Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Big Five Personality-Entrepreneurship Relationship: Evidence From Slovenia
The Big Five Personality-Entrepreneurship Relationship: Evidence From Slovenia
••–••
doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12089
Entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship are important for new wealth creation and economic
development. Yet insufficient attention has been paid in entrepreneurship research to psycho-
logical characteristics such as the big five personality characteristics. In this study, we address
this issue by investigating the psychological determinants of real-life entrepreneurial start-up
decisions and intentions by contrasting entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs as regards the big
five personality factors (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroti-
cism). Using data collected via face-to-face structured interviews with 546 individuals from
Slovenia, we tested hypotheses using multi-nominal logistic regression (supplemented by
MANOVA).
ANTONCIC ET AL. 1
differences in personal traits and other per- neur, who is a person who can be categorized
sonality aspects between entrepreneurs and as scoring high on openness, conscientiousness
others (non-entrepreneurs) have only been and extraversion, and average on agreeable-
modestly successful (Baron 1998) and the ness. In this study, we address this issue in
role of psychological factors in entrepreneur- entrepreneurship personality research by
ship remains unclear (Stewart et al. 1998). extending the big five personality factors to an
Past research on entrepreneurial personality investigation of the psychological determinants
represents a gap in entrepreneurship litera- of real-life entrepreneurial start-up decisions
ture because it failed to clearly distinguish and intentions in Slovenia. The remainder of
the unique contributions of entrepreneurs this paper is organized into four sections: (1)
as persons to the entrepreneurial process literature review and hypotheses; (2) methods;
(Mitchell et al. 2002). The trait approach was (3) findings; (4) discussion; (5) contributions
evaluated as being unable to identify reliably and implications; and (6) limitations, future
a trait that would characterize entrepreneurs research opportunities, and conclusion.
and distinguish them from other business
people (Chell 1985). Shaver and Scott (1991) Literature Review
related only one trait (achievement motiva- and Hypotheses
tion) to new venture creation. Hatten (1997) The Big Five Personality Factors and
also claimed that personality characteristics Entrepreneurship
cannot help predict entrepreneurship success. The initial taxonomy-building efforts regard-
Some have argued that the theories and ing personality traits are evidenced in the
methods used in entrepreneurship personality research undertaken by Allport and Odbert
research may be the causes of the lack of (1936). They identified about 4,500 dictionary
progress seen in this research area (Robinson words that describe personality traits (Ryckman
et al. 1991; Sexton and Bowman 1986; Shaver 2000). Cattell (1943) reduced this set of traits to
and Scott 1991; Stewart et al. 1998). 35 variable categories and later (Cattell 1945) to
The big five personality approach (Goldberg 12 factors. Norman (1967) identified five basic
1981, 1990) represents a promising foundation factors. Goldberg (1981, 1990) found and
for research aiming to discover personality dif- labeled the big five factors: surgency, agreeable-
ferences between entrepreneurs and non- ness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and
entrepreneurs. The big five personality factors intellect. The big five factors (relabeled so that
(OCEAN: openness, conscientiousness, extra- the first letters of the five factors are OCEAN, see
version, agreeableness, and neuroticism) as Costa and McCrae 1985) can be described as
universal personality characteristics have follows ( John 1990, in Carducci 1998, p. 239):
received extensive research attention in psy-
chology, which led to the development of valid (1) Factor O refers to openness, originality,
measurement instruments (e.g., NEO-PI—the open-mindedness; defined by traits that
NEO Personality Inventory, Costa and McCrae refer to, for example, artistic (+), insightful
1985). In entrepreneurship research, insuffi- (+), intelligent (+), commonplace (−),
cient attention has been paid to the big five narrow interests (−), shallow (−).
personality characteristics. Rare attempts have (2) Factor C refers to conscientiousness,
pinpointed the fruitfulness of the big five control, constraint; defined by traits that
approach for entrepreneurship research. For refer to, for example, deliberate (+), effi-
example, Singh and De Noble (2003) investi- cient (+), precise (+), careless (−), frivo-
gated the relationship between the big five lous (−), irresponsible (−).
personality characteristics and student views of (3) Factor E refers to extraversion, energy,
self-employment, and Zhao and Seibert (2006) enthusiasm; defined by traits that refer to,
compared entrepreneurs and managers in a for example, adventurous (+), assertive
meta-analytical review of the big five personal- (+), dominant (+), sociable (+), quiet (−),
ity dimensions. Entrepreneurship personality reserved (−), retiring (−), shy (−).
researchers have also tended to neglect the (4) Factor A refers to agreeableness, altruism,
observation of the psychologists Howard and affection; defined by traits that refer to, for
Howard (1995) who identified a pattern based example, cooperative (+), generous (+),
on the big five personality characteristics and sympathetic (+), cruel (−), quarrelsome
labeled it as a sample career of the entrepre- (−), unfriendly (−).
ANTONCIC ET AL. 3
population) scored high on the need for respect a bright side and a dark side. Kets de
achievement (the desire to do well). They take Vries (1985) discussed the dark side of entre-
personal responsibility for their decisions, preneurs: The high level of energy and strong
prefer decisions involving a moderate degree of willingness to succeed of entrepreneurs can be
risk, dislike repetitive, routine work, and are unexpectedly converted into a destructive tool
interested in concrete knowledge of the results for both the organization and the entrepreneur.
of decisions. By comparing the content of these Some entrepreneurs find it difficult to accept or
characteristics with the content of the big five understand the organizational behavior of
factors, the need for achievement can be seen as other companies. Therefore, adaptation is very
a trait of conscientiousness (Ryckman (2000) hard for them. On one hand, they are enthusi-
noted that “Will to Achieve” can be used astic, charismatic, gamesome, and achievement
as an alternate label for “Conscientiousness”). oriented, but, on the other hand, they often act
Howard and Howard (1995) found that high thoughtlessly and impulsively, which makes
conscientiousness can be a characteristic of the it hard for others to work with them. Their
entrepreneurial-type person. Zhao and Seibert obsession with the need for control over every-
(2006) concluded that conscientiousness can thing can negatively affect their relationships
have the strongest relationship to the entrepre- with others. Consequently, they may not be as
neurship status (in comparison with the mana- agreeable as one would suppose (Kets de Vries
gerial status) among the big five personality 1985). Psychologists recognize the possible
factors. On the basis of the above research we ambiguity in the agreeableness factor because
propose the following hypothesis: of its duality in meaning: its content is being
pleasing and/or agreeing with others (Ryckman
H2: The conscientiousness factor will be posi- 2000). Howard and Howard (1995) viewed the
tively related to entrepreneurship. entrepreneur-type as scoring average on agree-
ableness; hence, no clear association can be
Extraversion expected between agreeableness and entrepre-
Extraverts tend to be assertive and dominant neurship. However, the dark side (Kets de
(John 1990), active (Goldberg 1990), bold Vries 1985) may prevail; this is evident in the
(Saucier 1994), and energetic (Goldberg 1990; study of Zhao and Seibert (2006), who reported
Saucier 1994). Palich and Bagby (1995) found that entrepreneurs scored lower than managers
that entrepreneurs tend to be more optimistic on agreeableness. We propose the following
than non-entrepreneurs. Extroverts tend to be hypothesis:
cheerful, jovial, merry, and optimistic (Goldberg
1990). Extraversion may facilitate the achieve- H4: The agreeableness factor will be negatively
ment of the goals of a good leader (Zadel 2006). related to entrepreneurship.
Howard and Howard (1995) found that the
entrepreneurial-type person can be categorized Neuroticism
as scoring high on conscientiousness and extra- Emotional stability may be a trait that is
version. On the basis of the above research we important for personal success (Barrick, Mount,
propose the following hypothesis: and Judge 2001; Rauch and Frese 2007), which
may point to the possibility of a negative rela-
H3: The extraversion factor will be positively tionship between the neuroticism factor (the
related to entrepreneurship. reverse of emotional stability) and entrepre-
neurship. Singh and De Noble (2003) found
Agreeableness negative relationships between neuroticism
The agreeableness factor includes traits that and views of self-employment in terms of intent
can be related to entrepreneurship in both and perceived ability. The findings of Goldberg
directions. If we just use some agreeableness (1990) support the possible negative relation-
items from Goldberg (1990), then on one hand, ship between neuroticism and entrepreneur-
entrepreneurs may be cooperative, helpful, ship since emotionally stable people tend to be
patient, cordial, friendly, trustful, and diplo- characterized by autonomy, independence, and
matic, while on the other hand, they may individualism. Indeed, autonomy or indepen-
be characterized as combative, harsh, bossy, dence may be related to entrepreneurship
demanding, domineering, manipulative, rude, serving as an important motivator (Collins and
and ruthless. Entrepreneurs may have in this Moore 1964; Licht and Siegel 2006). However,
ANTONCIC ET AL. 5
to be associated with the “ideal masculine” traits values and support systems. On the other hand,
(strong, self-reliant, powerful, determined, inde- findings based on Slovenian samples can be
pendent, rational, logical, unemotional, aggres- considered comparable with other countries as
sive, competitive) much more than with the shown in past cross-nationally comparative
“ideal feminine” traits (warm, dependent, defer- studies in intrapreneurship (Antoncic and
ent, passive, emotional, sensitive, caring, Hisrich 2000, 2001), business ethics (Bucar,
nurturant) (Ryckman 2000). The argument on Glas, and Hisrich 2003), entrepreneurship
“ideal masculine and feminine” traits implicitly education (Antoncic, Scarlat, and Hvalic
stereotypes men and women and does not rec- Erzetic 2005), and technological innovativeness
ognize the power of contexts and situations to (Antoncic et al. 2007b). With regard to the defi-
affect behavior. Carland and Carland (1991) nition of the Statistical Office of the Republic of
found stronger personality traits (preference for Slovenia, the category of persons in employ-
innovation, propensity for risk taking and need ment includes self-employed persons, persons
for achievement) for both male and female in paid employment and unpaid family workers.
entrepreneurs in comparison with managers The sample was in part purposeful and in part
and no significant differences between entrepre- random. Working people were identified among
neurs by gender with regard to the personality participants of undergraduate and graduate edu-
characteristics. This result demonstrated that the cation at three Slovenian schools (at seven dif-
specific entrepreneurial personality traits may ferent locations in six towns), who were asked
apply equally to male and female entrepreneurs. to participate. Since entrepreneurs tend to enroll
However, in the big five personality factors in degree education less than other working
research, women may tend to score higher on people in Slovenia, in order to increase the
agreeableness and neuroticism than men number of entrepreneurs in the sample, and to
(Caplan 2003). Singh and De Noble (2003) found test the data with a random sample of entrepre-
significant interactions between personality, neurs, additional interviewees were randomly
gender, and having a close self-employed rela- selected from small firms from a financial
tive with respect to views on self-employment reports database and contacted by phone and
(intent, perceived ability, and personal invest- then interviewed in person. The response rate
ment). The differences between entrepreneurs was 67.2 percent (563 total responses out of 838;
and non-entrepreneurs may be found at differ- 72.3 percent for the nonrandom group and 42.8
ent levels depending on gender. On the basis of percent for the random group). Cross tabulation
the above research, we postulate the following chi-square tests indicated no differences
exploratory hypothesis: between the random sample and the nonran-
dom sample of entrepreneurs in terms of gender
H6: Gender will influence the relationship and age of persons.
between the big five personality factors and The data collection involved a structured
entrepreneurship in terms of (a) levels and questionnaire (see Appendix A). In addition to
(b) moderation. questions pertaining to personality characteris-
tics, each participant was asked to provide
Methods some information about himself or herself
Data Collection and (mostly demographic data), and about the firm
Sample Characteristics (age, size, industry, growth) in which he or she
This research is based on interview data is employed. All 62 interviews of the random
collected about the personality traits of people sample took place in a face-to-face manner in
in employment in Slovenia. On one hand, Slo- firms and were conducted by two assistants
venia can be considered an appropriate and who were previously trained by the principal
interesting research context since it is one of the researcher. The remaining 501 questionnaires
middle-income countries (including transition were filled out in groups in classes at the edu-
economies from Central and Eastern Europe), cation institutions under the supervision of the
which have a high level of potential opportuni- principal researcher and one trained assistant.
ties for the development of entrepreneurial Seventeen questionnaires were incomplete and
activities (see the Global Entrepreneurship were excluded. These efforts yielded a total of
Monitor study, Minniti, Bygrave, and Autio 546 usable responses (51.3 percent male and
2006); in particular, Slovenia lags behind high- 48.7 percent female). The average person in the
income countries in terms of entrepreneurship sample was between 20 and 30 years of age
ANTONCIC ET AL. 7
Table 1
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics Sample Database Population Difference
Classification
Non-entrepreneur 72 13.19
Maybe-Entrepreneur 255 46.70
Potential-Entrepreneur 54 9.89
Practicing-Entrepreneur 165 30.22
Total 546 100.00
Age
20 years or less 2 0.37
More than 20 to 30 225 41.21
More than 30 to 40 195 35.71
More than 40 to 50 111 20.33
More than 50 13 2.38
Total 546 100.00
Gender
Male 280 51.28 551,000 54.77 χ2 = 2.713
Female 266 48.72 455,000 45.23 df = 1
Total 546 100.00 1,006,000 100.00 p = 0.10
Main industry
Services 318 67.95 22,970 71.94 χ2 = 19.2
Manufacturing 114 24.36 5,509 17.26 df = 2
Construction 36 7.69 3,449 10.80 p = 0.00
Total 468 100.00 31,928 100.00
Table 2
Scale Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha)
Personality Cronbach’s Number of Singh and Saucier
Dimension Alpha Items De Noble (2003) (1994)
a
Item V0125r (unenvious) deleted due to a low communality (.11); Cronbach’s alpha with all eight
items .483; the neuroticism scale used by Saucier (1994) and Singh and De Noble (2003) includes
eight items.
“one year or less” to “more than thirty years”); own firm yet, but will found one in two to three
(2) potential entrepreneurs—people who are years” to “do not have my own firm yet, but will
planning to start their own business (including found one in less than a year”); (3) undecided
three answers ranging from “do not have my entrepreneurs (maybe-entrepreneurs)—people
ANTONCIC ET AL. 9
Figure 1
Openness
4.40
Gender
4.00
3.80
3.60
non- maybe- potential- practicing-
entrepreneur entrepreneur entrepreneur entrepreneur
Figure 2
Conscientiousness
Mean Values for Conscientiousness
4.60
Gender
male
4.40
female
4.20
4.00
3.80
non- maybe- potential- practicing-
entrepreneur entrepreneur entrepreneur entrepreneur
3.80
3.60
3.40
non- maybe- potential- practicing-
entrepreneur entrepreneur entrepreneur entrepreneur
Figure 4
Agreeableness
Mean Values for Agreeableness
4.40
Gender
male
4.20
female
4.00
3.80
3.60
non- maybe- potential- practicing-
entrepreneur entrepreneur entrepreneur entrepreneur
ANTONCIC ET AL. 11
Figure 5
Neuroticism
3.00
2.60
2.40
2.20
non- maybe- potential- practicing-
entrepreneur entrepreneur entrepreneur entrepreneur
Table 3
Results of Multi-Nominal Logistic Regression
(Likelihood Ratio Tests)
Model/Effect -2 Log Likelihood Chi-Square df Sig.
Model
Intercept Only 615.38
Final 520.48 94.90 45 0.000
Effect
Intercept 520.48 0.00 0
Openness 557.68 37.20 9 0.000
Conscientiousness 522.75 2.28 6 0.892
Extraversion 546.55 26.07 9 0.002
Agreeableness 540.74 20.26 9 0.016
Neuroticism 529.22 8.74 12 0.725
Goodness-of-fit: Pearson chi-square 366.89, 360 df, sig. .390, Deviance chi-square 319.35, 360 df,
sig. .940.
Pseudo R-square: Cox and Snell .16, Nagelkerke .17, McFadden .07.
(the main effects: openness significant at the H6a—the effects of gender on the levels of
.001; conscientiousness not significant at the personality factors: relative to women, men
.85; extraversion significant at .003; agreeable- tend to score higher in openness, lower on
ness not significant at .05 (0.096), but indicated conscientiousness, lower on extraversion, and
that when considering the .10 level entrepre- lower on agreeableness.
neurs may be slightly less agreeable than non-
entrepreneurs; neuroticism not significant at Interaction Effects
.414). Table B2 in Appendix B also contains the
Gender differences (see Table 3) were MANOVA results for testing the interaction
detected for four personality factors (openness, effects (entrepreneurship-by-gender). All four
sig. .041; conscientiousness, sig. .001; extraver- multivariate tests indicated that the interaction
sion, sig. .009; agreeableness, sig. .000); the effect is not significant at the .05 level. This
only non-significant difference was found for means that the differences in means between
neuroticism. These findings partly support the four entrepreneurship groups tend to be
ANTONCIC ET AL. 13
personality characteristic to forge relationships be distinguished more by the strategies and
which will be critical for business survival and actions of managers than by their profile char-
growth. acteristics (firm size, age, and industry)
This study found some evidence of the (Smallbone, Leig, and North 1995). Manage-
impact of the agreeableness factor on entrepre- ment and marketing strategies can be crucial
neurship. People who possess agreeableness for competitiveness (Gomezelj Omerzel and
traits, who are sympathetic, warm, kind and Mihalic 2008). Entrepreneurs tend to be impor-
cooperative, will be less likely to become entre- tant for their firm performance (Storey 1994), in
preneurs or have an intention to become entre- particular, in business planning and growth of
preneurs in comparison to other people who a small firm it is also very important the entre-
score lower on agreeableness. It seems that the preneur’s knowledge including the entrepre-
bright side of the agreeableness-related person- neur’s know-how (Chrisman, Bauerschmidt,
ality characteristics may be an important and Hofer 1998; Storey 1994), work experi-
impediment to entrepreneurship intentions and ence, functional skills, formal education and
behaviors; sympathy and kindness may be self-confidence (Gomezelj Omerzel and
essential detrimental traits in new firm start-up Antoncic 2008). A conclusion may be that plan-
decisions and activities. Also, it may be that ning may be important in entrepreneurship as a
start-up entrepreneurs may be less agreeable choice and a skill and not as a predisposition in
due to slimmer margins for error. With a lack of terms of the conscientiousness personality
slack resources, start-up entrepreneurs may traits.
tend to be more focused and less concerned Contrary to the expectations, gender was not
about agreeableness matters and more con- found to be a moderator in the personality-
cerned with getting the job done. We would entrepreneurship relationship. However, the
think that agreeable individuals might be more findings of this study indicated some important
able to adjust to the norms, policies, proce- effects of gender on the levels of personality
dures and culture of existing organizations. factors: men (relative to women) can be seen as
Thus, there might not be such a driving need to scoring high on openness, low on conscien-
leave their existing environments in order to tiousness, low on extraversion, and low on
form their own organizations. agreeableness. This would suggest that gender
Two personality factors—conscientiousness should be used in entrepreneurship personality
and neuroticism—were found not to be very studies at least as a control variable.
relevant for entrepreneurship. It may be strik-
ing and somewhat counterintuitive that orga- Contributions and
nized, efficient, systematic and practical people Implications
may not be more likely to engage in entrepre- The key contribution of this study relates to
neurship than other people. However, it seems the finding that the big five personality traits
that even if business planning can be important can potentially be used for predicting entrepre-
for firm start-ups (e.g., Hisrich, Peters, and neurial start-ups (openness) and entrepreneur-
Shepherd 2005) and for the growth of small ial intentions (extraversion and agreeableness).
firms (e.g., Skrt and Antoncic 2004), most entre- We have contributed new evidence on the exis-
preneurs tend not to write business plans tence of entrepreneur-related personality char-
(Bhide 1994) and, as the findings of this study acteristics by extending the big five personality
indicate, may not have planning-related per- research in entrepreneurship to an investiga-
sonality traits. This finding may be consistent tion of the psychological determinants of real-
with the distinction between entrepreneurial life entrepreneurship start-up decisions and
and administrative-managerial behavior intentions. In methodological terms, we con-
(Stevenson and Sahlman 1986) where planning trasted the big five personality factors with four
and organization activities may be more within groups of people on the basis of their entre-
the realm of administrative managers than pro- preneurial activity or intentions (practicing
moters (entrepreneurs). Strategy variables entrepreneurs, potential entrepreneurs, maybe-
including conscious strategy making may be entrepreneurs, and non-entrepreneurs). We
important for growth of small firms, but despite have discovered that this division into four
this fact many small firm entrepreneurs con- groups may be much more insightful than a
sciously refuse to grow (Storey 2000). High more traditional classification into two groups
growth small and medium-sized enterprises can (entrepreneurs versus non-entrepreneurs) since
ANTONCIC ET AL. 15
intrapreneurs may provide some additional
insights. We also need more longitudinal References
studies to establish predictability. Allport, G. W., and H. S. Odbert (1936). “Trait
The focus of this study was on the person- Names: A Psycholexical Study,” Psychologi-
ality of the entrepreneur so other elements that cal Monographs 47 (Whole No. 211), 1–171.
may be important for entrepreneurial start-up Alvarez, S. A., and J. B. Barney (2007). “Discov-
decisions were not included. For example, the ery and Creation: Alternative Theories of
changes of environment may have impact to Entrepreneurial Action,” Strategic Entrepre-
personality traits; becoming and acting as an neurship Journal 1, 11–26.
entrepreneur as aspects of the entrepreneur’s Amancio, L. (1989). “Social Differentiation
learning process, as well as changes in the Between ‘Dominant’ and ‘Dominated’
entrepreneur’s relations with other people, may Groups: Toward an Integration of Social Ste-
affect the entrepreneur’s personality character- reotypes and Social Identity,” European
istics (Littunen 2000). When taking into consid- Journal of Social Psychology 19, 1–10.
eration the gender variable, the study did not ——— (1993). “Stereotypes as Ideologies: The
take into account specific situations (detailed Case of Gender Categories,” Revista De
firm, industry and situation specific character- Pscologia Social 8(2), 163–170.
istics), which may bring a more detailed com- Antoncic, B., and R. D. Hisrich (2000).
parative analysis of males and females in the “Intrapreneurship Modeling in Transition
decisions related to firm formation. Personality Economies: A Comparison of Slovenia and
characteristics may be combined with other the United States,” Journal of Developmental
characteristics (for example, environmental, Entrepreneurship 5(1), 21–40.
sociological and/or opportunity-related, eco- ——— (2001). “Intrapreneurship: Construct
nomic status and life cycle considerations Refinement and Cross-Cultural Validation,”
might be important) in future research. Journal of Business Venturing 16(5), 495–
The sample and measurement instruments 527.
may represent other limitations. The sample Antoncic, B., B. Hvalic Erzetic, O. Zorn, and R.
used in this study was at the limit in terms of D. Hisrich (2007a). “Entrepreneurship Edu-
size for the 4-by-2 MANOVA; a larger sample cation: Non-Linearity in the Satisfaction-
would be better at detecting smaller effect Continuation Relationship,” Management
sizes. Despite this limitation, the study has dis- 2(2), 101–119.
covered some important differences which Antoncic, B., I. Prodan, R. D. Hisrich, and C.
would become even more evident if a larger Scarlat (2007b). “Technological Innovative-
sample had been used. This study used a short ness and Firm Performance in Slovenia and
version of the measure of the big five person- Romania,” Post-Communist Economies 19(3),
ality factors (Mini-Markers Inventory from 285–302.
Saucier 1994) which is not complete due to Antoncic, B., C. Scarlat, and B. Hvalic Erzetic
the relatively low number of measurement (2005). “The Quality of Entrepreneurship
items (40) in comparison to some other more Education and the Intention to Continue
extensive scales, but is easy to administer and Education: Slovenia and Romania,” Manag-
has shown internal consistency and cross- ing Global Transitions 3(2), 197–211.
cultural comparability, with the exception of Ardichvili, A., R. Cardozo, and S. Ray (2003). “A
one item (un-envious), which may be difficult Theory of Entrepreneurial Opportunity Iden-
to translate in terms of meaning. Researchers tification and Development,” Journal of
may like to consider using more detailed mea- Business Venturing 18(1), 105–123.
surement scales in future research in order to Baron, R. A. (1998). “Cognitive Mechanisms in
explore other detailed personality differences Entrepreneurship: Why and When Entrepre-
between entrepreneurs and less entrepreneur- neurs Think Differently Than Other People,”
ial groups. Journal of Business Venturing 13(4), 275–
Despite these limitations, this study has 294.
contributed to the personality-related research ——— (2007). “Behavioral and Cognitive
in entrepreneurship. The big five personality Factors in Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurs
factors can be important predictors of real- as the Active Element in New Venture Cre-
life entrepreneurship and of entrepreneurial ation,” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1,
intentions. 167–182.
ANTONCIC ET AL. 17
Different Models, the Case of Slovenia,” Owner’s Goals in Sustaining Entrepreneur-
Tourism Management 29(2), 294–307. ship,” Journal of Small Business Manage-
Greer, M. J., and P. G. Greene (2003). “Feminist ment 35(1), 24–33.
Theory and The Study of Entrepreneurship,” Licht, A. N., and J. I. Siegel (2006). “The Social
in New Perspectives on Women Entrepre- Dimensions of Entrepreneurship,” in The
neurs. Ed. J. Butler. Greenwich, CT: Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship. Eds.
Information Age Publishing, Chapter 1, M. Casson, B. Yeung, A. Basu and N.
1–24. Wadeson. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
Guisinger, S., and S. J. Blatt (1994). “Individu- 511–539.
ality and Relatedness: Evolution of a Funda- Littunen, H. (2000). “The Entrepreneurship and
mental Dialectic,” American Psychologist the Characteristics of the Entrepreneurial
49(2), 104–111. Personality,” International Journal of Entre-
Hatten, T. S. (1997). Small Business: Entrepre- preneurial Behavior & Research 6(6), 295–
neurship and Beyond. Upper Saddle River, 310.
NJ: Prentice Hall. Lueptow, L. B., L. Garovich, and M. B. Lueptow
Hisrich, R. D. (1986). “The Woman Entrepre- (1995). “The Persistence of Gender Stereo-
neur: Characteristics, Skills, Problems, and types in the Face of Changing Sex Roles:
Prescriptions for Success,” in The Art Evidence Contrary to the Sociocultural
and Science of Entrepreneurship. Eds. Model,” Ethology and Sociobiology 16(6),
D. L. Sexton and R. W. Smilor. Cambridge, 509–530.
MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 61– Lumpkin, G. T., G. E. Hills, and R. C. Shrader
81. (2004). “Opportunity Recognition,” in Entre-
Hisrich, R. D., M. Peters, and D. A. Shepherd preneurship: The Road Ahead. Ed. H. L.
(2005). Entrepreneurship, 6th ed. Boston, Welsch. London: Routledge, 73–90.
MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Lynn, R. (1969). “Personality Characteristics of
Hoang, H., and J. Gimeno (2005). “Entrepre- a Group of Entrepreneurs,” Occupational
neurial Identity,” in The Blackwell Encyclo- Psychology 43, 2–151.
pedia of Management. Entrepreneurship. McClelland, D. (1961). The Achieving Society.
Eds. M. A. Hitt and R. D. Ireland. Malden, New York: D. Van Nostrand & Co., 205–300.
MA: Blackwell Publishers, 87–91. Minniti, M. A., W. D. Bygrave, and E. Autio
Howard, P. J., and J. M. Howard (1995). The Big (2006). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor:
Five Quickstart: An Introduction to the Five 2005 Executive Report. Babson Park, MA:
Factor Model of Personality For Human Babson College. London: London Business
Resource Professionals. Charlotte, NC: School.
Center for Applied Cognitive Studies. Mitchell, R. K., L. Busenitz, T. Lant, P. P.
John, O. P. (1990). “The ‘Big Five’ Factor Tax- McDougall, E. A. Morse, and B. J. Smith
onomy: Dimensions of Personality in the (2002). “Entrepreneurial Cognition Theory:
Natural Language and Questionnaires,” in Rethinking the People Side of Entrepreneur-
Handbook of Personality: Theory and ial Research,” Entrepreneurship Theory and
Research. Ed. L. A. Pervin. New York: Guil- Practice 27(2), 93–104.
ford Press, 66–100. Norman, W. T. (1967). 2,800 Personality Trait
Kets De Vries, M. F. R. (1977). “The Entrepre- Descriptors: Normative Operating Character-
neurial Personality: A Person at the Cross- istics for a University Population. Ann Arbor,
roads,” The Journal of Management Studies MI: Department of Psychology, University of
XIV, 34–58. Michigan.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1985). “The Dark Side Palich, L. E., and D. R. Bagby (1995). “Using
of Entrepreneurship,” Harvard Business Cognitive Theory to Explain Entrepreneurial
Review 63(6), 160–167. Risk-Taking: Challenging Conventional
Kirzner, I. M. (1982). “The Theory of Entrepre- Wisdom,” Journal of Business Venturing 10,
neurship in Economic Growth,” in The Ency- 425–438.
clopedia of Entrepreneurship. Eds. C. Kent, Pech, R. J., and A. Cameron (2006). “An Entre-
D. L. Sexton and K. H. Vesper. Englewood preneurial Decision Process Model Describ-
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 272–276. ing Opportunity Recognition,” European
Kuratko, D. F., J. S. Hornsby, and D. W. Journal of Innovation Management 9(1),
Naffziger (1997). “An Examination of 61–78.
ANTONCIC ET AL. 19
Appendix A
Table A1
Questionnaire Items—Personality
The big five personality factors (Saucier 1994; Singh and De Noble 2003):
Rate the accuracy of the following adjectives for you as a person:
1. Talkative 1 2 3 4 5
2. Extraverted 1 2 3 4 5
3. Bold 1 2 3 4 5
4. Energetic 1 2 3 4 5
5. Shy 1 2 3 4 5
6. Quiet 1 2 3 4 5
7. Bashful 1 2 3 4 5
8. Withdrawn 1 2 3 4 5
9. Sympathetic 1 2 3 4 5
10. Warm 1 2 3 4 5
11. Kind 1 2 3 4 5
12. Cooperative 1 2 3 4 5
13. Cold 1 2 3 4 5
14. Unsympathetic 1 2 3 4 5
15. Rude 1 2 3 4 5
16. Harsh 1 2 3 4 5
17. Organized 1 2 3 4 5
18. Efficient 1 2 3 4 5
19. Systematic 1 2 3 4 5
20. Practical 1 2 3 4 5
21. Disorganized 1 2 3 4 5
22. Sloppy 1 2 3 4 5
23. Inefficient 1 2 3 4 5
24. Careless 1 2 3 4 5
25. Unenvious 1 2 3 4 5
26. Relaxed 1 2 3 4 5
27. Moody 1 2 3 4 5
28. Jealous 1 2 3 4 5
29. Temperamental 1 2 3 4 5
30. Envious 1 2 3 4 5
31. Touchy 1 2 3 4 5
32. Fretful 1 2 3 4 5
33. Creative 1 2 3 4 5
34. Imaginative 1 2 3 4 5
35. Philosophical 1 2 3 4 5
36. Intellectual 1 2 3 4 5
37. Complex 1 2 3 4 5
38. Deep 1 2 3 4 5
39. Uncreative 1 2 3 4 5
40. Unintellectual 1 2 3 4 5
Appendix B
Table B1
Descriptive Statistics
Personality Entrepreneurial Gender Mean Standard. N
Factor Group Deviation
ANTONCIC ET AL. 21
Table B1
Continued
Personality Entrepreneurial Gender Mean Standard. N
Factor Group Deviation
a
R Squared = .08 (Adjusted R Squared = .07).
b
R Squared = .03 (Adjusted R Squared = .02).
c
R Squared = .03 (Adjusted R Squared = .02).
d
R Squared = .14 (Adjusted R Squared = .12).
e
R Squared = .01 (Adjusted R Squared = −.01).
ANTONCIC ET AL. 23