Education + Training

Demographic factors, personality and entrepreneurial inclination: A study among

Indian university students
Richa Chaudhary
Article information:
To cite this document:
Richa Chaudhary , (2017)," Demographic factors, personality and entrepreneurial inclination A study
among Indian university students ", Education + Training, Vol. 59 Iss 2 pp. 171 - 187
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2016-0024
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 01:55 11 January 2017 (PT)

Downloaded on: 11 January 2017, At: 01:55 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 72 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 6 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"Matching expectations for successful university student volunteering", Education + Training,
Vol. 59 Iss 2 pp. 122-134 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2016-0052

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:549055 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

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

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm

Study among
Demographic factors, personality Indian
and entrepreneurial inclination university
students
A study among Indian university students
Richa Chaudhary 171
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Received 2 February 2016
Indian Institute of Technology, Patna, India Revised 30 June 2016
Accepted 13 August 2016

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence of demographic, social and personal
dispositional factors on determining the entrepreneurial inclination. Specifically, the author examined the role
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 01:55 11 January 2017 (PT)

of gender, age, stream of study, family business background and six psychological traits of locus of control,
tolerance for ambiguity, propensity to take risk, self-confidence and innovation in differentiating
entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs.
Design/methodology/approach – As university students constitute pool of potential entrepreneurs,
participants for the study consisted of 274 students from two new and upcoming universities in an emerging
economy of India. The sample included students from both business and non-business schools. Data were
reported and analysed using descriptive statistics, frequency distribution, t-test and stepwise logistic regression
Findings – The study results suggest that the traits of locus of control, tolerance for ambiguity,
self-confidence and innovativeness were significant in differentiating entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs.
At the same time it was also observed that need for achievement and risk-taking propensity were not found to
be significantly different for these two groups which was contradictory to the expectations. In addition to
these six psychological traits, the study results also underlined the role of family background and school in
predicting entrepreneurial inclination.
Practical implications – The study carries huge public policy implications for education system in India
which largely prepares the students for jobs in public and private sectors rather than entrepreneurship.
Originality/value – The study discusses some of the missing links in the entrepreneurship research by
providing new insights from India.
Keywords Gender, India, Personality, Demographics, Age, Entrepreneurship
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Entrepreneurship has always been a topic of great interest for both developed as well as
developing economies. For developed nations, entrepreneurship acts as a vital tool to revive
the stagnant economy through innovative and value creating ventures of entrepreneurs.
For a developing economy, entrepreneurship is a vivacious vehicle for economic growth and
progress. It can provide a major source of employment creation, innovation and social
adjustment (Gurol and Atsan, 2006). A number of studies from different countries have
repeatedly reinforced the link between level of entrepreneurial activities in the nation and
the indicators of economic development of the country (Reynolds et al., 2002; Awasthi et al.,
2006). For the above reasons, every government encourages entrepreneurship with high
priority. There is always a focus on encouraging micro, small and medium enterprises as
they stimulate growth, innovation and wealth creation, which consequently provides
competitive advantage to the nations in the global arena.
The above interest in entrepreneurship at the global level has inspired great deal of
research and practice which aims at looking into the emerging paradigms in the field of
entrepreneurship. Considering entrepreneurship as a growth engine for developing nations,
interest in this stream of research will never fade and it has increased radically in the Education + Training
current times. Indian economy, which is predicted to become the largest economy of Vol. 59 No. 2, 2017
pp. 171-187
the world by 2050, has also geared up its efforts to encourage and foster entrepreneurial © Emerald Publishing Limited
0040-0912
culture in the country. Indian Government has come up with a draft of national DOI 10.1108/ET-02-2016-0024
 ET entrepreneurship policy which primarily aims at encouraging people to venture out by
59,2 focussing on motivation, opportunity and skills. Encouraging entrepreneurship can prove to
be a panacea for a country like India which is grappling with problems of unemployment
and poverty. Initial strategy for breeding a culture of entrepreneurship and inculcating
entrepreneurial mind set amongst youth would be to catch them young. One of the first
steps in this direction would be to understand entrepreneurial traits and characteristics.
172 Are there some characteristics which are unique to an entrepreneur? Can an entrepreneur be
differentiated from a non-entrepreneur?
Regardless of the amount of research which has been undertaken in this direction,
still there exists a great deal of confusion over the concept of entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurs. Even today, researchers have not been able to precisely and consistently define
“who is an entrepreneur?” For the purpose of the present study, the author operationalizes
“entrepreneurship” using psychological characteristics school of entrepreneurship as
proposed by Cunningham and Lischeron (1991). According to this school of thought
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 01:55 11 January 2017 (PT)

entrepreneurs are individuals with unique values, attitudes and needs which drive and
differentiate them from others. A number of researchers have made an attempt to identify the
characteristics of an entrepreneur. Following the trait approach to entrepreneurship, previous
researches from different countries have linked personality traits of locus of control, tolerance
for ambiguity, need for achievement, innovation and risk-taking propensity to entrepreneurs
(Koh, 1996; Gurol and Atsan, 2006; Entrialgo et al., 2000; Robinson et al., 1991; Krauss and
Frese, 2005). Recently, Armstrong and Hird (2009) and Marques et al. (2012) also reported
prevalence of correlation between psychological traits and entrepreneurial orientation.
However, there has been a great deal of inconsistency in the results reported with respect
to relation between these personality traits and entrepreneurial inclination. Some scholars
have found support for the ability of these traits in distinguishing entrepreneurs from
non-entrepreneurs while others rule out the linkage. These studies have come up from varied
number of countries like USA, Russia, Spain, Singapore, Turkey, etc. The reason for these
inconsistent findings could range from conceptualization issues to cultural dissimilarities
among the countries. On the other hand, research evidence from India seems to be missing.
In order to strengthen and generalize the linkage between these personality characteristics
and entrepreneurship it is important to gather evidence from all countries and cultures.
As culture has been identified to have a profound influence on entrepreneurship (Thomas and
Mueller, 2000), ignoring evidence from one of the fastest growing economies like India may
prove costly. Thus, in order to build and develop the existing line of research, the present
study attempts to investigate the influence of demographic, social and personal dispositional
factors on entrepreneurial inclination amongst university students in India. Specifically, effort
has been directed to examine the influence of gender, age, stream of study, family business
background and six psychological traits of locus of control, tolerance for ambiguity,
propensity to take risk, self-confidence and innovation.

Review of literature and study hypotheses

According to Holland (1985) people are more likely to be attracted and satisfied in
occupations that match their personality. Therefore, it becomes imperative to identify the
personality traits which distinguish an entrepreneur from a non-entrepreneur before
investing the resources towards building the supply of entrepreneurs in the country.
The following section presents a review of literature around each of the variables used in the
present study followed by the study hypotheses.

Locus of control
Locus of control refers to an individuals’ belief about the extent to which they can control
various events in their lives (Rotter, 1966). It has conceptually been categorized into internal
 and external locus of control. Individuals with internal locus of control are likely to believe Study among
that it is themselves who control the events in their life. As opposed to internal, individuals Indian
with external locus of control believe that events in their life are caused by external university
environmental factors over which they have little control. An entrepreneur who converts an
idea into a viable business venture is expected to have control over the series of unfolding students
events in his life. Past studies have reported the prevalence of higher internal locus of
control among entrepreneurs in comparison to non-entrepreneurs (Thomas and Mueller, 173
2000; Engle et al., 1997). In fact, locus of control has consistently been reported as an
important constituent of an entrepreneurs’ personality in the entrepreneurship literature
(Luthje and Franke, 2003; Koh, 1996; Gurol and Atsan, 2006; Mueller and Thomas, 2000;
Hansemark, 1998; Utsch and Rauch, 2000). Therefore, the author hypothesizes:
H1. Entrepreneurially inclined students will have higher internal locus of control than
the entrepreneurially non-inclined students.
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 01:55 11 January 2017 (PT)

Need for achievement

Need for achievement as proposed by McClelland (1961) is a personality trait associated
with a desire to set and maintain higher standards of performance. Individuals with high
need for achievement have a compelling drive to succeed. As a result, they set higher goals,
take calculated risk and are more likely to choose innovative and moderately difficult tasks
which are within their reach and challenging at the same time. Since entrepreneurial
occupations offer greater control over outcomes, involve moderate risk and provide instant
feedback on performance, to an extent it is logical to expect that individuals with high need
for achievement are more likely to opt for career as an entrepreneur. In a longitudinal study
conducted by McClelland (1965), it was found that more individuals with high scores on
need for achievement than with low need for achievement were found to be in
entrepreneurial occupations. Ferreira et al. (2012) also reported significant correlation
between the trait of need for achievement and entrepreneurial intention on a sample of
secondary school students. Further, in a recent study Marques et al. (2012) found strong
positive association between need for achievement and entrepreneurial intent amongst
Portuguese secondary school students. Similar findings were reported by a number of other
studies where need for achievement was reported to have a stronger link with
entrepreneurship than any other trait (Hansemark, 1998; Littunen, 2000; Johnson, 1990;
Robinson et al., 1991).
Contrary to the above findings, Davidsson and Wiklund (1999) declared that the trait of
need for achievement has little role to play in determining entrepreneurial behaviour. These
mixed findings emphasize the need to probe deep into the relationship between the trait of
need for achievement and entrepreneurial intention. Therefore, the author hypothesizes:
H2. Entrepreneurially inclined students will have higher need for achievement than the
non-inclined students.

Tolerance for ambiguity

Tolerance for ambiguity is another important trait for an entrepreneur, given the
uncertain business environment they operate in. It refers to an individuals’ perception and
approach towards an ambiguous situation. It involves dealing with ambiguous situations
in a sensible and calm manner (Bunder, 1962). An individual with high tolerance for
ambiguity finds the ambiguous situation as desirable, interesting and full of challenge.
On the other hand, those with low tolerance for ambiguity find the situation as stressful
and try to avoid it (Markman and Baron, 2003; McMullen and Shepherd, 2006).
As entrepreneurs operate in an environment characterized by great deal of ambiguity and
 ET uncertainty, tolerance for ambiguity can safely be presumed to be an important
59,2 distinguishing trait for an entrepreneur. Previous studies have reported that individuals
with high tolerance for ambiguity are likely to be more entrepreneurial than those with
lower tolerance for ambiguity (Schere, 1982; Koh, 1996). According to Mitton (1989),
entrepreneurs are always willing to seek ambiguity and drive satisfaction from managing
uncertainty. Thus, the author hypothesizes:
174 H3. Entrepreneurially inclined students will display higher tolerance for ambiguity than
the entrepreneurially non-inclined students.

Risk-taking propensity
Risk-taking propensity is another such trait which is quite often associated with
entrepreneurs. It refers to an individuals’ proclivity to take risks under uncertainty.
Undertaking entrepreneurship as a career implies a number of risks for an individual due to
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 01:55 11 January 2017 (PT)

several uncertain decision-making situations involved in the career. These risks may range
from financial, career and family related to emotional and psychological (Brockhaus, 1980;
Littunen, 2000). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect a high risk-taking propensity amongst
entrepreneurs than non-entrepreneurs. Thus, the author hypothesizes:
H4. Entrepreneurially inclined students will display higher propensity to take risk than
the non-inclined students.

Self-confidence
Self-efficacy has time and again been reported to be a significant predictor of performance in
the academic literature. It is one such key trait which can decide the making or breaking of
an entrepreneur. Self-confidence has a crucial role to play right from the stage of idea
conceptualization to sustainable business performance. Unless an entrepreneur has full
confidence in his or her abilities to successfully execute a business opportunity there is less
probability of success of such an enterprise. Given the level of uncertainty an entrepreneur
is exposed to, it is his/her ability to confidently handle such situations which can make a
difference. Raposo et al. (2008) highlighted the importance of self-confidence for propensity
to start a venture. Other studies in the literature have also reported higher level of
confidence and esteem in entrepreneurs when compared to non-entrepreneurs (Koh, 1996;
Gurol and Atsan, 2006; Robinson et al., 1991). Contrary to the above findings, Ferreira
et al. (2012) reported negative correlation between self-confidence and entrepreneurial intent.
Therefore, to have a better understanding of the relationships better, the author
hypothesizes:
H5. Entrepreneurially inclined will display higher level of self-confidence than the
entrepreneurially non-inclined ones.

Innovativeness
One of the very basic expectations from an entrepreneur is to be innovative and convert
ideas into new business opportunities and generate new value creating products and
services. The prime focus of the governments has been to encourage innovation based
entrepreneurship rather than generating necessity driven entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are
considered to be a major source of innovation for an economy and are expected to generate
wealth and productive gains through innovations. Innovation is something which is very
core to the success of an entrepreneur. Past studies have confirmed the link between
innovativeness and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs were reported to be more innovative
than the non-entrepreneurs (Robinson et al., 1991; Koh, 1996; Gurol and Atsan, 2006;
 Thomas and Mueller, 2000). In a recent study, Hamidi et al. (2008) also reported positive Study among
association between innovativeness and entrepreneurial intent. Therefore, it can be Indian
expected that innovativeness will play a role in the emergence of entrepreneurs. Hence, university
the author hypothesizes:
students
H6. Entrepreneurially inclined students are more innovative than the non-inclined
students.
In addition to the above psychological traits, this study also examines the impact of gender,
175
age, family background and stream of study of students as determinants of entrepreneurial
inclination.

Gender
Women tend to be underrepresented as an entrepreneur in a field that is largely dominated
by males. Prior studies have reported lower level of entrepreneurial inclination amongst
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 01:55 11 January 2017 (PT)

women due to perceived gender specific barriers (Lu and Tao, 2010; Wilson et al., 2007;
Zellweger et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2005). Additionally, lower level of entrepreneurial
inclination amongst women has been attributed to lower average attitude, subjective norm
and perceived behavioural control according to the role congruity theory (Eagly and
Karau’s, 2002). As discussed earlier in the present paper, entrepreneurship has been
associated with traits like high risk taking abilities, achievement orientation, etc.
It appears that women are not able to see their perceived characteristics in alignment with
these traits required for starting an entrepreneurial venture successfully (Orobia et al., 2011;
Haus et al., 2013). This role incongruence lowers the self-confidence of women and makes
them underestimate their skills and capabilities in starting a new venture (Wilson et al.,
2007; Hyde and Kling, 2001). At the same time it is important to emphasize the
role of cultural factors and societal norms which often associate starting a venture with
masculine characteristics resulting in a negative stereotype for female entrepreneurship
(Ahl, 2006; Gupta et al., 2009; Welter et al., 2007). In line with the above finding, Hatak et al.
(2015) also reported lower entrepreneurial intention amongst women of age 50 and above
due to gender stereotypes.
However, a significant rise in the number of women entrepreneurs in the recent years
(Weiler and Bernasek, 2001; Center for Women’s Business Research, 2009) has provoked
various researchers to emphasize more upon gender similarities rather than differences
(Gupta et al., 2009; Diaz-Garcıa and Jimenez-Moreno, 2009). On similar lines, Pruett et al.
(2009) reported no significant difference in entrepreneurial intention of males and females in
a study conducted amongst students of USA, Spain and China. Thus, the outcome of
research conducted to examine the impact of gender on entrepreneurship remains largely
inconclusive highlighting the need for conducting more research in the area. Thus,
the author proposes:
H7. Women will display lower entrepreneurial intent than men.

Age
In addition to gender differences in entrepreneurial inclination, age has also been reported in
some of the prior studies to relate to entrepreneurship. It is expected that individuals within
the age range of 25-30 years are most energetic and ready to take the risk and at the same time
have enough experience and capacity to start an entrepreneurial venture (Liles, 1981; Hisrich
and Brush, 1986). In a recent study, Hatak et al. (2015) reported a negative association between
age and entrepreneurial intent amongst adult workforce in Austria. Fung et al. (2001) argued
that older people are reluctant to invest in time taking activities with uncertain returns.
Therefore, they are less likely to act entrepreneurially than younger people and hence have
 ET lower entrepreneurial intent (Hart et al., 2004; Kautonen, 2008; Levesque and Minniti, 2006).
59,2 However, Pruett et al. (2009) in a study amongst 1,000 university students in USA, Spain and
China reported no significant relationship between age and entrepreneurial intention. On the
basis of the above findings, the author hypothesizes:
H8. Age is inversely related to entrepreneurial inclination.

176
Family background
Parental role model and family support model are the two frameworks which have largely
been used in the literature to explain the influence of family background on entrepreneurial
inclination. Parental role model states that individuals with self-employed parents are more
likely to be self-employed/start an entrepreneurial venture over individuals with no business
family background. Family support model talks about the influence of social and financial
support provided by the family. Some studies have supported parental role models (de Wit
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 01:55 11 January 2017 (PT)

and van Winden, 1989; Taylor, 1996; Crant, 1996) while others reinforce family support
model (Dolton and Makepeace, 1990; Evans and Leighton, 1989). Supporting the above
models, Solesvik (2013) reported significantly higher entrepreneurial orientation among
students with self-employment family background amongst Ukrainian students. On the
other hand, Hatak et al. (2015) reported no significant relationship between having
entrepreneurial parents and high entrepreneurial intent.
Contrary to the above, Marques et al. (2012) found a negative relationship between family
business background and entrepreneurial intention in a study amongst secondary school
students in Portugal. These mixed findings clearly underscore the need for further research
in this direction. Based on the above arguments, the author hypothesizes:
H9. Family self-employment background will have a positive relationship with
entrepreneurial intent.

Stream of education
In addition to the above, in this study, effort has been directed to explore whether business/
management students are more inclined to become entrepreneurs when compared to
non-business students. In literature, there exists mixed evidence for the link between stream
of education and entrepreneurial intent. For example, Kuckertz and Wagner (2010) in their
study on German students reported higher entrepreneurial intent amongst engineering
students over business students. Similar results were reported by other researchers where
academic major was found to have strong influence on entrepreneurial intentions (see
Kolvereid and Moen, 1997; Wu and Wu, 2008). On the other hand, Marques et al. (2012)
found no association between entrepreneurship focussed education and development of
entrepreneurial intentions amongst Portuguese secondary school students.
Contrary to the above, other researchers reported higher entrepreneurial intent amongst
students who formally study business as a subject over non-business students, i.e. students
who do not study business as a formal subject (Ertuna and Gurel, 2011; Jones et al., 2011;
Karhunen and Ledyaeva, 2010; Levenburg et al., 2006). Similarly, in a recent study amongst
Ukrainian students, Solesvik (2013) found that students of business and economics who
were exposed to enterprise education were more motivated to start a venture when
compared to engineering students with no exposure to such enterprise courses. These
contrary findings in literature have been explained in terms of differences in the national
context in which these studies were undertaken.
Based on the argument that students who have studied business as an
academic discipline with exposure to various courses related to entrepreneurship have
accumulated knowledge, skills and attitude required for starting a business venture and
 hence are better prepared and equipped than the non-business students to start a venture, Study among
the author proposes: Indian
H10. Students who have studied business/management as formal subjects will display university
higher levels of entrepreneurial intent than students who have not studies business students
and management as formal subjects.
Figure 1 shows the hypothetical research model of the study.
177
Methodology
Population and sampling
With the assumption that university students constitute pool of potential entrepreneurs,
participants for the study consisted of 274 students from two new and upcoming
universities, namely, Glocal University and BML Munjal University in an emerging
economy of India. The sample included students from both business and non-business
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 01:55 11 January 2017 (PT)

schools. Non-business stream included technology, science and law. The sample consisted of
both undergraduate and post graduate students. The detailed break-up of the sample is
given in Table I. Data were collected by MBA/BBA students of the university as part of their
major project. In all, 350 questionnaires were floated and 280 were received back. Out of the
280 questionnaires received, six were found to be incomplete and hence, were discarded.

Survey instruments
Data were collected with the help of a 36-item self-administered questionnaire used by
Koh (1996). The items of the scale were adapted from entrepreneurial self-assessment scale
which consisted of 35 items (Technonet Asia, 1981). Each item was rated on a five-point
Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree). The questionnaire consisted of
both positively and negatively framed questions, which were intermingled to minimize the
response set bias. Responses were coded in such a manner that higher mean scores
represented higher internal locus of control, high tolerance for ambiguity, greater
innovativeness, greater self-confidence, higher propensity to take risk. The instrument has

Demographic variables
(1) Gender
(2) Age
(3) School
(4) Family background
Entrepreneurial inclination

Psychological traits

(1) Locus of control

(2) Need for achievement

(3) Tolerance for ambiguity

(4) Risk taking propensity

(5) Self-confidence Figure 1.

Hypothesized
(6) Innovativeness research model
 ET Inclination
59,2 Variable Overall sample Entrepreneur Non-entrepreneur

Frequency distribution
Gender
Male 216 (78.83) 82 (78.85%) 134 (78.82%)
Female 58 (21.17) 22 (21.15%) 36 (21.18%)
178 Age
Below 18years 10.22% 12 (11.54%) 16 (9.41%)
18-21years 185 (67.52%) 66 (63.46%) 119 (70%)
Above 21years 61 (22.26%) 26 (25%) 35 (20.59%)
School
Business 143 (52.19%) 62 (59.62%) 69 (40.59%)
Non-business 131 (47.81%) 42 (40.38%) 101 (59.41%)
Table I. Family
Frequency Entrepreneur 161 (58.76%) 78 (75%) 83 (48.82%)
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 01:55 11 January 2017 (PT)

distribution Non-entrepreneur 113 (41.24%) 26 (25%) 87 (51.18%)

widely been used in the entrepreneurship researches in the past and has been found to be
highly valid and reliable (Koh, 1996). Six subscales were used to measure locus of control
(seven items), need for achievement (six items), tolerance for ambiguity (six items),
propensity to take risk (six items), self-confidence (six items) and innovativeness (five items).
Some sample items for each of the subscales are: many of the unhappy things in people’s
lives are partly due to bad luck (locus of control); I take pleasure in responding to challenges,
so competition makes me work harder (need for achievement); I have confidence in my
ability to achieve (self-confidence); I am willing to take high risks for high returns
(risk-taking propensity); I enjoy working in unstructured situations (tolerance for
ambiguity). Cronbach’s α value for each of the subscales was found to be greater than
0.70 (see Table I).
Going by the definition of an entrepreneur, entrepreneurial inclination was measured
using two statements: what do you plan to do after graduation?; and what is your
probability of starting your business in three years or so? Students who opted for a career as
an entrepreneur over working for a public or private firm and those with higher probability
of starting a business were classified as entrepreneurially inclined. Rest were categorized as
non-entrepreneurially inclined. Other than the information on entrepreneurial inclination
and six psychological traits, information on demographic profile of the respondents was
also collected.
Data were reported and analysed using descriptive statistics, frequency distribution,
t-test and stepwise logistic regression. As our outcome variable was dichotomous, logistic
regression was found to be most appropriate tool to analyse the data used in the study.

Results
A preliminary analysis was conducted to know the nature of data. In the overall sample of
274 students, 104 were found to be entrepreneurially inclined. Out of these 104
entrepreneurially inclines students, 82 were males. These numbers are not surprising given
the kind of culture prevalent in India where women are not encouraged to work as an
employee or an employer (Wang and Wong, 2004). However, the trend has been changing
significantly with more and more number of women entering into workforce with significant
number of them even opting for a career as an entrepreneur.
Majority of both the entrepreneurially inclined and non-inclined students were in the age
bracket of 18-21 years. 59.62 per cent of those entrepreneurially inclined were from school of
business. 75 per cent of those entrepreneurially inclined belonged to business family.
 On the other hand, 48.82 per cent of non-entrepreneurially inclined students had a family Study among
business background. Indian
As evident from Table II, mean value of six psychological traits was found to vary from university
2.77 (for tolerance of ambiguity) to 3.49 (for innovativeness) for overall sample. Mean score
for all six psychological traits of locus of control, tolerance for ambiguity and students
innovativeness were found to be higher for entrepreneurs than non-entrepreneurs.
In order to know whether differences in the mean scores of these six psychological traits 179
for entrepreneurially and non-entrepreneurially inclined students were significant,
independent sample t-test was used. As can be seen from Table III, entrepreneurially
inclined students were found to differ significantly from non-entrepreneurially inclined
students with respect to locus of control, self-confidence and innovativeness at 0.10 level of
significance. However, no significant differences were observed with regard to the need for
achievement, propensity to take risk and tolerance for ambiguity. In other words, need for
achievement, tolerance for ambiguity and propensity to take risk did not contribute and
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 01:55 11 January 2017 (PT)

failed to add to our understanding of entrepreneurial inclination.

Now in order to assess the predictive ability of independent study variables,
logistic regression was used. Logistic regression was performed in stepwise manner to
ascertain the effects of demographic factors and six psychological characteristics on
entrepreneurial inclination.
The overall logistic regression model was statistically significant ( χ2(5) ¼ 25.658,
p o0.001) and explained 21.2 per cent (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in entrepreneurial
inclination. The model correctly classified 72.3 per cent of cases (see Tables IV and V). In the
step one of the model, four demographic variables gender, age, school and family
background were entered. They together accounted for 12.2 per cent of the variance in
entrepreneurial inclination. However, only school and family background were found to
significantly predict entrepreneurial inclination at 0.01 level of significance. In other words,
students from school of business and with family business background were more inclined
to towards entrepreneurship irrespective of their gender or age. Thus, H9 and H10 were
accepted whereas no support was found for H7 and H8.

Inclination
Variable Overall sample Entrepreneur Non-entrepreneur

Mean (SD)
Locus of control 3.19 (0.55) 3.29 (0.55) 3.12 (0.53)
Need for achievement 3.25 (0.56) 3.26 (0.63) 3.24 (0.51)
Tolerance for ambiguity 2.77 (0.50) 2.83 (0.55) 2.73 (0.47)
Propensity to take risk 3.11 (0.46) 3.12 (0.47) 3.10 (0.46)
Self-confidence 3.17 (0.44) 3.23 (0.46) 3.12 (0.42) Table II.
Innovativeness 3.49 (0.61) 3.60 (0.56) 3.43 (0.63) Descriptive statistics

Variable (reliability) n t-value p-value

Locus of control (0.76) 274 −2.434 0.016

Need for achievement (0.87) 274 0.308 0.759
Tolerance for ambiguity (0.73) 274 −1.502 0.135
Propensity to take risk (0.86) 274 −0.022 0.982 Table III.
Self-confidence (0.83) 274 1.754 0.081 Results of t-test of
Innovativeness (0.78) 274 −2.289 0.023 significant differences
 ET Variable df Coefficient Wald p-value
59,2
Step 1
Constant 1 0.213 0.504 0.478
Gender 1 −0.001 0.000 0.998
Age 2 0.436 0.804
Age (1) 1 0.290 0.326 0.568
180 Age (2) 1 0.006 0.000 0.986
Stream (1) 1 0.686 5.89 0.015
Family entrepreneurial inclination (1) 1 −1.057 14.339 0.000
Nagelkerke R2 12.20%
Step 2
Constant 1 −2.737 2.048 0.152
Gender (1) 1 −0.199 0.327 0.567
Age 2 0.801 0.670
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 01:55 11 January 2017 (PT)

Age (1) 1 0.473 0.800 0.371

Age (2) 1 0.185 0.269 0.604
Stream (1) 1 −0.768 6.479 0.011
Family Entrepreneurial Inclination (1) 1 −1.183 15.843 0.000
Locus of Control 1 0.671 5.809 0.016
Need for Achievement 1 −0.111 0.173 0.677
Tolerance for Ambiguity 1 0.584 4.341 0.037
Table IV. Propensity to take risk 1 −0.203 0.454 0.501
Results of stepwise Self-confidence 1 0.595 3.258 0.071
logistic regression Innovativeness 1 0.566 5.400 0.020
analysis Nagelkerke R2 21.20%

Predicted inclination
Actual inclination Entrepreneur Non-entrepreneur Total (%)

Entrepreneur 52 (68.4%) 52 (26.3%) 50

Non-entrepreneur 24 (31.6%) 146 (73.7%) 85.9
Table V. Total 76 198
Classification table Overall accuracy rate 72.3

In step 2 of the model, six psychological characteristics were entered. As can be seen from
Table IV, out of the six psychological traits, locus of control, tolerance for ambiguity and
innovativeness were found to have a significant impact on entrepreneurial inclination at
0.05 level of significance. Also, self-confidence was found to be statistically significant at
0.10 level of significance. In other words students with internal locus of control, high
tolerance for ambiguity, high self-confidence and greater innovativeness were more likely to
be entrepreneurially inclined. However, need for achievement and propensity to take risk
were insignificant and did not contribute significantly in explaining entrepreneurial
inclination. The results are in congruence with the independent sample t-test except for
tolerance of ambiguity which was found to have a significant impact on entrepreneurial
inclination (see Table IV). Thus, H1, H3, H5, H6 were accepted while H2, H4 were
not supported.
The overall holdout accuracy rate of the logit model including both demographic and six
psychological traits was found to be 72.3 per cent. Thus, six psychological traits were found
to classify entrepreneurial inclination with an overall holdout accuracy rate of 62 per cent
 after excluding the demographic variables from the model. The accuracy rate for Study among
entrepreneurially inclined was found to be 68.4 per cent whereas for non-entrepreneurially Indian
inclined students it was 73.7 per cent (see Table V). university
students
Discussion and implications
To distinguish entrepreneurially inclined students from the non-inclined ones on the basis
of demographic and psychological traits the present study adopted the trait model of
181
entrepreneurship. This model follows from the psychological characteristics school
of entrepreneurship as proposed by Cunningham and Lischeron (1991). The study results
suggest that the traits of locus of control, tolerance for ambiguity, self-confidence and
innovativeness were significant in differentiating entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs.
In other words, students with an entrepreneurial inclination were found to be more
innovative, more confident, had internal locus of control and displayed high tolerance for
ambiguity. This was in line with a number of previous studies which looked into the
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 01:55 11 January 2017 (PT)

personality traits of entrepreneurs (Robinson et al., 1991; Koh, 1996; Gurol and Atsan, 2006,
etc.). At the same time it was also observed that the need for achievement and risk-taking
propensity were not found differ significantly for these two groups, which was
contradictory to the expectations.
Ferreira et al. (2012) found no relationship between innovativeness, locus of control,
tolerance for ambiguity, risk-taking propensity and entrepreneurial intention in a study
amongst secondary school students in Portugal. Only self-confidence and need for
achievement were found to relate significantly with entrepreneurial intent. Surprisingly,
self-confidence found to have a negative association with entrepreneurial intent which was
explained in terms of low reliability of the construct. Thus, it is clearly visible that the link
between psychological characteristics and entrepreneurial inclination is still not lucidly
arrived at a conclusion and demands further investigation.
However, it is important to note that the six psychological traits together were successful
in classifying those with entrepreneurial inclination and those who are not with an accuracy
rate of 62 per cent. This clearly stresses the need and importance of encouraging these traits
in university students to enhance their entrepreneurial inclination. As entrepreneurs are the
engines of economic growth and development, encouraging entrepreneurial inclination is
important for an emerging economy like India. The holdout accuracy rate for the present
study was found to be lower than that reported by some of the previous studies (Koh, 1996;
Robinson et al., 1991). The holdout accuracy rate for differentiating entrepreneurially
inclined students from others was found to increase from 62 to 72.3 per cent when
demographic variables were included in the model.
In addition to these six psychological traits, the study results delineate the role of family
background and stream of study in predicting entrepreneurial inclination. Hence, the study
supports the findings of previous studies where family business experience (Wang and
Wong, 2004; Solesvik, 2013) and stream of study were reported to explain entrepreneurial
interest and intentions (Ertuna and Gurel, 2011; Jones et al., 2011; Karhunen and Ledyaeva,
2010; Levenburg et al., 2006; Solesvik, 2013).
Students from school of business were more entrepreneurially inclined than the students
with non-business streams. This is in line with the expectations as business students were
already exposed to the realities of business world and had already attended some
preliminary courses and workshops on entrepreneurship. This knowledge and exposure to
new business creation may influence their perceived feasibility of starting a new venture
and determine their entrepreneurial intent. Further, students with family business
background were more inclined towards entrepreneurship. These findings were again in
line with the expectations and can be explained well with the help of parental role model
 ET according to which people with self-employed parents were more likely to start their own
59,2 venture. The overall logit model was found to predict entrepreneurial inclination with
21.2 per cent determination. This highlights the importance of other variables in predicting
entrepreneurial inclination in addition to those examined in the present study and hence,
provides the scope for future research. For example, the role of variables like perceived
behavioural controls, subjective norms, personal attitude in predicting entrepreneurial
182 intention can be explored in context of an emerging Indian economy.
It is worth mentioning here that the study failed to report any significant association
of demographic variables of gender and age with entrepreneurial inclination. Even so,
given the number of barriers which females face as entrepreneurs, the national
entrepreneurship policy of Government of India has come up with special encouragement
provisions for women and minorities to promote inclusive entrepreneurship. Further,
no significant differences were found between various age groups considered under
the study in terms of entrepreneurial intent, which could be due to very small
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 01:55 11 January 2017 (PT)

differences in various age categories. The overall range varied from 17 to 23 years which is
the age when people are most enthusiastic and have acquired required knowledge for
starting a new venture.
It is important to note that only 37.9 per cent of the students were entrepreneurially
inclined as per the study findings, i.e. majority of them were not oriented towards
entrepreneurship. This is a serious cause of concern and an eye-opener for public policy
makers in India. However, it is not very surprising given the kind of security culture and job
oriented mind set with which people are born in India. In a developing economy like India
where there is poverty and high unemployment, developing and fostering entrepreneurial
mind set amongst youth seems to be the only way ahead. Entrepreneurs through their
creative ventures can prove to be a significant source of competitive advantage for a
developing nation like India. With lowest average working age in the world, policy makers
should utilize this demographic dividend and target the entrepreneurship policy towards
these young budding minds. Going by the premise that entrepreneurs are made, public
policy makers should develop the programmes for instilling entrepreneurship skills
amongst youth early in their lives. Thus, the study carries some important implications for
public policy making in India.
Although, as discussed earlier, Government of India has come up with a draft of national
entrepreneurship policy, the problem lies at the level of implementation. Serious efforts
need to be made to implement the proposed measures to improve the representation of
entrepreneurs in India. An enabling environment which supports the emergence and rise
of entrepreneurs in the country should be created.
The study also carries enormous implications for education system in India which
largely prepares the students for jobs in public and private sectors rather than
entrepreneurship. As can be seen from the study results that around 60 per cent of
those entrepreneurially inclined were from school of business. This clearly suggests that
exposing the students to business and entrepreneurship education at an early stage when
they are in schools and colleges can go long way in sparking and nurturing entrepreneurial
orientation. Entrepreneurship education can actually inculcate the spirit of entrepreneurship
amongst the youth of India. Several courses on entrepreneurship covering the basics on
starting and operating a business venture successfully should be introduced in schools,
colleges and universities to enhance the self-efficacy levels of students. Case studies
highlighting the success and challenges for an entrepreneur should be developed and
taught. Invited talks by local entrepreneurs can also ignite the young minds with
opportunities and prospects in the field of entrepreneurship. Business games and simulation
should be developed to foster entrepreneurial skills amongst students. More schools
devoted completely to entrepreneurship development should come up. Innovative courses
 with an opportunity to opt for entrepreneurship as specialization (major/minor) should be Study among
designed and floated. Indian
The findings of this study also provide implications in terms of profiling of the students university
for admission into these entrepreneurship courses. Students with internal locus of control,
high tolerance for ambiguity, high self-confidence, high risk-taking propensity and students
innovativeness should be given preference in selection. Students with these personality
traits are more likely to end up being an entrepreneur as indicated by the present study 183
and studies in the past. In addition to the above, efforts should be made to cultivate the
above traits in students belonging to different streams of study like technology, science, law,
pharmacy, etc.

Limitations and scope for future research

In addition to the strengths of the study as noted above, there are certain limitations as well,
which provide the scope for future research in this area. The cross-sectional nature of study
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 01:55 11 January 2017 (PT)

restricts our ability to establish causality. Longitudinal studies should be taken up in future
to confirm the predictive ability of these six psychological traits in determining
entrepreneurial inclination. Also, sample can be expanded in future studies by including
students from other universities and institutions to improve the generalizability of the study
findings. Also, as discussed above, more promising potential predictors of entrepreneurial
intent like subjective norms, instrumental readiness, perceived barriers and support can be
included in the future studies.

References
Ahl, H. (2006), “Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions”, Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 595-621.
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 No. 4,
pp. 419-430.
Awasthi, D., Kashyap, S.P. and Yagnik, J. (2006), “Entrepreneurial manifestations: present trend and
changing landscape in an inter-regional context”, unpublished report, Ministry of Micro,
Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India, New Delhi.
Brockhaus, R.H. (1980), “Risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 509-520.
Bunder, S. (1962), “Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 29-50.
Center for Women’s Business Research (2009), “The economic impact of women-owned businesses in
the US”, October, available at: www.womensbusinessresearchcenter.org/Data/research/
economicimpactstud/econimpactreport-final.pdf (accessed 13 February 2011).
Crant, J.M. (1996), “The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 43-49.
Cunningham, J.B. and Lischeron, J. (1991), “Defining entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 45-61.
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, 20-23 June, Naples.
de Wit, G. and van Winden, F.A.A.M. (1989), “An empirical analysis of self-employment in the
Netherlands”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 263-272.
Diaz-Garcia, M.C. and Jimenez-Moreno, J. (2009), “Entrepreneurial intention: the role of gender”,
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 261-283.
 ET Dolton, P.J. and Makepeace, G.H. (1990), “Self-employment among graduates”, Bulletin of Economic
59,2 Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 35-53.
Eagly, A.H. and Karau, S.J. (2002), “Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders”,
Psychological Review, Vol. 109 No. 3, pp. 573-598.
Engle, E.D., Mah, J. and Sadri, G. (1997), “An empirical comparison of entrepreneurs and employees:
implications for innovation”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 45-49.
184 Entrialgo, M., Fernandez, E. and Vazquez, C.J. (2000), “Psychological characteristics and process: the
role of entrepreneurship in Spanish SMEs”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 3
No. 3, pp. 137-149.
Ertuna, Z.I. and Gurel, E. (2011), “The moderating role of higher education on entrepreneurship”,
Education+Training, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 387-402.
Evans, D.S. and Leighton, L.S. (1989), “Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship”, The American
Economic Review, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 519-535.
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 01:55 11 January 2017 (PT)

Ferreira, J.J., Raposo, M.L., Rodrigues, R.G., Dinis, A. and do Paco, A. (2012), “A model of
entrepreneurial intention: an application of the psychological and behavioural approaches”,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 424-440.
Fung, H.H., Lai, P. and Ng, R. (2001), “Age differences in social preferences among Taiwanese and
Mainland Chinese: the role of perceived time”, Psychology and Aging, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 351-356.
Gupta, V.K., Turban, D.B., Wasti, S.A. and Skidar, A. (2009), “The role of gender stereotypes in
perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur”, Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 397-417.
Gurol, Y. and Atsan, N. (2006), “Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students: some
insights for entrepreneurship education and training in Turkey”, Education+Training, Vol. 48
No. 1, pp. 25-38.
Hamidi, D., Wennberg, K. and Berglund, H. (2008), “Creativity in entrepreneurship education”,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 304-320.
Hansemark, O.C. (1998), “The effects of an entrepreneurship programme on need for achievement and
locus of control of reinforcement”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 28-50.
Hart, M., Anyadike-Danes, M. and Blackburn, R. (2004), “Entrepreneurship and age in the UK:
comparing third age and prime age new venture creation across the regions”, paper presented at
RENT XVIII, Copenhagen, 25-26 November.
Hatak, I., Harms, R. and Fink, M. (2015), “Age, job identification and entrepreneurial intention”, Journal
of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 38-53.
Haus, I., Steinmetz, H., Isidor, R. and Kabst, R. (2013), “Gender effects on entrepreneurial intention:
a meta-analytical structural equation model”, International Journal of Gender and
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 130-156.
Hisrich, R. and Brush, C. (1986), The Woman Entrepreneur: Starting, Financing and Managing a
Successful New Business, Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company, Toronto.
Holland, J.L. (1985), Making Vocational Choices, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hyde, J.S. and Kling, K.C. (2001), “Women, motivation, and achievement”, Psychology of Women
Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 364-378.
Johnson, B.R. (1990), “Toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: the case of achievement
motivation and the entrepreneur”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 39-54.
Jones, P., Miller, C., Jones, A., Packham, G., Pickernell, D. and Zbierowski, P. (2011), “Attitudes and
motivations of Polish students towards entrepreneurial activity”, Education +Training, Vol. 53
No. 5, pp. 416-432.
 Karhunen, P. and Ledyaeva, S. (2010), “Determinants of entrepreneurial interest and risk tolerance Study among
among Russian university students: empirical study”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 18 Indian
No. 3, pp. 229-263.
university
Kautonen, T. (2008), “Understanding the older entrepreneur: comparing third age and prime age
entrepreneurs in Finland”, International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, students
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 3-13.
Koh, H.C. (1996), “Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics: a study of Hong Kong MBA 185
students”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 12-25.
Kolvereid, L. and Moen, Ø. (1997), “Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in
entrepreneurship make a difference?”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 154-160.
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. 315-344.
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 01:55 11 January 2017 (PT)

Kuckertz, A. and Wagner, M. (2010), “The influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial

intentions – investigating the role of business experience”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 25
No. 5, pp. 524-539.
Levenburg, N.M., Lane, P.M. and Schwarz, T.V. (2006), “Interdisciplinary dimensions in
entrepreneurship”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 81 No. 5, pp. 275-281.
Lévesque, M. and Minniti, M. (2006), “The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behaviour”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 177-194.
Liles, P.R. (1981), “Who are entrepreneurs?”, in Gorb, P., Dowell, P. and Wilson, P. (Eds), Small Business
Perspectives, Institute for Small Business, London, pp. 33-50.
Littunen, H. (2000), “Entrepreneurship and the characteristics of the entrepreneurial personality”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 295-309.
Lu, J. and Tao, Z. (2010), “Determinants of entrepreneurial activities in China”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 261-273.
Luthje, C. and Franke, N. (2003), “The ‘making’ of an entrepreneur: testing a model of entrepreneurial
intent among engineering students at MIT”, R&D Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 135-148.
McClelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society, D Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.
McClelland, D.C. (1965), “N achievement and entrepreneurship: a longitudinal study”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 389-392.
McMullen, J.S. and Shepherd, D.A. (2006), “Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the
theory of the entrepreneur”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 132-152.
Markman, G.D. and Baron, R.A. (2003), “Person-entrepreneurial fit: why some people are more
successful as entrepreneurs than others”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 281-301.
Marques, C.S., Ferreira, J.J., Gomes, D.N. and Rodrigues, R.G. (2012), “Entrepreneurship education: how
psychological, demographic and behavioural factors predict the entrepreneurial intention”,
Education+Training, Vol. 54 Nos 8/9, pp. 657-672.
Mitton, D.G. (1989), “The complete entrepreneur”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 9-19.
Mueller, S.L. and Thomas, A.S. (2000), “Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a nine country
study of locus of control and innovativeness”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 51-75.
Orobia, L., Sserwanga, A. and Rooks, G. (2011), “Risk taking and start-up capital: exploring gender
differences in Uganda, through an international comparison”, Journal of Economics and
Behavioral Studies, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 83-93.
 ET Pruett, M., Shinnar, R., Toney, B., Llopis, F. and Fox, J. (2009), “Explaining entrepreneurial intentions of
59,2 university students: a cross-cultural study”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
and Research, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 571-594.
Raposo, M., Ferreira, J.J., do Paco, A. and Rodrigues, R. (2008), “Propensity to firm creation: empirical
research using structural equations”, International Entrepreneurship Management Journal,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 485-504.
186 Reynolds, P.D., Bygrave, W.D., Autio, E., Cox, L.W. and Hay, M. (2002), “Global entrepreneurship
monitor 2002 executive report”, London School of Business and Erwin Marion Kauffman
Foundation, Babson College, London.
Robinson, P.B., Huefner, J.C. and Hunt, H.K. (1991), “Entrepreneurial research on student subjects does
not generalize to real world entrepreneurs”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 42-50.
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 No. 4,
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 01:55 11 January 2017 (PT)

pp. 13-32.
Rotter, J.B. (1966), “Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement”,
Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Schere, J. (1982), “Tolerance of ambiguity as a discriminating variable between entrepreneurs and
managers”, Proceedings of the Academy of Management, Vol. 42, pp. 404-408.
Solesvik, M.Z. (2013), “Entrepreneurial motivation and intentions: investigating the role of education
major”, Education+Training, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 253-271.
Taylor, M.P. (1996), “Earnings, independence or unemployment: why become self-employed?”,
Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 253-266.
Technonet Asia (1981), Entrepreneurs’ Handbook, Institute for Small Scale Industries, University of
Philippines, Singapore.
Thomas, A.S. and Mueller, S.L. (2000), “A case for comparative entrepreneurship: assessing the
relevance of culture”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 287-301.
Utsch, A. and Rauch, A. (2000), “Innovativeness and initiative as mediators between achievement
orientation and venture performance”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 45-62.
Wang, C.K. and Wong, P.K. (2004), “Entrepreneurial interest of university students in Singapore”,
Technovation, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 163-172.
Weiler, S. and Bernasek, A. (2001), “Dodging the glass ceiling? Networks and new waves of women
entrepreneurs”, Social Science Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 85-104.
Welter, F., Smallbone, D., Isakova, N. and Aculai, E. (2007), “The role of gender for entrepreneurship in
a transition context”, in Iandoli, L., Raffa, M. and Landstrom, H. (Eds), Entrepreneurship,
Competitiveness and Local Development: Frontiers in European Research, Elgar, Cheltenham,
pp. 223-251.
Wilson, F., Kickul, J. and Marlino, D. (2007), “Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial
career intentions: implications for entrepreneurship education”, Entrepreneurship Theory &
Practice, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 387-406.
Wu, S. and Wu, L. (2008), “The impact of higher education on entrepreneurial intentions of university
students in China”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 752-774.
Zellweger, T., Sieger, P. and Halter, F. (2011), “Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of
students with family business background”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 521-536.
Zhao, H.S., Seibert, S.E. and Hills, G.E. (2005), “The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of
entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1265-1272.
 Further reading Study among
Sexton, D.L. and Bowman, N. (1985), “The entrepreneur: a capable executive and more”, Journal of Indian
Business Venturing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 129-140. university
Verheul, I., Uhlaner, L. and Thurik, R. (2005), “Business accomplishments, gender and entrepreneurial students
self-image”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 483-518.

Corresponding author 187

Richa Chaudhary can be contacted at: richa.chaudhary18@gmail.com
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 01:55 11 January 2017 (PT)

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com