JBR-08143; No of Pages 15

Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention

Florian B. Zapkau a,⁎, Christian Schwens a, Holger Steinmetz b, Rüdiger Kabst b
a
University of Düsseldorf, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Universitätsstr. 1, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany
b
University of Paderborn, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Warburger Str. 100, 33098 Paderborn, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present paper disentangles the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention in terms
Received 4 April 2013 of different types of exposure and their perceived quality. Drawing on the theory of planned behavior, the paper
Received in revised form 13 August 2014 analyzes whether attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control mediate the influence of
Accepted 21 August 2014
entrepreneurial role models and work experience in small or newly founded firms on entrepreneurial intention.
Available online xxxx
Testing our hypotheses on data from 374 individuals, the study provides differentiated support for our theoretical
Keywords:
predictions. The results contribute to resolving previously inconclusive findings by offering a differentiated
Prior entrepreneurial exposure understanding of how different types and the perceived quality of prior entrepreneurial exposure influence
Role models individuals' entrepreneurial intention.
Work experience © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Entrepreneurial intention
Theory of planned behavior

1. Introduction
Entrepreneurial intention represents the commitment of individuals
to start a new business (Krueger & Carsrud, 1993). Several scholars
emphasize the importance of entrepreneurial intentions as a first step
towards entrepreneurial behavior (i.e., starting a business) (Bird,
1988; Krueger & Carsrud, 1993). In fact, prior research suggests that
intentions are the single best predictor for planned behaviors, such as
starting a business (Bagozzi, Baumgartner, & Yi, 1989; Kim & Hunter,
1993). Analyzing entrepreneurial intentions is of particular importance
as new firms facilitate the transfer from innovations to marketable
products and services, mitigate inefficiencies within an economy, and
create new jobs (Zhao, Seibert, & Hills, 2005).
Prior entrepreneurial exposure encompasses an individual's person-
al history related to entrepreneurship such as entrepreneurial parents
or prior work experience in a small or newly founded firm (Krueger,
1993; Peterman & Kennedy, 2003). Previous research investigating the
direct impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial
intention displays inconclusive findings (Chlosta, Patzelt, Klein, &
Dormann, 2012; Shook, Priem, & McGee, 2003). Some authors find
entrepreneurial parents to stimulate children's entrepreneurial inten-
tion (e.g., Crant, 1996; Matthews & Moser, 1995), while others do not
support this view (e.g., Gird & Bagraim, 2008; Kolvereid & Isaksen,
2006; Tkachev & Kolvereid, 1999). Research on the influence of
work experience in small or newly founded firms is comparatively
scarce but nonetheless displays rather ambiguous findings as well
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 2118102994; fax: +49 211 8114579.
E-mail addresses: florian.zapkau@hhu.de (F.B. Zapkau), christian.schwens@hhu.de
(C. Schwens), holger.steinmetz@upb.de (H. Steinmetz), kabst@upb.de (R. Kabst).
(e.g., Autio, Keeley, Klofsten, Parker, & Hay, 2001; Kautonen, Luoto, &
Tornikoski, 2010; Matthews & Moser, 1995).
The reasons for these inconclusive findings can be twofold: First,
prior entrepreneurship literature does not sufficiently account for the
fact that starting a business is intentional (Bird, 1988; Krueger &
Carsrud, 1993). In this regard, models with direct predictors inade-
quately reflect that the influence of exogenous variables (such as prior
entrepreneurial exposure) on entrepreneurial intention occurs through
attitudinal variables (such as attitude, subjective norm, and perceived
behavioral control in the case of Ajzen's (1991) theory of planned
behavior). Second, differentiated views accounting for different types
of prior entrepreneurial exposure are limited. Most studies analyze
the effects of parental role models and neglect to account for other
types of prior entrepreneurial exposure such as work experience in
small or newly founded firms (Matthews & Moser, 1996). This approach
is problematic as both types of exposure may provide individuals with
different learning experiences (Chlosta et al., 2012; Fairlie & Robb,
2007). Moreover, extant studies also largely neglect to account for the
qualitative dimension of prior entrepreneurial exposure (Carr &
Sequeira, 2007; Kim, Aldrich, & Keister, 2006). Hence, inconclusive results
may stem from the fact that exposure perceived as positive may differ-
ently affect individuals' entrepreneurial intention compared to exposure
perceived as negative (Krueger, 1993; van Auken, Fry, & Stephens, 2006).
The aim of the present paper is twofold: First, we develop an
intention-based framework and investigate the impact of prior entre-
preneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention mediated by attitude,
subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. In this regard, we
link prior entrepreneurial exposure (i.e., (1) observation of self-
employed parents and (2) prior work experience in a small or newly
founded firm) with the three attitudinal variables proposed by Ajzen's

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.007
0148-2963/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Zapkau, F.B., et al., Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention, Journal of
Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.007
2 F.B. Zapkau et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
(1991) theory of planned behavior (TPB) (i.e., attitude, subjective norm,
and perceived behavioral control) to explain entrepreneurial intention.
Second, we separately account for the perceived quality of prior entre-
preneurial exposure as a determinant of entrepreneurial intention.
We seek to contribute to extant literature by providing a more differ-
entiated understanding of the relation between prior entrepreneurial
exposure and entrepreneurial intention. In this regard, our first contri-
bution is on the link between different types of prior entrepreneurial ex-
posure and the three attitudinal variables of the TPB (i.e., attitude,
subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control) explaining entre-
preneurial intention. We demonstrate how observational exposure
(by means of entrepreneurial role models) and direct exposure (by
means of work experience in small or newly founded firms) affect
entrepreneurial intention differently. As a second contribution, we
account for the perceived quality of prior entrepreneurial exposure. By
this means, we demonstrate how prior entrepreneurial exposure
perceived as positive differently affects entrepreneurial intention
compared to exposure perceived as negative. In sum, disentangling
prior entrepreneurial exposure (in terms of type and perceived quality)
and linking it with the TPB offers a more detailed understanding of the
formation of entrepreneurial intention and contributes to resolving
heterogeneous prior findings regarding the prior entrepreneurial
exposure and entrepreneurial intention relation.
The next section presents the background literature. We then
develop hypotheses, which we test on a dataset consisting of students
and professionals. The paper closes with a discussion of our findings
and by pointing out implications and limitations.
2. Background Literature
The majority of earlier literature employs direct effect models to in-
vestigate how prior entrepreneurial exposure affects entrepreneurial
intention. However, such studies display inconclusive results (Chlosta
et al., 2012; Shook et al., 2003). Studying the impact of role models,
some studies suggest that children with entrepreneurial parents display
higher levels of entrepreneurial intention (e.g., Crant, 1996; Matthews &
Moser, 1995). However, other studies do not support this view
(e.g., Gird & Bagraim, 2008; Kolvereid & Isaksen, 2006; Tkachev &
Kolvereid, 1999). Studies analyzing the effect of prior work experience
in small or newly founded firms display ambiguous results as well.
Some studies (e.g., Kautonen et al., 2010; Matthews & Moser, 1995)
find no significant effect of such exposure on individuals' entrepreneur-
ial intention, whereas other studies report a positive effect (e.g., Autio
et al., 2001; Mueller, 2006).
However, these ambiguous results are not surprising, as prior
meta-analyses suggest that exogenous influences such as prior entre-
preneurial exposure are only weak direct predictors for behaviors
such as starting a business (e.g., Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw,
1988). In contrast, intentions are the best predictor for planned
behaviors (Bagozzi et al., 1989; Kim & Hunter, 1993). However,
intentions derive from attitudinal variables, which are influenced by
exogenous factors such as prior entrepreneurial exposure (Krueger,
Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000). That is, prior entrepreneurial exposure
indirectly influences entrepreneurial intention mediated through
attitudinal variables (rather than having a direct impact).
The TPB (Ajzen, 1991) is one of the predominant theoretical frame-
works to analyze the formation of intentions in various fields (Armitage
& Conner, 2001). The TPB claims that three conceptually distinct attitu-
dinal variables determine intention: attitude towards the behavior,
subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control in regard to the
behavior. Attitudes refer to the degree to which an individual evaluates
a specific behavior as favorable or unfavorable (Ajzen, 1988). Subjective
norm mirrors individuals' perceived social pressure by attachment
figures to perform or not to perform a specific behavior (Ajzen, 1988).
Perceived behavioral control contains perceptions of the ability to suc-
cessfully execute and control the focal behavior (Ajzen, 1991, 2002).
Please cite this article as: Zapkau, F.B., et al., Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention, Journal of
Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.007
In general, the more favorable the attitude and subjective norm in re-
gard to the behavior and the greater the perceived behavioral control
over the behavior, the stronger the individual's intention to perform
the focal behavior (Armitage & Conner, 2001).
In addition to Ajzen's (1991) TPB, other empirical researches on
individuals' entrepreneurial intention ground on Shapero's “model of
the entrepreneurial event” (SEE) (Shapero & Sokol, 1982). The SEE
specifically aims at explaining entrepreneurial intentions, which derive
from individuals' perceived desirability as well as perceived feasibility of
starting a business. Additionally, the SEE includes a third predictor
labeled propensity to act, which reflects individuals' willingness to act
on one's decisions (Krueger et al., 2000; Shapero & Sokol, 1982).
Both the TPB and the SEE find broad acceptance in the present study's
research domain (Schlaegel & Koenig, 2014) and are complementary
theoretical approaches to explain individuals' entrepreneurial intention.
To this end, the TPB and the SEE share a considerable conceptual overlap
(Krueger, 2009; Krueger & Carsrud, 1993). In particular, both models use
a predictor representing the “willingness” (attitude in the TPB, perceived
desirability in the SEE) stemming from individuals' outcome expecta-
tions resulting from the behavior (i.e., starting a business) as well as a
predictor representing individuals' perceived “capability” to successfully
perform the focal behavior (perceived behavioral control in the TPB,
perceived feasibility in the SEE) (van Gelderen et al., 2008).
However, both models also display differences, which have to be
taken into consideration when deciding upon which of the theories
best applies to a study's goals and research design. From a conceptual
stance, the TPB includes a specific predictor (subjective norm) accounting
for social influences (e.g., from role models) on entrepreneurial intention,
whereas the SEE integrates such influences in the perceived desirability
predictor (Nabi, Holden, & Walmsley, 2006; van Gelderen et al., 2008).
Moreover, Krueger et al. (2000) assert that a theory-consistent integra-
tion of the “propensity to act” component in the SEE requires a longitudi-
nal research design as triggering events (such as spotting a business
opportunity), which force individuals to act, precede individuals' desir-
ability and feasibility perceptions. From a methodological stance, it is
important to compare both models' explanatory power when deciding
upon which of the theories to choose for a study. A recent meta-
analysis drawing on broad empirical evidence (123 independent sam-
ples, n = 114,007 individuals) by Schlaegel and Koenig (2014) finds
that the TPB explains a larger proportion of variance in entrepreneurial
intention compared to the SEE (SEE: R2 = .21; TPB: R2 = .28). Analyzing
the influence of each model's attitudinal variables on entrepreneurial in-
tention, the meta-analysis by Schlaegel and Koenig (2014) finds that all
attitudinal variables (attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral
control) of the TPB positively influence entrepreneurial intention. In con-
trast, results for SEE's attitudinal variables are mixed. While perceived de-
sirability and perceived feasibility positively impact individuals'
entrepreneurial intention, propensity to act has no significant influence.
Finally, the TPB also displays high explanatory power in other research
fields than entrepreneurship (Ajzen, 1991; Armitage & Conner, 2001;
Sutton, 1998) while comparatively fewer studies employ the SEE in
multivariate empirical studies in entrepreneurship research (Guerrero,
Rialp, & Urbano, 2008; Solesvik, Westhead, Kolvereid, & Matlay, 2012).
Acknowledging the important contributions made by studies draw-
ing on the SEE to explain entrepreneurial intentions and considering the
two frameworks as complementary (rather than contradictory), the
present study draws on TPB rationale as the above conceptual and
methodological issues are particularly pertinent for the present study's
goals and research design.
In an effort to overcome previously inconclusive findings from direct
effect models, some authors employ intention-based frameworks
assuming indirect influences of exogenous factors on entrepreneurial in-
tention. For example, Krueger (1993) tests the effect of breadth of prior
entrepreneurial exposure (an aggregated sum score consisting of several
types of prior exposure) on entrepreneurial intention mediated by per-
ceived desirability and perceived feasibility of starting a business. While
 F.B. Zapkau et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
breadth of prior entrepreneurial exposure has no effect on the perceived
desirability, it positively affects the perceived feasibility of starting a busi-
ness. Accounting for the perceived quality of prior exposure (again, with
an aggregated sum score), the study reveals a positive impact on the
perceived desirability of starting a business, whereas no such effect exists
on the perceived feasibility of starting a business. Krueger's findings
suggest that “more” and “more positive” exposure is not always sufficient
to increase individuals' perceived desirability or perceived feasibility of
starting a business and, in turn, their entrepreneurial intention. However,
the study does not answer which specific types of prior entrepreneurial
exposure (e.g., role model exposure vs. work experience) raise individ-
uals' desirability and feasibility perceptions. However, prior exposure
might not be additive (Peterman & Kennedy, 2003) and, hence, may
not be adequately captured by aggregated sum scores.
In a recent study, Liñán and Chen (2009) analyze the influence of ex-
posure to entrepreneurial role models and previous self-employment
on entrepreneurial intention mediated by the attitudinal variables of
the TPB. The authors find that entrepreneurial role models positively
affect individuals' attitude towards starting a business, whereas no
such influence exists on subjective norm or perceived behavioral con-
trol. In contrast, prior founding experience positively affects only TPB's
subjective norm component. While Liñán and Chen's study contributes
to a more differentiated picture of how different types of prior entrepre-
neurial exposure affect attitudinal variables and in turn entrepreneurial
intention, some issues remain unresolved. First, the study only vaguely
specifies exposure to entrepreneurial role models as “knowing an
entrepreneur personally”. Hence, the specific impact of entrepreneurial
parents – the most influential role models on individuals' occupational
preferences (Pallone, Rickard, & Hurley, 1970) – remains unclear.
Second, the study neglects the qualitative dimension of prior entrepre-
neurial exposure. Hence, it remains unclear whether results may stem
from different effects of exposure perceived as positive or negative.
In sum, literature on the effects of prior entrepreneurial exposure on
entrepreneurial intention still displays a rather heterogeneous picture.
Direct approaches are largely abandoned due to their limited explanato-
ry power and predictive validity (Krueger et al., 2000). However,
indirect approaches have yet only partly disentangled the prior entre-
preneurial exposure construct (in terms of different types and perceived
quality of exposure) and, hence, are not fully able to resolve conflicting
results. In sum, there is still need for a more differentiated understand-
ing of the relationship between prior entrepreneurial exposure and
entrepreneurial intention.
3. Hypotheses development
Prior exposure stems from two different means: observation and di-
rect experience (Bandura, 1977; Latham & Saari, 1979). Individuals'
PEX: parental H1 (a) (+)
role models
(b) (+)
PEX: work (c) (+)
H2
experience in small /
behavioral control
newly founded firms
Fig. 1. Research Model.
Please cite this article as: Zapkau, F.B., et al., Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention, Journal of
Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.007
3
observation of self-employed parents is referred to as entrepreneurial
role model exposure. Individuals may obtain direct entrepreneurial
experience by working in a small or newly founded firm (Kautonen
et al., 2010; Krueger, 1993). Linking prior entrepreneurial exposure
with Ajzen's (1991) TPB, the following sections develop a comprehen-
sive rationale how entrepreneurial role model exposure and prior
work experience in a small or newly founded firm impact entrepreneur-
ial intention mediated by attitude, subjective norm, and perceived
behavioral control. Fig. 1 depicts our research model.
3.1. Entrepreneurial role model exposure
We expect individuals with parents who have previously started a
business to display higher levels of entrepreneurial intention. Moreover,
we expect this influence to be mediated by the three attitudinal
variables of the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) (i.e., attitude, subjective norm, and
perceived behavioral control). Generally, social learning theory
(Bandura, 1977, 1986) emphasizes the effect of behavior acquisition
through the observation of others referred to as role models. Observa-
tional learning from role models influences individuals' personality
development and hence the formation of attitudes which in turn form
intentions (Bandura, 1977). Naturally, children are especially exposed
to their parents' behaviors. Thus, parental role models are of particular
importance for the development of children's attitudes as role model
effects are stronger the more relevance and credibility a role model
possesses (Scherer, Adams, Carley, & Wiebe, 1989; Shapero & Sokol,
1982). Children learn by observing their parents and internalize these
triggers into their mental models. These in turn affect their decision
policies, including employment decisions (Bandura, 1986; Schröder &
Schmitt-Rodermund, 2006).
Social learning theory suggests the observation of entrepreneurial
role models to be influential on individuals' attitudes towards different
career alternatives. Individuals observe occupational behaviors of
valued role models and at the same time form cognitive evaluations of
their own actual or future capabilities and interests and, in turn, out-
come expectations regarding the observed career field (Krumboltz,
Mitchell, & Jones, 1976; Scherer, Adams, & Wiebe, 1989). By creating
an environment strongly influencing the personal characteristics of
their children, entrepreneurial parents convey the desirability of an
entrepreneurial career to their offspring (Matthews & Moser, 1995;
Shapero & Sokol, 1982). Thus, being exposed to entrepreneurial parents
shapes children's attitude in regard to self-employment (Carr &
Sequeira, 2007).
Parental role models may also affect offspring's subjective norm in
regard to starting a business. Role model influence may also occur
through social persuasion. Conversations and discussions with parental
role models provide individuals with insights into career alternatives
Attitude (+)
Subjective (+) Entrepreneurial
norm intention
(+)
Perceived
4 F.B. Zapkau et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
and, hence, exert a strong influence on individuals' career intentions
(van Auken et al., 2006). Moreover, children are likely to become a
part of their entrepreneurial parents' social networks exerting further
social pressure on them to start a business (Kim et al., 2006).
Parental role models may also affect offspring's perceived behavioral
control in regard to starting a business. Individuals may learn certain
skills and behaviors necessary for starting a business by observing role
models (Scherer, Adams, & Wiebe, 1989). Children receive an informal
transfer of business knowledge and methods from their entrepreneurial
parents. This human capital strengthens the offspring's conviction to
successfully execute the tasks related to starting a business (Dunn &
Holtz-Eakin, 2000; Scherer, Brodzinski, & Wiebe, 1991) and, thus,
leads to a higher perceived behavioral control. In sum, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1. Exposure to entrepreneurial role models positively
influences entrepreneurial intention. This influence is mediated by
(a) attitude, (b) subjective norm, and (c) perceived behavioral control.
3.2. Prior work experience in a small or newly founded firm
We expect individuals with prior work experience in a small or newly
founded firm to display higher levels of entrepreneurial intention. More-
over, we expect this influence to be mediated by the three attitudinal
variables of the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) (i.e., attitude, subjective norm, and per-
ceived behavioral control). Prior to employment decisions between paid
employment and self-employment, individuals draw decision-relevant
information in particular from their own memory. Availability and con-
tent of such information largely depends on individuals' prior exposure.
Besides drawing from similar experiences (such as actual prior self-
employment), individuals are also able to utilize comparable experiences
(such as prior work experience in a small or newly founded firm) in the
cognitive decision-making process (Katz, 1992). Previous research
shows that prior work experience is an important component of human
capital for potential entrepreneurs (Kim et al., 2006). Small and newly
founded firms provide a work environment ideally suited for sharing,
experiencing, and learning the skills beneficial for starting a business
(Rotefoss & Kolvereid, 2005; Stuart & Abetti, 1990).
Work experience in small or newly founded firms is likely to influ-
ence individuals' attitude in regard to starting a business. The work
environment in small or newly founded firms is different in terms of
flexibility, possibilities to participate, working hours, or job security
compared to large firms. Hence, such particular experience is likely to
foster the development of entrepreneurial work attitudes (Kautonen
et al., 2010; Parker, 2004). This rationale is consistent with Dyer
(1994) who suggests that individuals who previously worked for an
entrepreneur prefer an entrepreneurial lifestyle. Moreover, such
experience allows individuals to accurately evaluate the personal
consequences of starting a business (Scherer, Adams, & Wiebe, 1989).
Prior work experience in a small or newly founded firm is also likely
to positively influence individuals' subjective norm in regard to starting
a business. First, it seems rather likely that reference people encourage
individuals to engage in vocational activities in which they already
have gathered human and social capital giving them the opportunity
to realize greater utility from this capital compared to other vocational
opportunities (Douglas & Shepherd, 2000). Second, it is even possible
that reference people approach individuals with business opportunities
because they perceive the individual competent enough to execute
these opportunities as they have acquired the necessary skills in the
course of their work experience (MacMillan, 1986).
Prior work experience in a small or newly founded firm also posi-
tively influences the perceived behavioral control over the process of
starting a business (Scherer, Adams, & Wiebe, 1989). Work experience
allows potential entrepreneurs to gain experience and to obtain neces-
sary skills relevant for starting their own business (Brenner, Pringle, &
Greenhaus, 1991). Despite acquiring general business human capital,
Please cite this article as: Zapkau, F.B., et al., Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention, Journal of
Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.007
work experience provides potential entrepreneurs with the opportunity
to obtain job- or industry-specific business human capital, which allows
identifying potential customers and competitors. Moreover, potential
entrepreneurs gain access to social networks for market information,
capital, or hiring employees. In addition, they develop supplier and
customer relationships (Fairlie & Robb, 2007; Kim et al., 2006). Lastly,
individuals with work experience in small or newly founded firms are
more likely to be generalists rather suited to start their own business
compared to specialists better suited for specific tasks in larger firms
(Gibb, 2002). In sum, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2. Prior work experience in a small or newly founded firm
positively influences entrepreneurial intention. This influence is mediated
by (a) attitude, (b) subjective norm, and (c) perceived behavioral control.
3.3. Perceived quality of prior entrepreneurial exposure
We expect prior entrepreneurial exposure perceived as positive to
positively influence individuals' entrepreneurial intention. More specif-
ic, we expect the influence of entrepreneurial role models and prior
work experience in a small or newly founded firm perceived as positive
on entrepreneurial intention to be mediated by the three attitudinal
variables of the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) (i.e., attitude, subjective norm, and
perceived behavioral control).
We expect entrepreneurial role model exposure perceived as positive
to have a more positive influence on the attitudes in regard to starting a
business opposed to exposure perceived as negative (Krueger, 1993;
Matthews & Moser, 1996). Based on prior observational learning from
role models, individuals form cognitive evaluations of career alternatives
which can either encourage or discourage them from choosing a specific
career path (Krumboltz et al., 1976; Mitchell & Krumboltz, 1984). This ra-
tionale is supported by prior research (e.g., Barling, Dupre, & Hepburn,
1998), which found children's perceptions of parental work experiences
influential on their own work attitudes. Hence, role model exposure
perceived as negative may foster the development of negative attitudes
towards self-employment and, in turn, discourage individuals from
following the role models' behavior (Mungai & Velamuri, 2011).
We expect that work experience in small or newly founded firms
perceived as positive has a more positive influence on individuals'
attitudes in regard to starting a business opposed to exposure perceived
as negative. By providing a work environment closely related to an entre-
preneurial career, work experience in small or newly founded firms influ-
ences individuals' attitudes in regard to starting a business (Dyer, 1994;
Kautonen et al., 2010). Prior research analyzing individuals' exposure to
entrepreneurship education programs (which are rather similar to small
or newly founded firm work experience (Fayolle, 2005)) supports this
rationale. Entrepreneurship education perceived as positive has a positive
impact on individuals' attitudes in regard to starting a business (opposed
to entrepreneurship education perceived as negative) (Peterman &
Kennedy, 2003; Wilson, Kickul, & Marlino, 2007).
In contrast to prior studies (e.g., Scherer, Adams, Carley, et al., 1989;
Scherer et al., 1991), we argue that not the role model's or small/newly
founded firm's objective success (e.g., in terms of profitability)
influences individuals' attitudes, but whether the individual him- or
herself perceived prior exposure as positive or negative. Even objective-
ly negative experiences (e.g., bankruptcy) from which the individual
learns how to avoid errors in the start-up process might be considered
as positive (Krueger, 1993). In contrast, objectively successful exposure
could be considered as negative by an individual, due to parents' long
working hours or economic uncertainties (Kim et al., 2006; van Auken
et al., 2006). In sum, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3. Exposure to entrepreneurial role models perceived as
positive positively influences entrepreneurial intention. This influence
is mediated by (a) attitude, (b) subjective norm, and (c) perceived
behavioral control.
 F.B. Zapkau et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Hypothesis 4. Prior work experience in a small or newly founded firm
perceived as positive positively influences entrepreneurial intention.
This influence is mediated by (a) attitude, (b) subjective norm, and
(c) perceived behavioral control.
4. Data and methods
4.1. Data
Following TPB reasoning, entrepreneurial intention needs to be
studied prospectively rather than retrospectively (Krueger & Carsrud,
1993). In other words, entrepreneurial phenomena need to be studied
before they occur (Davidsson & Honig, 2003). Previous entrepreneur-
ship research often grounds on samples consisting of existing founders.
However, this research suffers from selection bias resulting from
sampling only existent and, hence, successful founders neglecting
individuals who aborted their startup-attempt as well as hindsight
bias and memory decay from surveying start-up attempts retrospec-
tively (Davidsson & Honig, 2003; Krueger & Carsrud, 1993). In contrast,
analyzing entrepreneurial intentions requires samples, which include
individuals who may or may not intend to start a business (Krueger
et al., 2000). We test our hypotheses on a dataset of individuals (n =
421) consisting of students (n = 245) and professionals (n = 176)
from Germany.
Data collection took place between June and December 2009. Data
were gathered by respondents filling out either a paper-based or an on-
line questionnaire. Due to missing data, we had to eliminate 47 cases
from the sample. Thus, the final sample consists of 374 cases (students:
n = 227; professionals: n = 147). Consistent with numerous researches
on entrepreneurial intention (e.g., Krueger et al., 2000; Liñán & Chen,
2009), we collected data from students, who – due to their age and
educational status – face the decision between paid-employment and
self-employment in the immediate future (Matthews & Moser, 1995;
Scherer, Adams, Carley, et al., 1989). However, previous research indi-
cates that student entrepreneurs differ from non-student entrepreneurs,
which means that findings may not be universally applicable (Robinson,
Huefner, & Hunt, 1991; Shook et al., 2003). Hence, following Chlosta et al.
(2012), we also included individuals who already started their profes-
sional career in our sample (professionals). This approach allows
sampling individuals who are older on average and have a wider range
of prior work and founding experience (Autio et al., 2001). As the TPB
aims at explaining behavior intended in the foreseeable future (Ajzen &
Madden, 1986) and the link between intention and subsequent behavior
needs to be clear and salient to individuals (Sheppard et al., 1988), we
collected data from individuals facing career decisions in the near future
(Krueger, 1993). The students in our sample were in their final year at
university, the professionals were employed in an IT firm currently
undergoing restructuring. Thus, starting a business within the next two
years was a career option for all individuals in our sample.
4.2. Measures
This section describes the measurement of the constructs in our
research model. To obtain reliable and valid measures, we draw on
established measurement scales from prior literature as improper
measurement leads to questionable findings and potentially unsound
conclusions (Crook, Shook, Morris, & Madden, 2010; Short, Ketchen,
Combs, & Ireland, 2010).
4.2.1. Entrepreneurial intention
Consistent with the TPB as our theoretical underpinning, our
measurement approach follows Ajzen's (1991, p. 181) definition of
intention (“indications of how hard people are willing to try, of how
much of an effort they are planning to exert, in order to perform the
behavior”) and his recommendations on how to measure this latent
Please cite this article as: Zapkau, F.B., et al., Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention, Journal of
Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.007
5
construct (Ajzen, 1991, 2006). To this end, we employ a multi-item
measure consisting of desires (“I want to perform the behavior”), inten-
tions (“I intend to perform the behavior”), and self-predictions (“I will
perform the behavior” or “How likely is it that you perform the behav-
ior”). Using such a mixed measure of intention is widespread in general
intention-based research (see Armitage & Conner 2001 for examples) as
well as in research on entrepreneurial intentions (e.g., Chen, Greene, &
Crick, 1998; Davidsson, 1995). Furthermore, we follow Ajzen's (1991)
recommendations for measuring intentions that accurately predict the
focal behavior. First, intention measures must accurately correspond
to the focal behavior (i.e., starting a business and not, for example, trying
to start a business). Second, intention measures must include a foresee-
able time span (here: two years) during which the focal behavior should
occur. In other words, the link between intention and behavior needs to
be clear and salient to individuals (Sheppard et al., 1988). This specifica-
tion is necessary, as intentions need to remain stable in the interval be-
tween their measurement and the occurrence of the focal behavior.
Otherwise intervening events (that potentially change individual's in-
tention) may markedly reduce the predictive validity of the intention
measure (Ajzen, 1991; Krueger & Carsrud, 1993).
Based on these considerations, we measured entrepreneurial inten-
tion by asking respondents whether they (1) intend, (2) expect,
(3) want to start a business within the next two years, and (4) how
they rate the likelihood of starting a business within the next two
years. Each item representing entrepreneurial intention was measured
on a Likert scale ranging from “1” to “7”.
In sum, our way of measuring entrepreneurial intention is also con-
sistent with recent recommendations by Thompson (2009) regarding
the measurement approach. That is, we measure entrepreneurial inten-
tion on a continuous (7-point Likert) scale as opposed to a categorical
measurement approach as categorical measures tend to oversimplify
the distinction between individuals who display / do not display entre-
preneurial intention and are unable to express individual's level of in-
tention. Moreover, we use reflective rather than formative indicators
as also recommended by Diamantopoulos and Siguaw (2006).
Additionally, we use multi-item measurement to assess individuals' en-
trepreneurial intention. Multi-item measurement allows for assessing
the reliability and validity of latent constructs such as entrepreneurial
intention. In this regard, our four-item measure of entrepreneurial in-
tention displays high internal consistency (Cronbachs α = .965), as
well as sufficient convergent and discriminant validity (see Table 1 for
detailed results). Lastly, we report the wording of each of the four
items measuring entrepreneurial intention ensuring full replicability
of our approach.
Despite several similarities, our measurement of entrepreneurial
intention differs from the one by Thompson (2009) by including a
time span of two years until the focal behavior (starting a business)
should occur. In contrast, Thompson states that the “point in the fu-
ture might be imminent or indeterminate (…)” (Thompson, 2009,
p. 676). To account for whether the time span is problematic, we
conduct a robustness check by calculating the correlation of our
four-item entrepreneurial intention measure with an item (mea-
sured on a 7-point Likert scale) from Kolvereid (1996) (“If you
could choose between being self-employed and being an employee
in an organization, what would you prefer?”), which does not in-
clude such a finite time span. The correlation between both measures
is significantly positive (r = .45; p ≤ .001). Additionally, we examine
the robustness of our entrepreneurial intention measure in compar-
ison to the measure developed by Liñán and Chen (2009) in an entre-
preneurial context. To this end, we collected additional data from
n = 136 German students. After verifying the reliability and validity
of both scales with satisfying results, we computed the bivariate cor-
relation between both measures. The correlation coefficient amounts
to r = .64 (p ≤ .001) indicating a high positive correlation between
our entrepreneurial intention measure and the one established by
Liñán and Chen (2009).
6 F.B. Zapkau et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
4.2.2. Attitude
To measure the attitude towards starting a business we employ a di-
rect overall measure of attitude consistent with TPB reasoning proposed
by Ajzen (1991). To this end, we use a semantic differential with four
items tapping respondents' attitudes towards starting a business
(Cronbachs α = .901). We asked respondents whether starting a busi-
ness within the next two years would be foolish/smart, harmful/
beneficial, worthless/useful, bad/good for them. Each item was
measured on a Likert scale ranging from “1” to “7”.
4.2.3. Subjective norm
To measure subjective norm, Ajzen (1991) suggests obtaining an
overall measure by asking respondents to rate the extent to which at-
tachment figures would approve or disapprove of them performing a
specific behavior. Our subjective norm scale consists of two items each
ranging from “1” = strongly disagree to “7” = strongly agree. We
asked respondents whether people that are of importance to her/him
expect her/him to start a business within the next two years and wheth-
er such people think that she/he should start a business within the next
two years (Cronbachs α = .787).
4.2.4. Perceived behavioral control
Measures of perceived behavioral control have to tap respondents'
confidence of being able to successfully perform a specific behavior. In
accordance with Ajzen (2002), we measure perceived behavioral con-
trol as overall measure containing efficacy as well as controllability per-
ceptions. To this end, we used three Likert-scaled items (each ranging
from “1” to “7”) asking respondents to indicate whether starting a busi-
ness within the next two years would be impossible/possible or easy/
difficult for them and whether starting a business within the next two
years would be beyond/within their control (Cronbachs α = .727).
4.2.5. Prior entrepreneurial exposure
We adapted our measures for the two types of prior entrepreneurial
exposure under investigation from Krueger (1993). We asked respon-
dents to indicate whether (1) their parents had previously started a
business and whether (2) they previously worked for a small or newly
founded firm (“0” = no; “1” = yes).
4.2.6. Perceived quality of prior entrepreneurial exposure
Following each question asking respondents whether they had a
specific type prior entrepreneurial exposure ((1) parental role models,
(2) work experience in a small or newly founded firm), respondents –
who claimed prior exposure in a specific field – were asked to rate
whether they perceived this exposure as negative (coded “− 1”), nei-
ther/nor (coded “0”), or positive (coded “1”). In contrast, respondents
who had no exposure in a specific field were excluded from the
follow-up question. This way of measuring the perceived quality of
prior entrepreneurial exposure grounds on Krueger (1993).
4.3. Assessing reliability and validity
To assess the reliability of our scales we calculate Cronbach's alpha.
The values ranging from .727 to .965 indicate high internal consistency
(Nunnally, 1978). Next, we employ several procedures to assess the va-
lidity of our scales. First, we assess convergent validity by conducting a
principal axis factor analysis with the items measuring our four latent
variables (i.e., attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control,
entrepreneurial intention). The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test (.910) and
Bartlett's sphericity test (p b .001) both yield satisfying results, suggest-
ing our data is well suited for conducting a factor analysis. Principal axis
factor analysis extracts three factors with eigenvalues greater than one,
whereas the fourth factor displays an eigenvalue of .93. Thus, we take
the scree plot into account, which suggests a four-factor solution.
Table 1 displays the rotated factor matrix with four factors illustrating
that all items load on their theoretically assigned factors only.
Please cite this article as: Zapkau, F.B., et al., Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention, Journal of
Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.007
Table 1
Convergent validity.
Factor
Entrepreneurial Attitude Subjective Perceived behavioral
intention norm control
EI 1 97
EI 2 .99
EI 3 .87
EI 4 .91
Att. 1 .75
Att. 2 .93
Att. 3 .82
Att. 4 .83
SN 1 .79
SN 2 .79
PBC 1 .67
PBC 2 .50
PBC 3 .78
Note: Extraction method: principal axis factorization; Rotation method: Promax; Normal-
ization with Kaiser; Rotation converged after six iterations; Loadings below .3 not shown.
Second, we assess discriminant validity consistent with the criterion
introduced by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Accordingly, discriminant va-
lidity exists whenever the average variance extracted (AVE) for each
construct is higher than the squared correlation between the constructs.
Hence, we analyzed each pair of latent constructs and found them all to
demonstrate sufficient discriminant validity.
4.4. Assessing measurement invariance
As responses to certain measurement items may systematically vary
across different groups of individuals (such as students and profes-
sionals), conclusions based on non-invariant scales may be ambiguous
or at worst erroneous (Adler, 1983; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998).
Hence, testing for measurement invariance is necessary to ensure that
scale items measure their underlying constructs equivalently across
groups (Singh, 1995). Consistent with Steenkamp and Baumgartner
(1998), we apply a sequence of multigroup confirmatory factor analyses
to test for cross-group measurement invariance. First, we test for
configural invariance (i.e., equal factor structure across groups) finding
the unconstrained baseline model to fit satisfactory (χ 2 = 225.21, dƒ =
154, χ 2/dƒ = 1.46, IFI = .98, TLI = .98, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .04). Second,
we test for metric invariance (i.e., equal factor loadings across groups)
by constraining the measurement weights across groups. Fit indices
(χ 2 = 238.36, dƒ = 163, χ 2/dƒ = 1.46, IFI = .98, TLI = .98, CFI = .98,
RMSEA = .04) and the insignificant increase in χ 2 between the
constrained and the unconstrained baseline model (Δ χ 2 = 13.15;
p = .16) suggest metric invariance. Third, we test for scalar invariance
(i.e., equal intercepts across groups) by constraining the measurement
intercepts across groups. Fit indices (χ 2 = 257.48, dƒ = 176, χ 2/
dƒ = 1.46, IFI = .98, TLI = .98, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .04) and the insignif-
icant increase in χ2 between the constrained and the unconstrained
baseline model (Δ χ2 = 32.27; p = .07) suggest scalar invariance.
4.5. Assessing common method variance
As we gathered data from a single respondent using a single meth-
odology (paper-based- or online-questionnaire), it may be susceptive
to common method bias (CMB) (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). We employ two procedures
to evaluate the magnitude of CMB. First, we employ Harman's-One-
Factor-Test to assess the extent of CMB (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986;
Podsakoff et al., 2003). Principal component factor analysis with six var-
iables extracts two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 (first factor:
42.4%, second factor: 17.7%). As no single factor emerges and none of the
factors accounts for most of the variance, CMB is not a concern. Second,
following Podsakoff et al. (2003), we conduct a confirmatory factor
 F.B. Zapkau et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 7

analysis (CFA) testing three different models: (1) loading all of the items of prior entrepreneurial exposure and did not report any missing values
onto one common method factor (χ2 = 968.70, dƒ = 90, χ2/dƒ = 10.76, (n = 374).
IFI = .77, TLI = .74, CFI = .77, RMSEA = .16, AIC = 1028.70), (2) loading We follow recent recommendations by James, Mulaik, and Brett
all items onto their theoretically assigned and correlated variables (χ2 = (2006) to test our mediator Hypotheses 1a–c and 2a–c. To this end,
158.27, dƒ = 77, χ2/dƒ = 2.06, IFI = .98, TLI = .97, CFI = .98, RMSEA = two steps have to be completed. First, it is necessary to determine
.05, AIC = 244.27), and (3) loading the items onto their whether the hypothesized mediator relationships are full or partial.
latent correlated variables as well as onto an additional method factor Given that the TPB theoretically assumes sufficiency (i.e., TPB's attitudi-
(χ2 = 116.86, dƒ = 62, χ2/dƒ = 1.89, IFI = .99, TLI = .98, CFI = .99, nal variables fully mediate the influence of external factors on inten-
RMSEA = .05, AIC = 232.86). As models two and three fit similarly well tion) (Ajzen, 1991), we use a fully mediated model as baseline model
to the data (i.e., adding a common method factor does not significantly for subsequent model comparisons. Moreover, full mediation models
improve model fit), no severe threat of CMB exists. are the most parsimonious type of mediation models (in other words,
have more degrees of freedom) and, hence, are easier to reject
5. Results compared to partial mediation models. Thus, assuming full mediation
is consistent with the basic philosophy of science doctrine (Mulaik,
Table 2 displays the means, standard deviations, and correlations 2001). Second, we use SEM techniques to test our mediation
among the focal variables. As none of the correlations exceeds the hypotheses. To this end, we test paths from the predictor variables
threshold of .7, no serious risk of multicollinearity exists (Anderson, (i.e., entrepreneurial role model exposure, work experience in a small
Sweeney, & Williams, 2002). However, as the highest correlation is or newly founded firm) to the mediator variables (i.e., attitude, subjec-
.61, we additionally compute the variance inflation factor (VIF) for tive norm, perceived behavioral control) as well as a path from the
each independent variable. As the highest VIF is 1.39 and thus stays mediator variables to the dependent variable (i.e., entrepreneurial
well below the threshold of 2.5 (Allison, 1999), severe multicollinearity intention). In contrast, direct paths from the predictor variables to the
among the variables is absent. dependent variable are not included as such direct effects are not a
We apply structural equation modeling (SEM) to test our hypothe- necessary condition for establishing mediation (James et al., 2006;
ses. As recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), we follow a Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010).
two-step approach. First, we estimate the measurement model using The fit indices of our hypothesized full mediation model (model
CFA to assess the reliability and validity of our latent constructs. Second, A) suggest good model fit: The χ2/df ratio (2.01) is below the threshold
we estimate the hypothesized structural model. of 3.0 (Kline, 1998). The TLI (.97), the IFI (.98), and the CFI (.98) all
exceed the threshold of .95. The RMSEA (.05) stays below the cutoff
point of .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Against our baseline model, we test
5.1. Measurement model three nested models (assuming partial mediation) and one alternative
non-mediated model assuming only direct effects. Compared to model
We assess the measurement model's fit by drawing on the Chi- A, model B includes a direct path from entrepreneurial role model expo-
square/df ratio, the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), the Incremental Fit Index sure to entrepreneurial intention. Model C differs from model A by
(IFI), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the Root Mean Square Error including a direct path from work experience in a small or newly
of Approximation (RMSEA). The Chi-square/df ratio (2.06) for the mea- founded firm to entrepreneurial intention. Model D adds two direct
surement model is below the threshold of 3.0 (Kline, 1998), whereas TLI paths from both predictor variables to entrepreneurial intention. Lastly,
(.97), IFI (.98), and CFI (.98) all exceed the threshold of .95. The RMSEA model E assumes only direct (non-mediated) effects from both predic-
(.05) stays below the cutoff point of .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Hence, ac- tor variables on entrepreneurial intention. As Table 3 suggests, the
cording to all fit indices, our measurement model displays a good model differences between χ2 values are not significant for models B–E
fit. Moreover, the standardized factor loadings in the CFA are all above compared to model A. Model A displays the lowest value for the Akaike
.56 exceeding the recommended minimum of .4 (Ford, MacCallum, & Information Criterion (AIC). In sum, these results suggest that model A
Tait, 1986). has the best model fit. Hence, the attitudinal variables of the TPB fully
mediate the relationship between entrepreneurial role model exposure
5.2. Structural equation modeling as well as work experience in a small or newly founded firm on entre-
preneurial intention.
We test the influence of entrepreneurial role model exposure and Despite several similarities, the traditional test for mediation by
work experience in a small or newly founded firm on entrepreneurial Baron and Kenny (1986) differs from our approach by assuming partial
intention mediated through attitude, subjective norm, and perceived mediation as baseline model, which is inappropriate for the SEM ap-
behavioral control (model 1). To this end, we use the full sample proach (Wang, 2008). James et al. (2006) as well as Zhao et al. (2010)
consisting of individuals who claimed to have none, one, or both types provide a detailed discussion on the similarities and differences
between the traditional test for mediation and the more recent SEM
Table 2 approach. Moreover, Iacobucci, Saldanha, and Deng (2007) provide ev-
Descriptive statistics and correlation among variables. idence that the SEM approach as outlined above is superior to tradition-
al regression analysis when testing for mediator relationships. In the
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
same vein, MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002)
1 Entrepreneurial 2.45 1.81 1 contrast 14 methods to test for mediator relationships. Their analyses
intention
reveal that the traditional approach by Baron and Kenny (1986) has
2 Attitude 4.10 1.33 .61** 1
3 Subjective norm 2.02 1.50 .53** .34** 1 the lowest statistical power. In contrast, the authors recommend testing
4 Perceived behavioral 3.65 1.52 .59** .48** .34** 1 for mediation by analyzing indirect effects applying the SEM approach
control as outlined above.
5 PEX: parental role 0.30 0.46 .12* .07 .12* .08 1
Taking the standardized path coefficients of the hypothesized full
models
6 PEX: work 0.48 0.50 .16** .15** .06 .19** .14** 1 mediation model (model A) into account, results suggest that all attitu-
experience dinal variables of the TPB display a highly significant (p ≤ .001) and
Note: n = 374; Pearson correlation (bivariate) with listwise deletion; SD: standard
positive effect (attitude: .27, subjective norm: .33, perceived behavioral
deviation; PEX: Prior Entrepreneurial Exposure. control: .40) on entrepreneurial intention. Exposure to entrepreneurial
*: p ≤ .05, **: p ≤ .01. role models positively influences the subjective norm in regard to

Please cite this article as: Zapkau, F.B., et al., Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention, Journal of
Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.007
8 F.B. Zapkau et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 3
Model comparisons for model 1.

Model comparisons - model 1a

Model and structure χ2 df Δχ2d χ2/df TLI IFI CFI RMSEA AIC

Ab PEX → TPB → EI 158.53 79 2.01 .97 .98 .98 .05 240.53

B PEX → TPB → EI and PEX: parental role models → EI 158.37 78 .16 2.03 .97 .98 .98 .05 242.37
C PEX → TPB → EI and PEX: work experience → EI 158.45 78 .08 2.03 .97 .98 .98 .05 242.45
D PEX → TPB → EI and PEX: parental role models → EI and PEX: work experience → EI 158.27 77 .26 2.06 .97 .98 .98 .05 244.27
Ec PEX → EI 486.84 86 5.66 .87 .90 .90 .11 554.84

a) n = 374.
b) Hypothesized model (full mediation).
c) Non-mediated model.
d) Significance levels: *: p ≤ .05; **: p ≤ .01; ***: p ≤ .001.
Note: df: Degrees of Freedom; TLI: Tucker Lewis Index; IFI: Incremental Fit Index; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; AIC: Akaike Information
Criterion; PEX: Prior Entrepreneurial Exposure; TPB: Theory of Planned Behavior; EI: Entrepreneurial Intention.

starting a business (.13, p ≤ .05), whereas it displays no significant ef-
fect on attitude (.06) and perceived behavioral control (.08). In contrast,
prior work experience in a small or newly founded firm has no signifi-
cant effect on the subjective norm in regard to starting a business
(.05), whereas it positively affects the attitude (.15, p ≤ .01) as well as
the perceived behavioral control in regard to starting a business (.22,
p ≤ .001). In sum, these findings support our Hypotheses 1b, 2a,
and 2c, whereas we have to reject Hypotheses 1a, 1c, and 2b. Table 4
summarizes our results and Fig. 2 displays our results graphically.
Additionally, we test for group-specific differences in results
between students and professionals. To this end, we apply the critical
ratio (CR) test to detect significant differences between pairs of path co-
efficients for each group. Path coefficients are considered significantly
different between groups (at the p ≤ .05 level) if the CR exceeds an ab-
solute value of 1.96 (e.g., Eisingerich & Rubera, 2010; Yun-Jeong & Kelly,
2013). However, the CR values for all paths in model 1 are lower than
1.96, which suggests that no significant group-specific differences in
the relations between the two types of prior entrepreneurial exposure,
the three mediating attitudinal variables of the TPB, and entrepreneurial
intention exist. Hence, the results of hypotheses testing (based on
model 1) apply to both groups.
In a second set of models, we analyze the effects of the perceived
quality of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention
mediated through attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral
control. Model 2a examines this relation for exposure to entrepreneurial
role models, whereas model 2b analyzes the effect of work experience
in a small or newly founded firm. We test the influence of the perceived
quality of these two types of prior entrepreneurial exposure in separate
models, as we included only individuals in each respective analysis who
were able to rate their prior exposures as negative, neither / nor, or pos-
itive. Thus, the sample size is reduced to n = 113 (students: n = 77;
professionals: n = 36) in model 2a and n = 173 (students: n = 113;
professionals: n = 60) in model 2b.
Again, we assume complete mediation as baseline model for model
comparison testing. The fit indices suggest good fit for both baseline
models. Chi-square/df ratios (1.68 for model 2a, 1.39 for model 2b)
are below the threshold of 3.0 (Kline, 1998). The TLI (.95 for model 2a,
.98 for model 2b), the IFI (.96 for model 2a, .99 for model 2b), and the
CFI (.96 for model 2a, .98 for model 2b) all match or exceed the thresh-
old of .95. The RMSEA stays below the cutoff point of .06 (Hu & Bentler,
1999) in model 2b (.05), whereas model 2a displays a slightly higher
RMSEA of .08. However, the RMSEA tends to overreject models due to
small sample sizes (Hu & Bentler, 1999). As the sample size of our
model 2a is only n = 113, we follow Hu and Bentler's (1999) recom-
mendation to draw on a combination of IFI and CFI to assess the
model fit (which yield satisfactory results for our model 2a as outlined
above).
To test our mediator Hypotheses 3a–c and 4a–c, we, again, contrast
each baseline model with competing models. More specific, we contrast
the baseline models (model A) with one nested model assuming partial

Table 4
SEM results for model 1.

Model 1a

Hypotheses Coefficientsb,c

Attitude Entrepreneurial intention .27*** (.08)

Subjective norm Entrepreneurial intention .33*** (.07)
Perceived behavioral control Entrepreneurial intention .40*** (.06)
H1a PEX: parental role models Attitude .06 (.14)
H1b PEX: parental role models Subjective norm .13* (.17)
H1c PEX: parental role models Perceived behavioral control .08 (.23)
H2a PEX: work experience Attitude .15** (.13)
H2b PEX: work experience Subjective norm .05 (.16)
H2c PEX: work experience Perceived behavioral control .22*** (.21)
Fit measures
χ2 158.53
df 79
χ2 / df 2.01
TLI .97
IFI .98
CFI .98
RMSEA .05

a) n = 374.
b) Standardized coefficients with standard errors in parentheses.
c) Significance levels: *: p ≤ .05; **: p ≤ .01; ***: p ≤ .001.
Note: df: Degrees of Freedom; TLI: Tucker Lewis Index; IFI: Incremental Fit Index; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; PEX: Prior Entrepreneur-
ial Exposure.

Please cite this article as: Zapkau, F.B., et al., Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention, Journal of
Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.007
 F.B. Zapkau et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 9

PEX: parental
Attitude .27***
role models .13*

Subjective .33*** Entrepreneurial

.15** norm intention

.40***

PEX: work
.22*** Perceived
experience in small /
behavioral control
newly founded firms

Fig. 2. Results model 1.

mediation (model B) and one alternative non-mediated model assum-
ing only a direct relation between the predictor and the dependent
variable (model C). Compared to model A, model B includes a direct
path from quality of entrepreneurial role model exposure / quality of
work experience in a small or newly founded firm to entrepreneurial in-
tention. Model C assumes only a direct (non-mediated) effect from each
predictor variable on entrepreneurial intention. Table 5 displays that the
differences between χ2 values are not significant for models B and C
compared to the respective baseline model A. Each baseline model A
displays the lowest AIC value. In sum, these results suggest that each
baseline model A best fits the data. Hence, the attitudinal variables of
the TPB fully mediate the relationship between quality of entrepreneur-
ial role model exposure as well as quality of work experience in a small
or newly founded firm on entrepreneurial intention.
Next, we report the standardized path coefficients for each complete
mediation model (models 2a and 2b). As Table 6 displays, attitude, sub-
jective norm, and perceived behavioral control display a significantly
positive effect on entrepreneurial intention in model 2a (attitude: .34,
p ≤ .001; subjective norm .27, p ≤ .01; perceived behavioral control:
.41, p ≤ .001) and model 2b (attitude: .32, p ≤ .001; subjective norm
.35, p ≤ .001; perceived behavioral control: .34, p ≤ .001). We analyze
the predictors' effects on TPB's attitudinal variables. Only the path coef-
ficients of perceived quality of entrepreneurial role model exposure on
attitude (.23, p ≤ .05) as well as on subjective norm (.27, p ≤ .05) display
a significant relation in model 2a. In contrast, the effect of entrepreneur-
ial role model exposure perceived as positive on perceived behavioral
control is non-significant (.08). Model 2b suggests that the perceived
quality of work experience in a small or newly founded firm has no
significant effect on any of the attitudinal variables of the TPB (.02 on at-
titude, .07 on subjective norm, .04 on perceived behavioral control).
Summing up, we find support for Hypotheses 3a and 3b, while we
have to reject Hypotheses 3c and 4a–4c. Fig. 3 displays results for
model 2a, whereas Fig. 4 depicts results for model 2b.
Similar to model 1, we test for group-specific differences in results
between students and professionals in models 2a and 2b. Again, the
CR values for all paths in models 2a and 2b are lower than 1.96, which

Table 5
Model comparisons for models 2a and 2b.

Model comparisons — model 2aa

Model and structure χ2 df Δχ2d χ2/df TLI IFI CFI RMSEA AIC
b
A Quality: parental role models → TPB → EI 116.10 69 1.68 .95 .96 .96 .08 188.10
B Quality: parental role models → TPB → EI and Quality: parental role models → EI 115.90 68 .20 1.70 .95 .96 .96 .08 189.90
Cc Quality: parental role models → EI 210.64 74 2.85 .86 .88 .88 .13 272.64
a) n = 113
b) Hypothesized model (full mediation)
c) Non-mediated model
d) Significance levels: *: p ≤ .05; **: p ≤ .01; ***: p ≤ .001
Note: df: Degrees of Freedom; TLI: Tucker Lewis Index; IFI: Incremental Fit Index; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; AIC: Akaike
Information Criterion; TPB: Theory of Planned Behavior; EI: Entrepreneurial Intention

Model comparisons — model 2ba

Model and Structure χ2 df Δχ2d χ2/df TLI IFI CFI RMSEA AIC
b
A Quality: work experience → TPB → EI 95.60 69 1.39 .98 ,99 ,98 .05 167.60
B Quality: work experience → TPB → EI and Quality: work experience → EI 95.44 68 .16 1.40 .98 .98 .98 .05 169.44
Cc Quality: work experience → EI 243.92 74 3.30 .88 .90 .90 .12 305.92

a) n = 173.
b) Hypothesized model (full mediation).
c) Non-mediated model
d) Significance levels: *: p ≤ .05; **: p ≤ .01; ***: p ≤ .001.
Note: df: Degrees of Freedom; TLI: Tucker Lewis Index; IFI: Incremental Fit Index; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; AIC: Akaike Information
Criterion; TPB: Theory of Planned Behavior; EI: Entrepreneurial Intention.

Please cite this article as: Zapkau, F.B., et al., Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention, Journal of
Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.007
10 F.B. Zapkau et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 6
SEM results for models 2a and 2b.

Model 2aa Model 2bb

Hypotheses Coefficientsc, d Coefficientsc, d

Attitude Entrepreneurial intention .34*** (.20) .32*** (.12)

Subjective norm Entrepreneurial intention .27** (.14) .35*** (.11)
Perceived behavioral control Entrepreneurial intention .41*** (.13) .34*** (.10)
H3a Quality: parental role models Attitude .23* (.15)
H3b Quality: parental role models Subjective norm .27* (.22)
H3c Quality: parental role models Perceived behavioral control .08 (.26)
H4a Quality: work experience Attitude .02 (.15)
H4b Quality: work experience Subjective norm .07 (.19)
H4c Quality: work experience Perceived behavioral control .04 (.24)
Fit measures
χ2 116.10 95.60
df 69 69
χ2 / df 1.68 1.39
TLI .95 .98
IFI .96 .99
CFI .96 .98
RMSEA .08 .05

a) n = 113.
b) n = 173.
c) Standardized coefficients with standard errors in parentheses.
d) Significance levels: *: p ≤ .05; **: p ≤ .01; ***: p ≤ .001.
Note: df: Degrees of Freedom; TLI: Tucker Lewis Index; IFI: Incremental Fit Index; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

suggests that no significant group-specific differences in the relations
between perceived quality of prior entrepreneurial exposure, the
three mediating attitudinal variables of the TPB, and entrepreneurial in-
tention exist. Hence, the results of hypotheses testing (based on models
2a and 2b) apply to both groups.
As hypotheses testing based on large sample standard errors may
lead to inaccurate results in our comparatively small samples in models
2a and 2b (MacKinnon et al., 2002), we additionally employ the
bootstrapping method (Preacher & Hayes, 2004, 2008) to substantiate
our findings. Bootstrapping refers to an empirical estimation of the sam-
pling distribution of a statistic based on multiple resamples drawn from
the existing data. The resulting bootstrapping sampling distribution is
then used to generate p-values as well as confidence intervals and, in
turn, test hypotheses (Efron & Tibshirani, 1993). Following recommen-
dations by Shrout and Bolger (2002), we use 1000 bootstrap resamples
from the existing data to estimate direct and indirect effects. Results
confirm our previous findings as outlined above. Regarding perceived
quality of entrepreneurial role model exposure (model 2a), the
mean standardized indirect effect on entrepreneurial intention is .17
(p ≤ .05), whereas the mean standardized direct effect is non-
significant (.04; p = .75). In contrast, neither the indirect (.05; p =
.45) nor the direct (−.02; p = .68) effect of perceived quality of work
experience in a small or newly founded firm on entrepreneurial inten-
tion is significant.
As an additional robustness check, we apply the more conservative
(MacKinnon, Warsi, & Dwyer, 1995) Sobel test for mediation (Sobel,
1982). The results support our findings as outlined above. The effect of
perceived quality of entrepreneurial role model exposure (model 2a)
is mediated through attitude (p ≤ .1) and subjective norm (p ≤ .1)
but not through perceived behavioral control (p = .47). The effect of
perceived quality of work experience in a small or newly founded firm
(model 2b) is neither mediated through attitude (p = .75), or
subjective norm (p = .40) nor through perceived behavioral control
(p = .58). Table 7 summarizes the results from hypotheses testing.
Lastly, we evaluate the predictive validity of all our models as several
authors (e.g., Armstrong, 2012; Gigerenzer & Brighton, 2009) empha-
size that it is not sufficient to rely on fit indices as even good fitting
models may lead to poor predictions. In order to avoid this potential
fallacy, we follow a recent recommendation by Woodside (2013) and
cross-validate our models by randomly splitting each original sample
in two samples (calibration and validation sample) using each sample
as a holdout sample to assess the predictive validity of the other sample.

Fig. 3. Results model 2a.

Please cite this article as: Zapkau, F.B., et al., Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention, Journal of
Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.007
 F.B. Zapkau et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 11

Fig. 4. Results model 2b.

Consistent with the requirements to assess the cross-validity of struc-
tural equation models (Byrne, 2004, 2010), we constrain each models
structural paths for each sub-sample. That is, the validation sample's
structural paths are constrained to the estimated values of the calibra-
tion model's structural paths. In order to assess each model's predictive
validity, χ2 and CFI differences between the unconstrained and
constrained models are taken into account. Results of this procedure
lend further support to the predictive validity of all our models, as
none of the χ2 differences between unconstrained and constrained
models are statistically significant (p N .1) and the differences in regard
to CFI values are remarkably small (Δ CFI ≤ .006) and, hence, well
below the critical threshold of Δ CFI ≤ .01 (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).
6. Discussion
The present study's overall aim is to disentangle the effect of prior
entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention to gain a better
understanding of how prior entrepreneurial exposure influences indi-
viduals' intention to become an entrepreneur. To this end, we analyze
how different types of exposure (observational exposure to entrepre-
neurial role models, work experience in a small or newly founded
firm) and the perceived quality of exposure influence individuals' entre-
preneurial intention mediated through the attitudinal variables of the
TPB (i.e., attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control).
The stability of our results across groups (students and professionals)
suggests a broad generalizability of our findings.
Our findings strongly confirm prior studies (e.g., Kolvereid, 1996;
Tkachev & Kolvereid, 1999), which support the applicability of the TPB
to explain entrepreneurial intention (with, however, only implicitly as-
suming indirect effects of exogenous variables). Moreover, we find em-
pirical support for our theoretical prediction that the three attitudinal
variables (attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control)
of the TPB mediate the influence of prior entrepreneurial exposure on
entrepreneurial intention. This finding is consistent with the formula-
tion of the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) as exogenous influences (such as prior en-
trepreneurial exposure) on intention are mediated through attitude,
subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. Furthermore, this
outcome may explain why prior research on demographic characteris-
tics of entrepreneurs testing direct-effects models instead of applying
indirect intention-based frameworks such as the TPB displays rather
inconclusive results (Shook et al., 2003). Based on our findings, we
encourage future research to employ indirect (intention-based) models
in order to reduce the inconclusive findings from direct effects models.
One alternative framework in this regard may be social cognitive career
theory (SCCT) (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). Rather similar to the TPB,
the SCCT regards individual's outcome expectations (which reflect TPB's
attitude) and self-efficacy (which is related to TPB's perceived behavior-
al control) influential for individuals' career intentions. However, the
SCCT also postulates reciprocal influences (i.e., higher self-efficacy
leads to more positive outcome expectations regarding entrepreneurial
behavior), which are largely neglected in the TPB (Segal, Borgia, &
Schoenfeld, 2002). As Liñán and Chen (2009) have shown that
individual's subjective norm influences entrepreneurial intention

Table 7
Summary of results from hypotheses testing.

Model Hypothesis Relationship Finding

Model 1 H1a PEX: parental role models Attitude Rejected

H1b PEX: parental role models Subjective norm Confirmed
H1c PEX: parental role models Perceived behavioral control Rejected
H2a PEX: work experience Attitude Confirmed
H2b PEX: work experience Subjective norm Rejected
H2c PEX: work experience Perceived behavioral control Confirmed
Model 2a H3a Quality: parental role models Attitude Confirmed
H3b Quality: parental role models Subjective norm Confirmed
H3c Quality: parental role models Perceived behavioral control Rejected
Model 2b H4a Quality: work experience Attitude Rejected
H4b Quality: work experience Subjective norm Rejected
H4c Quality: work experience Perceived behavioral control Rejected

Note: PEX = Prior Entrepreneurial Exposure.

Please cite this article as: Zapkau, F.B., et al., Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention, Journal of
Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.007
12 F.B. Zapkau et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
through attitude and perceived behavioral control, an additional avenue
for future research might be to delve deeper into the reciprocal relations
between attitudinal variables (Krueger, 2009).
Prior entrepreneurial exposure can occur through the observation of
role models as well as through direct experience (Bandura, 1977;
Latham & Saari, 1979). Moreover, individuals may perceive prior entre-
preneurial exposure as positive or negative (Krueger, 1993). Opposed
to conventional entrepreneurship wisdom, we find hardly any significant
connection between entrepreneurial role model exposure (i.e., exposure
to parents who previously started a business) and entrepreneurial inten-
tion mediated through the attitudinal variables of the TPB. Exposure to
parental role models only positively influences the subjective norm,
whereas it has no significant effect on either attitude or perceived behav-
ioral control in regard to starting a business. Hence, individuals with
entrepreneurial parents perceive social pressure to start a business.
However, they neither have a more positive attitude towards starting a
business, nor do they feel more capable of successfully performing the
tasks related to starting a business compared to individuals without
entrepreneurial parents. Only when individuals perceive parental role
model exposure as positive, they develop a more positive attitude to-
wards starting a business. We suggest two explanations why our analysis
does not support prior direct studies (e.g., Crant, 1996; Matthews &
Moser, 1995), which emphasize a positive influence of entrepreneurial
role models on entrepreneurial intention. First, prior research analyzing
direct effect models often employs samples of existing business owners,
which may have simply taken over their parents' business. Hence, future
research should further explore how founders who intend starting a new
business differ from successors (Zellweger, Sieger, & Halter, 2011). Sec-
ond, prior research mostly neglects to take into account how (positive
or negative) individuals actually perceived the parental role model expo-
sure. We extend prior literature by demonstrating that only prior role
model exposure perceived as positive positively affects individuals' atti-
tude towards starting a business. This finding extends a study by Kim
et al. (2006) who suggest that prior founders are strongly discouraged
from starting another business by negative experiences. Hence, our find-
ings at least partly resolve ambiguous results of prior research analyzing
the (direct and unrated) effects of entrepreneurial role models on
entrepreneurial intention.
However, in neither case (unrated or perceived as positive) does en-
trepreneurial role model exposure lead to a higher perceived behavioral
control in regard to starting a business. This finding casts doubts on the
effectiveness of observational learning from role models (as suggested
by Scherer, Adams, Carley et al. (1989), Scherer, Adams and Wiebe
(1989)). Only direct experiences such as work experience in a small or
newly founded firm seem to convey the necessary tacit knowledge
relevant for starting a business. In other words, individuals, who were
exposed to entrepreneurial role models, are not able to transfer the
observed business knowledge to their own startup attempt. Future re-
search should hence control for industry effects in role model relation-
ships, as some knowledge observed from entrepreneurial role models
might be industry-specific (Kim et al., 2006) and hence not overly useful
in every startup attempt. Moreover, this finding also contradicts
previous research arguing that entrepreneurial parents provide their
children with financial, human, social, and other resources necessary
to successfully start a business (Aldrich & Cliff, 2003; Scott & Twomey,
1988).
Besides exposure to entrepreneurial role models, we investigate the
effects of prior work experience in a small or newly founded firm on the
attitudinal variables of the TPB. Our results suggest that such direct ex-
perience leads to a more positive attitude in regard to starting a busi-
ness. Moreover, prior work experience in a small or newly founded
firm seems to convey tacit knowledge necessary for starting a business
as it elevates individuals' perceived behavioral control over the process
of starting a business. Our findings extend an earlier study by Kim et al.
(2006) who find that mainly current business ownership and manage-
rial experience positively affect entry into nascent entrepreneurial
Please cite this article as: Zapkau, F.B., et al., Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention, Journal of
Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.007
activities, whereas general work experience has no effect. Our results
emphasize that small or newly founded firms also provide an environ-
ment in which entrepreneurial learning through direct experiences
occurs. Moreover, working for a small or newly founded firm also
heightens individuals' attitude towards starting a business. The latter
finding empirically supports Dyer (1994) who emphasizes that prior
work experiences might expose individuals to an entrepreneurial life-
style, which in turn leads to higher a level of entrepreneurial intention.
In contrast, the perceived quality of work experience in a small or newly
founded firm has no effect on any of the attitudinal variables preceding
entrepreneurial intention. Hence, the positive effects on attitude and
perceived behavioral control occur through such (unrated) work expe-
rience alone — it is not required that individuals perceive the exposure
as positive.
7. Implications and limitations
7.1. Implications
Our results confirm that attitude towards starting a business,
subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control in regard to starting
a business are better predictors of entrepreneurial intention compared
to direct effects of demographic characteristics such as prior entrepre-
neurial exposure. These three attitudinal variables depend (amongst
others) on one's upbringing, education, or prior experiences (Douglas
& Shepherd, 2000). Hence, they can be altered by policy makers setting
the economic preconditions for entrepreneurship in general and in (en-
trepreneurial) education and training programs in particular (Kolvereid
& Isaksen, 2006). To have an impact on entrepreneurial intentions,
initiatives promoting entrepreneurial activity must render starting a
business both desirable (by changing behavioral beliefs relating to atti-
tudes) and feasible (by changing control beliefs relating to perceived
behavioral control) in the eyes of potential entrepreneurs (Gird &
Bagraim, 2008; Krueger et al., 2000). However, as subjective norm is
also one of the significant predictors of intention, it may not be sufficient
to change the behavioral and control beliefs of potential entrepreneurs.
In fact, the approval of potential entrepreneurs' attachment figures
must also be taken into consideration, when paving the way for entre-
preneurship (Kolvereid & Isaksen, 2006).
For initiatives promoting entrepreneurship such as entrepreneurial
education and training programs, it may be reasonable to screen and
select potential projects based on the attitude, subjective norm, and
perceived behavioral control of potential entrepreneurs. However, as
these attitudinal variables are not directly observable, prior entrepre-
neurial exposure may serve as a signal to identify promising entrepre-
neurs (Krueger, 1993; Scherer, Adams, & Wiebe, 1989). However, our
results suggest that one may not regard prior entrepreneurial exposure
as unidimensional, but rather account for differences in terms of type
and perceived quality of prior exposure. The mere observation of entre-
preneurial role models has only a very limited impact on the three
attitudinal variables preceding entrepreneurial intention per se. Only
role model exposure perceived as positive leads to a more positive atti-
tude towards starting a business. However, role model exposure alone
does not convey the necessary skills to potential entrepreneurs. The
perceived behavioral control over the process of starting a business is
only positively affected for individuals with prior direct experience
(such as work experience in a small or newly founded firm). Our results
imply that the integration of role models in entrepreneurship education
and training programs – as recommended by several scholars (e.g., Scott
& Twomey, 1988; van Auken et al., 2006) – has only a positive effect
on attitude towards starting a business, if trainees perceive the exposure
as positive. However, entrepreneurship trainees are only able to
learn relevant skills for starting a business by own start-up experiences
or internships. Learning by doing the necessary competencies gives in-
dividuals a greater confidence in regard to starting their own business
(Kolvereid & Isaksen, 2006). These findings call for entrepreneurship
 F.B. Zapkau et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
education and training programs with complementary theoretical and
active elements.
7.2. Limitations
Like most empirical studies, our study has limitations. Although
research focusing on entrepreneurial intentions is rather common in
entrepreneurship research, employing intentions as dependent variable
raises issues worth mentioning. The major limitation of intention-based
research is that validity and stability of the link between intention and
behavior can only be directly observed by longitudinal research
(Davidsson & Honig, 2003). However, prior studies emphasize that
the TPB accurately predicts planned behavior in a variety of fields
(e.g., Armitage & Conner, 2001). Despite such evidence from other
fields, entrepreneurship research would greatly profit from studies in-
vestigating the link between intention and behavior in an entrepreneur-
ial context (Fayolle & Liñán, 2014). One important step in this direction
is a recent study by Kautonen, Van Gelderen, and Tornikoski (2013). The
authors use longitudinal data to demonstrate that the three attitudinal
variables of the TPB are significant predictors of entrepreneurial inten-
tion, whereas entrepreneurial intention in turn is a significant predictor
of entrepreneurial behavior. However, more work needs yet to be done
in this regard as for example this study's results need to be replicated
with larger samples or in different cultural contexts. Moreover, the
individuals in our sample were facing immediate career choices and
were asked to indicate their intention to start a business within the
next two years. This rather limited time span advocates for a more
accurate intention-behavior link (Ajzen & Madden, 1986).
Second, one may criticize the measurement of our dependent variable
in light of other (established) measures of entrepreneurial intention
existing in the field. However, we believe that our entrepreneurial inten-
tion measure is robust for several reasons: first, we extensively confirm
the validity and reliability of our measure consistent with recent recom-
mendations (e.g., Mullen, Budeva, & Doney, 2009). Second, we examine
the robustness of our measure compared to alternative measures of
entrepreneurial intention developed in an entrepreneurial context
(i.e., Kolvereid, 1996; Liñán & Chen, 2009) indicating significantly high
positive correlations. Third, prior research emphasizes that the TPB is
remarkably robust to different specifications of the intention variable
(Krueger, 2009), which is further supported by results from a recent
meta-analysis (Bae, Qian, Miao, & Fiet, 2014) suggesting non-significant
differences between different entrepreneurial intention measures.
Fourth, our measurement approach is consistent with the state-of-the-
art recommendations on how to measure entrepreneurial intention by
Thompson (2009). Fifth, mixed measures of intention (combining inten-
tions with desires and behavioral expectations such as our measure)
work particularly well in a vocational context when individuals are not
yet fully decided between career alternatives as particularly behavioral
expectancies implicitly consider the choice between competing alterna-
tive behaviors (Kautonen et al., 2013; van Gelderen et al., 2008).
Sixth, our dependent variable uses a rather specific reference point
(i.e., “starting a business”) compared to competing measures from
entrepreneurship researchers using “becoming an entrepreneur” as
reference point. However, the term “entrepreneur” is rather vague and
has been differently interpreted and operationalized by prior research
(Thompson, 2009).
Another potential limitation is that our sample consists mainly of
German individuals. Thus, our results are at least partly dependent on
the cultural and economic conditions in Germany and thus may not be
universally applicable.
References
Adler, Nancy J. (1983). A typology of management studies involving culture. Journal of
International Business Studies, 14(2), 29–47.
Ajzen, Icek (1988). Attitudes, personality and behavior. Chicago, Illinois: Dorsey Press.
Please cite this article as: Zapkau, F.B., et al., Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention, Journal of
Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.007
13
Ajzen, Icek (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, Icek (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the
theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.
Ajzen, Icek (2006). Constructing a TpB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological
considerations. Retrieved 15.09.2013, from. http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/ikg/zick/
ajzen%20construction%20a%20tpb%20questionnaire.pdf
Ajzen, Icek, & Madden, Thomas J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes,
intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 22(5), 453–474.
Aldrich, Howard E., & Cliff, Jennifer E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepre-
neurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of Business Venturing,
18(5), 573–596.
Allison, Paul D. (1999). Multiple regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Anderson, James C., & Gerbing, David W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in prac-
tice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
411–423.
Anderson, David Ray, Sweeney, Dennis J., & Williams, Thomas Arthur (2002). Statistics for
business and economics. South-Western: Mason.
Armitage, Christopher J., & Conner, Mark (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned
behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499.
Armstrong, J. Scott (2012). Illusions in regression analysis. International Journal of
Forecasting, 28(3), 689–694.
Autio, Erkko, Keeley, Robert H., Klofsten, Magnus, Parker, George G. C., & Hay, Michael
(2001). Entrepreneurial intent among students in Scandinavia and in the USA.
Enterprise & Innovation Management Studies, 2(2), 145–160.
Bae, Tae Jun, Qian, Shanshan, Miao, Chao, & Fiet, James O. (2014). The relationship be-
tween entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta-analytic
review. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217–254, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/etap.12095.
Bagozzi, Richard P., Baumgartner, Johann, & Yi, Youjae (1989). An investigation into the
role of intentions as mediators of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 10(1), 35–62.
Bandura, Albert (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, Albert (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory.
Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barling, Julian, Dupre, Kathryne E., & Hepburn, C. Gail (1998). Effects of parents' job inse-
curity on children's work beliefs and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1),
112–118.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Bird, Barbara (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention.
Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442–453.
Brenner, O. C., Pringle, Charles D., & Greenhaus, Jeffrey H. (1991). Perceived fulfillment of or-
ganizational employment versus entrepreneurship: Work values and career intentions
of business college graduates. Journal of Small Business Management, 29(3), 62–74.
Byrne, Barbara M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: A road
less traveled. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(2), 272–300.
Byrne, Barbara M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Carr, Jon C., & Sequeira, Jennifer M. (2007). Prior family business exposure as intergener-
ational influence and entrepreneurial intent: A theory of planned behavior approach.
Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1090–1098.
Chen, Chao C., Greene, Patricia Gene, & Crick, Ann (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-
efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing,
13(4), 295–316.
Cheung, Gordon W., & Rensvold, Roger B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for
testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.
Chlosta, Simone, Patzelt, Holger, Klein, Sabine B., & Dormann, Christian (2012). Parental
role models and the decision to become self-employed: The moderating effect of
personality. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 121–138.
Crant, J. Michael (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial
intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(3), 42–49.
Crook, T. Russell, Shook, Christopher L., Morris, M. Lane, & Madden, Timothy M. (2010).
Are we there yet? An assessment of research design and construct measurement
practices in entrepreneurship research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1),
192–206.
Davidsson, Per (1995). Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions. Paper presented at the
RENT XI Workshop, Piacenza, Italy.
Davidsson, Per, & Honig, Benson (2003). The role of social and human capital among
nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.
Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, & Siguaw, Judy A. (2006). Formative versus reflective
indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical
illustration. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 263–282.
Douglas, Evan J., & Shepherd, Dean A. (2000). Entrepreneurship as a utility maximizing
response. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(3), 231–251.
Dunn, Thomas, & Holtz-Eakin, Douglas (2000). Financial capital, human capital, and the
transition to self-employment: Evidence from intergenerational links. Journal of
Labor Economics, 18(2), 282–305.
Dyer, W. Gibb (1994). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial careers. Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, 19(2), 7–21.
Efron, Bradley, & Tibshirani, Robert (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York:
Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Eisingerich, Andreas B., & Rubera, Gaia (2010). Drivers of brand commitment: A cross-
national investigation. Journal of International Marketing, 18(2), 64–79.
14 F.B. Zapkau et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Fairlie, Robert W., & Robb, Alicia (2007). Families, human capital, and small business: Ev-
idence from the characteristics of business owners survey. Industrial & Labor Relations
Review, 60(2), 225–245.
Fayolle, Alain (2005). Evaluation of entrepreneurship education: behaviour performing or
intention increasing? International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business,
2(1), 89–98.
Fayolle, Alain, & Liñán, Francisco (2014). The future of research on entrepreneurial inten-
tions. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 663–666.
Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor anal-
ysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39(2),
291–314.
Fornell, Claes, & Larcker, David F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50.
Gibb, Allan (2002). Creating conducive environments for learning and entrepreneurship:
Living with, dealing with, creating and enjoying uncertainty and complexity. Industry
and Higher Education, 16(3), 135–148.
Gigerenzer, Gerd, & Brighton, Henry (2009). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make
better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 107–143.
Gird, Anthony, & Bagraim, Jeffrey J. (2008). The theory of planned behaviour as predictor
of entrepreneurial intent amongst final-year university students. South African Journal
of Psychology, 38(4), 711–724.
Guerrero, Maribel, Rialp, Josep, & Urbano, David (2008). The impact of desirability and
feasibility on entrepreneurial intentions: A structural equation model. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(1), 35–50.
Hu, Li-tze, & Bentler, Peter M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Iacobucci, Dawn, Saldanha, Neela, & Deng, Xiaoyan (2007). A meditation on mediation:
Evidence that structural equations models perform better than regressions. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 139–153.
James, Lawrence R., Mulaik, Stanley A., & Brett, Jeanne M. (2006). A tale of two methods.
Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 233–244.
Katz, Jerome (1992). A psychosocial cognitive model of employment status choice.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 17(1), 29–37.
Kautonen, Teemu, Luoto, Seppo, & Tornikoski, Erno T. (2010). Influence of work history
on entrepreneurial intentions in ‘prime age’ and ‘third age’: A preliminary study.
International Small Business Journal, 28(6), 583–601.
Kautonen, Teemu, Van Gelderen, Marco, & Tornikoski, Erno T. (2013). Predicting entre-
preneurial behaviour: A test of the theory of planned behaviour. Applied Economics,
45(6), 697–707.
Kim, Phillip H., Aldrich, Howard E., & Keister, Lisa A. (2006). Access (Not) denied: The
impact of financial, human, and cultural capital on entrepreneurial entry in the
United States. Small Business Economics, 27(1), 5–22.
Kim, Min-Sun, & Hunter, Kohn E. (1993). Relationships among attitudes, behavioral
intentions, and behavior. Communication Research, 20(3), 331–364.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford.
Kolvereid, Lars (1996). Prediction of employment status choice intentions.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 21(1), 47–57.
Kolvereid, Lars, & Isaksen, Espen (2006). New business start-up and subsequent entry
into self-employment. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6), 866–885.
Krueger, Norris F. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of
new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 18(1), 5–21.
Krueger, Norris F. (2009). Entrepreneurial intentions are dead: Long live entrepreneurial
intentions. In A. L. Carsrud, & M. Brännback (Eds.), Understanding the entrepreneurial
mind (pp. 51–72). Springer.
Krueger, Norris F., & Carsrud, Alan L. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the
theory of planned behaviour. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 5(4),
315–330.
Krueger, Norris F., Reilly, Michael D., & Carsrud, Alan L. (2000). Competing models of
entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5/6), 411–432.
Krumboltz, John D., Mitchell, A.M., & Jones, G. B. (1976). A social learning theory of career
selection. The Counseling Psychologist, 6(1), 71–81.
Latham, Gary P., & Saari, Lise M. (1979). Application of social-learning theory to training
supervisors through behavioral modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(3),
239–246.
Lent, Robert W., Brown, Steven D., & Hackett, Gail (1994). Toward a unifying social cogni-
tive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122.
Liñán, Francisco, & Chen, Yi-Wen (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a
specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship: Theory
& Practice, 33(3), 593–617.
MacKinnon, David P., Lockwood, Chondra M., Hoffman, Jeanne M., West, Stephen G., &
Sheets, Virgil (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other interven-
ing variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104.
MacKinnon, David P., Warsi, Ghulam, & Dwyer, James H. (1995). A simulation study of
mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30(1), 41–62.
MacMillan, I. C. (1986). To really learn about entrepreneurship, let's study habitual entre-
preneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(3), 241–243.
Matthews, Charles H., & Moser, Steven B. (1995). Family background and gender:
Implications for interest in small firm ownership. Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, 7(4), 365–377.
Matthews, Charles H., & Moser, Steven B. (1996). A longitudinal investigation of the im-
pact of family background and gender on interest in small firm ownership. Journal
of Small Business Management, 34(2), 29–43.
Please cite this article as: Zapkau, F.B., et al., Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention, Journal of
Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.007
Mitchell, Lynda K., & Krumboltz, John D. (1984). Social learning approach to career deci-
sion making: Krumboltz's theory. In D. Brown, & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and
development (pp. 235–280). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mueller, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship in the region: Breeding ground for nascent
entrepreneurs? Small Business Economics, 27(1), 41–58.
Mulaik, Stanley A. (2001). The curve-fitting problem: An objectivist view. Philosophy of
Science, 68(2), 218–241, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3081065.
Mullen, Michael R., Budeva, Desislava G., & Doney, Patricia M. (2009). Research methods
in the leading small business–entrepreneurship journals: A critical review with
recommendations for future research. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(3),
287–307, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2009.00272.x.
Mungai, Edward, & Velamuri, S. Ramakrishna (2011). Parental entrepreneurial role model
influence on male offspring: Is it always positive and when does it occur?
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(2), 337–357.
Nabi, Ghulam, Holden, Rick, & Walmsley, Andreas (2006). Graduate career-making and
business start-up: A literature review. Education + Training, 48(5), 373–385.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pallone, Nathaniel J., Rickard, Fred S., & Hurley, Robert B. (1970). Key influences of occu-
pational preference among black youth. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 17(6),
498–501.
Parker, S.C. (2004). The economics of self-employment and entrepreneurship. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Peterman, Nicole E., & Kennedy, Jessica (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing
students' perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,
28(2), 129–144.
Podsakoff, Philip M., MacKenzie, Scott B., Lee, Jeong-Yeon, & Podsakoff, Nathan P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Podsakoff, Philip M., & Organ, Dennis W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:
Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–545.
Preacher, Kristopher J., & Hayes, Andrew F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating
indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 36(4), 717–731.
Preacher, Kristopher J., & Hayes, Andrew F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies
for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior
Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
Robinson, Peter B., Huefner, Jonathan C., & Hunt, H. Keith (1991). Entrepreneurial re-
search on student subjects does not generalize to real world entrepreneurs. Journal
of Small Business Management, 29(2), 42–50.
Rotefoss, Beate, & Kolvereid, Lars (2005). Aspiring, nascent and fledgling entrepreneurs:
an investigation of the business start-up process. Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, 17(2), 109–127.
Scherer, Robert F., Adams, Janet S., Carley, Susan S., & Wiebe, Frank A. (1989). Role model
performance effects on development of entrepreneurial career preference.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 13(3), 53–71.
Scherer, Robert F., Adams, Janet S., & Wiebe, Frank A. (1989). Developing entrepreneurial
behaviours: A social learning theory perspective. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 2(3), 16–27.
Scherer, Robert F., Brodzinski, James D., & Wiebe, Frank A. (1991). Examining the relation-
ship between personality and entrepreneurial career preference. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, 3(2), 195–206.
Schlaegel, C., & Koenig, M. (2014). Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: A meta-
analytic test and integration of competing models. Entrepreneurship: Theory &
Practice, 38(2), 291–332.
Schröder, Elke, & Schmitt-Rodermund, Eva (2006). Crystallizing enterprising interests
among adolescents through a career development program: The role of personality
and family background. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(3), 494–509.
Scott, Michael G., & Twomey, Daniel F. (1988). The long-term supply of entrepreneurs:
students' career aspirations in relation to entrepreneurship. Journal of Small
Business Management, 26(4), 5–13.
Segal, Gerry, Borgia, Dan, & Schoenfeld, Jerry (2002). Using social cognitive career theory
to predict self-employment goals. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 5(2),
47–56.
Shapero, Albert, & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. Kent,
D. L. Sexton, & K. Vesper (Eds.), The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72–90).
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Sheppard, Blair H., Hartwick, Jon, & Warshaw, Paul R. (1988). The theory of reasoned ac-
tion: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and
future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325–343.
Shook, Christopher L., Priem, Richard L., & McGee, Jeffrey E. (2003). Venture creation and
the enterprising individual: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 29(3),
379–399.
Short, Jeremy C., Ketchen, David J., Combs, James G., & Ireland, R. Duane (2010). Research
methods in entrepreneurship: Opportunities and challenges. Organizational Research
Methods, 13(1), 6–15, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428109342448.
Shrout, Patrick E., & Bolger, Niall (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperi-
mental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods,
7(4), 422.
Singh, Jagdip (1995). Measurement issues in cross-national research. Journal of
International Business Studies, 26(3), 597–619, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/155563.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equa-
tion models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290–312).
Washington: American Sociological Association.
Solesvik, Marina Z., Westhead, Paul, Kolvereid, Lars, & Matlay, Harry (2012). Student in-
tentions to become self-employed: The Ukrainian context. Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development, 19(3), 441–460.
 F.B. Zapkau et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., & Baumgartner, Hans (1998). Assessing measurement in-
variance in cross‐national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1),
78–107, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209528.
Stuart, Robert W., & Abetti, Pier A. (1990). Impact of entrepreneurial and management
experience on early performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(3), 151–162.
Sutton, Stephen (1998). Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: How well are
we doing? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1317–1338.
Thompson, Edmund R. (2009). Individual entrepreneurial intent: Construct clarification
and development of an internationally reliable metric. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 33(3), 669–694.
Tkachev, Alexei, & Kolvereid, Lars (1999). Self-employment intentions among Russian
students. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 11(3), 269–280.
van Auken, Howard, Fry, Fred L., & Stephens, Paul (2006). The influence of role models on
entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 11(2), 157–167.
van Gelderen, Marco, Brand, Maryse, van Praag, Mirjam, Bodewes, Wynand, Poutsma,
Eric, & van Gils, Anita (2008). Explaining entrepreneurial intentions by means of
the theory of planned behavior. Career Development International, 13(6), 538–559.
Wang, Catherine L. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm
performance. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 32(4), 635–657.
Please cite this article as: Zapkau, F.B., et al., Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention, Journal of
Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.007
15
Wilson, Fiona, Kickul, Jill, & Marlino, Deborah (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial
self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneur-
ship education. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 31(3), 387–406.
Woodside, Arch G. (2013). Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms:
Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in
data analysis and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research, 66(4), 463–472.
Yun-Jeong, Shin, & Kelly, Kevin R. (2013). Cross-cultural comparison of the effects of op-
timism, intrinsic motivation, and family relations on vocational identity. Career
Development Quarterly, 61(2), 141–160.
Zellweger, Thomas, Sieger, Philipp, & Halter, Frank (2011). Should I stay or should I go?
Career choice intentions of students with family business background. Journal of
Business Venturing, 26(5), 521–536.
Zhao, Xinshu, Lynch, John G., & Chen, Qimei (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny:
Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2),
197–206.
Zhao, Hao, Seibert, Scott E., & Hills, Gerald E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in
the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6),
1265–1272.