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
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 |
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 |
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
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
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** |
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* |
(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