Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development

A model of entrepreneurial intention: An application of the psychological and

behavioral approaches
João J. Ferreira Mário L. Raposo Ricardo Gouveia Rodrigues Anabela Dinis Arminda do Paço
Article information:
To cite this document:
João J. Ferreira Mário L. Raposo Ricardo Gouveia Rodrigues Anabela Dinis Arminda do Paço, (2012),"A
model of entrepreneurial intention", Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 19 Iss 3
pp. 424 - 440
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14626001211250144
Downloaded on: 14 October 2014, At: 08:41 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 60 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1710 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Domingo Ribeiro Soriano, Carmen Guzmán#Alfonso, Joaquín Guzmán#Cuevas, (2012),"Entrepreneurial
intention models as applied to Latin America", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 25 Iss 5
pp. 721-735
Harun Sesen, (2013),"Personality or environment? A comprehensive study on the entrepreneurial
intentions of university students", Education + Training, Vol. 55 Iss 7 pp. 624-640 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
ET-05-2012-0059
Harry Matlay, Carla S. Marques, João J. Ferreira, Daniela N. Gomes, Ricardo Gouveia Rodrigues,
(2012),"Entrepreneurship education: How psychological, demographic and behavioural factors predict the
entrepreneurial intention", Education + Training, Vol. 54 Iss 8/9 pp. 657-672

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 380560 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
 Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

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

Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

JSBED
19,3
424
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)
Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development
Vol. 19 No. 3, 2012
pp. 424-440
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1462-6004
DOI 10.1108/14626001211250144
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1462-6004.htm
A model of entrepreneurial
intention
An application of the psychological and
behavioral approaches
João J. Ferreira, Mário L. Raposo, Ricardo Gouveia Rodrigues,
Anabela Dinis and Arminda do Paço
Department of Business and Economics, University of Beira Interior,
Covilhã, Portugal
Abstract
Purpose – The field of entrepreneurship is dotted across different paradigms. Measuring
entrepreneurial intention automatically needs to incorporate insights from the psychological approach
and behavioural approach. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a comprehensive structural
equation model which combines both psychological and behavioural perspectives aiming to identify
what variables have influence on entrepreneurial intention of secondary students.
Design/methodology/approach – This research was developed involving a sample of secondary
students. The method of data collection was a survey by self-administered questionnaire, to two
secondary student classes, with several groups of questions related to demographic characteristics,
behavioural and psychological constructs and entrepreneurial intention. Data was analysed using
structural equation modelling (SEM).
Findings – The results show that need for achievement, self-confidence, and personal attitude
positively affect entrepreneurial intention. Furthermore, subjective norms and personal attitude affect
perceived behavioural control. These findings could have a significant impact on knowledge of the
contributions of behavioural and psychological theories to the entrepreneurial intention.
Research limitations/implications – Understanding of the ways in which several psychological
and behavioural characteristics influence the entrepreneurial intention could help to advance our
knowledge of the entrepreneurial process. Educational systems need to be oriented to emphasize and
value entrepreneurship in order to promote an enterprise culture. Methods to teach entrepreneurship
should also be explored further.
Originality/value – This is one of the first studies to provide evidences of the entrepreneurial
intention explained by several constructs related to psychological and behavioural characteristics in a
14-15-year-old student population. Additionally, most studies of the entrepreneurial intention
associated to these approaches have been mostly conceptual, and the few empirical studies have not
used structural equation modelling. The use of these statistical tests helps to overcome the limitations
evident in conceptual studies and provide evidence of the relationships between behavioural and
psychological traits simultaneously.
Keywords Entrepreneurship education, Start-up, Entrepreneurial intention, Psychological approach,
Behavioural approach, Structural equation modelling, Mathematical modelling, Entrepreneurialism
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
An extraordinary proliferation of entrepreneurship education programs and courses
has been underway worldwide in the past 15 years (Solomon, 2008). The revolution
from trivial to “colossal” interest in entrepreneurship education presents significant
curricular and pedagogical challenges for managers, researchers, and educators.
 According to Garavan and O’Cinneide (1994), the most commonly referred aims of A model of
entrepreneurship education and training programs are: entrepreneurial
.
to get useful knowledge of entrepreneurship; intention
.
to acquire skills in the use of techniques, in the analysis of business atmospheres,
and in the synthesis of action plans;
. to identify and stimulate entrepreneurial drive, talent and skills; 425
. to develop empathy and support for all unique aspects of entrepreneurship;
.
to develop attitudes towards change; and
.
to encourage new start-ups and other entrepreneurial ventures.

The various skills required by entrepreneurs can be categorized as follows (Hisrich and
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

Peters, 1998):
.
technical skills (written and oral communication, technical management and
organizing skills);
.
business management skills (planning, decision-making, marketing and
accounting skills); and
.
personal entrepreneurial skills (inner control, innovation, risk taking, persistence
and being change-oriented).

Henry et al. (2005) refer that the development of these personal skills differentiates an
entrepreneur from a manager.
To Garavan and O’Cinneide (1994), the three major characteristics of innovators and
entrepreneurs are their knowledge, skills and attitudes. This last aspect of attitudes,
the psychosocial forces of the individual and the cultural context, is of prime
importance in influencing entrepreneurial behaviour patterns.
Thus, very different skills, abilities and knowledge may be required to fulfil these
different aims of entrepreneurship education programs. The debate on whether
entrepreneurs can be taught still rears its head from time to time. Not everyone has
what it takes to be an entrepreneur but, then, our society does not need everyone to be
an entrepreneur (Garavan and O’Cinneide, 1994, p. 3). There is preliminary evidence
that entrepreneurial attributes can be positively influenced by educational programs
(Athayde, 2009) and that many entrepreneurship programs and courses are able to
build awareness of entrepreneurship as a career option and to encourage favourable
attitudes toward entrepreneurship (Anderson and Jack, 2008).
There is increasing interest in attempting to teach not only about entrepreneurship,
nor even for entrepreneurship, but also through entrepreneurship (Kirby, 2006), using
new education programs to help students to obtain a range of both business
understanding and transferable skills and competences. Kirby (2004) advanced that
often such programs equate entrepreneurship with new venture creation or/and small
business management and educate about entrepreneurship and enterprise, rather than
educating for entrepreneurship, and only rarely is the focus on developing in their
students the skills, attributes and behaviours of the successful entrepreneur.
Entrepreneurship education and training programs are designed straight at
stimulating entrepreneurship, which may be defined as independent small business
ownership or the development of opportunity-seeking managers within enterprises
 JSBED (Colton, 1990). Sexton and Kasarda (1991) advance the idea that the objectives of most
19,3 businesses education programs are to prepare people for career success and to increase
their capacity for future learning. Athayde (2009) found out that participation in a
company program can foster positive attitudes toward self-employment and that
participants displayed greater enterprise potential than non-participants. Similarly
important is the learner’s personal achievement and contribution to society. The final
426 measure of entrepreneurship education and training is how well it fosters all these
aspirations and leads to start-ups.
Measuring entrepreneurial intention automatically needs to incorporate insights from
both psychological and behavioural approaches. This presents our research problematic:
to develop a model that combines both psychological and behavioural approaches, in
order to identify what variables have an influence on entrepreneurial intention.
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

We organise the paper in the following major sections. The first section reviews the
literature about entrepreneurship intention, specifically in relation to the psychological
and behavioural approach. The second section presents the research hypotheses and
the resulting structural model. The third section discusses the research methodology
and the fourth section presents the results. Finally, the last section presents some
conclusions and discusses some practical implications.

Entrepreneurial intention approaches

Psychological approach
Early research on the factors that influence the decision to create a business focused on
trait or personality characteristics of individuals (McClelland, 1961; Brockhaus, 1980;
Krueger, 2000). Mitton (1989) describes entrepreneurs as those who have certain
psychological characteristics such as a commitment to their work, a need for total
control and a liking for uncertainty and challenge. According to Koh (1996) this should
be expected, given the understanding of psychological traits that are unique to
entrepreneurs. Krauss and Frese (2005) found that psychological traits are predictors of
the entrepreneurial orientation.
Also, it can be seen that theoretical and empirical research has associated
psychological characteristics with entrepreneurship (Kennedy et al., 2003; Brice, 2004;
Bhandari, 2006; Li, 2006; Hmieleski and Corbett, 2006; Florin et al., 2007). For instance,
Bygrave (1989) presented a model that includes need for achievement, internal locus of
control, tolerance for ambiguity and risk-taking propensity as determinants of
entrepreneurial intention. Moreover, Robinson et al. (1991), in their research, find that
achievement, innovativeness, locus of control and self-confidence could be predicting
entrepreneurial attitudes.
A review of recent literature measuring the impact of general education on
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial activity suggests some possible generalizations.
Evidence suggesting a positive link between education and entrepreneurship is robust.
In fact, some researchers have come to support the idea that the psychological
attributes, related to entrepreneurship can be culturally acquired (Gibb and Ritchie,
1982; Vesper, 1990; Radu and Redien-Collot, 2008; Wincent and Örtqvist, 2009). To this
extent, it seems pertinent to conduct an analysis concerning the contribution of
education to foment entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship education based on a theory
of solid learning can contribute to increase the knowledge management and to promote
the psychological attributes associated with entrepreneurs.
 Results point out the importance of entrepreneurship education in the promotion of A model of
the Entrepreneurial Intention. For example, Ferreira et al. (2007) and Raposo et al. entrepreneurial
(2008a, b) found that the most important effect on the propensity to start-up a firm
among students was education. intention
One of the educational theories referred by Béchard and Grégoire (2005), in their
analytical framework, focused on education research concerns, is the personalist
theory. Its theoretical supports are the humanistic psychology, the personalism, the 427
open education and the nondeterministic free school. Usually this kind of researches
shows a concern for the development of the individual, for acknowledging individual
needs and differences. So entrepreneurship education should emphasize development
of the skills needed to evaluate venture opportunities.
In general, the main psychological characteristics associated with entrepreneurship
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

in the literature are:

.
internal locus of control;
.
propensity to take risk;
.
self-confidence;
.
need for achievement;
.
tolerance of ambiguity; and
.
innovativeness.

Robinson et al. (1991) state that internal control leads to a positive entrepreneurial
attitude and most students who receive entrepreneurial formation may develop a
higher level of control and self-efficiency. The propensity to take risk is related to the
probability of an activity having less than 100 per cent success (Kuip and Verheul,
2003). Even if risk-taking propensity is often mentioned as a determinant of
entrepreneurial intention (Bygrave, 1989), several empirical studies suggest that small
business’ entrepreneurs do not have positive attitudes towards risk and they do not
consider themselves as risk takers (Davidsson, 1989; Baron, 1998), nor do they seem to
differ from other groups, in more objective tests on risk taking (Brockhaus, 1980). Ho
and Koh (1992) refer that self-confidence is an entrepreneurial characteristic and that it
is related to other psychological characteristics, such as locus of control, propensity to
take risk and tolerance of ambiguity. Robinson et al. (1991) have found entrepreneurs to
have a higher degree of self-confidence relative to non-entrepreneurs. Davidsson and
Wiklund (1999) state that need for achievement is not an important cause to
entrepreneur behaviour. Promoting an attitude toward high achievement in students
that goes beyond the external motivation for high grades is one of the most difficult
challenges in business education (Florin et al., 2007). Mitton (1989) states that
entrepreneurs do not only operate in an uncertain environment, but they also eagerly
undertake the unknown and manage uncertainty. So tolerance of ambiguity may be
considered an entrepreneurial characteristic and those who are more entrepreneurial
are expected to display more tolerance of ambiguity than others. According to
Robinson et al. (1991) the innovativeness is related to perceiving and acting on business
activities in new and unique ways. This idea is one of the recurring themes in defining
entrepreneurship. For example for Schumpeter (1934), innovativeness is the most
fundamental aspect of entrepreneurship and an essential entrepreneurial
characteristic.
 JSBED Behavioural approach
19,3 According to Heinonen (2007), while the concept of entrepreneurial behaviour has
become well known, there is a growing need to develop entrepreneurial abilities in order
to deal with current challenges and the uncertain future. In the current economic
situation, jobs are rarely “for life”, and traditional secure career paths have disappeared.
Entrepreneurial intention is the most often expressed studied antecedent of venture
428 creation. This kind of approach draws on a well-established body of literature linking
intention to subsequent actions (Ajzen, 1987, 1991) and has been proposed several
times as the best predictor of entrepreneurial behaviour (Shapero, 1982; Honig, 2004).
Kolvereid (1996) argues that the greater a person’s perceived behavioural control,
the stronger is that person’s intention to become self-employed. In turn, this perceived
control corresponds to perceived feasibility, one of the key factors of self-efficacy.
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

According to Fayolle (2005) and Kickul et al. (2008) self-efficacy has been found to
significantly influence entrepreneurial behaviour and supporting entrepreneurship
students’ self-efficacy is therefore seen as a key tool in entrepreneurship education to
enhance students’ entrepreneurial intentions (Zhao et al., 2005; Raposo et al., 2008a, b).
Entrepreneurial intention has been described as a conscious state of mind that directs
attention and therefore experience and action toward a specific object or pathway to
achieve it (Bird, 1989; Hamidi et al., 2008).
Hamidi et al. (2008) showed strong influence of innovativeness on entrepreneurial
intention. The creativity was viewed as a concept is more proactively oriented than
factors such as perceived behavioural control, perceived social norms and risk-taking
propensity. However they suggest more additional research on the creative
dispositions among entrepreneurship students in order to confirm that influence.
They also found that students engaged in academic entrepreneurship programs have
higher intentions to start own businesses in the future. About this, they argued that it
would be of value to examine entrepreneurial role models in each educational context,
since those results indicate significant differences between in entrepreneurial intention
between different educational fields.
Florin et al. (2007) stated that the students need to perceive that the application of
the skill is feasible and that an entrepreneurial approach is desirable and a focus on
developing a positive attitude toward entrepreneurial behaviour appears to be central
to entrepreneurship education. The identification and study of students’
entrepreneurial characteristics assumes special relevance for the development of
adequate educational programs related with entrepreneurship and business creation.
Therefore, investigating what factors determine the entrepreneurial intention is a
crucial issue in the entrepreneurship research. For instance Raposo et al. (2006, 2008a,
b) found that individuals who evidence more propensity for the start-ups creation seem
to possess self-confidence and leadership capacity. Lee et al. (2006) conclude that the
school and the education system play a pivotal role in predicting and developing
entrepreneurial capabilities.

Proposal of a structural model

As a result of the literature review, we support our research on Azjen’s (1991) theory of
planned behaviour (TPB). His research is considered as a relevant tool to model the
development of entrepreneurial intention (EI) through pedagogical processes and
learning contexts (Fayolle et al., 2006; Radu and Redien-Collot, 2008). Ajzen (1991)
 considers that intentions toward target behaviour depend on a set of underlying A model of
attitudes. Particularly, intentions to take a certain course of action depend on the entrepreneurial
perceptions of participants regarding personal and social desirability of the behaviour
and the perceptions of participants of whether they can successfully perform such action. intention
The literature review also reveals that theoretical and empirical research has
associated psychological characteristics with entrepreneurship (Bygrave, 1989;
Robinson et al., 1991; Armstrong and Hird, 2009). These authors find that 429
achievement, innovativeness, control and self-confidence could be good predictor of
entrepreneurial attitudes. Figure 1 presents the model that will be explored in this
research and it describes the attitudinal dimensions as latent variables of EI.
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

Figure 1.
Entrepreneurial intention
model
 JSBED The model above considers a group of variables likely to influence the EI and it is
19,3 composed of various constructs, each one being measured by several indicators. These
constructs are related to both to the behavioural and psychological characteristics.
In what concerns to the behavioural approach, as we can see, the constructs
Personal Attitude (PA), Subjective Norms (SN) and Perceived Behavioural Control
(PBC) are included in the model and, all together, will contribute to the Entrepreneurial
430 Intention (EI). There is also a connexion between the constructs PA and PBC. The
construct PA includes five indicators; the construct SN includes three indicators; and
the construct PBC includes six indicators.
Related with the psychological approach, the model includes the constructs Locus of
Control (LC), Propensity to take Risk (PR), Self Confidence (SC), Need for Achievement
(NA), Tolerance of Ambiguity (TA) and Innovativeness (IN), which all together, will
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

contribute to Entrepreneurial Intention (EI).

In order to test the entrepreneurial intention model (Figure 1), a set of research
hypotheses was formulated, as it follows:
H1. Subjective Norms positively influences Personal Attitude (SN ! þPA).
H2. Subjective Norms positively influences Entrepreneurial Intention
(SN ! þEI).
H3. Subjective Norms positively influences Perceived Behavioural Control
(SN ! þPBC).
H4. Personal Attitude positively influences Perceived Behavioural Control
(PA ! þPBC).
H5. Personal Attitude positively influences Entrepreneurial Intention
(PA ! þEI).
H6. Perceived Behavioural Control positively influences Entrepreneurial Intention
(PBC ! þEI).
H7. Locus of Control positively influences Entrepreneurial Intention (LC ! þEI).
H8. Propensity to risk influences Entrepreneurial Intention (PR ! EI).
H9. Self Confidence positively influences Entrepreneurial Intention (SC ! þEI).
H10. Need for Achievement positively influences Entrepreneurial Intention
(NA ! þEI).
H11. Tolerance of Ambiguity positively influences Entrepreneurial Intention
(TA ! þEI).
H12. Innovativeness positively influences Entrepreneurial Intention (IN ! þEI).
So it seems to be possible to present and test a model based in these assumptions
(H1-H12). The entrepreneurial intention model used in this study includes several
constructs related both to the behavioural and psychological characteristics. Each one
of the constructs was depicted by means of several items used in a questionnaire
survey, as it will be explained in the following section.
 Methodology A model of
This research was developed involving a sample of secondary students. The method of entrepreneurial
data collection was a survey by self-administered questionnaire with several groups of
questions related to demographic characteristics, behavioural and psychological intention
constructs and entrepreneurial intention. The behavioural scales used were developed
by Liñán and Chen (2009), and the psychological scales by Koh (1996). The construct
LC includes seven indicators; the construct PR includes six indicators; the construct SC 431
includes six indicators; the construct NA includes six indicators; the construct TA
includes six indicators; and the construct IN includes five indicators. Finally the
construct EI includes six indicators.
Data was analysed using structural modelling equations, through the statistical
software SPSS 16.0. The partial least squares (PLS) technique was also used to test the
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

model recurring to the Smart PLS software.

This method, PLS, consists of a statistical modelling-based technique through
structural equations that allows for the simultaneous estimation of a group of
equations, by measuring the concepts (measurement model) and the relationships
between them (structural model), and it has the capacity to address concepts not
directly observable (Chin, 1998). Table I shows the main methodological aspects
related to the investigation.

Results and discussion

Questionnaires were administered to two secondary student classes, aged between 14
and 15 years old; 47.3 per cent were female, and the average age was 14.3 years. We
divided our analysis in two parts:
(1) the descriptive analysis; and
(2) the PLS modelling.

Descriptive analysis
The descriptive statistics of the summated scales, as well as the results of one-sample
t-test, are presented in Table II.
The scales used to measure the relevant phenomena were Likert scales (minimum 1,
maximum 5), where 3 is the indifference value. Values below 3 (the median point of the
scale) represent somewhat negative values in the scale, and values above 3 are positive.
It should be noticed that Entrepreneurial Intention (EI) has the one of the lowest
means of the ten scales, but also the one of the larger standard deviations, meaning that
the group is very heterogeneous in what respects to EI. This scale has the largest range
(3.33) along with SN. Subjective Norms have the largest mean value; nevertheless, as
will be shown later, this construct is not directly related to EI in this specific sample.

Time basis Cross-section

Sampling unit Secondary students
Sample 74 individuals
Response rate 100 per cent Table I.
Research method Self-administered questionnaire Synthesis of
Statistical analysis Bivariate, multivariate, PLS methodological aspects
 JSBED
Minimum Maximum Mean SD ta Significance
19,3
Entrepreneurial Intention (EI) 1.167 4.500 2.824 0.614 2 2.462 0.016
Personal Attitude (PA) 2.000 4.600 3.278 0.577 4.150 0.000
Subjective Norms (SN) 1.667 5.000 3.761 0.630 10.389 0.000
Perceived Behaviour Control (PBC) 1.833 4.667 3.131 0.505 2.225 0.029
432 Propensity to Risk (PR) 2.000 4.000 2.932 0.398 2 1.461 0.148
Self Confidence (SC) 2.000 4.333 3.405 0.468 7.448 0.000
Tolerance to Ambiguity (TA) 1.500 3.500 2.392 0.353 2 14.833 0.000
Need for Achievement (NA) 2.500 4.833 3.495 0.471 9.042 0.000
Table II. Locus of Control (LC) 2.000 4.571 3.357 0.461 6.663 0.000
Descriptives of Innovativeness (IN) 2.400 4.400 3.300 0.433 5.957 0.000
summated scales and
t-tests Note: at-test with 73 degrees of freedom and test value of 3
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

The scales EI and TA portray means below 3, showing that these students do not have
entrepreneurial intentions and are not tolerant to ambiguity. Regarding Propensity to
Risk, the mean value is not significantly lower than 3, considering a confidence level of
95 per cent. The scales PA, SN, PBC, SC, NA, LC and IN have scores significantly
higher than 3, although not very far from that value, being all of them lesser than 4.

PLS modeling
The PLS procedure is used to estimate the latent variables as a linear combination of
its indicators with the aim of maximizing the explained variance for the indicators and
constructs. The indicators’ weights provide an exact linear combination of the
indicators for forming construct score. This value is both maximally correlated with its
own set of indicators and with other latent variables according to the
structural/theoretical model (Wold, 1985). To assess discriminant validity we used
correlations among indicators and constructs. Items should have higher correlation
with their own construct than with any other, signifying that they are perceived by
individuals as fitting in that theoretical construct (Messick, 1988).
In this study, some indicators presented high cross loadings. The measurement
model was purified of these indicators. In Table III it can be seen that there is
discriminant validity of the purified measurement model.
It is also necessary to assess how accurate the path estimates are to the “true” effect
(Chin et al., 1996). According to Nunnally (1978) reliability and validity are essential
psychometrics to be reported. Usually, the estimates of the structural paths tend to be
more accurate as the reliability of the estimated construct score increases. To assess
the reliability of the construct estimated by PLS, composite reliabilities are presented in
Table IV. In the Cronbach’s a there is the assumption of parallel measures that
represent a lower bound estimate of internal consistency. However, a better estimate
can be gained using the composite reliability formula. The usual threshold level is 0.7
for newly developed measures (Nunnally, 1978). Table IV shows these measures.
Some constructs have reliability problems, and in the case of IN and PR the
reliability problem may be considered severe. So, reliability analysis will be performed
again after analysing the structural model. To test the weights’ significance of the
structural model, we used the bootstrapping technique, which consists in generating a
large number of sub-samples from the original sample through the systematic deletion
 A model of
EI IN LC NA PA PBC PR SC SN TA
entrepreneurial
EI1 0.716 0.299 0.200 0.465 0.434 0.289 0.215 0.429 0.045 0.151 intention
EI2 0.797 0.308 0.214 0.434 0.543 0.297 0.189 0.273 0.123 0.086
EI3 0.569 0.346 0.453 0.350 0.459 0.402 0.337 0.283 0.281 0.091
EI4 0.745 0.318 0.327 0.350 0.645 0.453 0.272 0.303 0.227 0.188
EI5 0.648 0.046 0.022 0.095 0.464 0.312 0.110 0.256 0.097 0.081 433
EI6 0.719 0.121 0.313 0.423 0.528 0.407 0.348 0.221 0.349 0.245
IN2 0.326 0.912 0.495 0.361 0.266 0.408 0.278 0.365 0.197 0.252
IN5 0.180 0.670 0.456 0.300 0.415 0.292 0.448 0.267 0.407 0.222
LC1 0.119 0.327 0.516 0.137 0.043 0.087 0.100 0.184 0.127 0.047
LC2 0.119 0.327 0.516 0.137 0.043 0.087 0.100 0.184 0.127 0.047
LC3 0.291 0.049 0.503 0.407 0.286 0.209 0.167 0.061 0.182 0.050
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

LC4 0.202 0.487 0.742 0.404 0.201 0.381 0.384 0.131 0.158 0.191
LC5 0.175 0.572 0.693 0.381 0.259 0.358 0.562 0.290 0.354 0.265
LC6 0.314 0.536 0.786 0.286 0.390 0.355 0.597 0.303 0.308 0.195
NA1 0.404 0.307 0.356 0.780 0.286 0.276 0.232 0.089 0.211 0.165
NA2 0.358 0.305 0.383 0.706 0.308 0.213 0.388 0.232 0.437 0.166
PA1 0.463 0.392 0.403 0.374 0.651 0.496 0.273 0.496 0.382 0.297
PA2 0.276 0.105 0.135 0.063 0.534 0.297 0.188 0.069 0.179 0.017
PA3 0.578 0.363 0.282 0.424 0.775 0.366 0.234 0.253 0.300 0.253
PA4 0.667 0.363 0.302 0.335 0.844 0.494 0.194 0.242 0.288 0.226
PA5 0.428 0.093 0.088 0.012 0.540 0.245 0.303 0.049 0.059 0.034
PBC1 0.395 0.316 0.229 0.109 0.315 0.628 0.222 0.359 0.055 0.295
PBC2 0.202 0.138 0.190 0.161 0.326 0.665 0.284 0.146 0.211 0.174
PBC3 0.390 0.201 0.292 0.184 0.339 0.617 0.139 0.282 0.201 0.188
PBC4 0.138 0.164 0.012 0.080 0.093 0.460 0.064 0.117 0.016 0.235
PBC5 0.328 0.236 0.178 0.276 0.366 0.671 0.194 0.339 0.223 0.399
PBC6 0.350 0.479 0.324 0.360 0.528 0.667 0.250 0.077 0.333 0.378
PR1 0.186 0.214 0.459 0.304 0.195 0.180 0.686 0.070 0.194 0.089
PR2 0.096 0.037 0.193 0.119 0.212 0.171 0.466 0.063 0.226 0.123
PR3 0.262 0.178 0.267 0.140 0.280 0.200 0.690 0.161 0.293 0.022
PR6 0.263 0.491 0.428 0.406 0.170 0.248 0.623 0.175 0.269 0.223
SC1 0.133 0.143 0.139 0.031 0.114 0.073 0.380 0.182 0.293 0.112
SC2 0.124 0.072 0.104 0.002 0.045 0.012 0.135 0.238 0.008 0.065
SC3 0.232 0.147 0.231 0.139 0.240 0.281 0.001 0.599 0.111 0.384
SC4 0.087 0.087 0.070 0.109 0.038 0.059 0.066 0.258 0.114 0.050
SC5 0.338 0.435 0.212 0.173 0.296 0.315 0.114 0.834 0.058 0.315
SN1 0.252 0.238 0.210 0.317 0.248 0.242 0.235 0.129 0.694 0.118
SN2 0.217 0.251 0.308 0.379 0.314 0.245 0.376 0.137 0.915 0.253
SN3 0.213 0.335 0.350 0.378 0.386 0.299 0.383 0.121 0.911 0.203
TA1 0.178 0.152 0.030 0.144 0.143 0.261 0.048 0.129 0.076 0.779
TA2 0.115 0.309 0.359 0.176 0.249 0.289 0.192 0.320 0.285 0.565
TA4 0.070 0.035 0.107 0.030 0.117 0.159 0.096 0.236 0.083 0.340 Table III.
TA5 0.101 0.205 0.272 0.212 0.168 0.436 0.034 0.377 0.148 0.660 Cross loadings

of observations. The model is recomputed for each sub-sample, and the resulting
weights are averaged. The resulting mean of weights is compared with the original
weight. In this case 1,000 valid sub-samples were extracted. Results of the initial model
are shown in Table V.
The paths IN ! EI, LC ! EI, PBC ! EI, PR ! EI, SN ! EI, TA ! EI and SN !
PBC were considered non-significant (a ¼ 0:05) and successively excluded from the
 JSBED
Construct Composite reliability R2
19,3
EI 0.853 0.649
IN 0.075 –
LC 0.676 –
NA 0.712 –
434 PA 0.806 0.144
PBC 0.789 0.344
PR 0.328 –
SC 0.540 –
Table IV. SN 0.882 –
Reliability measures TA 0.685 –
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

Original sample Sample mean SD SE t Significance

IN ! EI 20.091 20.061 0.161 0.162 0.564 0.574

LC ! EI 20.034 0.009 0.127 0.127 0.269 0.789
NA ! EI 0.296 0.281 0.102 0.102 2.915 0.005
PA ! EI 0.560 0.559 0.074 0.074 7.566 0.000
PA ! PBC 0.536 0.554 0.072 0.072 7.483 0.000
PBC ! EI 0.127 0.124 0.106 0.106 1.199 0.234
PR ! EI 20.082 20.097 0.105 0.105 0.784 0.436
SC ! EI 20.198 20.185 0.076 0.076 2.605 0.011
SN ! EI 20.110 20.120 0.095 0.095 1.158 0.251
SN ! PA 0.379 0.397 0.112 0.113 3.361 0.001
Table V. SN ! PBC 0.109 0.103 0.109 0.109 1.002 0.319
Bootstrap results TA ! EI 0.097 0.032 0.115 0.115 0.845 0.401

original model. According to Chin (1998), relationships between constructs with

structural coefficients bigger than 0.2 should be considered to be robust. It should be
noted that the total effect of an independent variable over a dependent variable is bigger
than the direct effect, because of the indirect effects (Raposo et al., 2008a, b; Rodrigues
et al., 2010). Direct, indirect and total effects for this model are shown in Table VI.
All these effects (in absolute value) are close to or above the threshold value of 0.2.
Personal Attitude (PA) has the most important effect on EI (0.578). It is interesting to
note that Self Confidence (SC) has a negative effect on Entrepreneurial Intention (EI).
The model evaluation is only complete after the assessment of its explanatory capacity,

Path Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect

SN ! EI NS 0.220 0.220
SN ! PA 0.380 – 0.380
PA ! PBC 0.585 – 0.585
PA ! EI 0.578 – 0.578
SC ! EI 2 0.157 – 20.157
NA ! EI 0.253 – 0.253
Table VI.
Effects Note: NS, non-significant with a ¼ 0:05
 given by the proportion of the total variance of each endogenous variable explained by A model of
the model, the R 2 statistic (Table VII). entrepreneurial
This model explains 62.2 per cent of the variance in entrepreneurial intention.
According to Liñán and Chen (2009), this result is highly satisfactory, since most intention
previous research using linear models typically explain less than 40 per cent. The
construct SC presents a low reliability slightly below 0.6. The significance of structural
coefficients and the magnitude of direct effects allow testing the research hypotheses. 435
The results are as follows:
H1. (SN ! þPA) – Supported
H2. (SN ! þEI) – Supported
H3. (SN ! þPBC) – Supported
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

H4. (PA ! þPBC) – Supported

H5. (PA ! þEI) – Supported
H6. (PBC ! þEI) – Not supported
H7. (LC ! þEI) – Not supported
H8. (PR ! EI) – Not supported
H9. (SC ! þEI) – Not supported[1].
H10. (NA ! þEI) – Supported.
H11. (TA ! þEI) – Not supported.
H12. (IN ! þEI) – Not supported.
Figure 2 presents the final model, with the direct effects and explained variances of the
endogenous construct. Seven paths were excluded from the initial model.

Conclusion
The Entrepreneurial Intention model used in this study includes several constructs
related to psychological characteristics: locus of control, propensity to take risk,
self-confidence, need for achievement, tolerance of ambiguity and innovativeness. It
includes also the following behavioural variables: personal attitude, subjective norms
and perceived behavioural control. Results show that need for achievement,
self-confidence, and personal attitude affect entrepreneurial intention. Furthermore,
subjective norms and personal attitude affect perceived behavioural control.

Composite reliability R2

EI 0.853 0.622
NA 0.712 –
PA 0.806 0.144
PBC 0.786 0.342 Table VII.
SC 0.541 – Variance explained and
SN 0.881 – reliability: final model
 JSBED
19,3

436
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

Figure 2.
Final structural model

The education and training should centre itself much more in changing personal
attitudes than in knowledge, because the effects could be more significant to the
process of business creation and to overcome the perceived barriers to
entrepreneurship. The educational systems need to be oriented to emphasise and
value entrepreneurship in order to promote an enterprise culture. Methods to teach
entrepreneurship should also be explored further.
The main contribution of this paper are the results of an empirical attempt to
complement existing, mainly conceptual, literature on the role of both behavioural and
psychological approaches in the explanation of entrepreneurial intention and the
propose model to promote it. Results could have a significant impact upon the
knowledge of the behavioural theory contribution to the entrepreneurial intention. This
study has shown that it is possible to design test based on psychological and
behavioural approaches and to measure a concept defined as entrepreneurial intention
in secondary students which can take account of a number of other influences on
secondary students’ intentions toward enterprise.
Beside the variables mentioned in the our model, the intention of carrying out
entrepreneurial behaviours may be affected by several factors, such as needs, values,
wants, and beliefs, as well as the motivational antecedents. Our research model could
be improved by eliminating some constructs that demonstrated to be non significant
 and certainly a number of additional constructs could be introduced by wider A model of
application during further research. More effort needs to be done, in particular, to entrepreneurial
specify the domain of entrepreneurial intention to permit the development of better test
constructs. intention
Further research is needed to develop a more coherent multidimensional construct
for entrepreneurial intention and applying this methodology to different samples is
required to evaluate the contribution of behavioural and psychological approaches to 437
the entrepreneurial intention.

Note
1. The effect presents a negative sign.
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

References
Ajzen, I. (1987), “Attitudes, traits, and actions: dispositional prediction of behavior in personality
and social psychology”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 1-62.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Anderson, A. and Jack, S. (2008), “Role typologies for enterprising education: the professional
artisan?”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 259-73.
Armstrong, S.J. and Hird, A. (2009), “Cognitive style and entrepreneurial drive of new and mature
business owner-managers”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 419-30.
Athayde, R. (2009), “Measuring enterprise potential in young people”, Entrepreneurship Theory
& Practice, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 481-500.
Baron, R.A. (1998), “Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: why and when entrepreneurs
think differently than other people”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 13, pp. 275-94.
Béchard, J.-P. and Grégoire, D. (2005), “Entrepreneurship education research revisited: the case of
higher education”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 22-43.
Bhandari, N. (2006), “Intention for entrepreneurship among students in India”, The Journal of
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 1-11.
Bird, B.J. (1989), Entrepreneurial Behavior, Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL.
Brice, J. (2004), “The role of personality dimensions on the formation of entrepreneurial
intentions”, USASBE Small Business Advancement National Center, University of Central
Arkansas, Conway, AR.
Brockhaus, R.H. (1980), “Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 509-20.
Bygrave, W.D. (1989), “The entrepreneurship paradigm (I): a philosophical look at its research
methodologies”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 14, pp. 7-26.
Chin, W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling”, Modern
Methods for Business Research, Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-336.
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L. and Newsted, P.R. (1996), “A partial least squares latent variable
modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo
simulation study and voice mail emotion/adoption study”, Proceedings of the 17th
International Conference on Information Systems, Cleveland, OH, pp. 21-41.
Colton, T. (1990), Enterprise Education Experience. A Manual for School-Based Inservice
Training, SDEC, Portola Valley, CA.
 JSBED Davidsson, P. (1989), Continued Entrepreneurship and Small Firm Business, Stockholm School of
Economics, Stockholm.
19,3
Davidsson, P. and Wiklund, J. (1999), “Suitable approaches for studying small firm growth:
the role of entrepreneurship and small and medium enterprises”, Proceedings of the
44th ICSB World Conference, June 20-23, Naples.
Fayolle, A. (2005), “Evaluation of entrepreneurship education: behaviour performing or intention
438 increasing”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 89-98.
Fayolle, A., Gally, B. and Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006), “Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship
education programmes: a new methodology”, Journal of European Industrial Training,
Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 701-20.
Ferreira, J., Paço, A., Raposo, M. and Rodrigues, R. (2007), “Entrepreneurship education and
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

business creation propensity: testing a structural model”, Proceedings of IntEnt 2007 –

17th Global Conference, Internationalizing Entrepreneurship Education and Training,
Gdansk.
Florin, J., Karri, R. and Rossiter, N. (2007), “Fostering entrepreneurial drive in business education:
an attitudinal approach”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 17-42.
Garavan, T.N. and O’Cinneide, B. (1994), “Entrepreneurship education and training programmes:
a review and evaluation – part 1”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 18 No. 8,
pp. 3-10.
Gibb, A. and Ritchie, J. (1982), “Understanding the process of starting small business”, European
Small Business Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 26-45.
Hamidi, D., Wennberg, K. and Berglund, H. (2008), “Creativity in entrepreneurship education”,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 304-20.
Heinonen, J. (2007), “An entrepreneurial-directed approach to teaching corporate
entrepreneurship at university level”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 310-24.
Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2005), “Entrepreneurship education and training:
can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 47 Nos 2/3, pp. 98-111.
Hisrich, R.D. and Peters, M.P. (1998), Entrepreneurship, 4th ed., Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Hmieleski, K. and Corbett, C. (2006), “Proclivity for improvisation as a predictor of
entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 44 No. 1,
pp. 45-63.
Ho, T.S. and Koh, H.C. (1992), “Differences in psychological characteristics between
entrepreneurially inclined and non-entrepreneurially inclined accounting graduates in
Singapore”, Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Change: An International Journal, Vol. 1,
pp. 243-54.
Honig, B. (2004), “Entrepreneurship education: toward a model of contingency-based business
planning”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 258-73.
Kennedy, J., Drennan, J., Renfrow, P. and Watson, B. (2003), “Situational factors and
entrepreneurial intentions”, Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Small
Enterprise Association of Australia and New Zealand, Ballarat.
Kickul, J., Wilson, F., Marlino, D. and Barbosa, S. (2008), “Are misalignments of perceptions and
self-efficacy causing gender gaps in entrepreneurial intentions among our nation’s teens?”,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 321-35.
Kirby, D. (2004), “Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge?”,
EducationþTraining, Vol. 46 Nos 8/9, pp. 510-2.
 Kirby, D. (2006), “Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge?”, A model of
in Fayolle, A. and Klandt, H. (Eds), International Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and
Newness, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. entrepreneurial
Koh, H.C. (1996), “Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics – a study of Hong Kong intention
MBA students”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 12-25.
Kolvereid, L. (1996), “Prediction of employment status choice intentions”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 21, pp. 47-57. 439
Krauss, S.I. and Frese, M. (2005), “Entrepreneurial orientation: a psychological model of success
among southern African small business owners”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 315-44.
Krueger, N.F. (2000), “The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity recognition”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 5-23.
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

Kuip, I. and Verheul, I. (2003), “Early development of entrepreneurial qualities: the role of initial
education”, EIM Business & Policy Research, SCALES-paper N200311, available at: www.
entrepreneurship-sme.eu/pdf-ez/N200311.pdf
Lee, S., Lim, S. and Pathank, R. (2006), “Influences on students’ attitudes toward
entrepreneurship: a multi-country study”, International Entrepreneurship Management
Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 351-66.
Li, W. (2006), “Entrepreneurial intention among international students: testing a model of
entrepreneurial intention”, USASBE Small Business Advancement National Center,
University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR.
Liñán, F. and Chen, Y. (2009), “Development and cross-cultural application of a specific
instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 593-617.
McClelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society, D. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.
Messick, S. (1988), “Validity”, in Linn, R.L. (Ed.), Educational Measurement, 3rd ed., Macmillan,
New York, NY.
Mitton, D.G. (1989), “The complete entrepreneur”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 13,
pp. 9-19.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Radu, M. and Redien-Collot, R. (2008), “The social representation of entrepreneurs in the French
press: desirable and feasible models?”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 259-98.
Raposo, M., Paço, A. and Ferreira, J. (2006), “The potential entrepreneur profile – attributes and
motivations of university students”, Proceedings of IntEnt 2006 – Internationalizing
Entrepreneurship Education and Training, São Paulo.
Raposo, M., Paço, A. and Ferreira, J. (2008a), “Entrepreneur’s profile: a taxonomy of attributes
and motivations of university students”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 405-18.
Raposo, M., Ferreira, J., Paço, A. and Rodrigues, R. (2008b), “Propensity to firm creation:
empirical research using structural equations”, International Entrepreneurship
Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 485-504.
Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C. and Hunt, H.K. (1991), “An attitude approach to the
prediction of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 15, pp. 13-31.
Rodrigues, R., Raposo, M., Ferreira, J. and Paco, A. (2010), “Entrepreneurship education and the
propensity for business creation: testing a structural model”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 58-73.
 JSBED Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
19,3 Sexton, D.L. and Kasarda, J.D. (1991), The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship, PWS-Kent
Publishing Co., Boston, MA.
Shapero, A. (1982), “Social dimensions of entrepreneurship”, in Kent, C., Sexton, D. and Vespers,
K. (Eds), The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
440 Solomon, G. (2008), “Entrepreneurship in the twenty-first century: from pedagogy to practice”,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 233-8.
Vesper, K.H. (1990), New Ventures Strategies, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Wincent, J. and Örtqvist, D. (2009), “A comprehensive model of entrepreneur role stress
antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 225-43.
Wold, H. (1985), “Partial least squares”, Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, Vol. 6, Wiley, New
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

York, NY, pp. 581-91.

Zhao, H., Seibert, E. and Hills, E. (2005), “The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of
entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1265-72.

Corresponding author
João J. Ferreira can be contacted at: jjmf@ubi.pt

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Afsaneh Bagheri, Zaidatol Akmaliah Lope Pihie. 2014. The moderating role of gender in shaping
entrepreneurial intentions: Implications for vocational guidance. International Journal for Educational and
Vocational Guidance 14, 255-273. [CrossRef]
2. Francisco J. Santos, Muhammad Azam Roomi, Francisco Liñán. 2014. About Gender Differences and
the Social Environment in the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Small Business
Management n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
3. Christopher Schlaegel, Michael Koenig. 2014. Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intent: A Meta-Analytic
Test and Integration of Competing Models. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38:2, 291-332.
[CrossRef]
4. Arminda Paço, João Matos Ferreira, Mário Raposo, Ricardo Gouveia Rodrigues, Anabela Dinis. 2013.
Entrepreneurial intentions: is education enough?. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 08:41 14 October 2014 (PT)

. [CrossRef]