Chapter Listing | Return to 1997 Topical Index

 

References

Ajzen, I. 1987. Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol 20. pp 1 - 63

Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol 50. pp 179 - 211

Ajzen, I. Fishbein, M. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

Bird, B. 1988. Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case of intention. Academy of Management Review, vol 13. pp 442 - 453

Davidsson, P. 1995. Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions. RENT IX Workshop in Entrepreneurship Research. Piacenza, Italy. November 23 - 24

Gartner, W. B. 1988. ’Who is an entrepreneur?’ is the wrong question. American Small Business Journal, Spring. pp 11 - 31

Gartner, W. B. 1989. Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice. Fall.

Katz, J. A. 1988. Intentions, hurdles, and start-ups: An analysis of entrepreneurial follow-through. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. pp 43 - 57

Kim, M. S. Hunter, J. E. 1993. Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behaviors: A meta-analysis of past research. Communication Research, vol 20. pp 331 - 364

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

Krueger, N. F. Brazeal, D. V. 1994. Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Spring. pp 91 - 104

Krueger, N. F. Carsrud, A. 1993. Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behavior. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol 5. pp 316-323

Niittykangas, H. Laukkanen, M. 1996. Potential entrepreneurs - Can they be located? RISE ‘96 Conference on Innovative Strategies and Entrepreneurship. Jyväskylä, Finland. June. Conference proceedings. Pp 204 - 223

Reitan, B. 1996. Entrepreneurial intentions: A combined models approach. 9th Nordic Small Business Research Conference. Lillehammer, Norway. May 29 - 31

Reynolds, P. D. 1995. Who starts new firms? Linear additive versus interaction based models. Babson - Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference, London Business School, April 19 - 23

Shapero, A. 1975. The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur. Psychology Today, vol 9. pp 83-88

Shapero, A. 1982. Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In: Kent, C. et al (eds), The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. pp 72 - 90

Shapero, A. Sokol, L. 1982. Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In: The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. pp 72-90

Trice, A. 1991. Relationship among first aspirations, parental occupations and current occupations. Psychological Reports, vol 68(1). pp 287 - 290


TABLE 1

Basic statistics of the empirical sample - continuous variables

Variable Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum n
AGE 26.60 7.45 18 years 66 years 1950
NUMBER OF CHILDREN 0.38 0.86 0 children 6 children 1943
WORK EXPERIENCE (LARGE FIRMS) 2.82 5.33 0 years 40 years 1800
WORK EXPERIENCE (SMEs) 1.84 3.79 0 years 35 years 1800
WORK EXPERIENCE (TOTAL) 5.33 6.83 0 years 40 years 1800
YEARS STUDIED 2.76 2.89 0 years 31 years 1617

TABLE 2

Basic statistics of the empirical sample - nominal and ordinal variables

Variable

n

%

cumulative %

HIGHEST DEGREE      
High school

1283

65.6

65.6

Bachelor or equivalent

359

18.4

84.2

Master or equivalent

225

11.5

95.7

Doctoral degree

41

2.1

97.8

Missing

47

2.4

100.0

EMPLOYMENT STATUS      
Part time employed

535

27.4

27.4

Full time employed

545

27.9

55.3

Not working

867

44.3

99.6

Missing

9

0.4

100.0

MARITAL STATUS      
Not married

1203

61.5

61.5

Married

749

38.3

99.8

Missing

3

0.2

100.0

GENDER      
Female

640

32.7

32.7

Male

1314

67.2

99.9

Missing

2

0.1

100.0

VICARIOUS EXPERIENCE      
Parents or close relatives as entrepreneurs

725

37.1

37.1

No vicarious experience

1218

62.3

99.4

Missing

13

0.6

100.0


TABLE 3

Multiple regression model with conviction as dependent variable

(backward elimination)

Variables included in the model B SE B Beta T Sig T
ACHIEVEMENT .528499 .050239 .272912 10.520 .0000***
AUTONOMY -.494099 .049884 -.248695 -9.905 .0000***
IMAGE-PAYOFF .289266 .032988 .212935 8.769 .0000***
WORK EXPERIENCE IN SMEs .107713 .020208 .126365 5.330 .0000***
GENDER .809347 .162728 .117645 4.974 .0000***
UNIVERSITY SUPPORT .097817 .020870 .111163 4.687 .0000***
VICARIOUS EXPERIENCE .592984 .153279 .091435 3.869 .0001***
MONEY .089144 .026361 .081789 3.382 .0007***
CHANGE .104553 .037804 .071870 2.766 .0058**
SCHOOL -.048227 .023062 -.049045 -2.091 .0367*
(Constant) 2.482899 .812861   3.055 .0023**
Variables eliminated from the model Beta In Partial Min Toler T Sig T
AGE .002580 .003002 .789793 .101 .9199
CHILDREN -.018906 -.023321 .795600 -.781 .4347
COMPETITIVENESS -.005036 -.005591 .747491 -.187 .8515
HIGHEST DEGREE .028041 .034847 .789682 1.168 .2431
EMPLOYMENT STATUS -.025256 -.031679 .793536 -1.062 .2886
IMMIGRANT STATUS -.032292 -.040585 .794435 -1.361 .1739
WORK EXPERIENCE (LARGE FIRM) .028270 .035511 .792620 1.190 .2342
MARITAL STATUS .016825 .021249 .797561 .712 .4767
YEARS STUDIED -.028941 -.036432 .797276 -1.221 .2223
WORK EXPERIENCE (TOTAL) .025676 .028764 .761069 .964 .3353

Multiple R 0.62738 R Square 0.39360

F = 72.89139 Signif F = .0000


TABLE 4

Multiple regression model with intention as dependent variable

(backward elimination)

Variable included in the model B SE B Beta T Sig T
CONVICTION .088395 .007736 .347126 11.426 .0000***
AGE .014419 .004729 .134404 3.049 .0024**
WORK EXPERIENCE IN SMEs .023293 .006882 .107038 3.385 .0007***
YEARS STUDIED .020859 .007395 .081013 2.821 .0049**
SCHOOL -.015511 .006796 -.062359 -2.282 .0227*
UNIVERSITY SUPPORT -.018034 .006228 -.080303 -2.896 .0039**
WORK EXPERIENCE (LARGE FIRM) -.014292 .005854 -.096691 -2.441 .0148*
AUTONOMY -.050285 .015001 -.099867 -3.352 .0008***
(Constant) .510378 .204812   2.492 .0129
Variable eliminated from the model Beta In Partial Min Toler T Sig T
ACHIEVEMENT .001013 .001018 .371996 .033 .9734
CHANGE .038091 .039686 .371497 1.300 .1937
CHILDREN .009620 .008448 .312274 .277 .7821
COMPETITIVENESS -.034182 -.037140 .368482 -1.217 .2239
HIGHEST DEGREE .028182 .025429 .264951 .833 .4051
EMPLOYMENT STATUS -.030333 -.033065 .373300 -1.083 .2790
IMAGE-PAYOFF .002284 .002444 .373173 .080 .9362
IMMIGRANT STATUS 9.185E-04 .000998 .357585 .033 .9739
MARITAL STATUS .006947 .007133 .347932 .234 .8154
MONEY -.038204 -.042036 .372921 -1.378 .1686
GENDER .022326 .024498 .372471 .802 .4225
VICARIOUS EXPERIENCE .005586 .006177 .371926 .202 .8398
WORK EXPERIENCE (TOTAL) -.001275 -.000665 .211486 -.022 .9826

Multiple R 0.47070 R Square 0.22155

F = 38.17352 Signif F = .0000


TABLE 5

Robustness check for conviction as dependent variable. Only statistically

significant influences are shown

Country sample

Beta

Sig T

Finland (R square = 0,42)    
Achievement

0.244767

0.0000***

Autonomy

-0.243162

0.0000***

Employment status

-0.074262

0.0401*

Gender

0.120677

0.0004***

Image-Payoff

0.189892

0.0000***

Money

0.148755

0.0001***

University support

0.146851

0.0000***

Work experience (SMEs)

0.156756

0.0000***

USA (R Square = 0.40)    
Achievement

0.244027

0.0000***

Age

-0.142931

0.0209*

Autonomy

-0.251890

0.0000***

Change

0.147982

0.0004***

Gender

0.120051

0.0015**

Image-Payoff

0.233484

0.0000***

School

-0.105639

0.0053**

University support

0.088786

0.0179*

Vicarious experience

0.127947

0.0007**

Asia (R square = 0.43)    
Achievement

0.387849

0.0000***

Autonomy

-0.288291

0.0011**

University support

0.177971

0.0489*

Work experience (total)

0.198429

0.0271*

Years studied

-0.175965

0.0451*

Sweden (R square = 0.36)    
Gender

0.303071

0.0355*

Image-Payoff

0.455897

0.0023**


 

TABLE 6

Robustness check with short-term intent as dependent variable. Only statistically

significant influences are shown

Country sample

Beta

Sig T

Finland (R square = 0.27)    
Autonomy

-0.106599

0.0103*

Conviction

0.314773

0.0000***

Work experience (SMEs)

0.252300

0.0000***

Years studied

0.114522

0.0033**

USA (R square = 0.21)    
Age

0.206983

0.0007***

Autonomy

-0.094882

0.0436*

Change

0.101272

0.0313*

Competitiveness

-0.106348

0.0193*

Conviction

0.342717

0.0000***

Work experience (large firms)

-0.169457

0.0045**

Asia (R square = 0.32)    
Conviction

0.467872

0.0000***

Gender

-0.202447

0.0489*

Work experience (large firms)

0.213000

0.0482*

Sweden (R square = 0.42)    
Autonomy

-0.332528

0.0363*

Employment status

-0.427051

0.0190*

School

-0.499931

0.0054**

University support

-0.358230

0.0253*


Appendix 1: constructs

(Only statements eventually used in constructs are shown)

Image-Payoff (a = 0.39)

Entrepreneurs are highly educated

People who start new firms provide a valuable contribution to the economic prosperity of their country

If I would start my own firm, I would be more respected by my friends and colleagues

Entrepreneurs are more likely to succeed than people working in other professions

Entrepreneurs have to work harder for their income than people working in other professions (rev)

Conviction (a = 0.75)

I am confident that I would succeed if I started my own firm

It would be easy for me to start my own firm

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

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

Competitiveness (a = 0.53)

I work harder in situations where my performance is compared against that of others

Winning is important in both work and game

It annoys me when other people perform better than I do

Competition is good, since it keeps you alert and more focused on your goals

Autonomy (a = 0.55)

Working for an established employer is more important for me than freedom to pursue my own ideas

I prefer employment security, even if I would have less autonomy

Achievement (a = 0.61)

I like to take initiative, and make things happen, even if this would mean greater stress and longer working hours

I am always trying to accomplish new things, to do better than the average

Money (a = 0.64)

If you have a high income, that is a sign that you have had success in your life

It is important for me to make a lot of money

Money is important, since it gives you freedom

Change (a = 0.49)

I find working in stable and routinized environments boring

I need constant change to remain stimulated, even if this would mean higher uncertainty

When a change occurs, it is more important to consider first the opportunities opened, not the threats caused by it

University environment (a = 0.67)

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

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

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

The course in my university prepare people well for entrepreneurial career

The university has a clear policy regarding the intellectual ownership of ideas developed during research or studies

There is a well functioning support infrastructure in place to support the start-up of new firms

Top of page | Chapter Listing | Return to 1997 Topical Index

 

© 1997 Babson College All Rights Reserved
Last Updated 03/02/98