TABLE OF CONTENTS - Op deze domeinnaam is nog … · Web view2.1 Definition The word entrepreneur...

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn

Executive SummaryFostering 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 self-

employment. 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 DEFINITION___________________________________________________________________7

2.2 THE IMPORTANCE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP_________________________________________8

3. ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS ______________________________________ 11

3.1 PREVIOUS RESEARCH__________________________________________________________113.1.1 THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOUR__________________________________________________12

3.1.2 MODEL OF ENTREPRENEURIAL EVENT_______________________________________________14

3.2 LATEST MODEL OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION__________________________________15

4. ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION ______________________________________ 18

4.1 THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION_____________________________184.1.1 CURRENT ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION DEFINED___________________________________19

4.1.2 DUTCH INITIATIVES______________________________________________________________21

4.2. EFFECTIVENESS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION: THE ONGOING DEBATE___________22

5. RESEARCH METHODS __________________________________________________ 25

5.1 RESEARCH MODEL____________________________________________________________25

5.2 SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE______________________________________________________26

5.3 HYPOTHESES_________________________________________________________________275.3.1 DEPENDENT VARIABLES___________________________________________________________28

5.3.2 INDEPENDENT VARIABLES_________________________________________________________29

5.4 INSTRUMENT_________________________________________________________________29

5.5 ANALYSIS___________________________________________________________________30

6. RESULTS _______________________________________________________________ 31

6.1 RESPONSE AND MISSING VALUES_________________________________________________31

-1-


6.2 OMITTED VARIABLES__________________________________________________________31

6.3 DESCRIPTIVES, RELIABILITY, AND EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS__________________________32

6.3.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS__________________________________________________________32

6.3.2 CRONBACH’S ALPHA’S____________________________________________________________33

6.3.3 CORRELATIONS AND CROSS-TABULATION____________________________________________35

6.4 REGRESSION AND HYPOTHESES TESTING__________________________________________366.4.1 HYPOTHESES 1 TO 4______________________________________________________________36

6.4.2 HYPOTHESES 5 AND 6_____________________________________________________________40

6.4.3 HYPOTHESES 7 AND 8_____________________________________________________________42

6.4.4 PARTICIPANTS VS. NON-PARTICIPANTS_______________________________________________43

6.4.5 ESTIMATED REGRESSION MODEL___________________________________________________45

6.5 LIMITATIONS_________________________________________________________________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-

http://www.studiosus.nl/


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). GrowthPlus2 (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-

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


‘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 DefinitionThe word entrepreneur is French and, literally translated, means “between-taker” or “go-

between.” 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-

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


success of the entrepreneur. Nevertheless, most entrepreneurs indicate independence and

personal satisfaction as the most important personal rewards.

2.2 The importance of entrepreneurshipMany 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 17th and 18th 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

regulations should not hinder the entrepreneurs to turn their ambitions into successful new 4 Information obtained from http://www.duyfken.com/voyagie/thevoyagie/voc-history.html.

-8-

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


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 self-

employment 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

innovations as well as the competition are the most relevant factors that link

entrepreneurship with economic growth. Carree, Van Stel, Thurik, and Wennekers

-9-


(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 pre-

entrepreneurial 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-


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-


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 self-

employment. 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-

PerceivedSelf-Efficacy

PerceivedFeasibility

SpecificDesirabilities

PerceivedDesirability

Propensityto Act Intentions


(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.

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-

Perceivedbarriers

Contextual factors

Perceivedsupport

Personality traits

Attitude towardsentrepreneurship

Endogenous variables

EntrepreneurialIntent

Internallocus

of control

Risktaking

propensity


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 educationEspecially 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-


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-

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

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


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-


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-

http://www.area010.nl/

http://www.lerenondernemen.nl/


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-

http://www.gesis.org/en/data_service/eurobarometer/


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 entrepre-

neurship? 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 modelThe 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).

Figure 4: Research model.

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-

Risk taking propensity

Participation in entrepreneurship

education


Entrepreneurial intentions

Proactive personality

H1+

H7+

H6+

H5+

H8+

H4+

Perceived behavioral control

Subjective norm H2+

H3+


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 procedureThe 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 Maastricht10, 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-


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 HypothesesThe 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

influence their attitudes towards entrepreneurship, if they did not participate in UM

-28-


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 InstrumentThe 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

process that a five-point scale for question 32 (Do you plan to be self-employed in the

-29-


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 pre-

test. 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 AnalysisSince 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-

http://www.studentenonderzoek.com/


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 valuesA 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 analysisWith 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.

62 3,00 ,789 ,100 2,80 3,2047 3,28 ,949 ,138 3,00 3,56

109 3,12 ,868 ,083 2,95 3,2862 ,56 ,500 ,063 ,44 ,6947 ,74 ,441 ,064 ,62 ,87

109 ,64 ,482 ,046 ,55 ,7362 1,6129 ,39206 ,04979 1,5133 1,712547 2,4113 ,89067 ,12992 2,1498 2,6729

109 1,9572 ,76322 ,07310 1,8123 2,102162 4,7151 ,89136 ,11320 4,4887 4,941447 5,2872 ,83890 ,12237 5,0409 5,5335

109 4,9618 ,91079 ,08724 4,7889 5,134762 4,8710 ,80823 ,10265 4,6657 5,076247 5,3234 ,69351 ,10116 5,1198 5,5270

109 5,0661 ,79024 ,07569 4,9160 5,216162 3,8656 ,74281 ,09434 3,6770 4,054247 4,2482 ,56238 ,08203 4,0831 4,4133

109 4,0306 ,69469 ,06654 3,8987 4,162562 4,0403 ,98990 ,12572 3,7889 4,291747 4,8936 1,00508 ,14661 4,5985 5,1887

109 4,4083 1,07887 ,10334 4,2034 4,613162 5,5242 ,92960 ,11806 5,2881 5,760347 5,8404 ,81498 ,11888 5,6011 6,0797

109 5,6606 ,89204 ,08544 5,4912 5,8299

No participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.Total

age

gender

entreint

attentre

proper

risk

pbc

subnorm

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

95% Confidence Interval forMean

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-


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.

Are you currently self-employed?

95,41

4,590

20

40

60

80

100

120

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

Per

cent

age

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

5,50

38,5344,04

11,93

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

VeryImprobable

QuiteImprobable

QuiteProbable

VeryProbable

Perc

enta

ge

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

be combined with the other entrepreneurial intentions questions. The three questions

combined, resulted in the highest Cronbach’s alpha (0.848).

-33-


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 Cronbach's Alpha N items Cronbach's Alpha N itemsEntrepreneurial Intentions 0.848 3Attitude towards entrepreneurship 0.722 6Perceived behavioral control 0.764 4Subjective norm 0.635 3 0.763 2Risk taking propensity 0.402 5 0.542 3Proactive personality 0.776 5

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

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.

1 ,214* ,292** ,062 ,158 ,053 ,158 ,130 ,172,026 ,002 ,519 ,100 ,583 ,102 ,177 ,073

,214* 1 ,185 ,324** ,186 ,287** ,079 ,319** ,124,026 ,055 ,001 ,053 ,003 ,413 ,001 ,198,292** ,185 1 ,578** ,520** ,505** ,301** ,609** ,357**,002 ,055 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000,062 ,324** ,578** 1 ,313** ,645** ,249** ,641** ,414**,519 ,001 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,009 ,000 ,000,158 ,186 ,520** ,313** 1 ,285** ,274** ,394** ,176,100 ,053 ,000 ,001 ,003 ,004 ,000 ,067,053 ,287** ,505** ,645** ,285** 1 ,352** ,678** ,430**,583 ,003 ,000 ,000 ,003 ,000 ,000 ,000,158 ,079 ,301** ,249** ,274** ,352** 1 ,264** ,298**,102 ,413 ,001 ,009 ,004 ,000 ,005 ,002,130 ,319** ,609** ,641** ,394** ,678** ,264** 1 ,261**,177 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,005 ,006,172 ,124 ,357** ,414** ,176 ,430** ,298** ,261** 1,073 ,198 ,000 ,000 ,067 ,000 ,002 ,006

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)

age

gender

entreint

attentre

part

proper

risk

pbc

subnorm

age gender entreint attentre part proper risk pbc subnorm

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

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

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-


27 35 6269,2% 50,0% 56,9%

12 35 47

30,8% 50,0% 43,1%

39 70 109100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Count% within genderCount% within gender

Count% within gender

No participation inentrepreneurship education

Participation inentrepreneurship education

Total

Female Male Total

Figure 9: Participation * Gender cross-tabulation.

Apart from the correlations statistics, figure 9 displays a cross tabulation table. This cross-

tabulation 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 testingFor 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-


Model Summary

,725a ,525 ,507 ,53590Model1

R R SquareAdjustedR Square

Std. Error ofthe Estimate

Predictors: (Constant), part, subnorm, pbc, attentrea.

ANOVAb

33,044 4 8,261 28,765 ,000a

29,868 104 ,28762,911 108

RegressionResidualTotal

Model1

Sum ofSquares df Mean Square F Sig.

Predictors: (Constant), part, subnorm, pbc, attentrea.

Dependent Variable: entreintb.

Coefficientsa

-,784 ,377 -2,080 ,040,196 ,078 ,234 2,498 ,014,108 ,064 ,127 1,703 ,092,217 ,065 ,306 3,351 ,001,467 ,113 ,305 4,123 ,000

(Constant)attentresubnormpbcpart

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: entreinta.

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-



H1+ (0.234)

H4+ (0.305)


Subjective normH2+ (0.127)

H3+ (0.306)


education


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^

Intent Intent Intent Intent Intent Intent Intent Intent Intent Intent IntentAttitude towards entrepreneurship 0,578** 0,257* 0,234* 0,286** 0,412** 0,230* 0,232*Subjective norm 0,357** 0,144 0,127 0,188** 1,121 0,124 0,115Perceived behavioural control 0,609** 0,406** 0,306** 0,436** 0,303** 0,300** 0,300**Participation in entrepreneurship education 0,520** 0,305** 0,316** 0,312** 0,370** 0,305** 0,296**Proactive personality 0,013 0,001Risk taking propensity 0,048

Adjusted R Square 0,328 0,119 0,365 0,264 0,432 0,507 0,482 0,498 0,459 0,502 0,499^Standardized beta coefficients are shown*p<0.05 **p<0.01

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 F-

test checks whether to two constructs have similar effects:

H3a: β3=β1 vs. HA: β3≠β1

To test β3=β1, β1 is substituted for β3. In order to perform the F-test, a reduced model is

computed with a new variable Z=X3+X1. The test statistics for the reduced model are shown

in Appendix D (4). To compute the F-statistics the following formula is used:

Fc=SSER-SSEc / (SSEc / (n-k-1)) Reject if Fc>Fα

-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 F0.10=2.75; the data provide not enough evidence for

rejecting the hypothesis β3=β1 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-


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.

Model Summary

,645a ,416 ,405 ,70249Model1



Predictors: (Constant), risk, propera.

ANOVAb

37,280 2 18,640 37,771 ,000a

52,311 106 ,49389,591 108


Model1



Dependent Variable: attentreb.

Coefficientsa

1,115 ,508 2,196 ,030,733 ,091 ,636 8,018 ,000,033 ,104 ,026 ,322 ,748

(Constant)properrisk

Model1

B Std. Error


Beta


t Sig.

Dependent Variable: attentrea.

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

-40-



Subjective norm

(0.186)

(0.390)H6+ (0.026)

(-0.017)

H5+ (0.636)

(0.307)




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

Regression models^

Attentr Attentr Attentr Attentr Attentr AttentrProactive personality 0,645** 0,636** 0,573** 0,307** 0,309**Risk taking propensity 0,249** 0,026 -0,003 -0,017 -0,027Subjective norm 0,168* 0,186* 0,183*Perceived behavioural control 0,390** 0,370**Participation in entrepreneurship education 0,054

Adjusted R Square 0,410 0,053 0,405 0,422 0,502 0,499^Standardized beta coefficients are shown*p<0.05 **p<0.01

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,

although it does affect the entrepreneurial intentions significantly (p<0.01). Apparently,

-41-


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.

Model Summary

,340a ,116 ,099 ,472Model1




ANOVAb

3,092 2 1,546 6,930 ,001a

23,642 106 ,22326,734 108


Model1



Dependent Variable: partb.

Coefficientsa

-,828 ,341 -2,424 ,017,135 ,061 ,215 2,204 ,030,142 ,070 ,198 2,034 ,044


Model1

B Std. Error


Beta


t Sig.

Dependent Variable: parta.

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

-42-

H7+ (0.215)

H8+ (0.198)




education


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

Regression models^

Part Part Part Part Part PartProactive personality 0,285** 0,215* 0,080 0,081 -0,074Risk taking propensity 0,274** 0,198* 0,193* 0,194 0,181Attitude towards entrepreneurship 0,213 0,214 0,091Subjective norm -0,005 0,030Perceived behavioural control 0,329**

Adjusted R Square 0,073 0,066 0,099 0,118 0,109 0,153^Standardized beta coefficients are shown*p<0.05 **p<0.01

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

personality and are more willing to take risks. Figure 16 shows test statistics, which stress the

-43-


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).

62 47,05 2917,0047 65,49 3078,00

10962 47,84 2966,0047 64,45 3029,00

10962 41,44 2569,0047 72,89 3426,00

10962 46,99 2913,5047 65,56 3081,50

10962 50,92 3157,0047 60,38 2838,00

10962 44,50 2759,0047 68,85 3236,00

109

partNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.Total

proper

risk

entreint

attentre

subnorm

pbc

N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Test Statisticsa

964,000 1013,000 616,000 960,500 1204,000 806,0002917,000 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

Mann-Whitney UWilcoxon WZAsymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

proper risk entreint attentre subnorm pbc

Grouping Variable: parta.

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).

Coefficientsa,b

,466 ,922 ,505 ,616,692 ,145 ,572 4,765 ,000,268 ,179 ,180 1,499 ,141


Model1

B Std. Error


Beta


t Sig.


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

Coefficientsa,b

1,774 ,649 2,735 ,008,699 ,119 ,634 5,859 ,000

-,120 ,130 -,100 -,925 ,359


Model1

B Std. Error


Beta


t Sig.


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

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:

ATTENTREest= β0 + (βproper*proper) + (βrisk*risk) = 1,115 + (0,733*proper) + (0,033*risk)

-45-


PARTest= β0 + (βproper*proper) + (βrisk*risk) = -0,828 + (0,135*proper) + (0,142*risk)

Model Summary

,651a ,424 ,402 ,59019Model1



Predictors: (Constant), PARTest, subnorm, pbc,ATTENTREest

a.

ANOVAb

26,686 4 6,672 19,153 ,000a

36,225 104 ,34862,911 108


Model1


Predictors: (Constant), PARTest, subnorm, pbc, ATTENTREesta.


Coefficientsa

-,445 ,760 -,586 ,559-,064 ,209 -,049 -,307 ,760,148 ,072 ,173 2,059 ,042,352 ,072 ,498 4,912 ,000,768 ,660 ,170 1,164 ,247

(Constant)ATTENTREestsubnormpbcPARTest

Model1

B Std. Error


Beta


t Sig.


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 β-

coefficient (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-


regression model shows that perceived behavioural control does have the strongest influence

on entrepreneurial intentions.

*p<0.05 **p<0.01Figure 19: Final regression model.

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 participation-

intention 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

entrepreneurship construct, and a significant indirect effect of (0.215 + 0.198) * 0.305= 0.126

-47-



H1+ (0.234*)

H7+ (0.215*)

H6+ (0.026)

H5+ (0.636**)

H8+ (0.198*)

H4+ (0.305**)


Subjective norm H2+ (0.127)

H3+ (0.306**)


education




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 LimitationsThe 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 two-

item 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.

Third, multicollinearity between attitude towards entrepreneurship and perceived behavioural

control might have influenced their true contribution to the final model. Their strong

-48-


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-


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-


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-

http://www.babson.edu/entrep/fer/papers97/autio/aut1.htm

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf


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

%20to%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/

jer20034_en.pdf

-54-

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/employment_strategy/report_2003/jer20034_en.pdf

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/employment_strategy/report_2003/jer20034_en.pdf

http://www.entreworld.org/Bookstore/PDFs/RE-024.pdf

http://www.gemconsortium.org/download/1092304773890/Netherlands2002.pdf

http://www.gemconsortium.org/download/1092661114937/The%20Long%20Rd%20to%20Entre%20Society.pdf

http://www.gemconsortium.org/download/1092661114937/The%20Long%20Rd%20to%20Entre%20Society.pdf


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



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-

http://www.rebeqi.org/ViewFile.aspx?itemID=212


http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/employment_analysis/short_term_trends_eu_empl_growth.pdf

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/employment_analysis/short_term_trends_eu_empl_growth.pdf

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/entrepreneurship/green_paper/


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


http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/Research/2003/ICSB/papers/5.doc

Hisrich, R.D., & Peters, M.P. (2002). Entrepreneurship (5th 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-

http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/Research/2003/ICSB/papers/5.doc

http://www.tinbergen.nl/discussionpapers/00074.pdf

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


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 (7th

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-

http://apps.ez.nl/publicaties/pdfs/02O06.pdf

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

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


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 4th

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-

http://www.4x4entreprendre.org/files/presentation/2.8%20Government%20incentives%20-%20Bert%20Twaalfhoven.pdf

http://www.4x4entreprendre.org/files/presentation/2.8%20Government%20incentives%20-%20Bert%20Twaalfhoven.pdf

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

http://www.usasbe.org/knowledge/proceedings/1997/P009Reitan.PDF


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 21st 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://www.area010.nl



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

http://www.entreworld.org

http://www.kauffman.org/

http://www.lerenondernemen.nl


-59-


http://www.lerenondernemen.nl/

http://www.kauffman.org/

http://www.entreworld.org/

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



http://www.area010.nl/


http://www.usasbe.org/knowledge/proceedings/1999/winslow.pdf


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-

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


strongly disagree

moderately disagree

slightly disagree

neutral

slightly agree

moderately agree

strongly agree

1 Starting my own business sounds attractive to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 72 I can spot a good opportunity long before others can 1 2 3 4 5 6 73 To start my own company would probably be the best way for me to

take advantage of my education1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 I excel at identifying opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 75 I am confident that I would succeed if I started my own business 1 2 3 4 5 6 76 I personally consider entrepreneurship to be a highly desirable

career alternative for people with my education1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 It would be easy for me to start my own business 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 Nothing is more exiting than seeing my ideas turn into reality 1 2 3 4 5 6 79 I would rather found a new company than be the manager of an

existing one1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

strongly disagree

moderately disagree

slightly disagree

neutral

slightly agree

moderately agree

strongly agree

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13 I enjoy facing and overcoming obstacles to my ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 714 My family and friends support me to start my own business 1 2 3 4 5 6 715 I have the skills and capabilities required to succeed as an

entrepreneur 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18 Entrepreneurship cannot be taught 1 2 3 4 5 6 719 I love to challenge the status quo 1 2 3 4 5 6 720 In my university, there is a well functioning support infrastructure to

support the start-up of new firms1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Continue

-63-


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

Bad -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Good

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

Bad -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Good

24 Overall I consider an entrepreneurship career as

Bad -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Good

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

Very unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 Very likely

26 When I travel I like to take new routes Very unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 Very likely

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


29 Have you ever participated in any form of entrepreneurship education? Yes No

30 Have you ever participated in entrepreneurship education at the UM? (e.g. Advanced Business Innovation, Small Business Management and Accounting)

Yes No

31 Have you ever participated in entrepreneurship courses from Hoogstarters

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

Yes No

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

Very probable

Quite probable

Quite improbable

Very improbable

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? …. %

Just a couple more questions to go…

-64-


35 What is your age? <20 20-21 22-23 24-25 >25

36 Please indicate your gender Male Female

37 Are you currently self-employed? 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 No

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

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 [email protected]. Thanks again for your cooperation!

Wouter Duijn

-65-

mailto:[email protected]


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)


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)


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)


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 start-

up 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-

Question Question code Response format Items in reverse scoring Items requiring consistency analysis Construct measures SPSS NAME1 AE4 1 to 7 Attitude towards entrepreneurship attentr2 P5 1 to 7 Proactive personality proper3 PBC3 1 to 7 Perceived behavioural control pbc4 P3 1 to 7 Proactive personality proper5 PBC1 1 to 7 Perceived behavioural control pbc6 AE5 1 to 7 Attitude towards entrepreneurship attentr7 PBC2 1 to 7 Perceived behavioural control pbc8 P2 1 to 7 Proactive personality proper9 AE3 1 to 7 Attitude towards entrepreneurship attentr

10 AE2 1 to 7 reverse scoring Attitude towards entrepreneurship attentr11 AEE2 1 to 7 Attitude towards entrepr.edu attedu12 AEE3 1 to 7 Attitude towards entrepr.edu attedu13 P1 1 to 7 Proactive personality proper14 SN1 1 to 7 deleted with internal consistency check Subjective norm subnorm15 PBC4 1 to 7 Perceived behavioural control pbc16 AEE4 1 to 7 Attitude towards entrepr.edu attedu17 AE1 1 to 7 Attitude towards entrepreneurship attentr18 AEE6 1 to 7 reverse scoring Attitude towards entrepr.edu attedu19 P4 1 to 7 Proactive personality proper20 AEE5 1 to 7 Attitude towards entrepr.edu attedu21 AEE1 1 to 7 Attitude towards entrepr.edu attedu22 SN2 -3 to +3 Subjective norm subnorm23 SN3 -3 to +3 Subjective norm subnorm24 AE6 -3 to +3 Attitude towards entrepreneurship attentr25 R1 1 to 5 deleted with internal consistency check Risk taking propensity risk26 R2 1 to 5 Risk taking propensity risk27 R3 1 to 5 Risk taking propensity risk28 R4 1 to 5 Risk taking propensity risk29 U1 yes/no check question Participation in entrepr.edu -30 U2 yes/no combined with question 31 Participation in entrepr.edu part31 U3 yes/no combined with question 30 Participation in entrepr.edu part32 EI2 1 to 4 reverse scoring Entrepreneurial Intentions entrint33 EI3 0-100% recoding into 4 groups (0-25;26-50;51-75;76-100) Entrepreneurial Intentions entrint34 EI4 0-100% recoding into 4 groups (0-25;26-50;51-75;76-100) Entrepreneurial Intentions entrint35 G2 1 to 5 General age36 G1 male/female General gender37 EI1 yes/no check question Entrepreneurial Intentions -38 SE1 yes/no combined with question 39 Self-employed parents selfpar39 SE2 yes/no combined with question 38 Self-employed parents selfpar40 G3 yes/no check question General -41 R5 0-100€ recoding, deleted with internal consistency check Risk taking propensity risk42 G4 email General -


Appendix D: Statistics output

1. Omitted variables statistics

Descriptives

62 3,00 ,789 ,100 2,80 3,2047 3,28 ,949 ,138 3,00 3,56

109 3,12 ,868 ,083 2,95 3,2862 ,56 ,500 ,063 ,44 ,6947 ,74 ,441 ,064 ,62 ,87

109 ,64 ,482 ,046 ,55 ,7362 1,6129 ,39206 ,04979 1,5133 1,712547 2,4113 ,89067 ,12992 2,1498 2,6729

109 1,9572 ,76322 ,07310 1,8123 2,102162 4,7151 ,89136 ,11320 4,4887 4,941447 5,2872 ,83890 ,12237 5,0409 5,5335

109 4,9618 ,91079 ,08724 4,7889 5,134762 3,3968 ,99342 ,12616 3,1445 3,649147 3,4979 1,16907 ,17053 3,1546 3,8411

109 3,4404 1,06867 ,10236 3,2375 3,643362 ,35 ,482 ,061 ,23 ,4847 ,49 ,505 ,074 ,34 ,64

109 ,41 ,495 ,047 ,32 ,5162 4,8710 ,80823 ,10265 4,6657 5,076247 5,3234 ,69351 ,10116 5,1198 5,5270

109 5,0661 ,79024 ,07569 4,9160 5,216162 3,8656 ,74281 ,09434 3,6770 4,054247 4,2482 ,56238 ,08203 4,0831 4,4133

109 4,0306 ,69469 ,06654 3,8987 4,162562 4,0403 ,98990 ,12572 3,7889 4,291747 4,8936 1,00508 ,14661 4,5985 5,1887

109 4,4083 1,07887 ,10334 4,2034 4,613162 5,5242 ,92960 ,11806 5,2881 5,760347 5,8404 ,81498 ,11888 5,6011 6,0797

109 5,6606 ,89204 ,08544 5,4912 5,8299

No participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.TotalNo participation entre. edu.Participation entre. edu.Total

age

gender

entreint

attentre

attedu

selfpar

proper

risk

pbc

subnorm

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

95% Confidence Interval forMean

Correlations

1 ,214* ,292** ,062 -,049 ,158 -,029 ,053 ,158 ,130 ,172,026 ,002 ,519 ,612 ,100 ,761 ,583 ,102 ,177 ,073

,214* 1 ,185 ,324** -,036 ,186 -,113 ,287** ,079 ,319** ,124,026 ,055 ,001 ,707 ,053 ,243 ,003 ,413 ,001 ,198,292** ,185 1 ,578** ,152 ,520** ,235* ,505** ,301** ,609** ,357**,002 ,055 ,000 ,115 ,000 ,014 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000,062 ,324** ,578** 1 ,205* ,313** ,076 ,645** ,249** ,641** ,414**,519 ,001 ,000 ,032 ,001 ,429 ,000 ,009 ,000 ,000

-,049 -,036 ,152 ,205* 1 ,047 ,035 ,179 ,106 ,173 ,175,612 ,707 ,115 ,032 ,627 ,720 ,062 ,275 ,072 ,069,158 ,186 ,520** ,313** ,047 1 ,135 ,285** ,274** ,394** ,176,100 ,053 ,000 ,001 ,627 ,161 ,003 ,004 ,000 ,067

-,029 -,113 ,235* ,076 ,035 ,135 1 ,148 ,017 ,132 ,184,761 ,243 ,014 ,429 ,720 ,161 ,126 ,862 ,170 ,055,053 ,287** ,505** ,645** ,179 ,285** ,148 1 ,352** ,678** ,430**,583 ,003 ,000 ,000 ,062 ,003 ,126 ,000 ,000 ,000,158 ,079 ,301** ,249** ,106 ,274** ,017 ,352** 1 ,264** ,298**,102 ,413 ,001 ,009 ,275 ,004 ,862 ,000 ,005 ,002,130 ,319** ,609** ,641** ,173 ,394** ,132 ,678** ,264** 1 ,261**,177 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,072 ,000 ,170 ,000 ,005 ,006,172 ,124 ,357** ,414** ,175 ,176 ,184 ,430** ,298** ,261** 1,073 ,198 ,000 ,000 ,069 ,067 ,055 ,000 ,002 ,006

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)

age

gender

entreint

attentre

attedu

part

selfpar

proper

risk

pbc

subnorm

age gender entreint attentre attedu part selfpar proper risk pbc subnorm



-70-


2 . Entrepreneurial intentions Cronbach’s alpha statistics

One-Sample Statistics

109 2,6239 ,76726 ,07349109 1,3303 ,79413 ,07606109 1,9174 1,02856 ,09852109 1,9572 ,76322 ,07310

Entrepreneurial Intentions 1Entrepreneurial Intentions 2Entrepreneurial Intentions 3Entrepreneurial Intentions Average

N Mean Std. DeviationStd. Error

Mean

One-Sample Test

1,685 108 ,095 ,12385 -,0218 ,2695-15,378 108 ,000 -1,16972 -1,3205 -1,0190-5,913 108 ,000 -,58257 -,7778 -,3873-7,425 108 ,000 -,54281 -,6877 -,3979

Entrepreneurial Intentions 1Entrepreneurial Intentions 2Entrepreneurial Intentions 3Entrepreneurial Intentions Average

t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean

Difference Lower Upper

95% ConfidenceInterval of the

Difference

Test Value = 2.5

Reliability Statistics

,848 3

Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items

Item-Total Statistics

3,2477 2,892 ,675 ,8324,5413 2,732 ,716 ,7953,9541 1,896 ,808 ,714

Entrepreneurial Intentions 1Entrepreneurial Intentions 2Entrepreneurial Intentions 3

Scale Mean ifItem Deleted

ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted

CorrectedItem-TotalCorrelation

Cronbach'sAlpha if Item

Deleted

-71-


3. Risk taking propensity question correlationsCorrelations

1 -,024 -,013 ,230* ,064,808 ,897 ,016 ,508

-,024 1 ,464** ,221* ,135,808 ,000 ,021 ,161

-,013 ,464** 1 ,251** -,102,897 ,000 ,008 ,292,230* ,221* ,251** 1 ,139,016 ,021 ,008 ,150,064 ,135 -,102 ,139 1,508 ,161 ,292 ,150

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)

Risk-taking propensity 1





Risk-takingpropensity 1







-72-


4. Reduced model ZModel Summary

,725a ,525 ,512 ,53341Model1



Predictors: (Constant), Z, subnorm, parta.

ANOVAb

33,036 3 11,012 38,703 ,000a

29,875 105 ,28562,911 108


Model1


Predictors: (Constant), Z, subnorm, parta.


Coefficientsa

-,790 ,374 -2,115 ,037,106 ,062 ,124 1,716 ,089,469 ,112 ,306 4,178 ,000,207 ,033 ,490 6,337 ,000

(Constant)subnormpartZ

Model1

B Std. Error


Beta


t Sig.


Z= Perceived behavioural control + attitude towards entrepreneurship

-73-


5. Mann-Whitney U test

Ranks

34 20,60 700,5013 32,88 427,504734 22,34 759,5013 28,35 368,504734 19,43 660,5013 35,96 467,504734 21,57 733,5013 30,35 394,504734 21,38 727,0013 30,85 401,004734 20,29 690,0013 33,69 438,0047

edudummyUM participantHoogstarters participantTotalUM participantHoogstarters participantTotalUM participantHoogstarters participantTotalUM participantHoogstarters participantTotalUM participantHoogstarters participantTotalUM participantHoogstarters participantTotal

proper

risk

entreint

attentre

subnorm

pbc

N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Test Statisticsa

105,500 164,500 65,500 138,500 132,000 95,000700,500 759,500 660,500 733,500 727,000 690,000

-2,762 -1,367 -3,744 -1,967 -2,185 -3,005,006 ,172 ,000 ,049 ,029 ,003

Mann-Whitney UWilcoxon WZAsymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

proper risk entreint attentre subnorm pbc

Grouping Variable: edudummya.

-74-


6. Model two with participants in entrepreneurship education

Model Summary

,646a ,418 ,391 ,65458Model1

part = Participationentre. edu.(Selected)

R

R SquareAdjustedR Square



ANOVAb,c

13,520 2 6,760 15,777 ,000a

18,853 44 ,42832,372 46


Model1




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

Coefficientsa,b

,466 ,922 ,505 ,616,692 ,145 ,572 4,765 ,000,268 ,179 ,180 1,499 ,141


Model1

B Std. Error


Beta


t Sig.


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

-75-


7. Model two with non-participants in entrepreneurship education

Model Summary

,611a ,373 ,352 ,71752Model1

part = Noparticipationentre. edu.(Selected)

R

R SquareAdjustedR Square



ANOVAb,c

18,091 2 9,045 17,570 ,000a

30,375 59 ,51548,466 61


Model1




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

Coefficientsa,b

1,774 ,649 2,735 ,008,699 ,119 ,634 5,859 ,000

-,120 ,130 -,100 -,925 ,359


Model1

B Std. Error


Beta


t Sig.


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

-76-

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Op deze domeinnaam is nog … · Web view2.1 Definition The word entrepreneur...

Documents

Transcript of TABLE OF CONTENTS - Op deze domeinnaam is nog … · Web view2.1 Definition The word entrepreneur...