Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies: Article Information

Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies
An extended model of theory of planned behaviour: Entrepreneurial intention,

regional institutional infrastructure and perceived gender discrimination in India
Sushil Kumar, Satyasiba Das,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Sushil Kumar, Satyasiba Das, (2019) "An extended model of theory of planned behaviour:
Entrepreneurial intention, regional institutional infrastructure and perceived gender discrimination
in India", Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, https://doi.org/10.1108/
JEEE-09-2018-0089
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 07:20 10 April 2019 (PT)
Permanent link to this document:

https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-09-2018-0089
Downloaded on: 10 April 2019, At: 07:20 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 89 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:401304 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2053-4604.htm
Theory of
An extended model of theory of planned
planned behaviour behaviour
Entrepreneurial intention, regional institutional

infrastructure and perceived gender
discrimination in India Received 4 September 2018
Sushil Kumar and Satyasiba Das Revised 12 December 2018
Accepted 13 December 2018
Department of Business Policy and Strategic Management,
Indian Institute of Management, Raipur, India
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to provide an extended model of the theory of planned behaviour
(TPB) and examine how institutional infrastructure and two social factors – peer effect and gender
discrimination – determine entrepreneurial intention in emerging economies such as India.
Design/methodology/approach – Using a structural equation modelling (SEM) approach, the proposed
model is tested on a sample of 265 post-graduate students from the Indian Institute of Management campuses in
India. Perceived gender discrimination is used as a grouping variable to test its impact in the model.
Findings – The study found that peer effect has positive association with an individual attitude towards
entrepreneurship. It also found positive moderating effect of institutional infrastructure on entrepreneurial
intention in a regional entrepreneurial ecosystem, but in case of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, the result is non-
conclusive. Further, our results establish that gender discrimination has varying influence but remains a
significant factor to choose entrepreneurial career in emerging countries such as India.
Research limitations/implications – The study adds to the understanding of drivers or antecedents to
entrepreneurial intention, especially in emerging economy context and finds its usefulness in country such as
India. It contributes to the existing model by empirically proving the role of peer effect and institutional
infrastructure in emerging economies which are characterised by weak institutions and inadequate access to
resources to start and sustain any entrepreneurial activity.
Practical implications – The results make several implications for academic institutions, entrepreneurial
ecosystem stakeholders and policy makers in emerging economies. The academic institutions, universities
and incubation hubs can consider promoting a peer-group culture that strengthens individual’s EI in
emerging economies. Policy makers and stakeholders should build an encouraging entrepreneurial ecosystem
with adequate institutional infrastructure to promote entrepreneurship.
Originality/value – The authors extend research on entrepreneurial intention beyond individual factors
(personal-level variables) and examine the contingent role of institutional infrastructure and socio-cultural
factors (peer effect and gender discrimination). Whilst TPB successfully predicted entrepreneurial intention in
Western settings, this study provides strong empirical evidence to this research in emerging countries.
Keywords Theory of planned behaviour, Emerging economies, Entrepreneurial intention,
Gender discrimination, Institutional infrastructure, Peer effect
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Journal of Entrepreneurship in
The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) is a widely accepted tool to predict Emerging Economies
intention and behaviour across a variety of settings and has been popularly used to examine © Emerald Publishing Limited
2053-4604
the entrepreneurial intention (Kolvereid and Isaksen, 2006; Solesvik et al., 2012). Individuals DOI 10.1108/JEEE-09-2018-0089
JEEE or groups display due intentions after examining the desirability (perception of an
individual appeal to start a business) and the feasibility (the degree to which one feels
capable of doing so) of choosing entrepreneurship as an individual career (Lee et al., 2011;
Krueger et al., 2000). Schlaegel and Koenig (2014) extensively reviewed the previous studies
on TPB and entrepreneurship event model (EEM) (Shapero and Sokol, 1982) in various
regions/countries. Despite its wide acceptance and application, many scholars believe that
research on entrepreneurial intention (EI) needs to focus beyond individual factors
(personal-level variables) and should explore the contingent role of the entrepreneurial
ecosystem where entrepreneurs receive required resources to start their ventures (Fayolle
and Liñán, 2014; Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014; Roundy, 2017). In response to this theoretical
limitation, a majority of entrepreneurship research has studied the entrepreneurial
ecosystem in developed countries (Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014), with a very limited focus on
emerging countries like India (Bruton et al., 2008). Mustafa et al. (2016) argue that such
studies will be necessary, because in emerging countries, access to resources and

institutional support is limited.
The region-specific factor on entrepreneurship is a subject of interest in many
emerging countries such as in India (Iakovleva et al., 2011). These studies suggest that
regional knowledge and relationship with regional actors is the key to success.
Institutional frameworks in such countries are significantly different from the regions of
popular studies. As a result, the moderating role of institutions had received least
attention, particularly in previous TPB or EEM studies (Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014).
Further, gender-specific factors are unique to many regions, and social discrimination
has been a cause of concern particularly in India (Jha et al., 2018). The role of socio-
cultural factors, social structures and their interactions is important and unique to many
regions. To this end, this study provides an extended a model of TPB and examines how
institutional infrastructure and social factors such as peer effect and gender
discrimination determine EI in India. Choice of these social factors has contextual reasons
specific to India but also have wider implications in emerging countries (Audretsch et al.,
2015; Roundy, 2017).
The rationale in support of our model is as follows. The social, economic and policy
environment in which entrepreneurs operate mostly affect their entrepreneurial tendency
(Spigel, 2017; Yao et al., 2016). Studies suggest that the majority of entrepreneurs set up
businesses in their home regions or familiar regions where they receive the required
resources to run the business. Interpersonal relations and support system also encourage an
individual intention to start and sustain business in the familiar region. For that reason,
effective functioning of regional institutions is a prerequisite for entrepreneurship and
extensively describe country-level differences (Alvedalen and Boschma, 2017; Ghani et al.,
2014). Thus, institutions act as crucial element in an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Institutional
infrastructure attributes in an entrepreneurial ecosystem consist of universities, support
system and facilities, policy and governance which have tangible presence in the region
(Spigel, 2017).
The social aspect of such ecosystem highlights the interpersonal interaction
amongst various relevant actors and acts as a positive determinant for entry into
entrepreneurship. The interaction with familiar actors largely influences one’s decision.
Interaction with peers (group that belongs to same age group, share similar interests,
belong to the same university or workplace or are a part of the same socio-cultural
category) helps in determining specific intention. Kacperczyk (2013) suggests that such
social influence facilitates the venture creation process by providing new information
and by reducing uncertainties. Such social influence of peer effect is also well
documented in economics (Henkel and Block, 2013), consumer behaviour in marketing Theory of
(Zhang et al., 2018) and other entrepreneurship-related studies (Nanda and Sørensen, planned
2010). Kacperczyk (2013) reported that such interaction is a critical factor for one’s choice
to choose entrepreneurship as a career. However, the social influence on EI is least
behaviour
explored in emerging economies (Bruton et al., 2008).
Similarly gender role has received much acclamation in studies of the entrepreneurial
ecosystem. Studies suggest that the evolving and successful entrepreneurial ecosystems
face challenges in providing gender equality and find it tough to minimise discrimination
based on gender roles across the globe (Berger and Kuckertz, 2016). Many empirical
studies also demonstrated different forms of social discrimination for women in high-
technology entrepreneurship. Despite tremendous progress, social discrimination
prevails, and it has been a cause of concern in emerging economies (Gupta et al., 2009; Jha
et al., 2018; Rauth Bhardwaj, 2014). For example a recent study by the Dell Global Women
Entrepreneur Leaders Scorecard[1] indicates that India is the worst performer for women
entrepreneurs to decide and run a successful business (Srivastava and Misra, 2017).
There is a continuous struggle for setting up the culture for women entrepreneurs in
India (Jha et al., 2018).
The rationale behind integrating these two social factors into TPB is that social influence
has a stronger effect on EI in a spatially closed setting (Kacperczyk, 2013). Studies that
followed Kacperczyk (2013) also provide the interconnection between social influence and
institutions. To this end, the proposed extended model of TPB is advancing our
understanding of the contextual role of institutions and social influence in an integrated
framework in the Indian context. The study is based on the data from senior post-graduate
students from four top management institutes in India who had shown interest towards
entrepreneurship. The organisation of this study is as follows. The following section
provides theoretical background and rationale to integrate institutional infrastructure and
social influence whilst examining the entrepreneurial intention. Next, we discuss research
method and report the results. Finally, the study presents the discussion of findings in the
Indian context and discusses limitations and suggestion for future research.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses

Entrepreneurship is the process of organisational emergence (Gartner et al., 1992). To this
end, entrepreneurial intention is the first in a series of factors that lead to organisational
formation. Ajzen (1991) describes intention as the immediate antecedent of a behaviour. An
intention towards a behaviour strongly indicates the formation of a particular behaviour. In
this context, the EI is described as an individual’s conviction and intention to start a new
business after screening and planning for the future.
The EI has been widely researched and explained through a number of theories,
namely, TPB and EEM. TPB has been accepted in the study of human behaviour across
different management functions. Past studies also widely used TPB to describe
entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurial activities (Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014).
Theoretically, TPB assumes that intention is one of the essential determinants of an
individual’s behaviour and is determined by three psychological constructs: attitude
toward behaviour, subjective norms and perceived behaviour control (PBC) (Ajzen, 1991).
Attitude refers to a subjective assessment of the consequences of one’s intended
behaviour that reflects how much one likes or dislikes. Subjective norms are the
variations in the perceived social expectations relevant to the people in the society.
Lastly, PBC is described as self-efficacy that reflects one’s belief and confidence in their
capabilities and ease of difficulty to perform a certain behaviour. PBC, otherwise known
JEEE as self-efficacy, describes how much difficulties an individual is perceived to face or
ready to face in starting a new venture (Ajzen, 1991).
After a careful review of existing literature using TPB, the study finds the following
missing link that substantiates the use of our renewed framework. A summary of the past
studies is presented in Table I that highlights the constructs and key findings. As discussed
in the Table I, limited studies used region and regional environment as a moderating
variable, with the exception of the study of Haus et al. (2013) and Kibler (2013). Other studies
extensively used various demographic variables, human capital, cultural differences as
moderators and mediators (Carr and Sequeira, 2007; Krueger and Carsrud, 1993; Liñán and
Chen, 2009). However, prior entrepreneurship literature has failed to devote attention to the
increasing role of peer effect and gender discrimination in a regional setting on individual’s
EI using TPB (Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014).
Considering the shortcoming, the proposed model of the study provides an extended theoretical
framework of TPB that explores influence of peer effect, perceived gender discrimination and
institutional infrastructure on individual EI. In the proposed model, peer effect and entrepreneurial
motivation influence attitude towards entrepreneurship which further influences EI.
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy also influences EI. Regional institutional infrastructure moderates the
relationship of attitude towards entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) and EI.
Finally, gender discrimination is used a grouping variable on each path of the model.
2.1 Entrepreneurial motivation, peer effect and attitude towards entrepreneurship

Attitude is a psychological tendency that reflects one’s favour or disfavour whilst evaluating
an action (Ajzen, 1991). Attitude towards entrepreneurship is explained as the degree to which
an individual has a positive or negative personal valuation towards entrepreneurship (Ajzen,
2001). The prominent measure of attitude towards entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial
behaviour reflects individual’s belief about the desirable or undesirable outcomes of
entrepreneurship (Esfandiar et al., 2017). If one’s attitude towards entrepreneurship is positive,
more likely she may initiate an entrepreneurial venture (Shook and Bratianu, 2010). If the
associated outcomes are desirable, one possesses stronger intention to perform that action and
associated behaviour. Though it is established elsewhere, we are re-establishing it again to
check its validity in the present study context of India:
H1. The attitude towards entrepreneurship positively influences the entrepreneurial
intention to start a new venture.
The development of attitude is a gradual process that is generally influenced by individual
motivations, societal and environmental factors (Krueger et al., 2000). Previous research has
identified the reasons for attitude formation to start a new venture. Entrepreneurial
motivation is one of reasons that influence one’s attitude to start a new venture.
Entrepreneurial motivation is the desire or tendency to organise, manipulate or master
organisations, individuals or ideas quickly, independently and effectively in
entrepreneurship (Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001). The topic of motivation is wide because it
involves a number of factors (e.g. desire for independence, passion, drive, need for
achievement, etc.) that may have varying influence on an individual’s attitude formation for
a venture creation (Solesvik, 2013). Although, regional factors may have some sparse
negative influence, entrepreneurial motivation will positively impact one’s attitude
formation towards entrepreneurship. This leads to the hypothesis as:
H1a. Entrepreneurial motivation is positively related to the development of attitude
towards entrepreneurship.
Theory of
Citation Mediator/Moderator Key findings planned
behaviour
Ajzen (1991) Intentions are assumed to capture the
motivational factors that influence an
individual’s behaviour. It is determined
by three independent antecedents:
attitude, social norm and PBC
Krueger and Carsrud EI, traits, demographics, economic Becoming self-employed is intentional,
(1993) climate and thus best predicted by intention
towards the behaviour, not by
attitudes, beliefs, personality or
demographics
Mathews and Moser Family background, gender, prior self- Family background, gender, prior self-
(1995) employment, experience
employment and experience have

indirect impact on EI
Kolvereid and EI, salient beliefs (autonomy, authority, Salient beliefs very well explain
Isaksen (2006) economic opportunity, self-realisation) attitude not entrepreneurial intentions
Carr and Sequeira Prior family business experience Prior family business serves as an
(2007) important intergenerational influence
on entrepreneurial intent
Van Gelderen et al. Autonomy, wealth, challenge, financial Entrepreneurial alertness receives
(2008) security, work load avoidance, consistent support and perseverance
perseverance, entrepreneurial alertness, lack support in explaining EI
self-efficacy, creativity
Liñán and Chen Human capital and other demographic Cultural and social particulars
(2009) variables indirectly affect intent to start a new
business
Engle et al. (2011) Regional clusters in 12 countries Both social norms and perceived self-
efficacy have significant effects on EI
all regional clusters across 12 countries
Moriano et al. (2012) Cultural differences (national Cross-cultural differences in the
differences) meaning of TPB components are
generally minor in nature, and hence,
TPB can be regarded a culture-
universal theory
Kibler (2013) Regional environment Objective regional environment has
indirect impact on EI
Solesvik (2013) Perceived entrepreneurial motivation, EI is higher in the countries with the
age, gender, parental self-employment low levels of GDP per capita. Education
is a motivator for entrepreneurial
motivation; students from higher
engineering institutions have more EI
Haus et al. (2013) Gender, region Gender significantly impacts all three
antecedents of EI. It also directly
impacts EI
Kautonen et al. (2015) Entrepreneurial intention EI and behaviour relationship maintain
regardless of age, gender, experience, Table I.
education, nature of entrepreneurial Theoretical
ambition progression in TPB
In earlier studies, social norm was used as one of the antecedents of EI in TPB model.
Subsequent empirical studies had found little explanatory effect of social norms on EI
(Esfandiar et al., 2017; Krueger et al., 2000; Shook and Bratianu, 2010). As a result, majority
of studies subsequently removed social norms from the explanatory model (Schlaegel and
JEEE Koenig, 2014). The existing literature has devoted less attention to the role of peers’
influence in impacting entrepreneurial career choices and decisions (Nanda and Sørensen,
2010). Instead of focusing on the wider phenomenon of social norms, the present study
specifically focuses on the role of peer effect on attitude towards entrepreneurship to start a
new venture.
The analysis of social interactions has emerged to be an important area of research in
different disciplines in management. The endogenous social or peer effects refer to the
propensity of an individual to behave and varies with the behaviour of the group (Manski,
1993). In different words, peer effect is described as the extent to which the attitudes, beliefs
and actions of an individual are affected by peers (Weber, 2012). It is the influence of the
group that belongs to same age group, share similar interests, belong to same university or
workplace or are a part of the same socio-cultural category that they represent (Nanda and
Sørensen, 2010). Given the fact that an individual spends a large amount of productive time
at the workplace, co-workers are very likely to influence his or her attitude and behaviour
(Elfenbein et al., 2010).
The influence of peers might affect how an individual makes a decision for
entrepreneurial career. In such setting, the influence of the peers’ career experience helps an
individual to learn either about the nature of entrepreneurship or regarding the market
conditions to begin a potential entrepreneurial career. Similarly, family and friends or role
models are more likely to influence the psychological tendency towards an entrepreneurial
career (Carr and Sequeira, 2007). The peer effect on entrepreneurial attitude formation in the
context of different regions can be understood with the example of the rise of Silicon Valley.
Saxenian (1990) explained that individuals employed in different firms in Silicon Valley
frequently moved between jobs, alternating between spells of entrepreneurship and
employment, and gained new knowledge. At the same time, they exposed their colleagues to
new ideas, networks and start-up experiences, and consequently, Silicon Valley had higher
rates of entrepreneurship than other regions of the USA. Based on the above arguments, the
study assumes that peer effect influences an individual’s attitude towards entrepreneurship.
Thus, the hypothesis:
H1b. Peer effect is positively related to the development of attitude towards
entrepreneurship.
2.2 Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) and entrepreneurial intention

ESE is described as one’s confidence in his/her ability to successfully complete
entrepreneurial roles and tasks (Chen et al., 1998). Past studies argued that higher self-
efficacy largely directs behaviour, determines further behavioural strategy and helps an
individual to increase perseverance in times of difficulties and challenges (Bandura, 1997).
Self-efficacy generates a self-belief in individuals to select a career option and take up any
challenges that may come on the way. Past studies have identified various entrepreneurial
self-efficacy factors that influence entrepreneurial career decisions. Kolvereid and Isaksen
(2006) have identified few major factors related to ESE affecting an individual’s EI, e.g.
coping with unexpected challenges, risk-taking, initiating investor relationship and
developing new product and market opportunities. Based on the preceding arguments, this
study assumes that individuals with high ESE may be more likely to start a new business
and sustain it in the long run. Through this hypothesis, the study intends to confirm the fact
in the Indian setting:
H2. ESE positively influences entrepreneurial intention to start a new venture.
2.3 Moderating effects of regional institutional infrastructure Theory of
Recent studies have discussed the need for conceptual clarity of EI in the contexts of planned
regional, temporal and social settings, especially in the emerging economics (Autio et al.,
2014; Zahra et al., 2014). Regions have emerged as incubators of new ideas, as they provide
behaviour
opportunities for entrepreneurial venture creation and are the source of valuable new
knowledge (Huggins and Williams, 2011). A successful regional entrepreneurial ecosystem
may positively influence residents to plan for an entrepreneurial career. Studies on regional
influence on entrepreneurship are limited (Spigel, 2017), and greater clarity is needed on how
institutional infrastructure influences the growth of EI at regional levels.
An effective entrepreneurial ecosystem may create more chances of success of ventures
or start-ups operating in that ecosystem. An entrepreneurial ecosystem is a group of actors
and factors that assist in creating productive entrepreneurship within a particular region
(Stam, 2015). The interaction of economic, institutional and all other important factors
influence the process of creating, discovering and exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities.

In addition, the elements such as networks of entrepreneurs, institutional infrastructure,
knowledge and support services predominantly determine the success of both newly created
ventures and success of an ecosystem (Stam, 2015). Asheim et al. (2011) posit that a firm’s
competitive advantage is created through the resources found within a regional
entrepreneurial ecosystem. Thus, the study assumes that an entrepreneurial ecosystem in a
particular region with its local institutions, market opportunities, resources and demand for
products highly influence an individual’s preference to become an entrepreneur.
The regional institutions widely affect different aspects of entrepreneurial development.
Brown and Mason (2017) restate that an individual constantly scans the institutional
support system available for venture creation and its growth within an entrepreneurial
ecosystem where he/she resides because institutions are one of the crucial aspects of an
ecosystem, influencing the actors and processes within the ecosystem. At the same time, the
networks, investment capital, mentors and skilled talent also largely strengthen the desire to
start a new venture in a particular region (Spigel, 2017). The role of institutional
infrastructure in development of entrepreneurship, especially in the emerging economies,
requires an increased attention for research because institutions either facilitates or
constrains entrepreneurship in regional settings. We argue that different forms of
institutional infrastructure (i.e. regional financial institutions, industry bodies, investors,
academic institutions, government agencies, media) may indirectly influence individuals
who intend to start a new business (Alvedalen and Boschma, 2017; Garud et al., 2002).
Entrepreneurs familiar with the ecosystem and institutional infrastructure may take less
time seeking, gathering or analysing information to start a new venture. Examining the role
of institutional infrastructure may reveal how these heterogeneous institutions play an
indirect role in development of EI in emerging countries.
In contrast, barriers or obstacles created due to failure or deficiencies in the regional
institutional infrastructure cause an individual to choose an alternate profession rather than
thinking of starting a business in the face of uncertainty and challenges (Aidis, 2005). These
barriers demotivate aspiring individuals to choose entrepreneurship as a career. Based on
the above arguments, we hypothesise that:
H3. The moderating role of institutional infrastructure in development of EI is
significant.
Regards to the contingent role of regional institutional infrastructure on the attitude towards
entrepreneurship and EI, existing literature suggests that infrastructures encourage
entrepreneurial activity and provide critical resources that an individual need to starts a new
JEEE business. Consequently, an individual exhibits higher intention to choose entrepreneurship as a
career (Spigel, 2017). Kibler (2013) posits that regional institutions as a part of entrepreneurial
ecosystem may affect individuals at the early phase of entrepreneurial process. For example,
academic institutions serve as a first point of contact in fostering the entrepreneurial attitude
and intention amongst students (Fayolle and Liñán, 2014; Mustafa et al., 2016). Thus,
collaboration with academic institutions facilitates entrepreneurial education in specific areas
such as marketing or accounting that strengthens an attitude in aspiring entrepreneurs to start
a new business. Thus, we hypothesise that:
H3a. An effective institutional infrastructure positively affects attitude towards

entrepreneurship and EI to start a new venture.
We advance the EI research by arguing the moderating effect of regional institutional
infrastructure on ESE and intention to start a new business. Past studies suggest that ESE
is a key contributor to EI and is developed and strengthened by the influence of different

environmental factors. (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993). We assume that effective institutional
infrastructure in the ecosystem strengthens the belief and confidence of individuals to take
up any challenges or face obstacles to begin a new business. Thus, highly supportive
regional institutional infrastructure will result into higher impact on relationship between
ESE and EI. Based on the arguments, we hypothesise that:
H3b. An effective institutional infrastructure positively affects the ESE and EIs to start
a new venture.
2.4 Role of perceived gender discrimination on entrepreneurial intention

Gender discrimination is said to occur when personnel decisions are based on gender, an
ascribed characteristic, rather than on an individual’s qualifications or job performance
(Gutek et al., 1996). Perceived discrimination is an individual’s perception that he or she is
treated differently or unfairly because of his or her group membership (Sanchez and Brock,
1996). When individual perceive gender discrimination, they believe that members of their
sex are systematically deprived at work relative to the other sex. Consistent with the theory
of collective relative deprivation, women who perceived that their organisation
discriminated against their own sex (i.e. group deprivation) expressed their feelings in
concrete ways, such as decreased self-efficacy and failure in their career (Gutek et al., 1996).
The existing research in the field of sociology, psychology and organisation behaviour
reflects that gender discrimination negatively affects an individual’s mental health
outcomes (e.g. depression, anxiety and psychological stress) and ultimately hampers theirs
effort to achieve economic goals (Foley et al., 2005).
Gender discrimination has been reported as a major concern for performance in various
existing literature such as Haslam et al. (2014), Marlow and Patton (2005), Snizek and Neil
(1992), Sexton and Bowman-Upton (1990) and Wright et al. (1995). Women are faced with
specific challenges that prevents them from choosing a new career and performing in the job
(Yap and Konrad, 2009). To the extreme, perceived gender discrimination creates doubts in
the minds of employees, particularly women, whether they are likely to achieve their
economic goals or desired outcomes (Herrbach and Mignonac, 2012). In this case, women feel
inherently marginalised, as well as express a devalued social identity (Tafjel and Turner,
1986). Gender discrimination does exist, and research designed to reveal evidence of it is
necessary. But what is also needed is a better understanding of an individual’s perceived
gender discrimination that may influence his or her decision to start a new business in
emerging countries. Based on the gap, this study argues that gender discrimination Theory of
moderates an individual’s intention to choose entrepreneurial career, particularly women planned
who desire to become an entrepreneur.
Entrepreneurship is primarily associated with masculine activities, and in such
behaviour
masculine environments, women get fewer possibilities to become entrepreneurs because of
gender-specific barriers (Verheul et al., 2012). The barriers faced by women entrepreneurs
vary depending on multiple factors. Bardasi et al. (2011) explain that barriers to women
entrepreneurship arises from existing cultural and institutional structures. In the case of
cultural barriers, it has varied effects on the performance of women entrepreneurs. The
labour market discrimination largely affects the prospects of starting a new business. Some
other common challenges female entrepreneurs face are barriers to bank credit, domination
by male officials, challenges because of norms of female seclusion and challenges in
accessing information. Most of these problems arise because these are channelled
predominantly through male networks, and female entrepreneurs are discriminated against
on the basis of their merit and ability to perform the task (Bird and Brush, 2002). This study
assumes that perceived gender discrimination has a moderating effect on individuals who
intend to start a new business. Emerging countries like India still struggle to set up an
encouraging culture for women entrepreneurs (Jha et al., 2018).
3. Methodology
3.1 Sample
The data were collected in early 2017 through a questionnaire survey of nearly 400 final-
year post-graduate students of Business Administration at four Indian Institute of
Management campuses in India. The participants were selected based on the condition that
he/she registered to any of the entrepreneurship-related courses or activities during his/her
post-graduate program. The entrepreneurship courses offered at the Indian Institutes of
Management not only focus on the academic teaching of the subject, but also proactively
helps students start their ventures through associate incubation centres. Such choice was to
ensure that the samples demonstrated some degree of EI (Krueger et al., 2000; Shinnar et al.,
2012). A self-administered machine-readable questionnaire in a sealed envelope was
distributed to students at the end of their entrepreneurship course, and subsequently
collected from respondents through post and at site. Due instruction was provided to the
respondent with the questionnaire, and confidentiality was maintained to remove any
possible sample-related biases.
The data are cleaned to check the completeness of answers. The final sample for the
study consisted of 265 respondents, out of all surveyed respondents. The demographic
distribution of the sample is as follows: 70 per cent of respondents are male; 64 per cent
respondents were in the age group of 18-24 years; 34 per cent were in the age group of 25-34
years; and only 2 per cent of respondents were above 35 years. In the sample, 59 per cent of
the participants had industry experience between 6 and 12 months; 35 per cent had
experience between 24 and 36 months; and remaining members had more than 48 months of
working experience. Nearly 29.5 per cent of the participants had a background in family
business and had been associated with the business in the past.
3.2 Measures description

Our constructs have the following characteristics:
EI is described as the state of mind that directs and guides an individual to create and
manage their entrepreneurial venture (Chen et al., 1998). The study used the measurement
scale earlier developed by Krueger (1993) and later modified by Drnovsek and Glas (2002) to
JEEE capture EI. EI has been measured as both categorical and continuous variable in previous
studies (Engle et al., 2011; Esfandiar et al., 2017; Kolvereid, 1996; Krueger, 1993; Lee and
Wong, 2004; Liñán and Chen, 2009). However, whilst choosing the measurement scale,
Krueger (1993) is considered more appropriate for this study. The scale provides a
subjective assessment of the participants’ intention to start a new venture in a two-point
scale of Yes/No (Cronbach’s a = 0.746).
Entrepreneurial motivation is the desire or tendency to organise, manipulate or master
organisations effectively during the venture creation process (Johnson, 1990; Solesvik, 2013).
It is measured through 10 items as proposed by Solesvik (2013). The respondents were
asked to rate the extent to which 10 reasons were important for them to make
entrepreneurship a career choice in a five-point Likert scale (Cronbach’s a = 0.796)
Peer effect as the definition suggests, “Peer effect” is the influence of a group of people of
similar age, share similar interests, belong to the same university or workplace or are a part
of the same socio-cultural group, on an individual, that alters their behaviour and attitudes
(Weber, 2012). The measurement scale used here assessed the influence of peer group on
individual intention. The seven items (Krueger et al., 2000) on a five-point Likert scale
measured agreeableness towards the peer effect (Cronbach’s a = 0.866)
Attitude towards entrepreneurship was measured using a scale developed by Gundry
and Welsch (2001) and later modified by Kolvereid and Isaksen (2006). It was measured
by five statements on a five-point Likert scale whereby one’s positiveness towards
entrepreneurship was assessed through a scale ranging from “extremely positive” to
“extremely negative” (Cronbach’s a = 0.753).
ESE is an individual’s belief that one can successfully accomplish a goal (Carr and
Sequeira, 2007). The respondents were presented with 18 items that capture the level of ESE.
The scale captured the confidence level in a five-point Likert scale (very little confidence –
complete confidence) (Cronbach’s a = 0.754).
Institutional infrastructure is part of the composite construct that captured
the regional competitiveness and conduciveness of starting and managing a new
venture effectively and easily. Considering the complexity of capturing regional
competitiveness towards new venture creation, only institutional factors were
considered in the present study. The factors include the financial institutions, industry
bodies, investors, academic institutions and role of social media that determine the
success of new ventures (Spigel, 2017; Stam, 2015). The construct was redeveloped
similar to the seven pillars of entrepreneurial ecosystem discussed by Stam (2015):
government agencies, financial institutions, media, industry bodies, investors,
academic institutions, non-governmental bodies. The respondents were presented with
seven statements along with a five-point Likert scale to capture their agreeableness to
impact of the above factors on entrepreneurial venture (Cronbach’s a = 0.753). After
running the confirmatory factor analysis, Cronbach’s a value for five items was found
satisfactory (> 0.650) here for this study presented in Table II.
Perceived gender discrimination is an individual’s perception that he or she is treated
differently or unfairly because of his or her group membership (Sanchez and Brock,
1996; Herrbach and Mignonac, 2012). The measure for perceived gender discrimination
was borrowed and adapted from the work of Foley et al. (2005) and Herrbach and
Mignonac (2012). The respondents were presented with four statements relating to
gender discrimination in entrepreneurial career choice. With reference to each
statement, a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree – strongly disagree) was used
(Cronbach’s a = 0.667).
Theory of
Standard factor
Construct loadings CR planned
behaviour
Entrepreneurial intention
I intend to be in the process of developing a product or service 0.708
I intend to be in the process of putting together a start-up team 0.758
I intend to be looking for a building or equipment for the business 0.858 0.820
I intend to be in the process of writing a business plan 0.781
Entrepreneurial motivation
Entrepreneurial career gives me sense of achievement and pride 0.645
As an entrepreneur, I can satisfactorily provide employment to others 0.675
Amongst various options, I would live a self-directed life 0.819
Being an entrepreneur, I have more authority in business 0.767
Self-realisation is factor for choosing entrepreneurial career 0.768
I can realise my dreams through my entrepreneurial career choice 0.763 0.879

Peer effect 0.777
My peer groups/friends are entrepreneurs that set example for others 0.834
My friends from peer groups and family circle are running start-ups 0.694
My friends are thinking to start a venture 0.664
Attitude towards entrepreneurship
In general, starting a business is very positive option for me 0.729
Starting a business will be very helpful for me 0.613
Starting a business would be worthwhile for me 0.903
Starting a business is not a bad option for me 0.730
Starting a business would be highly rewarding 0.727 0.861
Institutional infrastructure
The banks and financial institutions support start-ups and entrepreneurship 0.658
Media and social media help in promoting start-ups and entrepreneurship 0.797
The industry bodies and associations support and encourage starting a business 0.716
The investors support start-up and entrepreneurship 0.757
Academic institutions support and encourage start-ups and entrepreneurship 0.740 0.854
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy
I can identify the need for a new product or service 0.742
I can make get others to identify with and believe in my vision and plans for a
new business 0.769
I can manage the financial assets of my business 0.781
I can design a product or service that will satisfy customer needs and wants 0.710
I can find individuals with the necessary capital to fund my business 0.715
I am confident to estimate customer demand for a new product or service 0.740
I can clearly and concisely explain verbally/in writing my business ideas 0.708
I am confident to come up with a new idea for a product or service 0.869
I can estimate the amount of start-up funds and working capital necessary to
start my business 0.729
I can make contact with and exchange information with other 0.650
I can determine a competitive price for a new product or service 0.743 0.931
Perceived gender discrimination
I feel gender discriminatory behaviour regarding for personal and professional
development in entrepreneurial ecosystem 0.801
I feel gender discriminatory behaviour regarding opportunities for individual
Table II.
growth in entrepreneurial ecosystem 0.925
I feel gender discriminatory behaviour regarding assignments in Measures and their
entrepreneurial ecosystem 0.758 0.869 reliabilities
JEEE 4. Results
We test the proposed model which included both measurement and structural models
through structural equation modelling (SEM) using AMOS. The descriptive statistics and
zero-order correlation indices are presented in Table III.
4.1 Measurement model estimation and fit

From confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the composite reliability (CR) (see Table II) and
average variance extracted (AVE) of the variables (see Table III) are found satisfactory
against the standards set by Fornell and Larcker (1981). According to Fornell and Larcker
(1981), the CR and AVE values should be more than 0.70 and 0.5, respectively. The AVE
value should be more than the correlation square of two constructs that supports
discriminant validity. Each AVE value is found to be more than the correlation square,
indicating the existence of discriminant validity with the construct.
Perceived gender discrimination as a moderator was used as the grouping variable.

Other low loading items (< 0.40) were also discarded to improve the model specification.
The results displayed the goodness of fit with typical indices and the discriminant validity
reported as follows: CMINF/DF = 1.773, GFI = 0.870, CFI = 0.918, TLI = 0.918, IFI = 0.920,
NFI = 0.833 and RMSEA = 0.048 The goodness-of-fit indices are found to be above the
standard suggested by Hair et al. (2010). These values suggest the good fit of the data with
the proposed model. The result confirmed the robustness of the model.
4.2 Structural model estimation and fit

The proposed hypothesised model was tested using SEM with AMOS. The results confirm
the proposed hypotheses at various significance levels. Upon estimation of the model,
goodness-of-fit indices were obtained: CMIN/DF = 2.54, GFI = 0.832, CFI = 0.880 IFI = 0.882,
RMSEA = 0.047. The structural model results are presented in Figure 1. The results indicate
good fit of the data for the model.
The results presented in Table IV provide support for H1a (b = 0.735, p < 0.001) and
H1b (b = 0.176, p < 0.037), thus confirming the positive association between
entrepreneurial motivations, peer effect and development of attitudes towards starting a
business. Further, attitude towards entrepreneurship positively influences EI (b = 0.415,
p < 0.001); thus, H1 has been supported. Regarding H2, which suggests that ESE is
positively associated with EI, it was confirmed (b = 0.269, p < 0.020). Regarding, H3a,
which indicates the moderating role of institutional infrastructure on the relationship of
attitude towards entrepreneurship and EI, found support (b = 0.334, p < 0.001). However,
there is statistically negative association was found for H3b, which suggests that
Constructs Mean SD PE EI GD AE EM ESE II

Peer effect (PE) 3.490 0.856 0.734
EI 1.412 0.297 –0.508 0.777
Perceived gender discrimination (GD) 3.195 1.287 0.109 –0.153 0.831
Attitude towards entrepreneurship (AE) 4.060 0.615 0.455 –0.593 0.086 0.746
Entrepreneurial motivation (EM) 4.000 0.547 0.158 –0.207 –0.095 0.25 0.741
Table III. ESE 3.850 0.670 0.222 –0.172 –0.028 0.382 0.453 0.743
Descriptive statistics Institutional infrastructure (II) 3.870 0.563 0.119 –0.091 –0.117 0.20 0.362 0.323 0.735
and test of
discriminant validity Notes: SD: standard deviation; square roots of the AVE, diagonal axis, italicised)
Institutional Infrastructure
Theory of
planned
behaviour
H3a. 0.334 (0.001) H3b. –0.399(0.001)
Entrepreneurial
Motivations
H1a. 0.735 (0.001)**
Attitudes toward Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial

Entrepreneurship Intentions Self-efficacy
H1. H2.
Peer Effects H1b. 0.176 (0.037) 0.415(0.001) 0.269 (0.020)
Figure 1.
Analysis of structural
model
Note: **Accepted at 10 % level
Hyp. Structural path Standard estimates p-value
H1 AE !
! EI 0.415 0.001
H1a EM AE 0.735 0.001
H1b PE ! AE 0.176 0.037 Table IV.
H2 ESE ! EI 0.269 0.020 Standardised path
H3a Moderating role of II on AE EI 0.334 0.001 coefficients in the
! proposed model
H3b Moderating role of II on ESE ! EI —0.399 0.001
institutional infrastructure affects the relationship between ESE and intention to start a new
business (b = — 0.399, p < 0.001); thus, H3b is accepted.
To facilitate further interpretation, the interaction of moderating variable institutional
infrastructure, attitude towards entrepreneurship and EI are plotted as suggested by
Brambor et al. (2006). As shown in Figure 2, the attitude towards entrepreneurship has a
positive relationship with EI when the institutional infrastructure is high. However, the EI
diminishes with poor support from institutional infrastructure.
Further, the significant interaction of institutional infrastructure, ESE and EI are plotted
in Figure 3. As shown in the figure, ESE positively affects the EI, even at low institutional
2
1.9
Entrepreneurial Intentions
1.8
1.7
1.6
Figure 2.
1.5
The moderating
1.4 Low Institutional Infra Structure effect of institutional
1.3 infrastructure on
High Institutional Infra Structure
1.2 attitude towards
1.1 entrepreneurship and
1 EI
Low Attitudes toward Entrepreneurship High Attitudes toward Entrepreneurship
JEEE infrastructure support. We expected the same to be true in case of high institutional support.
However the result is inconclusive.
The analysis suggests that interaction of institutional infrastructure and EI (attitude and
ESE) is positive; hence, H3a and H3b are confirmed.
4.3 Grouping analysis

To test the role of gender discrimination in the proposed model, we run grouping effects
through SEM. We used perceived gender discrimination (1 = low, 2 = high) as a grouping
variable and tested its effect on all structural paths in the proposed model. The aim of the
grouping test was to understand the effect of gender discrimination differences on each
variable. We added the structural paths to the multi-group model and constrained them to
make them equal across the group (i.e. entrepreneurial motivation is constrained to be same
high and low perceived gender discrimination) (see Appendix). The test statistics for each
path is displayed in Table V.

The grouping analysis results demonstrate that gender discrimination has varying
influence on each relationship in the model. The peer effect on attitude towards
entrepreneurship is mixed: the standardised path coefficient is 0.404 (p < 0.004) if gender
discrimination is high, whilst the effect is nonsignificant in case of low gender
discrimination. A simple slope test was conducted, as suggested by Aiken et al. (1991), and
the relationship between peer effect and attitude towards entrepreneurship is found to be
positive when gender discrimination is low, whilst peer effect reduces with high gender
discrimination (Figure 4).
Last, the influence of institutional infrastructure on attitude towards entrepreneurship
and EI is 0.452 (p < 0.001) if gender discrimination is low, whilst the effect is nonsignificant
in case of high gender discrimination. Finally, the influence of institutional infrastructure is
Figure 3.
The moderating
effect of institutional
infrastructure on ESE
and EIs
Low GD High GD
Hyp. Hypotheses b (p-value) b (p-value)
H1 AE – EI 0.262 (0.041) 0.578 (0.001)
H1a EM – AE 0.969 (0.001) 0.610 (0.001)
Table V. H1b PE – AE 0.022 (0.820) 0.404 (0.004)
Grouping effect of H2 ESE – EI 0.401 (0.011) 0.058 (0.769)
perceived GD in the H3a Moderating role of II on AE to EI 0.452 (0.001) 0.109 (0.356)
proposed model H3b Moderating role of II on ESE to EI —0.566 (0.001) —0.150 (0.454)
negative, –0.566 (p < 0.001), if gender discrimination is low, whilst the effect is Theory of
nonsignificant if gender discrimination is high. planned
behaviour
5. Discussion
The objective of the study is three-fold: one, we try to explain the moderating effect of
institutional infrastructure on individual EI. Two, the classic TPB (attitudes, subjective
norm and PBC) model is revised and extended considering the theoretical rationale to
include entrepreneurial motivation and the peer effect on EI. Third, we looked at the entire
model with respect to the moderating (grouping effect) effect of gender discrimination. The
study confirms the role of perceived gender discrimination towards a negative intention in
an Indian context. The detailed discussion of the result follows:
The results establish the positive relationship between individual attitudes towards EI.
This relationship is also established in previous research with varying strength ranging
from 30 to 45 per cent typical variance (Kautonen et al., 2015; Liñán and Chen, 2009; Van
Gelderen et al., 2008). The positive and significant relationship between these two variables
in the present data reconfirms the relationship in the Indian context, with 41 per cent
variance. Accordingly, a positive attitude towards the inclination to act indicates positive
influence towards EI. Further, attitude towards entrepreneurship is also influenced by two
other independent variables: entrepreneurial motivation and peer effect. Entrepreneurial
motivation was found to have positive influence on individual attitude in the present study
context. The results are consistent with other studies that demonstrated the similar result
(Collins et al., 2004; Solesvik, 2013). The results also reflect that individuals are attracted to
different types of careers other than entrepreneurship because of varying motivation factors
(Carsrud and Brännback, 2011; Hessels et al., 2008). This implies that individuals choose
hybrid entrepreneurial careers as they can start a new venture and work in a company
simultaneously (Folta et al., 2010).
The findings also suggest that peer effect positively influences individual’s attitude
towards EI (H1b). We know higher the peer effect, stronger will be the intention to start a
new business. An individual’s attitude to start a new venture is largely influenced by
interaction with friends, workplace colleagues, industry friends, role models, parents
(Anggadwita et al., 2017). For example, working alongside other employees who have prior
entrepreneurial experience enables an individual to learn critical business skills and become
more confident to start an entrepreneurial journey (Nanda and Sørensen, 2010) than
interacting with peers. The other possible reason of positive peer effect is that universities or
management institutes are an important setting for learning and skill development that may
5 Low Gender discrimination

Attitudes toward Entrepreneurship
4.5 High Gender discrimination

4
3.5
3
Figure 4.
The moderating
2.5 effect of gender
2 discrimination on
1.5
peer effect and
attitude towards
1 entrepreneurship
Low Peer Effects High Peer Effects
JEEE spark entrepreneurial activity in groups to later start new ventures (Mustafa et al., 2016).
Individuals find entrepreneurship a more realistic career choice because they find their peers
in their social network as role models.
Furthermore, the results find positive association between ESE and EI (H2). With
increase in one’s ability, an individual will have stronger intention to start a new venture
and be ready to face all the challenges or barriers that need to be overcome to succeed in the
business. Our results are again consistent with previous studies that support that
individuals rely on their abilities to start an entrepreneurial career in an emerging country
(Liñán and Chen, 2009; Shook and Bratianu, 2010).
Our results suggest institutional infrastructure positively moderates the relationship
between attitude towards entrepreneurship and EI (H3a). However, the moderating effect on
ESE and EI is non-conclusive (H3b). The positive moderating effect of institutional
infrastructure implies that the stronger institutional support system strengthens individual
attitudes and intention to start a new business in the familiar region. The interaction
amongst entrepreneurial actors, organisations, institutions and entrepreneurial processes
increases performance and success of entrepreneurial ventures in regional entrepreneurial
environment (Mason and Brown, 2014). Thus, individuals are influenced by evolving and
encouraging institutional support in India and decide to choose entrepreneurial career in
future. Over the last few decades, India has emerged as a hotbed for the growth of
entrepreneurial start-ups in different sectors of business. Both central and state
governments are supporting entrepreneurship and start-ups by initiating a number of
institutional reforms, creation of special start-up financing hubs and incubations centres
(Srivastava and Misra, 2017). As a result, India has emerged as an entrepreneurial hub and
has influenced many aspiring entrepreneurs in the country (e.g. 11 unicorns have emerged
between year 2000 and 2015).
On the contrary, the non-conclusive effect of institutional infrastructure on ESE and EI
implies that individuals have self-efficacy to begin business, but institutional infrastructure
is poorly supportive in their efforts. Individuals attribute higher level of competition and
more significant barriers to in emerging economies such as India (Bosma, 2013). Apart from
that, the negative perception of local institutional infrastructure owing to high failure of new
ventures and high perceived market risks might constrain an individual’s intention to start
an entrepreneurial career in emerging economies (Kibler, 2013). Thus, despite poor role of
institutional infrastructure, an individual’s self-efficacy does not reduce, and he/she keeps
working to achieve success.
5.1 Perceived gender discrimination influencing entrepreneurial intention

The multi-group analysis of perceived gender discrimination reflects the varying influence
on an individual’s EI. The effect of gender discrimination on attitude towards
entrepreneurship tells that, in a low gender discrimination setting, individuals readily choose
an entrepreneurial career. However, high gender discrimination also has no effect. This
peculiarity may be explained by the fact that young population (as in case of our sample)
with positive institutional support and adequate self-efficacy, their intentions towards
entrepreneurship are not affected by gender discrimination. Yao et al. (2016) also have similar
result in China. Further, the results found that individuals are motivated to start new
ventures despite of varying level of gender discrimination. This can be explained through the
self-determination theory which assumes that intrinsically motivated individuals possess
high self-determination and find satisfaction whilst doing or learning new things (Deci and
Ryan, 1985). As a result, individuals might strive to achieve and seek new experiences in their
new entrepreneurial ventures and might be ready to face any external challenges such as Theory of
gender discrimination. planned
The peer effect on the attitude towards entrepreneurship is positive and highly
significant in this study. The moderating effect of perceived gender discrimination on the
behaviour
relationship is very interesting to discuss. In case of low gender discrimination, this effect
remains positive and incremental, whereas high gender discrimination reduced the effect,
though at minimal level (Figure 4). This is a significant and unique contribution of the
study.
Further, the moderating effect of institutional infrastructure on attitude towards
entrepreneurship and EI was found positive and significant. This relationship remains valid
in a low gender discrimination setting, whereas in case of high gender discrimination, the
relationship becomes nonsignificant, indicating amplifying role of gender discrimination.
The high gender discrimination adversely affects the positive relationship between
institutional infrastructure and EI, advising intervention to reduce such social factor for
improvement in venture start-up in emerging countries. Finally, the moderating effect of
institutional infrastructure on ESE and EI was found non-conclusive. This relationship is
not influenced by gender discrimination. It implies that this relationship does not have any
bearing at regional level. The social negative effect of gender discrimination is so strong that
an institutional support system is unable to attract and influence individuals to choose an
entrepreneurial career.
5.2 Implications
Our study has theoretical and practical implications to start a challenging entrepreneurial
career in emerging economies. On a theoretical level, the study adds to the understanding of
drivers or antecedents to EI, especially in an emerging economy context. Previous studies
have examined EI using TPB in developed countries. In contrast, this study finds the
usefulness of TPB in the emerging countries such as India. In addition, the study is
contributing to the existing models by empirically proving the role of peer group effect and
institutional infrastructure in emerging economies where these factors are critical to choose
an entrepreneurial career. Emerging economies are characterised by weak institutions and
inadequate access to resources to start and sustain any entrepreneurial activity (Mustafa
et al., 2016). These characteristics may ultimately pose as barriers to individuals to choose
an entrepreneurial career. Further, the study also provides additional insights about existing
influence of perceived gender discrimination on starting a new venture in emerging
economies.
Lastly, several implications for academic institutions, entrepreneurial ecosystem
stakeholders and policy makers in emerging economies arise from the results from our
study. The results strongly affirm that different peer groups influence individuals to go for
entrepreneurial career because peers share their relevant experience, provide potential
information and encourage their colleagues in decision-making. In particular, academic
institutions, universities and incubation hubs can consider promoting a peer-group culture
that strengthens an individual’s EI in emerging economies. At the same time, policy makers
and stakeholders should focus to build an encouraging entrepreneurial ecosystem with
adequate institutional infrastructure, easy way of starting and doing business and a spirit of
entrepreneurship culture.
6. Limitations and scope for future research

The study acknowledges certain limitations. First, the study is conducted based on a
relatively similar sample size that includes management students. A diverse sample drawn
JEEE from students, nascent entrepreneurs and serial entrepreneurs can compare and explain well
the effect of regional institutional infrastructure and gender discrimination in emerging
countries. Another limitation concerns the validation of results in other country settings. A
multi-countries comparison could have added more explanation. The development of EI
depends on the outcome of interaction between individuals and the environment. This study
has measured EI with only social and institutional factors, whereas other factors like
political environment and international environment can be tested. The nature and impact of
institutions in different regions evolve over time, and in the same way, the socio-
environmental dynamics keep changing. This study uses cross-sectional data to examine
individuals’ inclinations to become entrepreneurs. The use of longitudinal case studies can
explain the continuous changes in individual perceptions and inclinations to become self-
employed.
Note
1. www.dell.com/learn/us/en/vn/corporate ~ ~
secure en/documents ~
2015-gwel-scorecard-executive-
summary.pdf (accessed 7 July 2018).
References
Aidis, R. (2005), “Institutional barriers to small-and medium-sized enterprise operations in transition
countries”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 305-317.
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G. and Reno, R.R. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,
Sage, New York, NY.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2001), “Nature and operation of attitudes”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1,
pp. 27-58.
Alvedalen, J. and Boschma, R. (2017), “A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research:
towards a future research agenda”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 887-903.
Anggadwita, G., Luturlean, B.S., Ramadani, V. and Ratten, V. (2017), “Socio-cultural environments and
emerging economy entrepreneurship: women entrepreneurs in Indonesia”, Journal of
Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 85-96.
Asheim, B.T., Smith, H.L. and Oughton, C. (2011), “Regional innovation systems: theory, empirics and
policy”, Regional Studies, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 875-891.
Audretsch, D.B., Heger, D. and Veith, T. (2015), “Infrastructure and entrepreneurship”, Small Business
Economics, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 219-230.
Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D. and Wright, M. (2014), “Entrepreneurial innovation: the
importance of context”, Research Policy, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 1097-1108.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Macmillan.
Bardasi, E., Sabarwal, S. and Terrell, K. (2011), “How do female entrepreneurs perform? Evidence from
three developing regions”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 417.
Berger, E.S. and Kuckertz, A. (2016), “Female entrepreneurship in startup ecosystems worldwide”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 11, pp. 5163-5168.
Bird, B. and Brush, C. (2002), “A gendered perspective on organizational creation”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 41-65.
Bosma, N. (2013), “The global entrepreneurship monitor (GEM) and its impact on entrepreneurship
research”, Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 143-248.
Brambor, T., Clark, W.R. and Golder, M. (2006), “Understanding interaction models: improving Theory of
empirical analyses”, Political Analysis, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 63-82.
planned
Brown, R. and Mason, C. (2017), “Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation
of entrepreneurial ecosystems”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 49 No. 1.
behaviour
Bruton, G.D., Ahlstrom, D. and Obloj, K. (2008), “Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: where are
we today and where should the research go in the future”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Carr, J.C. and Sequeira, J.M. (2007), “Prior family business exposure as intergenerational influence and
entrepreneurial intent: a theory of planned behavior approach”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 60 No. 10, pp. 1090-1098.
Carsrud, A. and Brännback, M. (2011), “Entrepreneurial motivations: what do we still need to know?”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 9-26.
Chen, C.C., Greene, P.G. and Crick, A. (1998), “Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish
entrepreneurs from managers?”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 295-316.
Collins, C.J., Hanges, P.J. and Locke, E.A. (2004), “The relationship of achievement motivation to
entrepreneurial behavior: a Meta-analysis”, Human Performance, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 95-117.
Deci, E. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior,
Springer Science and Business Media.
Drnovsek, M. and Glas, M. (2002), “The entrepreneurial self-efficacy of nascent entrepreneurs: the case
of two economies in transition”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 107-131.
Elfenbein, D.W., Hamilton, B.H. and Zenger, T.R. (2010), “The small firm effect and the entrepreneurial
spawning of scientists and engineers”, Management Science, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 659-681.
Engle, R.L., Schlaegel, C. and Dimitriadi, N. (2011), “Institutions and entrepreneurial intent: a cross-
country study”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 227-250.
Esfandiar, K., Sharifi-Tehrani, M., Pratt, S. and Altinay, L. (2017), “Understanding entrepreneurial
intentions: a developed integrated structural model approach”, Journal of Business Research,
Fayolle, A. and Liñán, F. (2014), “The future of research on entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 663-666.
Foley, S., Hang-Yue, N. and Wong, A. (2005), “Perceptions of discrimination and justice: are there
gender discrimination in outcomes?”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 421-450.
Folta, T.B., Delmar, F. and Wennberg, K. (2010), “Hybrid entrepreneurship”, Management Science,
Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 253-269.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
Gartner, W.B., Bird, B.J. and Starr, J.A. (1992), “Acting as if: differentiating entrepreneurial from
organizational behavior”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 13-31.
Garud, R., Jain, S. and Kumaraswamy, A. (2002), “Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of
common technological standards: the case of sun microsystems and Java”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 196-214.
Ghani, E., Kerr, W.R. and O’Connell, S. (2014), “Spatial determinants of entrepreneurship in India”,
Regional Studies, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 1071-1089.
Gundry, L.K. and Welsch, H.P. (2001), “The ambitious entrepreneur: high growth strategies of women-
owned enterprises”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 453-470.
Gupta, V.K., Turban, D.B., Wasti, S.A. and Sikdar, A. (2009), “The role of gender stereotypes in
perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 397-417.
JEEE Gutek, B.A., Cohen, A.G. and Tsui, A. (1996), “Reactions to perceived sex discrimination”, Human
Relations, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 791-813.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Applications of SEM: Multivariate Data
Analysis, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Haslam, S.A., Van Knippenberg, D., Platow, M.J. and Ellemers, N. (2014), Social Identity at Work:
Developing Theory for Organizational Practice, Psychology Press, New York, NY.
Haus, I., Steinmetz, H., Isidor, R. and Kabst, R. (2013), “Gender effects on entrepreneurial intention: a
Meta-analytical structural equation model”, International Journal of Gender and
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 130-156.
Henkel, J. and Block, J. (2013), “Peer influence in network markets: a theoretical and empirical analysis”,
Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 925-953.
Herrbach, O. and Mignonac, K. (2012), “Perceived gender discrimination and women’s subjective career
success: the moderating role of career anchors”, Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations,
Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 25-50.

Hessels, J., Van Gelderen, M. and Thurik, R. (2008), “Entrepreneurial aspirations, motivations, and their
drivers”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 323-339.
Huggins, R. and Williams, N. (2011), “Entrepreneurship and regional competitiveness: the role and
progression of policy”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 23 Nos 9/10,
pp. 907-932.
Iakovleva, T., Kolvereid, L. and Stephan, U. (2011), “Entrepreneurial intentions in developing and
developed countries”, Education þ Training, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 353-370.
Jha, P., Makkad, M. and Mittal, S. (2018), “Performance oriented factors for women entrepreneurs–a
scale development perspective”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Just-
Accepted,
Johnson, B.R. (1990), “Toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: the case of achievement
motivation and the entrepreneur”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 39-54.
Kacperczyk, A.J. (2013), “Social influence and entrepreneurship: the effect of university peers on
entrepreneurial entry”, Organization Science, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 664-683.
Kautonen, T., Gelderen, M. and Fink, M. (2015), “Robustness of the theory of planned behavior in
predicting entrepreneurial intentions and actions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 655-674.
Kibler, E. (2013), “Formation of entrepreneurial intentions in a regional context”, Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, Vol. 25 Nos 3/4, pp. 293-323.
Kolvereid, L. (1996), “Prediction of employment status choice intentions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 47-58.
Kolvereid, L. and Isaksen, E. (2006), “New business start-up and subsequent entry into self-
employment”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 866-885.
Krueger, N.F., Jr, Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000), “Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 Nos 5/6, pp. 411-432.
Krueger, N. (1993), “The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture
feasibility and desirability”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 5-22.
Krueger, N.F. and Carsrud, A.L. (1993), “Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned
behaviour”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 315-330.
Lee, L., Wong, P.K., Der Foo, M. and Leung, A. (2011), “Entrepreneurial intentions: the influence of
organizational and individual factors”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 124-136.
Lee, S.H. and Wong, P.K. (2004), “An exploratory study of technopreneurial intentions: a career anchor
perspective”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9, pp. 7-28.
Liñán, F. and Chen, Y.W. (2009), “Development and cross-Cultural application of a specific instrument Theory of
to measure entrepreneurial intentions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 593-617.
planned
Manski, C.F. (1993), “Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem”, The Review of
behaviour
Economic Studies, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 531-542.
Marlow, S. and Patton, D. (2005), “All credit to men? Entrepreneurship, finance, and gender”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 717-735.
Mason, C. and Brown, R. (2014), “Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship”,
Final Report to OECD, Paris, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 77-102.
Mathews, C.H. and Moser, S.B. (1995), “Family background and gender: implications for interest in
small firm ownership”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 365-378.
Moriano, J.A., Gorgievski, M., Laguna, M., Stephan, U. and Zarafshani, K. (2012), “A cross-cultural
approach to understanding entrepreneurial intention”, Journal of Career Development, Vol. 39
No. 2, pp. 162-185.

Mustafa, M.J., Hernandez, E., Mahon, C. and Chee, L.K. (2016), “Entrepreneurial intentions of university
students in an emerging economy: the influence of university support and proactive personality
on students’ entrepreneurial intention”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 162-179.
Nanda, R. and Sørensen, J.B. (2010), “Workplace peers and entrepreneurship”, Management Science,
Vol. 56 No. 7, pp. 1116-1126.
Perugini, M. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2001), “The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal-directed
behaviours: broadening and deepening the theory of planned behaviour”, British Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 79-98.
Rauth Bhardwaj, B. (2014), “Impact of education and training on performance of women entrepreneurs:
a study in emerging market context”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies,
Vol. 6 No. 1.
Roundy, P.T. (2017), “Hybrid organizations and the logics of entrepreneurial ecosystems”, International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 1221-1237, doi: 10.1007/s11365-
017-0452-9.
Sanchez, J.I. and Brock, P. (1996), “Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic employees: is
diversity management a luxury or a necessity?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39,
pp. 704-719.
Saxenian, A. (1990), “Regional networks and the resurgence of silicon valley”, California Management
Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 89-112.
Schlaegel, C. and Koenig, M. (2014), “Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: a meta – analytic test and
integration of competing models”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 291-332.
Sexton, D.L. and Bowman-Upton, N. (1990), “Female and male entrepreneurs: psychological
characteristics and their role in gender-related, discrimination”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 29-39.
Shapero, A. and Sokol, L. (1982), “Social dimensions of entrepreneurship”, in Kent, C.A., Sexton, D.L.
and Vesper, D.L. (Eds), The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, pp. 72-90.
Shinnar, R.S., Giacomin, O. and Janssen, F. (2012), “Entrepreneurial perceptions and intentions: the role
of gender and culture”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 465-493.
Shook, C.L. and Bratianu, C. (2010), “Entrepreneurial intent in a transitional economy: an application of
the theory of planned behavior to Romanian students”, International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 231-247.
JEEE Snizek, W.E. and Neil, C.C. (1992), “Job characteristics, gender stereotypes and perceived gender
discrimination in the workplace”, Organization Studies, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 403-427.
Solesvik, M.Z. (2013), “Entrepreneurial motivations and intentions: investigating the role of education
major”, Educationþ Training, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 253-271.
Solesvik, M.Z., Westhead, P., Kolvereid, L. and Matlay, H. (2012), “Student intentions to become self-
employed: the Ukrainian context”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 441-460.
Spigel, B. (2017), “The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems”, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 49-72.
Srivastava, S. and Misra, R. (2017), “Exploring antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions of young
women in India: a multi-method analysis”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 181-206.
Stam, E. (2015), “Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique”, European
Planning Studies, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 1759-1769.

Tafjel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior”, Psychology of
Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall Publishers, Chicago, pp. 7-24.
Van Gelderen, M., Brand, M., van Praag, M., Bodewes, W., Poutsma, E. and Van Gils, A. (2008),
“Explaining entrepreneurial intentions by means of the theory of planned behaviour”, Career
Development International, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 538-559.
Verheul, I., Thurik, R., Grilo, I. and Van Der Zwan, P. (2012), “Explaining preferences and actual
involvement in self-employment: gender and the entrepreneurial personality”, Journal of
Economic Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 325-341.
Weber, R. (2012), “Peer effects in entrepreneurship education”, Evaluating Entrepreneurship Education,
Springer, Münich, pp. 265-320.
Wright, P., Ferris, S.P., Hiller, J.S. and Kroll, M. (1995), “Competitiveness through management of
diversity: Effects on stock price valuation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38,
pp. 272-287.
Yao, X., Wu, X. and Long, D. (2016), “University students’ entrepreneurial tendency in China: effect of
students’ perceived entrepreneurial environment”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging
Economies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 60-81.
Yap, M. and Konrad, A.M. (2009), “Gender and racial differentials in promotions: is there a sticky floor,
a mid-level bottleneck, or a glass ceiling?”, Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, Vol. 64
No. 4, pp. 593-619.
Zahra, S.A., Wright, M. and Abdelgawad, S.G. (2014), “Contextualization and the advancement of
entrepreneurship research”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 479-500.
Zhang, X., Li, S. and Burke, R.R. (2018), “Modeling the effects of dynamic group influence on shopper
zone choice, purchase conversion, and spending”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
pp. 1-19.
Appendix Theory of
planned
Degree of behaviour
Chi-square freedom (df) p-value Invariant
Overall model Step 1. Provide chi-square and
Unconstrained 6,209.362 2,013 degree of freedom (df) for
Fully constrained 4,493.975 1,830 unconstrained and constrained
Number of 2 models, and provide the
groups number of groups. The
thresholds will be updated
automatically
Difference 2,738.855 1,110 0.000 NO Groups are different at the
model level. Check path
Chi-square thresholds
differences
90% confidence 6,212.07 2,014 Any chi-square more than the
Difference 0.100 threshold will be variant for a
95% confidence 6,213.20 2,014 path by path analysis. This is
Difference 0.050 only applicable to models
99% confidence 6,216.00 2,014 where you are changing one Table AI.
Difference 0.010 path at a time (i.e. have a Group difference
difference of one df) statistics
About the authors

Sushil Kumar is currently a Senior PhD scholar in area of Business Policy and Strategic Management
at Indian Institute of Management Raipur, India. He has an academic and professional background in
entrepreneurship, new venture creation process, international entrepreneurship, competitive strategy,
corporate strategy, international business and corporate social responsibility. He has professional
experience in consulting, microfinance and manufacturing companies in India. He also holds an
MPhil with specialization in Planning and Development from the Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay (IITB). He completed his Masters in Social Entrepreneurship from the School of
Management and Labor Studies under Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. Sushil Kumar is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: sushil.fpm2013@iimraipur.ac.in
Satyasiba Das is a highly accomplished Consultant cum Academician with a comprehensive
scholastic and professional background in entrepreneurship and venturing process, corporate
strategy, industrial dynamics, technology and innovation management and policy research. He has
proven success in directing and participating multi-disciplinary teams to deliver complex time-bound
consulting projects for governments and pre-eminent development agencies internationally.
Satyasiba worked for SINTEF, Norway, and as researcher and in advisory roles to various European
states, including Government of Ireland and National University of Ireland Galway. He is involved
with many successful technology start-ups and works as a consultant to various public and large
private sector organizations internationally. Some of his recent clients include: World Bank; Asian
Development Bank; UNIDO; Government of India (various departments); Siemens Healthcare
(Laboratory) Diagnostics, USA; The Telegraph, UK; Volkswagen, India; DNV, Norway; ABB, India;
IOCL, India. Currently, Satyasiba is working as Assistant Professor in Strategic Management at
Indian Institute of Management Raipur, India.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies: Article Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies

An extended model of theory of planned behaviour: Entrepreneurial intention,

Permanent link to this document:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Entrepreneurial intention, regional institutional

studies will be necessary, because in emerging countries, access to resources and

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses

2.1 Entrepreneurial motivation, peer eﬀect and attitude towards entrepreneurship

employment and experience have

2.2 Entrepreneurial self-eﬃcacy (ESE) and entrepreneurial intention

inﬂuence the process of creating, discovering and exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities.

H3a. An effective institutional infrastructure positively affects attitude towards

is a key contributor to EI and is developed and strengthened by the inﬂuence of different

2.4 Role of perceived gender discrimination on entrepreneurial intention

3.2 Measures description

I can realise my dreams through my entrepreneurial career choice 0.763 0.879

4.1 Measurement model estimation and ﬁt

Perceived gender discrimination as a moderator was used as the grouping variable.

4.2 Structural model estimation and ﬁt

Constructs Mean SD PE EI GD AE EM ESE II

Attitudes toward Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial

Hyp. Structural path Standard estimates p-value

4.3 Grouping analysis

path is displayed in Table V.

5 Low Gender discrimination

4.5 High Gender discrimination

5.1 Perceived gender discrimination inﬂuencing entrepreneurial intention

6. Limitations and scope for future research

Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 25-50.

No. 2, pp. 162-185.

Planning Studies, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 1759-1769.

About the authors

You might also like