. The central factor in Ajzen’s (1991) TPB is the individuals’ intentions to perform a specific behaviour.

Intentions are assumed to be the motivation to certain behaviour. Thus, the stronger the intention to perform certain behaviour, the more likely it will be performed.

-12-


Figure 1: Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour.

Ajzen (1991) explains three factors, which are crucial in changing the intention and the actual behaviour. First of all, the belief and attitude somebody has toward the behaviour. A student could for instance have a positive attitude toward entrepreneurship because one of the parents is an entrepreneur. Other factors influencing the attitude in the entrepreneurial situation are e.g. willingness to take risks, locus of control, need for independence, etc. (Krueger et al.,

2000). The second factor is a social factor termed subjective norm. This factor refers to the social pressure from the environment on the individual to perform or not to perform the behaviour; e.g. parents who encountered negative experiences with entrepreneurship, could pressure their children not to start their own business. The third factor influencing intention is the perceived behavioural control. This factor distinguishes the model from previous behavioural models. The idea is that the actual behaviour does not only dependent on the motivation or intention to perform certain behaviour, but also on the perception of the difficulty of performing the behaviour. This perception can be developed through for instance experience. Further research of the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) identifies antecedents of each of these factors, which have been included in figure 1 as well (Krueger et al., 2000).

The TPB (Ajzen, 1991) has been tested on a wide range of human behaviour, not per se entrepreneurial intentions. Autio, Keeley, Klofsten, Parker, and Hay (2001) mention how

Ajzen’s TPB helped to explain how advertising campaigns should be structured. Only providing information does not change the behaviour of the receiver, the aim should be at

-13-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn changing the attitudes and perception toward a product. Moreover the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) has been used to explain e.g. voting decisions, problem drinking, and losing weight (Krueger et al., 2000). Autio et al. (1997, p.3), go even further with stating that, “previous research successfully tested the theory of planned behaviour.” It is stated that attitudes explain approximately 50% of the variance in intentions, and intentions explain approximately 30% of the variance in behaviour. Autio et al. (1997, p.3) suggest: “the greater the degree to which behaviour can be controlled, the greater is the influence of intentions on the eventual behaviour.” Thus, the importance of intentions in explaining entrepreneurial behaviour is intensifying.

In the field of entrepreneurship the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) has been applied to various studies in the last decades. Students were often chosen as a sample for the research on entrepreneurial intentions (e.g. Crant, 1996; Autio et al., 2001; Lüthje & Franke, 2003). The TPB turned out to be a starting-point for other models of entrepreneurial intention. Various variables related to entrepreneurship, intention or behaviour, have been included in the model of TPB (Ajzen,

1991). Such as Davidson (1995): who added ‘entrepreneurial conviction’ to Ajzen’s (1991) model. Entrepreneurial conviction proved to be a main determinant of entrepreneurial intention as well.

3.1.2 Model of entrepreneurial event

The model above explains that entrepreneurial behaviour clearly is a consequence of entrepreneurial intent. Other authors have recognized this as well. A model worthwhile mentioning is Shapero’s (1975) model of ‘Entrepreneurial Event’. Shapero (1975) explains how the intention to start a business, depends both on the ‘credibility’ of alternative behaviours and the propensity to act upon opportunities. This ‘credibility’ requires that the behaviour is both desirable and feasible. Shapero (1975) shows the importance of perceptions in predicting the intention to act in a certain way. Furthermore Shapero (1975) stresses how potential entrepreneurs are often discovered when a displacement in their environment occurs.

Krueger (1993) tested Shapero’s (1975) thoughts and developed the model in figure 2.

Krueger (1993) concluded that the three variables: desirability, feasibility, and propensity to act, explain approximately half of the variance in intentions toward entrepreneurship. The perceived feasibility variable turned out to be the best predictor.

-14-


Specific

Desirabilities

Perceived

Desirability

Propensity to Act

Intentions

Perceived

Self-Efficacy

Perceived

Feasibility

Figure 2: The Shapero-Krueger model from Krueger et al. (2000, p.418).

Krueger et al. (2000) stress the importance of understanding the theory of self-efficacy in the entrepreneurial behaviour context. Self-efficacy theory explains what peoples’ beliefs about their capabilities to produce effects are. A strong sense of self-efficacy strengthens human accomplishments and personal well being in many ways (Bandura, 1997). Although Krueger et al. (2000) state that entrepreneurship researchers often ignore the concept of self-efficacy; it has proven to be an important predictor of behaviour. Both models of Shapero (1975) and

Ajzen (1991) confirm this relationship.

Before continuing with recent model of entrepreneurial intention, the efforts of Reitan (1996) are worthwhile mentioning. Reitan (1996) also recognized that both the models of Shapero

(1975) and Ajzen (1991) are important for the understanding of how intentions influence selfemployment. Therefore a combination was tested on a group of Norwegians. Reitan (1996) concludes that situational variables are more important for the short-term intentions than for the long-term intentions. Thus, the university environment should have a direct impact on students’ intentions towards self-employment. Situational factors were also used in the model explained in the next section.

3.2 Latest model of entrepreneurial intention

Fostering entrepreneurship among university students has become an important topic among entrepreneurship researchers. The university is an institution, which students pass on toward working life. Right after graduation, students decide where their career will start. Autio et al.

-15-


(1997, p.4) state the following: “It is our impression that career preferences of university students can be influenced, and that university students tend to gravitate toward fashionable career options.” Therefore, the university should be part of the entrepreneurial intention model. In the last decade other researchers (e.g. Crant, 1996; Lüthje & Franke, 2003) have recognized the significant role of universities in the entrepreneurial intentions model as well.

Lüthje and Franke (2003, p. 136) go even further with stating that “some universities successfully stimulate entrepreneurial activities”, and therefore they included the university in their structural model of entrepreneurial intent. In figure 3, the university would fall under the ‘perceived support’ factors, which are part of the contextual factors.

Risk taking propensity

Internal locus of control

Personality traits

Perceived barriers

Attitude towards entrepreneurship

Contextual factors

Entrepreneurial

Intent

Endogenous variables

Perceived support

Figure 3: The structural model of entrepreneurial intent from Lüthje and Franke (2003, p.138).

Figure 3 explains how entrepreneurial intent is a direct result of the attitude towards entrepreneurship and the environmental or contextual barriers and support factors. The direct attitudes-intentions link is widely recognized and often displayed in other intention-based models (e.g. Ajzen, 1991). Since the personality traits variable was not the most important focus of their study, and because personality traits have been researched extensively, Lüthje and Franke (2003) decided to only integrate risk taking and internal locus of control into the model. According to Lüthje and Franke (2003) these two personality traits have the largest influence on intentions; other personality traits are ignored in their research.

Other researchers (e.g. Autio et al., 1997) also recognize the second direct relationship with entrepreneurial intent, the contextual founding conditions. Lüthje and Franke (2003, p.138)

-16-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn state that: “a student might be willing to found a company, regardless of his or her comparatively bad attitude towards entrepreneurship, because he perceives the founding conditions as very favourable.” This consequence is called the trigger-effect and can be achieved through for instance a business incubator programs, entrepreneurship education and research, or other academic entrepreneurship activities. Lüthje and Franke (2003) recommend in their model the important role of universities in the future. University programs should remove the perceived and the objective factors, which are adverse to starting a company.

Furthermore, universities and the government should positively influence the image of entrepreneurship among students. Albeit, Lüthje and Franke (2003) also highlight that the contextual founding conditions stimulate entrepreneurial intentions most among the students with a high propensity to risk taking and high internal locus of control. Identifying these students and exposing them to entrepreneurship programs seems the best way to stimulate the entrepreneurial intentions at universities.

How can intentions explain the decision toward self-employment?

Intentions are the best predictors of entrepreneurship, though it is difficult to fully understand the reasons behind an entrepreneurial intention. In the last couple of years various models of entrepreneurial behaviour have been developed. The models discussed in this chapter explain: the influence of attitude according to the theory of planned behaviour; the importance of self-efficacy in predicting our behaviour; and the significant role of personality traits and contextual factors as explained in a recent model of entrepreneurial intent. Intentions are the single best predictor of any planned behaviour. Knowing all the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention, and their role in predicting the entrepreneurial behaviour is hard and still needs further research. At least the current researchers agree that intentions help to explain and model why many entrepreneurs choose for self-employment.

-17-


4. Entrepreneurship education

This chapter highlights the development of entrepreneurship education and describes the current level of entrepreneurship education in the Netherlands. Moreover the effectiveness of teaching entrepreneurship is discussed. The chapter answers the following sub-question: How does entrepreneurship education stimulate entrepreneurship?

4.1 The development of entrepreneurship education

Especially in the US, education in entrepreneurship has flourished in the last decade.

Nowadays, entrepreneurship courses are becoming a standard part of the curriculum of many technical and business universities in the US. Until 1970, only a few universities offered entrepreneurship courses.

The Harvard Business School offered the first entrepreneurship-related course, Management of New Enterprises , in 1945. According to the grapevine, this course was taught to boost the economy after World War II. Although the course grew in popularity, entrepreneurship education did not further expand in the 1950s. The growth of large corporations and the decline in small businesses hindered this development (McIntyre & Roche, 1999).

Though after 1958, when Prof. Baumann of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology introduced what may be the first ‘real’ course in entrepreneurship in the US, further entrepreneurship education started to spread around the world (Winslow, Solomon &

Tarabishy, 1999). Following the increase in entrepreneurship and small business management courses in these years, researchers recognized the rapid growth of business ventures in the areas surrounding the universities. McIntyre and Roche (1999) report that in the late 1960s, the number of corporations per capita (a measure of entrepreneurial activity) stopped falling and began to rise again. This fact proofed the importance of entrepreneurship education and resulted in an even larger growth in course offerings (Vesper & McMullan, 1988).

In the 1970s, entrepreneurship education got another boost because economist had proven the positive impact of small business development on job creation (McIntyre & Roche, 1999).

This was followed by the invention of microcomputers in the 1980s, which helped both entrepreneurs and the education system. On the one hand, information technology reduces

-18-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn economies of scale, and consequently enables small firms to compete against larger ones.

While at the same time entrepreneurs developed companies related to the computer industry, such as software companies. On the other hand, computers were of great use to the education system. Entrepreneurship courses could for instance use business simulation software, which confronted students with business start-up dilemmas.

In 1970, only sixteen colleges and/or universities offered entrepreneurship courses in the US.

5

Today, entrepreneurship is taught at over 1500 colleges and universities in the US.

6 The

European figure is lower, despite the fact that it is improving rapidly (Reynolds et al., 2004).

Entrepreneurship education even starts to spread to non-business educational disciplines, such as engineering and life sciences. The next part explains more about how to describe current entrepreneurship education.

4.1.1 Current entrepreneurship education defined

The following statement from McIntyre and Roche (1999, p.7) is a good example of the difficulty of teaching entrepreneurship to students.

“Entrepreneurship education is at the crossroads of two worlds and two sets of forces: How can universities, inherently hierarchical knowledge systems, produce real entrepreneurs, susceptible of pulling an economy with their innovation, their dynamism and their flexibility?”

The above states that educational systems and entrepreneurship have aspects, which are confronting; combining both is therefore a difficult task. Present entrepreneurship education aims to prepare students to become entrepreneurs. The Dutch government has developed a number of strategies to achieve this (Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2000):



Training students to develop an independent attitude.



Allowing them to become acquainted with the skills and know-how relevant for becoming a successful entrepreneur.

5 Information obtained from http://eweb.slu.edu/chronology.htm

.

6 Data retrieved from The Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership; the largest US-based organisation focused solely on developing, supporting and encouraging entrepreneurship education and research http://www.emkf.org/pages/188.cfm

.

-19-




Familiarizing students with entrepreneurship and erasing the relatively poor image of entrepreneurship as a profession in its own right.



Promoting an entrepreneurial culture at educational institutions.

The first goal, developing a students’ independent attitude, is probably the most difficult and important goal. The focus is on the talents, capacities or characteristics of students, among which showing initiative, creativity, perseverance, independence, goal setting, opportunity recognition, and risk taking are vital. Whether all these characteristics can be learned through education is still a debatable subject (see also section 4.2), nevertheless educational institutions can promote the characteristics associated with successful entrepreneurship.

Second, getting acquainted with the skills and knowledge needed to start your own company is at the moment the most recognized form of entrepreneurship education. Students are for instance taught about financial administration, market analyses, marketing, networking and how to write their own (fictional) business plan.

The third strategy needs some clarification. In the Netherlands, entrepreneurship is still not accepted as a logical career choice after graduation. Bosma and Wennekers (2002) report that although 75% of the Dutch adult population indicates that the fear of failure would not prevent them from setting up a business, respect from society for those involved in new firm start-ups is significantly lower in the Netherlands, compared to other the other EU countries and the US (Bosma & Wennekers, 2002). The Dutch population is rather non-supportive when it comes to giving a failed entrepreneur a second chance, which is part of the negative image entrepreneurship still has. Although, the appreciation and recognition of entrepreneurs in the Netherlands has greatly improved compared to the 1970s (Bosma & Wennekers, 2002), further development is still needed.

Finally, educational institutions are trying to develop an entrepreneurial culture, an atmosphere promoting entrepreneurial attitudes and skills, which stimulates innovation and creativeness. This strategy is strongly dependent on the successful implementation of the first three strategies and the willingness and ability of the teaching staff (Ministry of Economic

Affairs, 2000).

-20-


Just like the strategies, entrepreneurship education in practice can take many forms.

Previously, this chapter only mentioned small business management and general entrepreneurship courses as a form of entrepreneurship education. The small business management courses focus on how to successfully manage a business when expecting normal sales, profits, and growth. Entrepreneurship courses go further, and explain how to gain rapid growth, immediate and high profits, and a possible quick sell-out with a large capital gain

(Winslow et al., 1999). Yet, current entrepreneurship education is even more extensive. Apart from other business disciplines that have been integrated in entrepreneurship programs (e.g. marketing, finance), entrepreneurship has been implemented in non-business majors, such as engineering and life sciences. Furthermore basic entrepreneurship courses have been combined with an endless list of activities varying from: business plan competitions or presentations for a group of venture capitalist; entrepreneurship centers to inform and advise business start-ups; incubators for the stimulation of entrepreneurship with an extended external network; possible business start-up locations; discussions with and presentations from entrepreneurs; to chairs for entrepreneurship. All these initiatives are regarded as a driving force for producing future entrepreneurs. The next part will discuss some best practices of entrepreneurship education in the Netherlands.

4.1.2 Dutch initiatives

According to a recent study from Bosma, Stigter, and Wennekers (2001), Dutch education does not provide an adequate preparation for entrepreneurs, although Dutch colleges and universities offer more entrepreneurial possibilities than primary and secondary schools. The study reveals that 50% of the public opinion, which consisted of experts in the field of education, did not agree with the following statement: Dutch colleges and universities have enough courses and programs on entrepreneurship (Bosma et al., 2001). This lack of entrepreneurship education in the Netherlands is still considered to be a major weakness of the Dutch entrepreneurial environment (Bosma & Wennekers, 2002).

From the 16 universities in the Netherlands, 13 universities participate in some kind of entrepreneurship education. Most of these universities have introduced courses to transfer entrepreneurial skills, knowledge and the importance of entrepreneurship to students; 6 universities have also developed a so-called chair for entrepreneurship, a professor who stimulates entrepreneurship throughout the university. In addition, the Dutch government has initiated financial support programs, for the improvement of entrepreneurship education in

-21-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn the Netherlands. Various colleges and universities received funds for their entrepreneurial projects or programs.

7

A number of these projects are so-called best practices; the next part will mention two of these projects.



The University of Twente is considered to be the most entrepreneurial university in the Netherlands. They developed the Temporary Entrepreneurial Position (hereafter

TOP) program, which offers students and recent graduates the opportunity to develop their ideas. TOP offers a variety of facilities to potential entrepreneurs without charge

(Bosma et al., 2001). The idea is to keep the start-up and operating costs as low as possible to survive the first crucial year. The potential entrepreneurs can for instance access an interest-free loan of 15000 Euros, which has to be paid back within 5 years.

Furthermore, the program offers extensive advice and support during the first start-up year.



The Erasmus University of Rotterdam and the Technical University of Delft have developed similar programs, Area 010 and Area 015 , respectively. The two business incubator programs (named after their phone codes) focus solely on the development of start-up companies. Apart from offering physical facilities, such as fully furnished offices, the program focuses on knowledge sharing and networking.

8

After 100 days there should be a complete business plan and a solid base for starting up the company.

4.2. Effectiveness of entrepreneurship education: The ongoing debate

There are numerous of fascinating stories about successful entrepreneurs who received insufficient grades during their academic careers or even dropped out of school to start their own business.

“Yale University undergraduate Frederick W. Smith wrote a term paper about an air-cargo company in the 1960s. Smith viewed the passenger route systems used by most airfreight shippers as economically insufficient. Smith’s air-cargo company would be specifically designed for shipping time-sensitive shipments such as medicines or electronics. Whether it was the novelty of the idea, the fact that is was against the professor’s theories, or the fact

7 Http://www.lerenondernemen.nl

shows that Dutch educational institutions have received almost 5 million

Euros in funds for the development of entrepreneurship education.

8 Information retrieved from http://www.area010.nl

.

-22-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn that it was written in one night and was turned in late, the first public display of Smith’s grand idea earned him a C. Today, his idea has grown into the largest express transportation company in the world: Federal Express (Hisrich & Peters, 2002, p.165).”

The above anecdote is a real-life example about an entrepreneur who was not the best student in class. It supports the opponents of the controversial debate on the validity of entrepreneurship education. The debate questions how entrepreneurship should be taught, and whether it can be taught at all.

The opponents argue that entrepreneurship education is unimportant, since entrepreneurs are born and not made (McIntyre & Roche, 1999). It is possible to teach students various business subjects, but teaching entrepreneurship is different; successful business ventures start with a good idea, motivation, and of course hard work. Moreover the opponents argue that entrepreneurs have a ‘fire in the belly that cannot be taught’ (McIntyre & Roche, 1999).

This fire is part of the personality of the entrepreneur; the personality, as mentioned in chapter 3, has a vital influence on the intention towards self-employment.

Although personality traits are difficult to influence, the vast majority of knowledge required by entrepreneurs can be taught. The impact of entrepreneurship education on the successfulness of new ventures can therefore not be ignored (Solomon, Duffy, & Tarabishy,

2002). Entrepreneurship programs have flourished in the last couple of decades, and the effectiveness has been proven with the increasing amount of business start-ups and the positive effects on economic growth and development. In addition Gorman, Hanlon, and

King (1997, p.63) concluded after ten years of literature review that: “most of the empirical studies surveyed indicated that entrepreneurship can be taught, or can at least be encouraged by entrepreneurship education.”

Still, public opinion sometimes disagrees with the statement that entrepreneurship can be taught. A recent research by ‘Eurobarometer’ among the member states of the EU revealed that 67% of Europeans do not believe that education systems develop a state of mind that encourages them to set up a business (European Commission, 2004).

9

It might be possible to teach students the knowledge needed for a new business venture, though entrepreneurship

9

Twice a year Eurobarometer surveys the public opinion of all member states of the EU on behalf of the

European Commission. Information retrieved from http://www.gesis.org/en/data_service/eurobarometer/ .

-23-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn education should go beyond the material taught. Peterman and Kennedy (2003) agree that at this moment the impact of entrepreneurship education, as distinct from general education, on attitudes and intentions of entrepreneurship are still not clear enough.

This current debate on the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education is important for answering the sub-question: How does entrepreneurship education stimulate entrepreneurship?

Entrepreneurship courses and activities, how effective they may be, do stimulate entrepreneurship (Gorman, Hanlon, & King, 1997). Present entrepreneurship education is comprehensive and has spread to other non-business disciplines. Whether every aspect of entrepreneurship can be taught is not clear yet, further research should clarify this. Still, the

Ministry of Economic Affairs (2000) states that in recent years the number of new Dutch firms started by highly educated entrepreneurs have increased significantly. This fact could be seen as an encouragement to further develop entrepreneurship education in the

Netherlands.

-24-


5. Research methods

This chapter gives an overview of the research methodology. The first section starts with the research model. Followed by, the sample and procedure, and the hypotheses with the dependent and independent variables explanation. The questionnaire development and analysis concludes this chapter.

5.1 Research model

The framework presented in figure 4 brings Theory of Planned Behaviour, participation in entrepreneurship education, and two personality traits together in one model. The eight relationships identified in this model will be formulated into hypotheses (see section 5.3).

Proactive personality

H7+


H8+

H5+

H6+


Subjective norm

Perceived behavioral control

H1+

H2+

H3+

Entrepreneurial intentions

Figure 4: Research model.

Participation in entrepreneurship education

H4+

The major part of the research model is build up with the Theory of Planned Behaviour

(Ajzen, 1991). As explained in chapter three, past research identifies the TPB as an important model to explain the intentions and behaviour of people. Furthermore, the TPB model integrated the concept of attitude. Attitude constructs have proven to explain an important part of the variance in widely varied behaviour and have been included in most recent entrepreneurial intentions frameworks (Autio et al., 2001; Lüthje & Franke, 2003). Another

-25-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn direct relationship with entrepreneurial intentions has been included in the model as well. The fact whether students participated in entrepreneurship education will reveal some clear differences among the other constructs.

The preceding chapters explained the extensive past research on the factors influencing students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Most of these factors can be divided into internal and external factors. The discussion of internal factors that might influence students’ career choices mainly focus on identifying stable personality traits (Lüthje & Franke, 2004). Only students’ proactive personality and risk taking propensity are used in this research model.

The external factors are often thought to explain why certain personality traits and background characteristics do or do not lead to an entrepreneurial career (Lüthje & Franke,

2004). In this study the main focus lies on the influence of the students’ environment measured by the subjective norm and the university environment measured by the participation in entrepreneurship education.

Please note that two constructs researched with the questionnaire, are not displayed in this research model. The self-employed parents and the attitude towards entrepreneurship education construct showed insignificant relations. See also the results section 6.2 for a further explanation for this omission.

5.2 Sample and procedure

The study explores the entrepreneurial intentions of Universiteit Maastricht (hereafter UM) students. The sample will only contain students from the Faculty of Economics and Business

Administration (hereafter FDEWB). The FDEWB is the only faculty of the UM that offers education in entrepreneurship; consequently only these students are included in the sample.

Entrepreneurship education in this research is defined as any course from the FDEWB or from Hoogstarters Maastricht

10

, which has an entrepreneurial focus. At this moment the curriculum contains only one entrepreneurship course; Advanced Business Innovation aims to study the innovative behaviour in entrepreneurial firms. Previous curricula also contained the course Small Business Management and Accounting; the Organisation & Strategy and the

Finance department offered this course together on the development of skills needed in the

10 Hoogstarters is an institution directly linked to the University of Maastricht, which supports entrepreneurs during the start-up phase of their innovative or high-value technological companies.

-26-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn small business environment. The Masterclass Entrepreneurship & Businessplanning from

Hoogstarters Maastricht is also considered as an entrepreneurship course from the FDEWB.

Although the two FDEWB courses are so-called ‘Master’ courses; all UM (Bachelor and

Master) students are allowed to participate in the entrepreneurship course from Hoogstarters

Maastricht. Therefore all FDEWB students were allowed to participate in this research.

With the use of an online questionnaire, differences in entrepreneurial intentions among students are discovered (questionnaire development is further discussed in section 5.4). In order to develop a comparative research, this study focuses on two research groups:



FDEWB Students who participated in UM entrepreneurship education



FDEWB Students who did not participate in UM entrepreneurship education

Since entrepreneurship education at the UM is still rather limited, the second research group will be larger than the first.

5.3 Hypotheses

The study presented above is based on other entrepreneurial intentions models from previous research (Autio et al., 2001; Crant, 1996; Lüthje & Franke, 2003). The ultimate dependent variable will be the entrepreneurial intentions of students. Lüthje and Franke (2003) show, that it is more interesting to measure the antecedents of entrepreneurship (intentions), than the actual number of graduate start-up companies (behaviour). More information can be retrieved from current students who consider an entrepreneurial career, than from graduates who already have their company up and running. Since the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) regards the actual behaviour as a direct consequence from the intentions toward the behaviour, the following hypotheses are formulated:



H1: Attitude towards entrepreneurship as a career option is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions. (Autio et al., 2001)



H2: Subjective norm is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions. (Autio et al.,

2001)



H3: Perceived behavioural control exercises the strongest influence on entrepreneurial intentions. (Autio et al., 2001)

-27-




H4: Student participation in entrepreneurship education is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions. (Own thoughts)

The TPB hypotheses have been obtained from Autio et al. (2001). Hypothesis 4 has been added to the TPB and states a direct relationship between participation in entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. In order to include the personality characteristics, the following hypotheses are formulated:



H5: Students with a proactive personality are more likely to have a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship. (Crant, 1996)



H6: Students with a high risk taking propensity are more likely to have a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship. (Autio et al., 2001)



H7: Students with a proactive personality are more likely to participate in entrepreneurship education. (Own thoughts)



H8: Students with a high risk taking propensity are more likely to participate in entrepreneurship education. (Own thoughts)

5.3.1 Dependent variables

The research model contains three dependent variables. Entrepreneurial Intentions is de ultimate dependent variable, and the main construct of the TPB (Ajzen, 1991). Apart from the three TPB constructs, one extra direct relationship with entrepreneurial intentions has been added in this research.

The attitude towards entrepreneurship variable is important for the ultimate dependable variable, entrepreneurial intentions. The attitudes are “the expectations and beliefs about personal impacts of outcomes resulting from certain behaviour” (Autio et al., 1997, p.416-

417), in this case, the start-up of a company. The research will explore whether personality traits have an impact on these attitudes.

The last dependent variable is the participation in entrepreneurship education . Both the entrepreneurship courses from the FDEWB and Hoogstarters-Maastricht are regarded as UM entrepreneurship education. For validity reasons it is checked whether students have participated in entrepreneurship education from universities other than the UM. This could

-28-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn influence their attitudes towards entrepreneurship, if they did not participate in UM entrepreneurship education. The research will explore whether personality traits influence the participation decision.

5.3.2 Independent variables

The research model integrates two personality traits: proactive personality and risk taking propensity. Students who possess proactive personalities are according to Kickul and Gundry

(2002, p.87): “able to take action to influence environmental change.” Which means that these personalities can: scan for opportunities, show initiative, take action, and reach their goals by bringing about changes. The proactive personality questions were obtained from

Kickul and Gundry (2002) and were already successfully tested by Crant (1996).

The most common personality traits associated with entrepreneurial intentions is the risk taking propensity or willingness to take risks. Especially for the Netherlands this is an interesting personality trait. Bosma et al. (2001) state that although the Netherlands has a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship; it still holds a high risk aversion and high fear of failure compared to other European countries.

The final two independent variables in this research are perceived behavioural control and subjective norm . Perceived behavioural control from the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) is regarded as the most important single influence on intentions. Subjective norm, the perceived social pressure from the study environment of the student, completes the TPB (Ajzen, 1991).

5.4 Instrument

The questionnaire was carefully designed with previous entrepreneurial intentions questionnaires. Appendix B displays the complete questionnaire. Appendix C provides an overview of the questions per variable, and if applicable mentions their source. Since various questions were already tested by previous authors (Lüthje & Franke, 2003; Krueger et al.,

2000; Carayannis, Evans, & Hanson, 2003; Autio et al. 2001; Francis et al., 2004; Kickul &

Gundry, 2002; Hisrich & Peters, 2002; Hartog, Ferrer-i-Carbonell, & Jonker, 2000), their research could be seen as pre-test information. For instance Lüthje and Franke (2003) use an extensive validation process (e.g. preliminary study, validity and reliability criterion) for each construct of their questionnaire. Lüthje and Franke (2003) conclude after their validation

-29-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn process that a five-point scale for question 32 ( Do you plan to be self-employed in the foreseeable future after you graduate from the UM?

) would result in a skewed distribution. It turned out that most students choose the middle scale-point, which leaves the ‘quite probable’ and the ‘very probable’ ignored. The four-point-scale question resulted in a higher validity measurement of entrepreneurial intentions. Besides the extensive amount of pre-test/post-test information from previous research, two fellow students filled out the questionnaire as a pretest. This resulted in some changes in question order; and question 33 and 34 ( Estimate the probability (0-100%) you will start your own business in the next year / 5 years?

) changed to a 0-100% open-ended question instead of five-point-scale question with already pre-set percentage groups. This enables students to have a more careful thought about this probability. The questionnaire was hosted on a student research website;

11

the link was distributed via email and ELEUM. Personal study friends filled out the questionnaire and were asked to forward the questionnaire to other FDEWB students. Furthermore participants of the Hoogstarters course as well as students from my supervisor’s course (Organizational

Assessment / Business Research Design) were approached via email and ELEUM.

5.5 Analysis

Since Entrepreneurial Intentions is de ultimate dependent variable, the measurement should be done carefully. Past research has measured entrepreneurial intentions in different ways.

Krueger (1993) used a yes/no statement: ‘ Do you think you will ever start a business?

’ Since this is not really exact, this research combines two measures of entrepreneurial intent. Apart from the above discussed four-point-scale question (32) from Lüthje and Franke (2003), two percentage-scale questions (33 and 34) were adapted from Krueger et al (2000): ‘ Estimate the probability (0-100%) you will start your own business in the next year / 5 years?

’ The results of this question were divided into 4 percentage groups in order to be combined with the other entrepreneurial intentions question. Appendix C contains a excel table with a measurement overview of the other constructs.

11 http://www.studentenonderzoek.com

-30-


6. Results

The research results are discussed in this chapter. The analyses of the hypotheses are explained in various sections. The chapter ends with the discussion of the limitations attached to this research.

6.1 Response and missing values

A total of 125 respondents filled out the online questionnaire form, of which six could be deleted right away due to too many missing values. Another six respondents answered ‘no’ at question 40; they are not studying at the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.

These respondents were excluded from the research as well. Furthermore, 4 respondents were removed because they participated in entrepreneurship education from a university other than the UM. All other 109 questionnaires were filled out correctly, no further missing or incorrect values were discovered.

6.2 Omitted variables

Based on the descriptive statistics and correlation matrix in Appendix (D, 1), the attitude towards entrepreneurship education and self-employed parents constructs were removed from the research design. For these two constructs the descriptive statistics showed almost no differences among the participants and non-participants in entrepreneurship education. The correlations matrix shows only one significant (p<0.05) correlation for both the constructs.

The attitude towards entrepreneurship education construct questions probable did not focus enough on entrepreneurship education as distinct from general education. They are more focussed on the university environment, which both participants and non-participants in entrepreneurship education perceive similar. Although the self-employed parents construct is correlated with entrepreneurial intentions, the construct does not have any significant relationship with attitude towards entrepreneurship and the participation in entrepreneurship education constructs. In the regressions, both attitude towards entrepreneurship education and self-employed parents showed only insignificant relations, and were therefore removed from the final research model as displayed in section 5.1.

-31-


6.3 Descriptives, reliability, and exploratory analysis

With the use of the Statistics program SPSS 12.01 for windows the results are analysed. Prior to testing the hypotheses, this section reveals more information on the collected data.

6.3.1 Descriptive statistics

Figure 5 shows the descriptive statistics divided between participants and non-participants of

UM entrepreneurship education. The total descriptive statistics are shown as well. age gender entreint attentre proper risk pbc s ubnorm

No participation entre. edu.

Participation entre. edu.

Total



Total



Total



Total



Total



Total



Total



Total

47

109

62

47

109

47

109

62

47

109

62

N

62

47

109

62

47

109

62

47

109

62

47

109

62

5,3234

5,0661

3,8656

4,2482

4,0306

4,0403

4,8936

4,4083

5,5242

5,8404

5,6606

Mean

3,00

3,28

3,12

,56

,74

,64

1,6129

2,4113

1,9572

4,7151

5,2872

4,9618

4,8710

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean

Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

,789 ,100 2,80 3,20

,949

,868

,500

,138

,083

,063

3,00

2,95

,44

3,56

3,28

,69

,441

,482

,39206

,89067

,76322

,89136

,064

,046

,04979

,12992

,07310

,11320

,62

,55

1,5133

2,1498

1,8123

4,4887

,87

,73

1,7125

2,6729

2,1021

4,9414

,83890

,91079

,80823

,69351

,79024

,74281

,56238

,69469

,98990

1,00508

1,07887

,92960

,81498

,89204

,12237

,08724

,10265

,10116

,07569

,09434

,08203

,06654

,12572

,14661

,10334

,11806

,11888

,08544

5,0409

4,7889

4,6657

5,1198

4,9160

3,6770

4,0831

3,8987

3,7889

4,5985

4,2034

5,2881

5,6011

5,4912

5,5335

5,1347

5,0762

5,5270

5,2161

4,0542

4,4133

4,1625

4,2917

5,1887

4,6131

5,7603

6,0797

5,8299

Figure 5: Descriptive statistics based on participation in entrepreneurship education.

The descriptive statistics show already some clear differences between the two groups. For instance for the participants group, the entrepreneurial intentions variable has a mean of 2,4 compared to a mean of 1,6 for the non-participants in entrepreneurship education. A clear difference can also be recognized in the perceived behavioural control variable. As indicated in section 3.1.1, perceived behavioural control is the most important indicator for entrepreneurial intentions. Participants in entrepreneurship education show a higher perceived behavioural control, than their non-participants counterparts. Figure 6 shows that FDEWB students seldom undertake entrepreneurial efforts in the course of their study, since only

4,6% of the students (5 in total) indicated to be currently self-employed. This finding may be

-32-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn explained due to the difficulty of attracting start-up capital in the Netherlands without a degree. It is interesting to note that these 5 students all participated in entrepreneurship education from the FDEWB, as well as the entrepreneurship course from Hoogstarters

Maastricht.

120

100

80

60

40

Are you currently self-employed?

95,41

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Do you plan to be self-employed in the foreseeable future after you graduate from the UM?

44,04

38,53

5,50

11,93

Very

Improbable

Quite

Improbable

Quite

Probable

Very

Probable

20

4,59

0

Not self-employed (104) Self-employed (5)

Figure 6: Current and future self-employment graphs.

More significant than the entrepreneurial activities during the study, is the intention to start a company after graduation. More than half of the respondents indicate that they will ‘quite probably’ (44,04%) or ‘very probably’ (11,93%) start their own company after their graduation. These figures are more promising than the current number of self-employed students.

6.3.2 Cronbach’s alpha’s

The Descriptives from section 6.3.1 are calculated after the reliability check. The consistency of the variables is checked with the Cronbach’s alpha statistics. Cronbach’s alpha is an index of reliability associated with the variation accounted for by the true score of the “underlying construct” (Nunnaly, 1978). Cronbach’s Alpha’s can only be measured for variables which have more than one measurement question. For the participation in entrepreneurship education (dummy) variable, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability test is therefore not applicable.

The other variables needed a reliability statistics check since they contained several measurement questions. Appendix D (2) displays the Cronbach’s alpha statistics for the ultimate dependent variable, entrepreneurial intentions. The two percentage questions

(question 2 and 3) have been divided into 4 groups (0-25; 26-50; 51-75; 76-100), in order to

-33-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn be combined with the other entrepreneurial intentions questions. The three questions combined, resulted in the highest Cronbach’s alpha (0.848).

Figure 7 displays the Cronbach’s alpha’s before and after adjustments. For scales which are used as research tools to compare groups, Cronbach’s alpha may be less than in the clinical situation, when the value of the scale for an individual is of interest. The Cronbach’s alpha’s in the initial situation vary from 0.402 to 0.848, of which 4 are 0.7 or higher. McKinley,

Manku-Scott, Hastings, French, and Baker (1997) state that for comparing groups,

Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.7 to 0.8 are regarded as satisfactory, though lower thresholds are sometimes used in literature. Nunnaly (1978) has stated that 0.5 is a sufficient value, while 0.7 is a more reasonable Cronbach’s alpha.

Original Adjusted

Construct

Entrepreneurial Intentions



Subjective norm



Cronbach's Alpha

0.848

0.722

0.764

0.635

0.402

0.776

Figure 7: Cronbach’s alpha before and after adjustment.

N items

3

6

4

3

5

5

Cronbach's Alpha

0.763

0.542

N items

2

3

The adjusted Cronbach’s alpha’s used in this research are also shown in Figure 7. Two variables constructs were changed. The first question of the ‘subjective norm’ construct, question 14 ( My family and friends support me to start my own business ) from the questionnaire, was deleted. The Cronbach’s alpha increased from 0.635α to 0.763α.

Subjective norm is therefore measured solely with the two questions from Autio et al. (2001).

The ‘risk taking propensity’ construct had the lowest Cronbach’s alpha (0.402). When looking at their individual correlations (Appendix D, 3), question 2, 3, and 4 turned out the have the highest internal correlations. Deleting question 1 and 5 ( I can take risks with my money, such as investing in stocks ; Among 10 people, 100 Euros are disposed of by a lottery.

What is the most that you would be willing to pay for a ticket in this lottery?) , resulted in a

0.542α. Although this Cronbach’s alpha does not reach the acceptability level of 0.7, it does satisfy the lower threshold often used in literature (Nunnaly, 1978). In the final regressions, the adjusted risk taking construct showed higher significance levels than the original risk taking construct.

-34-


6.3.3 Correlations and cross-tabulation

In order to identify relationships among the data, a correlation analysis is performed. The

Pearson correlation test is the most widely used bivariate test. The correlation test results are shown in figure 8. age Pears on Correlation age

1 gender

,214* gender entreint

Sig. (2-tailed)

Pears on Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)


Sig. (2-tailed)

,214*

,026

,292**

,002

,062

,026

1

,185

,055

,324** attentre part


Sig. (2-tailed)


,519

,158

,001

,186 proper

Sig. (2-tailed)


,100

,053

,583

,053

,287**

,003 risk

Sig. (2-tailed)


Sig. (2-tailed)

,158

,102

,079

,413 pbc Pears on Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

,130

,177

,172

,319**

,001

,124 s ubnorm Pears on Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) ,073 ,198

*. Correlation is s ignificant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**.

Correlation is s ignificant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

entreint

,292**

,002

,185

,055

1

,578**

,000

,520**

,000

,505**

,000

,301**

,001

,609**

,000

,357**

,000 attentre

,062

,519

,324**

,001

,578**

,000

1

,313**

,001

,645**

,000

,249**

,009

,641**

,000

,414**

,000 part

,158

,100

,186

,053

,520**

,000

,313**

,001

1

,285**

,003

,274**

,004

,394**

,000

,176

,067 proper

,053

,583

,287**

,003

,505**

,000

,645**

,000

,285**

,003

1

,352**

,000

,678**

,000

,430**

,000 risk

,158

,102

,079

,413

,301**

,001

,249**

,009

,274**

,004

,352**

,000

1

,264**

,005

,298**

,002

,609**

,000

,641**

,000

,394**

,000

,678**

,000

,264**

,005

1 pbc

,130

,177

,319**

,001 s ubnorm

,172

,073

,124

,198

,261**

,006

,357**

,000

,414**

,000

,176

,067

,430**

,000

,298**

,002

,261**

,006

1

Figure 8: Pearson correlation statistics.

At a 0.01 significance level a number of strong relationships can be identified. First of all,

‘attitude towards entrepreneurship’ (0.578), ‘perceived behavioural control’ (0.609), and

‘subjective norm’ (0.357) have a significant correlation with ‘entrepreneurial intentions.’

These four constructs of the theory of planned behaviour also seem to be applicable to this research. Though, also their internal correlations are recognized as strong. A particular strong correlation is recognized between ‘attitude towards entrepreneurship’ and ‘perceived behavioural control (0.641). The students’ entrepreneurial intentions study of Autio et al.

(2001) report on such a strong relationship as well. The high correlation (0.641) might predict a certain degree of multicollinearity. Section 6.4.1 reveals more information about this possibility.

It is interesting to note that the two strongest relationships both contain the ‘proactive personality’ construct. With ‘attitude towards entrepreneurship’ (0.645) and ‘perceived behavioural control’ (0.678) a strong positive correlation is identified. Crant (1996) has once revealed a strong correlation with entrepreneurial intentions (0.48), though the high correlations revealed in this study cannot be discovered in previous literature.

-35-


No participation in entrepreneurship education


Count

% within gender

Count

% within gender

Female

27

69,2%

12

30,8%

Male

35

50,0%

35

50,0%

Total

62

56,9%

47

43,1%

Total Count

% within gender

39

100,0%

70

100,0%

109

100,0%

Figure 9: Participation * Gender cross-tabulation.

Apart from the correlations statistics, figure 9 displays a cross tabulation table. This crosstabulation describes a clear difference between male and female students. Only 30,8% of the female students participated in entrepreneurship education, compared to an even distribution among the male students. The male/female difference can also be recognized among the entrepreneurial intentions of students, again the female (1,7) students show lower entrepreneurial intentions mean than their male (2,1) counterparts.

6.4 Regression and hypotheses testing

For the final analysis of the proposed research model, a Moderated Structural Equation

Modelling (hereafter MSEM) tool would be most appropriate. Using MSEM, all relationships in a complex research model can be determined at the same time. However, the number of questionnaires received inhibited its use. A MSEM sample should have at least 200 respondents, and preferably more than a 1000 respondents (Cortina, Chen and Dunlap, 2001).

Therefore multiple regressions were used for the statistical analysis. The base model from section 5.1 was divided in three sub-models to test all the hypotheses.

6.4.1 Hypotheses 1 to 4

The first model explains the antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions and incorporates the

TPB (Ajzen, 1991). Figure 10 displays the model and the accompanying regression statistics.

-36-


Attitude towards entrepreneurship H1+ (0.234)

H2+ (0.127)

Subjective norm



H3+ (0.306)


H4+ (0.305)

Model Summary

Model

1

R

,725 a

R Square

,525

Adjus ted

R Square

,507

Std. Error of the Es timate

,53590 a. Predictors : (Constant), part, s ubnorm, pbc, attentre

ANOVA b

Model

1 Regress ion

Res idual

Total

Sum of

Squares

33,044

29,868

62,911 df

4

104

108

Mean Square a. Predictors : (Constant), part, subnorm, pbc, attentre b. Dependent Variable: entreint

8,261

,287

F

28,765

Sig.

,000 a

Model

1 (Cons tant) attentre s ubnorm pbc part

B

-,784

,196

,108

,217

,467 a. Dependent Variable: entreint

Coefficients a

Uns tandardized

Coefficients

Std. Error

,377

,078

,064

,065

,113

Standardized

Coefficients

Beta

,234

,127

,306

,305 t

-2,080

2,498

1,703

3,351

4,123

Sig.

,040

,014

,092

,001

,000

Figure 10: Model one with entrepreneurial intentions as dependent variable.

The regression output in figure 10, generally support hypotheses 1 and 4. Attitude towards entrepreneurship education (β=0.234) and participation in entrepreneurship education

(β=0.305) both positively influence entrepreneurial intentions. Hypotheses 1 can be accepted at a p<0.05 significance level, and hypothesis 4 can be accepted at a p<0.01 significance

-37-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn level. The regression table shows only a weak positive relationship of subjective norm

(β=0.127), providing therefore a weak support for hypothesis 2. At a p<0.05 significance level, hypothesis 2 is rejected. Autio et al. (2001) also recognized this weak relationship of subjective norm in their research.



H1: Attitude towards entrepreneurship as a career option is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions. Accepted



H2: Subjective norm is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions. Rejected



H4: Student participation in entrepreneurship education is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions. Accepted

Regression models^


Subjective norm

Perceived behavioural control




Intent Intent Intent Intent Intent Intent Intent Intent Intent Intent Intent

0,578** 0,257* 0,234* 0,286** 0,412** 0,230* 0,232*

0,357**

0,609**

0,144 0,127 0,188**

0,406** 0,306** 0,436** 0,303**

1,121 0,124 0,115

0,300** 0,300**

0,520** 0,305** 0,316** 0,312** 0,370** 0,305** 0,296**

0,013 0,001

0,048

Adjusted R Square

^Standardized beta coefficients are shown

*p<0.05 **p<0.01

0,328 0,119 0,365 0,264 0,432 0,507 0,482 0,498 0,459 0,502 0,499

Figure 11: Regression models based on entrepreneurial intentions.

Hypothesis 3 needs some more attention. According to figure 11, perceived behavioural control (β=0.306) has the largest influence on entrepreneurial intentions; though the difference with the attitude towards entrepreneurship construct is small (the participation in entrepreneurship dummy is ignored). Since section 6.3.3 also reported a high correlation between these two constructs, another test is needed to determine whether perceived behavioural control has the ‘strongest’ influence as stated by hypothesis 3. Therefore the Ftest checks whether to two constructs have similar effects:

H

3a

: β

3

=β

1

vs. H

A

: β

3

≠β

1

To test β

3

=β

1

, β

1

is substituted for β

3

. In order to perform the F-test, a reduced model is computed with a new variable Z=X

3

+X

1

. The test statistics for the reduced model are shown in Appendix D (4). To compute the F-statistics the following formula is used:

F c=

SSE

R-

SSE c

/ (SSE c

/ (n-k-1)) Reject if F c

>F

α

-38-


For the Z model, the F-statistics is 0.024. Since the critical value for an F-distribution with 1 numerator-df and 104 denominator-df is F

0.10

=2.75; the data provide not enough evidence for rejecting the hypothesis β

3

=β

1

at a 10% significance level. Although the β-coefficients of perceived behavioural control and attitude towards entrepreneurship are not quite identical, statistically this may well be due to random chance. It can therefore not be stated that perceived behavioural control exercises the strongest influence on entrepreneurial intentions.

It could be plausible that attitude toward entrepreneurship and perceived behavioural control contribute redundant information, which predicts a certain degree of multicollinearity.

Perceived behavioural control does have a significant positive relationship with entrepreneurial intentions, nonetheless it can not be confirmed whether it has the strongest positive relationship; therefore hypothesis 3 is rejected.



H3: Perceived behavioural control exercises the strongest influence on entrepreneurial intentions. Rejected

The two ‘personality’ constructs added in figure 11, show only insignificant relationships.

Even the strong relationship of proactive personality and entrepreneurial intentions identified by (Crant, 1997) cannot be recognized. The attitude towards entrepreneurship and perceived behavioural control β-coefficients probably incorporate part of the proactive personality effect due to their strong correlations as stated in section 6.3.3.

The power of the model is measured with the adjusted R square (see figure 11). Unlike the R square, the adjusted R square can decline in value if the contribution to the explained deviation by the additional variable is less than the impact of the degrees of freedom

(McClave, Benson, and Sincich, 1998). It is therefore carefully checked whether additional variables improve the model. The first model shows an adjusted R square of 0.507 and 0.432 for the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) model, which is relatively high compared to other studies. Other combinations of the model and other constructs added to the model do not add any significant power, which strengthens the model as displayed in figure 10. If UM wants to increase the number of student start-up companies, students should be stimulated to participate in entrepreneurship education. Furthermore, the UM should offer more entrepreneurship courses and activities during the year. The Hoogstarters-Maastricht ‘Masterclass Entrepreneurship &

Businessplanning’ is offered twice a year, which is already a good initiative. Students would be further stimulated to participate if they could obtain credits for this course. An

-39-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn improvement of students’ perception of entrepreneurship as a career option is apparently effective as well. The UM should create a positive atmosphere towards entrepreneurship.

Bosma & Wennekers (2002) stated that the appreciation and recognition of entrepreneurs in the Netherlands should improve. This perception can also be developed through experience or education. Apart from personal experiences, guest speakers/entrepreneurs can share their experiences during e.g. lectures or informal meetings.

6.4.2 Hypotheses 5 and 6

The second model (figure 12) shows the antecedents of attitude towards entrepreneurship.



H5+ (0.636)

(0.307)

H6+ (0.026)

(-0.017)


(0.186)

Subjective norm

(0.390)


Model Summary

Model

1

R

,645 a

R Square

,416

Adjus ted

R Square a. Predictors : (Constant), ris k, proper

,405


,70249

ANOVA b

Model

1 Regress ion

Res idual

Total

Sum of

Squares

37,280

52,311

89,591 a. Predictors : (Constant), ris k, proper b. Dependent Variable: attentre df

2

106

108

Mean Square

18,640

,493

F

37,771

Sig.

,000 a

Model

1 (Cons tant) proper risk

Coefficients a

Uns tandardized

Coefficients

B

1,115

Std. Error

,508

,733

,033 a. Dependent Variable: attentre

,091

,104

Standardized

Coefficients

Beta

,636

,026 t

2,196

8,018

,322

Sig.

,030

,000

,748

Figure 12: Model two with attitude towards entrepreneurship as dependent variable.

-40-


From hypotheses 5 and 6, only hypothesis 5 can be accepted at a significance level of p<0.01.

Students with a proactive personality (β=0.636) show a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship as a career option. As can be seen from figure 12, there is not a strong support for hypotheses 6. Risk taking propensity ((β=0.026) does not have a strong positive relationship with attitude towards entrepreneurship, which is therefore rejected at p<0.05 significance level.



H5: Students with a proactive personality are more likely to have a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship. Accepted



H6: Students with a high risk taking propensity are more likely to have a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship. Rejected




Subjective norm



Attentr Attentr Attentr Attentr Attentr Attentr

0,645** 0,636** 0,573** 0,307** 0,309**

0,249** 0,026 -0,003 -0,017 -0,027

0,168* 0,186* 0,183*

0,390** 0,370**

0,054

Adjusted R Square


*p<0.05 **p<0.01

0,410 0,053 0,405 0,422 0,502 0,499

Figure 13: Regression models based on attitude towards entrepreneurship.

Figure 13 shows a number of possible combinations with attitude towards entrepreneurship.

It is interesting to note the internal relationships in the TPB model (Ajzen, 1991); perceived behavioural control turns out to have a strong relationship with attitude towards entrepreneurship (p<0.01). Subjective norm shows a positive relationship as well, though less significant (p<0.05) (both are included in figure 12 as well). When adding other variables to the model, the proactive personality construct stays significant (p<0.01), nevertheless perceived behavioural control takes away some of the explanatory power of proactive personality, probable due to their high correlation (see section 6.3.3).

Again, the adjusted R-square (0.405) is relatively high, though for the most part, this can be contributed to the proactive personality construct. The other two measure of the TPB (Ajzen,

1991) positively affect the adjusted R-square (0.502) as well. Remarkably, the participation in entrepreneurship education construct does not affect the attitude towards entrepreneurship,

-41-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn although it does affect the entrepreneurial intentions significantly (p<0.01). Apparently, whether students participated in entrepreneurship education, does not affect their attitude towards entrepreneurship. This attitude could already have been pre-decided based on certain personality traits.

6.4.3 Hypotheses 7 and 8

The third model (figure 14) shows the antecedents of participation in entrepreneurship education.

H7+ (0.215)



H8+ (0.198)

Model Summary

Model

1

R

,340 a

R Square

,116

Adjus ted

R Square a. Predictors : (Constant), ris k, proper

,099



,472

ANOVA b

Model

1 Regress ion

Res idual

Total

Sum of

Squares

3,092

23,642

26,734 a. Predictors : (Constant), ris k, proper df

2

106

108 b. Dependent Variable: part

Mean Square

1,546

,223

F

6,930

Sig.

,001 a

Model


Coefficients a

Uns tandardized

Coefficients

B

-,828

Std. Error

,341

,135

,142 a. Dependent Variable: part

,061

,070

Standardized

Coefficients

Beta

,215

,198 t

-2,424

2,204

2,034

Sig.

,017

,030

,044

Figure 14: Model three with participation in entrepreneurship education as dependent variable.

-42-


Figure 15 shows the standardized β-coefficients of various constructs. Proactive personality and risk taking propensity show a positive relationship with participation in entrepreneurship education. At a p<0.05 significance level, hypotheses 7 and 8 can therefore be accepted.



H7: Students with a proactive personality are more likely to participate in entrepreneurship education. Accepted



H8: Students with a high risk taking propensity are more likely to participate in entrepreneurship education. Accepted





Subjective norm


Part

0,285**

Part Part Part Part Part

0,215* 0,080 0,081 -0,074

0,274** 0,198* 0,193* 0,194 0,181

0,213 0,214 0,091

-0,005 0,030

0,329**

Adjusted R Square


*p<0.05 **p<0.01

0,073 0,066 0,099 0,118 0,109 0,153

Figure 15: Regression models based on participation in entrepreneurship education.

Participants in entrepreneurship education show a certain personality: they are more willing to take risks and they tend to take action when they spot a good opportunity. Again, perceived behavioural control has a positive relationship with the dependent construct, though the adjusted R square stays at a relatively low level. Apart from perceived behavioural control, various omitted variables would influence the participation decision as well, looking at the relatively low adjusted R square (0.099) of the model.

6.4.4 Participants vs. non-participants

Model two shows that it is not easy to change students’ attitude towards entrepreneurship. An important part of this attitude is based on a students’ personality. Model three on the other hand shows two clear relationships with personality traits as well. The question remains whether the students already possessed these personality traits or whether entrepreneurship education shaped their personality. Although this question cannot be answered with this research, it is possible to stress some more differences in personality traits among participants and non-participants. The descriptive statistics in section 6.3.1 already showed the higher means for the participants in entrepreneurship education. Participants have a more proactive

-43-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn personality and are more willing to take risks. Figure 16 shows test statistics, which stress the significance of these differences. The Mann-Whitney U test is the most widely used significance test for comparing two populations of independent samples. Samples are independent if the response of the “nth” person in the second sample is not a function of the response of the “nth” person in the first sample (McClave, Benson, and Sincich, 1998).

proper risk entreint attentre s ubnorm pbc part



Total



Total



Total



Total



Total



Total

109

62

47

109

62

47

109

62

47

109

N

62

47

109

62

47

109

62

47

Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

47,05 2917,00

65,49 3078,00

47,84

64,45

41,44

72,89

46,99

65,56

50,92

60,38

44,50

68,85

2966,00

3029,00

2569,00

3426,00

2913,50

3081,50

3157,00

2838,00

2759,00

3236,00

Test Statistics a

Mann-Whitney U

Wilcoxon W

Z

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) proper risk

964,000 1013,000 entreint

616,000 attentre subnorm

960,500 1204,000 pbc

806,000

2917,000 2966,000 2569,000 2913,500 3157,000 2759,000

-3,029 -2,750 -5,250 -3,043 -1,602 -3,994

,002 ,006 ,000 ,002 ,109 ,000 a. Grouping Variable: part

Figure 16: Mann-Whitney U statistics based on participation in entrepreneurship education

Both proactive personality and risk taking propensity show a significant (p<0.01) difference between the two groups. Apart from subjective norm, the other constructs of the TPB show significant differences also. Appendix D (5) contains the same test for participants in entrepreneurship education from the FDEWB (UM participants) and from Hoogstarters-

Maastricht (Hoogstarters participants). Again, significant differences are revealed. The more specific Hoogstarters course seems to attract students with an even more entrepreneurial personality. Although it is also possible to argue that the entrepreneurship course itself influences their personality traits, which offers support for the problem statement.

-44-


To see whether these differences also appear in regressions, the sample has been divided in participants and non-participants in entrepreneurship education. Figure 17 shows the β- coefficients of model two divided between participants and non-participants in entrepreneurship education. The complete statistics of this regression are reported in

Appendix D (6 & 7).

Coefficients a, b

Model


Uns tandardized

Coefficients

B

,466

,692

Std. Error

,922

,145

Standardized

Coefficients

Beta

,268 ,179

,572

,180 a.

Dependent Variable: attentre b.

Selecting only cases for which part = Participation entre. edu.

t

,505

4,765

1,499

Sig.

,616

,000

,141


Model


Uns tandardized

Coefficients

B

1,774

,699

Std. Error

,649

,119

Standardized

Coefficients

Beta t

2,735

5,859

-,120 ,130

,634

-,100 a.


Selecting only cases for which part = No participation entre. edu.

-,925

Sig.

,008

,000

,359

Figure 17: Model two divided between participants and non-participants in entrepreneurship education.

Although the Mann-Whitney U test shows clear differences among the two groups, in the above regressions this is less evident. Proactive personality has a similar relationship, even stronger for the non-participants. The risk taking propensity construct does show a clear difference; through a negative relationship with attitude towards entrepreneurship for the non-participants. Participants in entrepreneurship education do seem to have a more positive attitude towards entrepreneurship due to their willingness to take risks.

6.4.5 Estimated regression model

To make a prediction how the model would look in one regression, estimates have been calculated for attitude towards entrepreneurship and participation in entrepreneurship education with the use of their unstandardized β-coefficients:

ATTENTRE est

= β

0

+ (β proper

*proper) + (β risk

*risk) = 1,115 + (0,733*proper) + (0,033*risk)

-45-


PART est

= β

0

+ (β proper

*proper) + (β risk

*risk) = -0,828 + (0,135*proper) + (0,142*risk)

Model Summary

Model

1

R

,651 a

R Square

,424

Adjus ted

R Square

,402

Std. Error of the Es timate a. Predictors : (Constant), PARTest, s ubnorm, pbc,

ATTENTREest

,59019

ANOVA b

Model

1 Regress ion

Res idual

Total

Sum of

Squares

26,686

36,225

62,911 df

4

104

108

Mean Square

6,672

,348 a. Predictors : (Constant), PARTest, s ubnorm, pbc, ATTENTREest b. Dependent Variable: entreint

F

19,153

Sig.

,000 a

Coefficients a

Model

1 (Cons tant)

ATTENTREest s ubnorm

Uns tandardized

Coefficients

B

-,445

Std. Error

,760

-,064

,148

,209

,072 pbc

PARTes t

,352


,072

,660

Standardized

Coefficients

Beta

-,049

,173

,498

,170 t

-,586

-,307

2,059

4,912

1,164

Sig.

,559

,760

,042

,000

,247

Figure 18: Estimated regression model

The regression output of the estimated model is printed in figure 18. The relationship of the participation in entrepreneurship education estimate with entrepreneurial intentions is larger than the attitude towards entrepreneurship estimate. Whether participation in entrepreneurship education or personality traits causes this larger influence, cannot be stated with certainty. Still, compared to model one in figure 10, a couple of interesting differences can be noted. The attitude towards entrepreneurship construct changed to a negative βcoefficient (β=-0.049), which can be seen as remarkable. Although, the two estimated constructs do not seem to be really significant; the two other constructs of the TPB (Ajzen,

1991) got a more positive and significant relationship with entrepreneurial intentions. This

-46-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn regression model shows that perceived behavioural control does have the strongest influence on entrepreneurial intentions.


H5+ (0.636**)


H7+ (0.215*) H8+ (0.198*)

*p<0.05 **p<0.01

Figure 19: Final regression model.

H6+ (0.026)


Subjective norm



H1+ (0.234*)

H2+ (0.127)

H3+ (0.306**)

H4+ (0.305**)


The final regression model with β-coefficients can be found in figure 19. Overall, proactive personality has moderating influence on the attitude-intention relationship and both proactive personality and risk taking propensity have a moderating influence on the participationintention relationship. The above findings make it possible to answer the research question of this thesis:


The entrepreneurial intentions of students are influenced directly by the students’ participation in entrepreneurship education and indirectly by its personality. Participation in entrepreneurship education has almost the highest direct relationship with entrepreneurial intentions (β=0.305 in model one). This alone provides enough information that academic entrepreneurship education influences the students’ decision to become a new business founder. The personality relationship should however not be neglected. The personality traits have a significant indirect effect of (0.636) * 0.234= 0.149 via the attitude towards

-47-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn entrepreneurship construct, and a significant indirect effect of (0.215 + 0.198) * 0.305= 0.126 via the participation in entrepreneurship education construct. The total indirect personality effect on entrepreneurial intentions comes to 0.149 + 0.126= 0.275, which is smaller than the direct participation effect.

Other tests tend to stress the differences among participants and non-participants in entrepreneurship education. The Mann-Whitney U statistics stress the significance of these differences. Although, when the model is divided between participants and non-participants, the regressions show only small differences. The estimated model in figure 18 still has a positive, although less significant, effect for participation in entrepreneurship education, which gives even more support for the problem statement. It can be concluded that personality traits do not pre-determine a students’ entrepreneurial intent, entrepreneurship education influences this decision. Though, whether entrepreneurship education can influence students’ ‘entrepreneurial personality’, cannot be explained with this research.

6.5 Limitations

The present study provides evidence that both personality traits and participation in entrepreneurship education significantly influence a student’s intention to start a new business. However a number of limitations are attached to the presented research.

First of all, the omitted correlated variables. Personality traits are only measured with two constructs, which do not cover a student’s personality. Since other personality traits are ignored in this research, the dependent variables lose a potential explanatory power. The same can be stated for the external factors influencing a student’s intention decision. Only entrepreneurship education participation and subjective norm are included in the research, which leaves a great number of contextual factors untouched.

Second, the measurements used for the various constructs are sometimes debatable. The twoitem measurement of subjective norm and the three-item measurement of risk taking propensity could be seen as a potential weakness. More secure measurements of subjective norm and risk-taking propensity are needed.

-48-


Third, multicollinearity between attitude towards entrepreneurship and perceived behavioural control might have influenced their true contribution to the final model. Their strong correlation (section 6.3.3) already predicted this, and the F-test in section 6.4.1 further confirms the possible multicollinearity. Future models should develop a more distinct measurement.

Fourth, the distribution method and sample size need improvement. The questionnaire was distributed via personal contacts, Hoogstarters-Maastricht, and via my supervisor. This distribution method does not result in a random sample. However, it did result in a fair participant / non-participant distribution, which was important for the research. With a larger sample size (n>200) the MSEM tool can be used to test all the relationship in the research model within one regression.

Finally, the model discussed in this research predicts the intentions of FDEWB students’ to start a new venture. However, it remains to be seen whether intending to start a company is as well predicted by intentions as other behaviours are by intentions. A long-term study of the same sample would reveal the answer to this question. Unfortunately the presented research does not offer this possibility.

-49-


7. Discussion and conclusions

The objective of this thesis was to contribute to an improvement of entrepreneurship education in the Netherlands. To achieve this, the thesis explored the entrepreneurial intentions among FDEWB students. The analysis confirms many previous findings in literature on students’ entrepreneurial intentions. For instance, the research has given further evidence for the usefulness of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) in explaining these entrepreneurial intentions. Students’ attitude towards entrepreneurship and students’ perceived behavioural control positively influence the ultimate entrepreneurial intentions.

Although the research recognized only a weak relationship for the subjective norm construct, the power of the TPB as measured with the adjusted R square (0.432) was relatively high compared to previous research. This thesis included participation in entrepreneurship education as a direct influence on entrepreneurial intentions; the results support this direct relationship, and indicate and even higher robustness (0.507) of the model.

Next, the research explores a positive relationship of personality traits on attitude towards entrepreneurship and participation in entrepreneurship education. More precise, students with a proactive personality have a more positive attitude towards entrepreneurship and have more often participated in entrepreneurship education. Students with a high willingness to take risks also tend participate in entrepreneurship education. The decision to start a new venture seems to some extend influenced by personality traits. The results show that the combined indirect effects of personality on entrepreneurial intentions are almost as high as the direct effect of participation in entrepreneurship education on these intentions. These results make it possible to answer the research question:


In spite of the limitations as mentioned in section 6.5, entrepreneurship education, as distinct from general education, has a clear influence on the students’ intentions to start a new business. Personality characteristics do not pre-determine students’ entrepreneurial intentions; academic entrepreneurship education influences this decision. The participants in entrepreneurship education do show more entrepreneurial personality characteristics than their non-participant counterparts. A student’s intention to start a new business is therefore

-50-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn not pre-determined by personality, academic entrepreneurship education significantly influences these intentions.

Since it can not be stated whether entrepreneurship education influences the entrepreneurial characteristics of students, this research recommends the UM to focus their attention on the students with the ‘entrepreneurial’ personalities. Since a selection process for these students does not seem as a reasonable option, students should not be selected, but attracted towards entrepreneurship education. It is more promising to train the students with the ‘correct’ profile to become a successful entrepreneur. Thus, the university would be well advised to expand the number graduate entrepreneurship courses. Furthermore, improving the image of entrepreneurship as a plausible career alternative, could affect students’ attitude towards entrepreneurship. During entrepreneurship courses and activities, skilled teachers should be able to identify students with the most entrepreneurial characteristics. Encouraging these students to attend more entrepreneurship programs would be most effective. Furthermore, teachers should not only have the necessary knowledge in entrepreneurship, personal experiences inspire the students as well.

Hill, Cinneide, and Kiesner (2003) raise an important issue also applicable to the Dutch education system. Hill et al. (2003) report on the drop of entrepreneurial activity by education level. Since the higher students’ educational attainment, the more these students will make in the marketplace, entrepreneurial intentions of students may be a function of opportunity costs. Therefore, considering an entrepreneurial career does not only start with a good idea, it is also a difficult financial dilemma. Students should therefore be carefully taught on the risks and rewards of an entrepreneurial career.

Albeit, if the European Union wants to foster entrepreneurship in Europe and if the

Netherlands wants to increase the employment figures among the younger age groups, entrepreneurship education should be stimulated at all levels. Though, entrepreneurship education should attract and focus on the ‘right’ students, particularly those with a proactive personality and a willingness to take risks. Further research should focus on more antecedents of students’ entrepreneurial intentions and should further explore the personality traits of an

‘entrepreneurial student’. Moreover, the true influence of entrepreneurship education on the personality characteristics of students needs more attention. Even more interesting will be the results of a long-term study, which reveals the ultimate behaviour; the start-up of a new

-51-

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn business. This knowledge will be of great value for designing future entrepreneurship education.

Copyright Information: Copyright van dit document ligt bij Wouter Duijn. Toestemming is verleend aan Student&Onderzoek om dit document op haar webpagina’s te publiceren.

Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden verveelvoudigd, opgeslagen in een geautomatiseerd gegevensbestand, of openbaar gemaakt, in enige vorm of op enige wijze, hetzij elektronisch, mechanisch, door fotokopieen, opnamen, of enige andere manier, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de uitgever.

-52-


References

Ajzen, I. (1991). Theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human

Decision Processes, 50 , 179-211.

Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: conceptual and methodological considerations . Retrieved August 1, 2004, from World Wide Web: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/%7Eaizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioural control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32 , 665-683.

Autio, E., Keeley, R.H., Klofsten, M., Parker, G.G.C., & Hay, M. (2001). Entrepreneurial intent among students in Scandinavia and in the USA. Enterprise & Innovation

Management Studies, 2 , (2), 145-161.

Autio, E., Keeley, R.H., Klofsten, M., & Ulfstedt, T. (1997). Entrepreneurial intent among students: testing an intent model in Asia, Scandinavia, and USA.

Paper presented at the Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

Retrieved June 20, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.babson.edu/entrep/fer/papers97/autio/aut1.htm

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change.

Psychological Review, 84 , 191-215.

Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention. Academy of

Management Review 13 , (3), 442-453.

Bird, B., & Jelinek, M. (1988). The operation of entrepreneurial intentions.

Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 13 , (2), 21-30.

-53-


Bosma, N., Stigter, H., & Wennekers, S. (2001). The long road to the entrepreneurial society: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2001: the Netherlands . EIM: Business &

Policy Research. Retrieved March 16, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.gemconsortium.org/download/1092661114937/The%20Long%20Rd%20t o%20Entre%20Society.pdf

Bosma, N., & Wennekers, S. (2002). Entrepreneurship under pressure: Global

Entrepreneurship Monitor 2002: the Netherlands . EIM: Business & Policy Research.

Retrieved March 16, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.gemconsortium.org/download/1092304773890/Netherlands2002.pdf

Carayannis, E.G., Evans, D., & Hanson, M. (2003). A cross-cultural learning strategy for entrepreneurship education: outline of key concepts and lessons learned from a comparative study of entrepreneurship students in France and the US. Technovation,

23 , 757-771.

Carree, M., Stel, A., van, Thurik, R., & Wennekers, S. (2001). Economic development and business ownership: an analysis using data of 23 OECD countries in the period 1976-

1996. Small Business Economics, 19 , (3), 271-290.

Charney, A., & Libecap, G.D. (2000). Insights: a Kauffman research series: impact of entrepreneurship education . Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.

Retrieved August 2, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.entreworld.org/Bookstore/PDFs/RE-024.pdf

Cortina, J.M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W.P. (2001). Testing interaction effects in LISREL:

Examination and illustration of available procedures. Organizational research methods, 4 , (4), 324-360.

Council of the European Union (2004). Joint employment report 2003/2004 . Retrieved June

15, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/employment_strategy/report_2003/jer2

0034_en.pdf

-54-


Crant, J.M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34 , (2), 42-49.

Davidsson, P. (1995). Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions . Paper presented at the

RENT IX Workshop in Entrepreneurship Research, November 23-24, Piacenza, Italy.

Dennis, D. (2001). Fostering Entrepreneurship in Europe. Published in: Lundström, A., &

Stevenson, L. Entrepreneurship Policy for the Future: Volume 1 of the

Entrepreneurship for the Future Series , 107-130. Swedish Foundation of Small

Business Research.

Drucker, P.F. (1994). Innovation and Entrepreneurship . United Kingdom: Butterworth &

Heinemann.

European Commission (2003a). Green paper: entrepreneurship in Europe.

Enterprise publications. Retrieved January 23, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/entrepreneurship/green_paper/

European Commission (2003b). Short-term trends of EU employment growth . Retrieved

April 20, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/employment_analysis/short_term_tren ds_eu_empl_growth.pdf

European Commission (2004). Flash Eurobarometer: Entrepreneurship . Retrieved August

20, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.gesis.org/en/data_service/eurobarometer/

Fölster, S. (1999). Do entrepreneurs create jobs? Small Business Economics, 14 , (2), 137-148.

Francis, J.J., Eccles, M.P., Johnston, M., Walker, A., Grimshaw, J., Foy, R., Kaner, E.F.S.,

Smith, L., & Bonetti, D. (2004). Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour: a manual for health services researchers . Rebeqi: Research into

Practice. Retrieved September 20, 2004, from World Wide Web: http://www.rebeqi.org/ViewFile.aspx?itemID=212

-55-


Gelderen, M.W. van, Brand, M., Praag, M. van, & Bodewes, W. (2004). Some advances in the explanation of entrepreneurial intentions. Published in: Dowling, M., Schmude, J.,

& von Knyphaussen-Aufsess (Eds.). Advances in Interdisciplinary European

Entrepreneurship Research, 27-45. Munster: Litverlag.

Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. (1997). Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten year literature review. International Small Business Journal, 15 , (3), 56-77.

GrowthPlus (2004). Whitepaper: the GrowthPlus response to the conclusions of the Lisbon and Feira European Councils . Retrieved February 24, 2004, from the World Wide

Web: http://www.growthplus.org/images/Whitepaper%20.pdf

Hartog, J., Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Jonker, N. (2000). On a simple measure of individual risk aversion . Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper. Retrieved September 27, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tinbergen.nl/discussionpapers/00074.pdf

Hill, S., Cinneide, B.O., & Kiesner, F. (2003). Graduate entrepreneurship education: an international “consumer” study . Nonprinting Media: Research Papers. Retrieved June

28, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/Research/2003/ICSB/papers/5.doc

Hisrich, R.D., & Peters, M.P. (2002). Entrepreneurship (5 th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ibrahim, A.B., & Goodwin, J.R. (1986). Perceived causes of success in small business.

American Journal of Small Business, 11 , (2), 41-51.

Kickul, J., & Gundry L.K. (2002). Prospecting for strategic advantage: the proactive entrepreneurial personality and small firm innovation. Journal of Small Business

Management, 40 , (2), 85-97.

Krueger, N.F. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 5 , 5-21.

-56-


Krueger, N.F. Jr., Reilly, M.D., & Carsrud, A.L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15 , 411-432.

Lumpkin, G.T., & Dress, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21 , (1), 135-172.

Lüthje, C., & Franke, N. (2003). The “making” of an entrepreneur: testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT. R&D Management, 33 , (2),

135-147.

Lüthje, C., & Franke, N. (2004). Entrepreneurial intentions of business students: a benchmarking study. International Journal of Innovation & Technology Management .

Appears September 2004.

McClave, J.T., Benso, P.G., & Sincich, T. (1998). Statistics for Business and Economics (7 th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

McIntyre, J.R., & Roche, M. (1999). University education for entrepreneurs in the United

States: a critical and retrospective analysis of trends in the 1990s . Atlanta, USA:

Georgia Institute of Technology. Retrieved August 11, 2004, from the World Wide

Web: http://www.ciber.gatech.edu/workingpaper/1999/99_00-21.pdf

McKinley, R.K., Manku-Scott, T., Hastings, A.M., French, D.P., & Baker, R. (1997).

Reliability and validity of a new measure of patients satisfaction with out of hours primary medical care in the United Kingdom: development of a patients questionnaire. British Medical Journal 314, 193-198.

Ministry of Economic Affairs (2000). Entrepreneurship in the Netherlands: opportunities and threats to nascent entrepreneurship . Retrieved August 3, 2004, from the World

Wide Web: http://www.exist.de/kooperation/dateien/9_nl11r29.pdf

Ministry of Economic Affairs (2002). Ondernemerschapsmonitor voorjaar 2002: themaspecial over ondernemerschap & onderwijs . Den Haag. Retrieved August 3,

2004, from the World Wide Web: http://apps.ez.nl/publicaties/pdfs/02O06.pdf

-57-


Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oppenheim, A.N. (2001). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement: new edition . New York: Continuum.

Peterman, N.E., & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 28 , (2), 129-

145.

Reitan, B. (1997). Where do we learn that entrepreneurship is feasible, desirable and/or profitable? A look at the processes leading to entrepreneurial potential . Retrieved

August 1, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.usasbe.org/knowledge/proceedings/1997/P009Reitan.PDF

Reynolds, P.D., Bygrave, W.D., & Autio, E. (2004). Global entrepreneurship monitor 2003: executive report . Babson College. Retrieved April 20, 2004, from the World Wide

Web: http://www.gemconsortium.org/document.asp?id=327

Shapero, A. (1975). The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur. Psychology Today, 9 , 83-88.

Solomon, G.T., Duffy, S., & Tarabishy, A. (2002). The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States: a nationwide survey and analysis. International Journal of

Entrepreneurship education, 1 , (1), 1-22.

Twaalfhoven, B.W.M. (2003). Red paper on entrepreneurship . Paper presented at the 4 th

European Symposium, November 18-19, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. Retrieved

January 23, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.4x4entreprendre.org/files/presentation/2.8%20Government%20incentives

%20-%20Bert%20Twaalfhoven.pdf

Vesper, K.H., & McMullan, W.E. (1988). Entrepreneurship: today courses, tomorrow degrees? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13 , (1), 7-13.

-58-


Wennekers, S., & Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small

Business Economics, 13 , (1), 27-56.

Winslow, E.K., Solomon, G.T., & Tarabishy, A. (1999). Empirical investigation into entrepreneurship education in the United States: some results of the 1997 national survey of entrepreneurial education . Paper presented at the USASBE/SBIDA Annual

National Conference Sailing the Entrepreneurial Wave Into the 21 st Century, January

14-17, San Diego, USA. Retrieved June 26, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.usasbe.org/knowledge/proceedings/1999/winslow.pdf

Websites: http://eweb.slu.edu/chronology.htm

http://www.area010.nl

http://www.cbs.nl/en/figures/keyfigures/index.htm

http://www.duyfken.com/voyagie/thevoyagie/voc-history.html

http://www.emkf.org/pages/188.cfm

. http://www.entreworld.org

http://www.kauffman.org/ http://www.lerenondernemen.nl

http://www.westaction.org/definitions/def_entrepreneurship_1.html

-59-


Appendix A: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Indexes

1. Total Entrepreneurial Activity Index (TEA) by country: 2003

Source: Reynolds, P.D., Bygrave, W.D., & Autio E. (2004). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2003: Executive Report . Babson College.

2. Firm Entrepreneurial Activity Index (FEA) for 40 GEM countries: 2002-2003


-60-


3. Start-ups expected job creation in five years: 2000-2003


4. Annual jobs provided by new firms: 2003


-61-


Appendix B: Entrepreneurial Intentions Questionnaire

Questionnaire location: http://www.studentenonderzoek.com/webform/index.php?formID=55

Dear respondent,

By filling out this questionnaire you participate in a study for my final thesis at Universiteit

Maastricht. I am researching the intentions and attitudes of Universiteit Maastricht students towards entrepreneurship. Filling out this questionnaire will take less than 5 minutes of your time. If you participate in the research you will have a chance of winning a 50 Euro VVV

Voucher . (Please fill out your email address at the end of the questionnaire)

From this place I would like to express my utmost gratitude for your participation!

Kind regards,

Wouter Duijn

Please find the questionnaire on the next page!

-62-


1 Starting my own business sounds attractive to me

2 I can spot a good opportunity long before others can

3 To start my own company would probably be the best way for me to take advantage of my education

4 I excel at identifying opportunities

5 I am confident that I would succeed if I started my own business

6 I personally consider entrepreneurship to be a highly desirable career alternative for people with my education

7 It would be easy for me to start my own business

8 Nothing is more exiting than seeing my ideas turn into reality

9 I would rather found a new company than be the manager of an existing one

10 It is more beneficial to society to have large enterprises than small firms

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11 In my university, people are actively encouraged to pursue their own ideas

12 In my university, you get to meet lots of people with good ideas for a new business

13 I enjoy facing and overcoming obstacles to my ideas

14 My family and friends support me to start my own business

15 I have the skills and capabilities required to succeed as an entrepreneur

16 Entrepreneurship courses at my university prepare people well for an entrepreneurial career

17 In business, it is preferable to be an entrepreneur, rather than a large firm employee

18 Entrepreneurship cannot be taught

19 I love to challenge the status quo

20 In my university, there is a well functioning support infrastructure to support the start-up of new firms

21 I know many people in my university who have successfully started up their own business

Continue

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

-63-


22 If I became an entrepreneur, my family would consider it to be

23 If I became an entrepreneur, my close friends would consider it to be

24 Overall I consider an entrepreneurship career as

Bad

Bad

Bad

25 I can take risks with my money, such as investing in stocks

26 When I travel I like to take new routes

Very unlikely

Very unlikely

27 I like to try new foods, new places and totally new experiences

28 I will take a serious risk within the next 6 months

Very unlikely

Very unlikely

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Good

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Good

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Good

1 2 3 4 5 Very likely




29 Have you ever participated in any form of entrepreneurship education?

30 Have you ever participated in entrepreneurship education at the UM? (e.g.

Advanced Business Innovation, Small Business Management and Accounting)

31 Have you ever participated in entrepreneurship courses from Hoogstarters



Yes



No



Yes



No



Yes



No

Maastricht? (e.g. Masterclass Entrepreneurship & Businessplanning)

32 Do you plan to be self-employed in the foreseeable future after you graduate



Very probable



Quite probable



Quite

improbable from the UM?

33 Estimate the probability (0-100%) you will start your own business in the next year?

34 Estimate the probability (0-100%) you will start your own business in the next 5 years?



Very improbable

…. %

…. %

Just a couple more questions to go…

-64-


35 What is your age?

36 Please indicate your gender

37 Are you currently self-employed?



<20



20-21



22-23



24-25



>25



Male



Female

 Yes  No

38 Are your parents currently self-employed?



Yes



No

39 Have your parents ever been self-employed?



Yes



No

40 Are you student from the UM Faculty of Economics and Business

Administration?



Yes

41 Among 10 people, 100 Euros are disposed of by a lottery. What is the most that you would be willing to pay for a ticket in this lottery?

42 Fill out your email address to participate in the 50 Euro VVV voucher lottery



No

€

You have completed the questionnaire! If you would like to receive the results of my study, or if you have any doubts or would like more information, do not hesitate to contact me directly at w.duijn@student.unimaas.nl

.

Thanks again for your cooperation!

Wouter Duijn

-65-


Appendix C: Questions overview

General

G1= What is your gender? (Own thoughts)

G2= What is your age? (Own thoughts)

G3= Are you a student from the UM Faculty of Economics and Business Administration?

(Own thoughts)

G4= Fill out your email address to participate in the 50 Euro VVV Voucher lottery. (Own thoughts)

Entrepreneurial intentions

EI1= Are you currently self-employed? (Lüthje & Franke, 2003)

EI2= Do you plan to be self-employed in the foreseeable future after you graduate from the

UM? (Lüthje & Franke, 2003)

EI3= Estimate the probability (0-100%) you will start your own business in the next year?

(Own thoughts)

EI4= Estimate the probability (0-100%) you will start your own business in the next 5 years?

(Krueger et al., 2000)

Attitude towards entrepreneurship

AE1= In business, it is preferable to be an entrepreneur, rather than a large firm employee.

(Carayannis, Evans, & Hanson, 2003)

AE2= It is more beneficial to society to have large enterprises than small firms. (Carayannis,

Evans, & Hanson, 2003)

AE3= I would rather found a new company than be the manager of an existing one. (Lüthje &

Franke, 2003)

AE4= Starting my own business sounds attractive to me. (Krueger et al., 2000)

AE5= I personally consider entrepreneurship to be a highly desirable career alternative for people with my professional and education background. (Autio et al., 2001)

AE6= Overall, I consider an entrepreneurship career as. (Francis, Eccles, Johnston, Walker,

Grimshaw, Foy, Kaner, Smith, & Bonetti, 2004)

-66-


Participation in entrepreneurship education

U1= Have you ever participated in any form of entrepreneurship education? (Own thoughts)

U2= Have you ever participated in entrepreneurship education at the UM? (e.g. Advanced

Business Innovation, Small Business Management and Accounting) (Own thoughts)

U3= Have you ever participated in entrepreneurship courses from Hoogstarters Maastricht?

(e.g. Masterclass Entrepreneurship & Businessplanning) (Own thoughts)

Proactive personality

P1= I enjoy facing and overcoming obstacles to my ideas. (Kickul & Gundry, 2002)

P2= Nothing is more exiting than seeing my ideas turn into reality. (Kickul & Gundry, 2002)

P3= I excel at identifying opportunities. (Kickul & Gundry, 2002)

P4= I love to challenge the status quo. (Kickul & Gundry, 2002)

P5= I can spot a good opportunity long before others can. (Kickul & Gundry, 2002)

Risk taking propensity

R1= I can take risks with my money, such as investing in stocks. (Hisrich & Peters, 2002)

R2= When I travel I tend to take new routes. (Hisrich & Peters, 2002)

R3= I like to try new foods, new places, and totally new experiences. (Hisrich & Peters,

2002)

R4= I will take a serious risk within the next six months. (Own thoughts)

R5= Among 10 people, 100 Euros are disposed of by a lottery. What is the most that you would be willing to pay for a ticket in this lottery? (Hartog, Ferrer-i-Carbonell, & Jonker,

2000)

Self-employed parents

SE1= Are your parents currently self-employed? (Own thoughts)

SE2= Have your parents ever been self-employed? (Own thoughts)

Attitude towards entrepreneurship education /university environment

AEE1= I know many people in my university who have successfully started up their own business. (Autio et al., 2001)

AEE2= In my university, people are actively encouraged to pursue their own ideas. (Autio et al., 2001)

-67-


AEE3= In my university, you get to meet lots of people with good ideas for a new business.

(Autio et al., 2001)

AEE4= Entrepreneurship courses at my university prepare people well for an entrepreneurial career. (Autio et al., 1997)

AEE5= In my university there is a well functioning support infrastructure to support the startup of new firms. (Autio et al., 2001)

AEE6= Entrepreneurship cannot be taught. (Autio et al., 2001)

Subjective norm

SN1=My family and friends support me to start my own business. (Krueger et al., 2000)

SN2=If I became an entrepreneur, my family would consider it to be. (Autio et al., 2001)

SN3=If I became an entrepreneur, my close friends would consider it to be. (Autio et al.,

2001)

Perceived behavioural control

PBC1=I am confident that I would succeed if I started my own business. (Autio et al., 2001)

PBC2=It would be easy for me to start my own business. (Autio et al., 2001)

PBC3=To start my own firm would probably be the best way for me to take advantage of my education. (Autio et al., 2001)

PBC4=I have the skills and capabilities required to succeed as an entrepreneur. (Autio et al.,

2001)

-68-


Excel table questions overview

-69-


Appendix D: Statistics output

1. Omitted variables statistics age gender entreint attentre attedu s elfpar proper risk pbc s ubnorm



Total



Total



Total



Total



Total



Total



Total



Total



Total



Total

109

62

47

109

62

62

47

109

62

47

N

62

47

109

62

47

109

62

47

109

62

47

109

47

109

62

47

109

62

47

109

3,3968

3,4979

3,4404

,35

,49

,41

4,8710

5,3234

5,0661

3,8656

Mean

3,00

3,28

3,12

,56

,74

,64

1,6129

2,4113

1,9572

4,7151

5,2872

4,9618

4,2482

4,0306

4,0403

4,8936

4,4083

5,5242

5,8404

5,6606

Descriptives

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean

Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

,789 ,100 2,80 3,20

,949 ,138 3,00 3,56

,868

,500

,441

,482

,39206

,083

,063

,064

,046

,04979

2,95

,44

,62

,55

1,5133

3,28

,69

,87

,73

1,7125

,89067

,76322

,89136

,83890

,91079

,12992

,07310

,11320

,12237

,08724

2,1498

1,8123

4,4887

5,0409

4,7889

2,6729

2,1021

4,9414

5,5335

5,1347

,99342

1,16907

1,06867

,482

,505

,495

,80823

,69351

,79024

,74281

,12616

,17053

,10236

,061

,074

,047

,10265

,10116

,07569

,09434

3,1445

3,1546

3,2375

,23

,34

,32

4,6657

5,1198

4,9160

3,6770

3,6491

3,8411

3,6433

,48

,64

,51

5,0762

5,5270

5,2161

4,0542

,56238

,69469

,98990

1,00508

1,07887

,92960

,81498

,89204

,08203

,06654

,12572

,14661

,10334

,11806

,11888

,08544

4,0831

3,8987

3,7889

4,5985

4,2034

5,2881

5,6011

5,4912

4,4133

4,1625

4,2917

5,1887

4,6131

5,7603

6,0797

5,8299 age gender entreint attentre attedu


Sig. (2-tailed)


Sig. (2-tailed)


Sig. (2-tailed)


Sig. (2-tailed)


Sig. (2-tailed) age

1

,214*

,026

,292**

,002

,062

,519

-,049

,612 gender

,214*

,026

1

,185

,055

,324**

,001

-,036

,707 part s elfpar proper


Sig. (2-tailed)


Sig. (2-tailed)


,158

,100

-,029

,761

,053

,583

,186

,053

-,113

,243

,287**

,003 risk pbc

Sig. (2-tailed)


Sig. (2-tailed)


,158

,102

,130

,177

,079

,413

,319**

,001 s ubnorm

Sig. (2-tailed)


Sig. (2-tailed)

,172

,073

,124

,198


**. Correlation is s ignificant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

entreint

,292**

,002

,185

,055

1 attentre

,062

,519

,324**

,001

,578**

,000

1 ,578**

,000

,152

,115

,520**

,000

,235*

,014

,505**

,000

,301**

,001

,609**

,000

,357**

,000

,205*

,032

,313**

,001

,076

,429

,645**

,000

,249**

,009

,641**

,000

,414**

,000

Correlations attedu

-,049

,612

-,036

,707

,152

,115

,205*

,032

1

,047

,627

,035

,720

,179

,062

,106

,275

,173

,072

,175

,069 part

,158

,100

,186

,053

,520**

,000

,313**

,001

,047

,627

1

,135

,161

,285**

,003

,274**

,004

,394**

,000

,176

,067 s elfpar

-,029

,761

-,113

,243

,235*

,014

,076

,429

,035

,720

,135

,161

1

,148

,126

,017

,862

,132

,170

,184

,055 proper

,053

,583

,287**

,003

,505**

,000

,645**

,000

,179

,062

,285**

,003

,148

,126

1

,352**

,000

,678**

,000

,430**

,000 risk

,158

,102

,079

,413

,301**

,001

,249**

,009

,106

,275

,274**

,004

,017

,862

,352**

,000

1

,264**

,005

,298**

,002 pbc

,130

,177

,319**

,001

,609**

,000

,641**

,000

,173

,072

,394**

,000

,132

,170

,678**

,000

,264**

,005

1

,261**

,006 s ubnorm

,172

,073

,124

,198

,357**

,000

,414**

,000

,175

,069

,176

,067

,184

,055

,430**

,000

,298**

,002

,261**

,006

1

-70-


2. Entrepreneurial intentions Cronbach’s alpha statistics

One-Sample Statistics

Entrepreneurial Intentions 1



Entrepreneurial Intentions Average

N

109

109

109

109

Mean

2,6239

1,3303

1,9174

1,9572

Std. Deviation

,76726

,79413

1,02856

,76322

Std. Error

Mean

,07349

,07606

,09852

,07310

One-Sample Test

Tes t Value = 2.5




Entrepreneurial Intentions Average t

1,685

-15,378

-5,913

-7,425 df

108

108

108

108

Sig. (2-tailed)

,095

,000

,000

,000

Mean

Difference

,12385

-1,16972

-,58257

-,54281

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower

-,0218

-1,3205

Upper

,2695

-1,0190

-,7778

-,6877

-,3873

-,3979

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

,848

N of Items

3




Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

3,2477

4,5413

3,9541

Scale

Variance if

Item Deleted

2,892

2,732

1,896

Corrected

Item-Total

Correlation

,675

,716

,808

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

,832

,795

,714

-71-


3. Risk taking propensity question correlations

Correlations

Ris k-taking propens ity 1

1 Ris k-taking propensity 1

Ris k-taking propensity 2





Sig. (2-tailed)


Sig. (2-tailed)


Sig. (2-tailed)


Sig. (2-tailed)


Sig. (2-tailed)


**. Correlation is s ignificant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

-,024

,808

-,013

,897

,230*

,016

,064

,508


-,024

,808

1

,464**

,000

,221*

,021

,135

,161


-,013

,897

,464**

,000

1

,251**

,008

-,102

,292


,230*

,016

,221*

,021

,251**

,008

1

,139

,150


,064

,508

,135

,161

-,102

,292

,139

,150

1

-72-


4. Reduced model Z

Model Summary

Model

1

R

,725 a

R Square

,525

Adjus ted

R Square

,512 a. Predictors : (Constant), Z, subnorm, part


,53341

ANOVA b

Model

1 Regress ion

Res idual

Total

Sum of

Squares

33,036

29,875

62,911 df

3

105

108 a. Predictors : (Constant), Z, subnorm, part b. Dependent Variable: entreint

Mean Square

11,012

,285

F

38,703

Sig.

,000 a

Coefficients a

Model

1 (Cons tant) s ubnorm part

Z

Uns tandardized

Coefficients

B

-,790

,106

,469


Std. Error

,374

,062

,112

,033

Standardized

Coefficients

Beta

,124

,306

,490 t

-2,115

1,716

4,178

6,337

Sig.

,037

,089

,000

,000

Z= Perceived behavioural control + attitude towards entrepreneurship

-73-


5. Mann-Whitney U test proper risk entreint attentre s ubnorm pbc edudummy

UM participant

Hoogstarters participant

Total

UM participant


Total

UM participant


Total

UM participant


Total

UM participant


Total

UM participant


Total

Ranks

N

13

47

34

13

47

34

13

47

34

13

47

34

13

47

34

13

47

34

Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

20,60 700,50

32,88 427,50

22,34

28,35

19,43

35,96

21,57

30,35

21,38

30,85

20,29

33,69

759,50

368,50

660,50

467,50

733,50

394,50

727,00

401,00

690,00

438,00

Mann-Whitney U

Wilcoxon W

Z

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) proper

105,500

700,500

-2,762

,006 a. Grouping Variable: edudummy risk

164,500

759,500

-1,367

,172

Test Statistics a entreint

65,500

660,500

-3,744

,000 attentre

138,500

733,500

-1,967

,049 s ubnorm

132,000

727,000

-2,185

,029 pbc

95,000

690,000

-3,005

,003

-74-


6. Model two with participants in entrepreneurship education

Model Summary

Model

1

R part =


(Selected)

,646 a

R Square

,418

Adjus ted

R Square

,391 a. Predictors : (Constant), ris k, proper


,65458

ANOVA b,c

Model

1 Regress ion

Res idual

Total

Sum of

Squares

13,520

18,853

32,372 df

2

44

46

Mean Square

6,760

,428 a. Predictors : (Constant), ris k, proper b. Dependent Variable: attentre c. Selecting only cases for which part = Participation entre. edu.

F

15,777


Model


Uns tandardized

Coefficients

B

,466

,692

Std. Error

,922

,145

Standardized

Coefficients

Beta

,268 ,179

,572

,180 a.


Selecting only cases for which part = Participation entre. edu.

t

,505

4,765

1,499

Sig.

,000 a

Sig.

,616

,000

,141

-75-


7. Model two with non-participants in entrepreneurship education

Model Summary

Model

1

R part = No participation entre. edu.

(Selected)

,611 a

R Square

,373

Adjus ted

R Square

,352 a. Predictors : (Constant), ris k, proper


,71752

ANOVA b,c

Model

1 Regress ion

Res idual

Total

Sum of

Squares

18,091

30,375

48,466 a. Predictors : (Constant), ris k, proper b. Dependent Variable: attentre df

2

59

61

Mean Square

9,045

,515

F

17,570 c. Selecting only cases for which part = No participation entre. edu.

Sig.

,000 a


Uns tandardized

Coefficients

B

1,774

Std. Error

,649

,699

-,120

,119

,130

Standardized

Coefficients

Beta Model


,634

-,100 a.

Dependent Variable: attentre b. Selecting only cases for which part = No participation entre. edu.

t

2,735

5,859

-,925

Sig.

,008

,000

,359

-76-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Deze scriptie is afkomstig van: http://www.studiosus.nl

1. Introduction

2. Entrepreneurship

2.1 Definition

2.2 The importance of entrepreneurship

3. Entrepreneurial intentions

3.1 Previous research

Specific

Desirabilities

Perceived

Desirability

Propensity to Act

Intentions

Perceived

Self-Efficacy

Perceived

Feasibility

3.2 Latest model of entrepreneurial intention

4. Entrepreneurship education

4.1 The development of entrepreneurship education

4.2. Effectiveness of entrepreneurship education: The ongoing debate

5. Research methods

5.1 Research model

5.2 Sample and procedure

5.3 Hypotheses

5.4 Instrument

5.5 Analysis

6. Results

6.1 Response and missing values

6.2 Omitted variables

6.3 Descriptives, reliability, and exploratory analysis

6.4 Regression and hypotheses testing

6.5 Limitations

7. Discussion and conclusions

References

Appendix A: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Indexes

Appendix B: Entrepreneurial Intentions Questionnaire

Appendix C: Questions overview

Appendix D: Statistics output

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib