REVIEW ON STUDENTS’ ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION

:
A PROPOSED THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Hieu Chi Phan
Tam Thi Gia Pham
Tien Thi Thanh Ngo
Viet Quoc Cao
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is (1) An overview of the fundamental theories on factors affecting
entrepreneurial intention; (2) finding research gaps concerning the entrepreneurial intention of
students; (3) proposing a theoretical framework on the entrepreneurial intention of
Vietnamese students. Findings show that the factors affecting entrepreneurial intention of
students in the studies are categorized into groups of factors: entrepreneurship education
program, environmental impact, motivation, traits, mindset, attitude, gender.
Keywords: entrepreneurship education program; entrepreneurial motivation; students’
traits; mindset, attitude; entrepreneurial intention.
1. INTRODUCTION
Over the years, the field of entrepreneurship was highly interested in the world,
especially the study of factors affecting entrepreneurial intention of an individual. Lee, Lim,
Pathak, Chang, & Li, (2006) suggested that entrepreneurship was focused in many countries
and was considered a way to promote economic growth and to create jobs. Sobel & King,
(2008) said entrepreneurship was the key to economic growth, so the promotion of youth
entrepreneurship was one of the top priorities of the politicians. The three most important
approaches to the entrepreneurial intention include (1) entrepreneurship education program,
(2) environmental impact and (3) learners themselves (motivation, traits, mindset, attitude,
gender).
In the first approach, Åstebro, Bazzazian, & Braguinsky, (2012) provided evidence
showing that in the United States, entrepreneurship was not only a program for business
students, but also the outstanding program for natural science students, and even art students.
Rae & Ruth Woodier-Harris, (2013) argued that entrepreneurs must have a good knowledge
base to manage their business. Thus, the educator has to develop entrepreneurship programs
for students, provide them with the necessary knowledge to build the business successfully
and give them the proper career orientation. Huber, Sloof, & Van Praag, (2014) analyzed the
effect of early entrepreneurship education for elementary children in the Netherlands and
proved that investing early entrepreneurship education for 11 or 12-year-old children would
bring the effect in improving entrepreneurship knowledge, and entrepreneurship skills.
Different countries have different features in culture, economics, politics; hence,
entrepreneurship education research based on these characteristics will give a significant
contribution to the theory and the actual entrepreneurship education.
The second approach involved the environmental factors, such as "family support",
"personal role models", "national culture", "social capital", "social exposure" (Chand &
1

2015). Theoretical Background The different theoretical background was used by the author/authors as the basis for the relationship between factors affecting entrepreneurial intention. The different personalities of each will influence their intended behavior. economics. Thus. and the value of each in society is reflected in their views. & Fox. Leroy. Wu & Wu. This study summarized three approaches based on groups of theoretical background. 1980) and the theory of values (Schwarz. & Collins. the authors focused on exploiting the factors: motivation (Shane. the businesses will have great motivation for the establishment and development (T. Nguyen. Tseng. The first and second approaches could be deduced and explained by the institutional theory and the theories of culture. Bryant. (1990) proposed the institutional theory which was used to account for the relationship between entrepreneurship education programs and elements of the environmental group. The third approach involved learners themselves. 2007). taking advantage the resources available and the support of the environment to create their businesses (Kuckertz & Wagner. and they can affect entrepreneurial intention (Espíritu-Olmos & SastreCastillo. 2011). traits (Obembe.. & Minkov. Zerbinati. Hofstede. (Pruett. Locke. 2007). attitudes towards entrepreneurship affect entrepreneurship intention of students was proposed and tested by Boissin et al. Entrepreneurial Intention Entrepreneurial intention can be defined as an individual's intention to start a business (Souitaris. The core of culture is the value. Toney.Ghorbani. From the gaps existing. 2. 2010). and gender of students (Maes. beliefs and behavior (Hofstede. 2009). Indeed. 2009). 1991) was used to explain the relationship of the third approach. Rose. V. and law.2. institutions shape the policies on education. Branchet. 2009). this study classifies the groups of factors affecting student's entrepreneurial intention following the three above approaches. 2 . and this might affect the thinking. 2009). thoughts. & Kapasuwan. the theory of values combined with planned behavior theory (Ajzen. After the overview of previous papers. Institutions contribute to the formation of social structures in which the organizations are operated through policies (Fligstein. LITTERATURE REVIEW 2. (2009). This approach had many contradictions and inconsistencies of the results. 1997). and the following section will present the details of this matter. 2009) could explain the different effects of between national cultures on elements influencing entrepreneurial intention. The traits theory combined with the motivation theory (Maslow. In societies where the legal regulations are clear. 2014). 2. mindset (Mathisen & Arnulf. & Sels. The cultural dimensions theory (Hofstede. & Herbert.1. attitude (Boissin. The entrepreneurial intention of an individual derives from recognizing their opportunities. 2003). 2010). North. Almer-Jarz. the intention of students about entrepreneurship. 2014). & Al-Laham. 2013). The entrepreneurial intention of students come from the idea of students and is oriented correctly from the education and training experts (Schwarz et al. Emin. a process oriented towards the planning and implementing a plan of activities (Gupta & Bhawe. Llopis. 1970). & Ukpong. Shinnar. (2008).. and the material and intellectual resources that support business formation are provided in full. Otesile. & Breitenecker. the theoretical framework of factors that influence student's entrepreneurship intention is proposed in the context of Vietnam. Based on the results of the previous studies. this approach did not have much replicated research. Wdowiak.

Meanwhile. and strengthen the openness and practicality of entrepreneurial education” (Hong et al. aiming at Vietnamese students (from technology and business university)’s assessment of whether the current curriculum stimulates their entrepreneurial intent and to what extent the stimulation is. 3 . For example. (2011) proved that entrepreneurship courses had a great impact on the entrepreneurial intention of students. cooperate with social corporations. (2012) concluded that students with business experience had a higher tendency for entrepreneurship than students with no business experience. or whether the knowledge of the subjects produced entrepreneurial ideas and skills for college students. This study proposed the research model to be verified in the Vietnamese context. Schwarz et al. Bae. Pop-Cohuţ. (2009) shared the same point when they were assessing "institutional environment.. many other moderators did not account for the problem of a very small relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. (2009) and Turker & Selcuk. Education Program and Students’ Entrepreneurship Intention Aşkun & Yildirim. Dodescu. With the theme of entrepreneurial training. (2009) focused on the innovative learning environment in lecturing and training to inspire students to start a new business. students considered entrepreneurship as a real career would tend to be entrepreneurs more than students considered entrepreneurship as a negative career. Hong. 2012. Cui. (2010) because these authors proved that students with no business experience have a higher tendency for entrepreneurship. which suggest that policy makers or program evaluators ought to identify other criteria for evaluating the effects of entrepreneurship education. From the two constructs of these authors. (2014) found that there was little effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions. real behavior. & Fiet. & Chirilă.. Whether the institutional environment in generally stimulated students' entrepreneurial ideas and initiatives. or performance would be better constructs rather than entrepreneurial intentions“(p241). Miao.". (2009) regarded functional departments as a support for students’ entrepreneurial ideas. “Except for cultural contexts. Taatila & Down.” Enumerated contradictions in the results proclaim the probation program for the undergraduate need to be evaluated in the Vietnamese context through an exploratory research. (2012). & Luzhuang. Schwarz et al.. entrepreneurial knowledge and skills. functional departments and academic atmospheres mentioned in definitions from Schwarz et al. Regarding the impact of the institutional environment on entrepreneurial intention. their study supported the creation of enterprises through entrepreneurship education programs.3. we propose the separation of two concepts named “curriculum assessment” concerning learners’ evaluation of knowledge and skills. The concept “academic environment” in general concerning University policies. According to Hong. Qian. offer more opportunities for internship. p1912).2. “Universities must pay more attention to the student entrepreneurs. They also concluded that entrepreneurship education was related more positively to a participant’s entrepreneurial intentions than was business education. (2014. the different points between these authors were while Turker & Selcuk. However. (2009)’s study. p1089) concluded that “the potential of practice and internship stages in entrepreneurial skills empowered and encouraged entrepreneurship of students in Economics. the quality of students’ entrepreneurship was related to entrepreneurship education programs because it enriched business knowledge and improved entrepreneurial qualities.. Entrepreneurship education has a statistically significant but small positive relationship with entrepreneurial intentions. Their findings contradicted the results of Kuckertz & Wagner. any statistical evidence of relationships between academic curriculum and students’ entrepreneurial intention.

From the perspective of Shane. However. policy mechanisms between countries can lead to various entrepreneurial intentions among students. "social exposure". (2011) suggested that differences in the national culture lead to the establishment and management of enterprises in different ways (financial management. some studies were focusing on the educational programs. Ghasemi. Jahromi. (2003) proposed factors belonging to the entrepreneurial motivation as "need for achievement. personnel training). “social network" and " the entrepreneurial environment of a school". "locus of control. "self-efficacy". Results showed that except for elements such as "access to capital". politics.From the previous results. Environment and Entrepreneurial Intention Pruett et al. (2013) analyzed further Schwarz’s model in respect of environmental factors. (2009) demonstrated “culture/country". (2013) didn’t provide evidence to prove the influence of "need for achievement" on Turkish students’ entrepreneurial intentions. thus. Brandstätter. Madani. "proactive personality". 2. & González-Tirados. and "goal setting”. (2015) research on the influence of parents’ career on their children’s career choice has concluded self-employed parents take a good typical example to their children’s entrepreneurship and stimulate their entrepreneurial intention. "vision” have a relationship with students’ entrepreneurial intention. These results suggested that environmental impact on entrepreneurial intentions was very different in each country. the remaining elements of "business information". Morales-Alonso. Rastegar. "stress tolerance". "personal role models". (2011) showed that "innovativeness". Traits and Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention Shane et al. & Marvdashti.5. "the entrepreneurial environment of a school". running business."." "locus of control. "locus of control" have a positive impact on the business creation and business success. Sesen. including "business information". students' entrepreneurial intention will vary for different countries. we find that there has not been an official training program on startup yet.5. Different culture. This study gap shows that this relationship should be verified in the Vietnamese context. "family support". Brandstätter..1. Pablo-Lerchundi. the weaker their entrepreneurial intention is. (2011) and Arasteh. The hypothesis proposed is that the more negative "evaluation of program" based on students’ views is. Parents working in the public sector was not the start-up models for their children and even hinder their entrepreneurial intention.5. (2012) found that "tolerance for ambiguity" had no impact on entrepreneurial intention. Chand & Ghorbani. "passion". This study. "self-efficacy". learners’ assessment of how management programs of all levels (bachelor. (2003) suggested the personalities as "risk taking". Heydari.. & Khademloo. Zameni. 2. & Rostami. The following research has not verified this. Therefore. So. "entrepreneurial disposition" had positive influences on "entrepreneurial intention".2. (2011) showed a relationship between the "need for achievement" and entrepreneurial intention. Sesen. proposes a research approach to all the environmental factors in the current context of Vietnam. Enayati. Regarding the context of Vietnam. master) affect their entrepreneurial intent is worth implementing research. "social network" had a positive impact on "entrepreneurial intention". "tolerance for ambiguity". Personal Factors 2. Entrepreneurial motivation and Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention Shane et al.. 2. Arasteh et al..4.". (2013) 4 . The national culture also plays an important role in setting up and using the social capital. (2012) demonstrated "need for achievement" had a positive impact on the business creation and business success.

2. the contents of these statements are simply intentions toward behavior rather than the actual act. On the differences. "sincerity" were the virtues that a young entrepreneur in need. Mindset and Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention Haynie. as the previous results are inconsistent. "open-mindedness". In Vietnam. This variable may be difficult to conduct in different context. In essence. employees. the certainty of these statements is likely higher than those in the measurement scale “entrepreneurial intention”.establishment of an entrepreneur. Integrating (grouping) these 5 . Based on that suggestion. (2013) developed the construct “entrepreneurial mindset” which is comprised of two components: “elaborating mindset” and “implemental mindset”. & Earley. Ever since the publication of the results. The findings showed that “implemental mindset” has a positive impact on the business . M. “Implemental mindset” is the thinking process of identifying targets. the dependent variable used the by the Mathisen’s group is the number of businesses founded by students. students do establish their companies during their schooling or upon their graduation. and whether their personalities will be influential to their entrepreneurial intention. (2014) investigated the differences in traits of surveyed candidates including entrepreneurs. Nguyen & Phan. so “elaborating mindset” is the process of appraising the pros and cons of a wish and the ability to accomplish that desire. setting out strategies or plans and the specifying steps to achieve the objectives (Mathisen & Arnulf. factors of personalities should be tested in the context of Vietnam on the ground that it is not evident Vietnamese students’ personalities are similar to those of other countries. (2013) confirmed the factors concerning personalities which influenced entrepreneurial intentions were the factor "locus of control". The research conducted by Mathisen’s group used the dependent variable of the number of businesses founded by students (3-Likert scale). Another difference is the assessment declarations of the entrepreneurship opportunities in the measurement scale “implemental mindset”. 2013). This paper suggests a continual consideration and examination of the relation between “tolerance for ambiguity” and “entrepreneurial intention”. with some similarities and differences as follows: Regarding similarities. no other authors examining the relation repeat the finding. as not in any other countries. even under uncertain conditions”.provided an opposite result. The results revealed that "enthusiasm". Mindset is the process of reassessing the perception. Mosakowski. Some reasons for this are as follows: First.5. the scale “ implemental mindset” is a combination of the past actions related to the decision to create businesses and the plan of how and when the companies will be established. and students. However. However. and mobilize. and "selfefficacy". p218) defined “entrepreneurial mindset” as “the successful future strategists will exploit an entrepreneurial mindset…the ability to rapidly sense. "sense of responsibility". Moreover. there is no statistical evidence for “elaborating mindset” has a negative influence on the number of firms founded by students. Mathisen & Arnulf. Evaluating the entrepreneurship opportunities and the entrepreneurial intention are two entirely different concepts. (2010. a thorough content analysis of the “implemental mindset” scale reveals that the construct is a variation of the “entrepreneurial intention” scale. act. Sesen. The authors suggested the general cognitive model of entrepreneurial mindset which illustrates the relation between entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurship. both scales are the statements of the respondents (students) about their intentions of and attitudes towards establishing their businesses in the future. Second.3. Shepherd.

announced by the authors in different environments should be reassessed. (2009) categorized attitudes into such components as "attitude toward change". (2014). (1991). but not with "attitude toward entrepreneurship" statistically. Wu & Wu. as well as perceived feasibility.. influences entrepreneurial intention through the mediator role of perceived desirability. The findings indicated a direct relationship between "subjective norm" and "attitude toward entrepreneurship" as well as "perceived behavioral control". which had claimed direct relationships between these two factors and the "attitude toward entrepreneurship" and "perceived behavioral control". According to Schlaegel & Koenig. If the validity of the scales is confirmed. but no evidence of the positive effect of the "subjective norm" in both markets. perceived behavioral control (PBC) became a significant predictor of entrepreneurial intention next to the desire to start a business venture. Yurtkoru's model considered "subjective norm" as factors affecting the "attitude toward entrepreneurship" and "perceived behavioral control". Being different from other previous researchers. suggested that if a person has more perceived control over starting a business. This result was confirmed later in the research of Boissin's group. The findings also suggested the need for a more contextual perspective and approach to conceptualizing the development of entrepreneurial intention. but no evidence to prove the positive effect of "subjective norm" on "entrepreneurial intention". Therefore. This finding challenged prior research. The findings revealed no statistical evidence supporting the relation between "attitude toward competitiveness" and "entrepreneurial intention" while accepting other hypotheses. (2014) found that "attitude toward entrepreneurship" and "perceived behavioral control" influenced "entrepreneurial intention" positively. the theory of planned behavior (TPB) determinants.two contents into one scale can affect the validity of the construct. we can use “ implemental mindset” in replacement for the “entrepreneurial intention” in the models relevant to the relationship between attitudes and behaviors. the authors modeled factors affecting the students' entrepreneurial intention. (2008) proved that both "attitude toward entrepreneurship" and "perceived behavioral control" have the positive impact on students' entrepreneurial intention. The research retrieved a different result when "educational support" had a direct relationship with "perceived behavioral control".. One major contribution of this meta – analysis research was that the results of the moderator analysis suggest differential effects of the TPB and entrepreneurial event model (EEM) determinants of entrepreneurial intention. "attitude toward competitiveness" and "attitude toward entrepreneurship" to see if they all impact positively on "entrepreneurial intention". The results. Yurtkoru reexamined the factors of "educational support" and " structural support" for the research of Turker & Selcuk's group. 2. Schwarz et al. showed a positive impact on both "attitude toward entrepreneurship" and "self-efficiency" on students' "entrepreneurial intention". Yurtkoru et al. 6 . Attitude and Entrepreneurial Intention Grounded on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) of Ajzen. Moreover. (2009) testified and compared in the US and French market. Boissin et al.4. which had assumed that perceived desirability includes attitudes and subjective norm and that perceived feasibility includes entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) and PBC. The authors confirmed the model of goal-directed behavior (MGB) and suggested that it was an individual’s desire through which the other determinants are transformed into entrepreneurial intention.. the analysis as mentioned earlier suggests the validity of the scales. in particular. "attitude toward money".5.

Maes et al. Hence. (2001) and Krueger Jr. as women entrepreneurs desired more balance of social values. (2009) showed that in comparison to males... & Reilly. 2. and gaps as follows: First..3) Mindset (3. Klofsten. As there hasn't been any research examining these relations. there is an apparent conflict in the findings of researchers on the impact of genders on entrepreneurial intention. and consequently achieved less than men do. Boissin et al. (2000) illustrated the direct relation between "subjective norm" and "entrepreneurial intention". Alonso-Galicia. G. Nonetheless. it is advisable to focus further researches on this approach. "social and economic policies". 2015)'s research did produce the opposite outcome. However.4) Attitude (3.5.From the previous findings.1) Motivation (3. This research. C. & Hay. we suggest a theoretical framework relating to factors affecting entrepreneurial intention of students: (2) Environment Education Program (3) Personal Student (3. those researchers suggested the positive impacts of "attitude toward entrepreneurship consistently" and "perceived behavioral control" on "entrepreneurial intention".2) Traits (3. (2009). Gender and Entrepreneurial Intention Sullivan & Meek. (2010) concluded that there is no difference in men and women' entrepreneurial intention. Keeley. reexamining this relation is of significant importance in justifying the validity and the generalization of the theory.5. Rodríquez-Ariza. the results turned out to be inconsistent. proposes a further study on the role of gender in "entrepreneurial intention" of Vietnamese students. H. females have a higher impact on their entrepreneurial intention while Nicolaou & Shane.5) Gender Entrepreneurial Intention Figure 1: Theoretical Framework 7 . (2009) failed to support the relationship. Second. the Fernández-Pérez.. while Autio. like those in Schwarz et al. (2012) and Zhang et al. To sum up. According to the available literature. Parker. (2014) demonstrated that "personal attitudes" explained for weaker females' entrepreneurial intention compared to that of males. therefore. our review induces "gaps" existing when considering the TPB model of the influence of the environmental factors such as "university environment". & Fuentes-Fuentes. the attitudinal factors are separated into different components.

“desire for independence”. N.. Zameni. (2012). R. A. (1991). Also. doi:10. C. & Yildirim.01.. The theory of planned behavior. After piloting the program. G. Entrepreneurial Intent among Students in Scandinavia and in the USA. doi:10. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies. (2011).050 Åstebro. curriculum builders.. the better oriented the students are toward entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial Personality Characteristics of University Students: A Case Study.2012.1016/j. CONCLUSION With the above . E.. doi:10. 24. Parker. doi:10. qualitative researches should be conducted to explore and adjust the model.1080/14632440110094632 8 . educational program and those around them. but it is necessary to determine the value and the significance in different contexts.sbspro. and turn their initiatives into reality. I.respol. F.1016/j. the school should collaborate with the practical entrepreneurship training program provided by business support centers to encourage students’ entrepreneurship.sbspro. There is no guarantee that those with more “desire for success”. 5736–5740. As for the dependent variable. M. 663–677. T. The certainty of the behavioral intention. 663–676. 2(2).1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Arasteh. H. (2012). its effectiveness should be evaluated annually. A multidimensional view is explored by different perspectives and attitudes of the learner. It implies that a universal and complete entrepreneurship education program for students in universities and colleges across the country. of course. Keeley. and lecturers can bring new exploration to the model.Social and Behavioral Sciences. & Braguinsky. better. & Khademloo. Insights on entrepreneurship education in public universities in Turkey: Creating entrepreneurs or not? Procedia .004 Autio. It benefits students who are unaware of their studying objectives..3. regarding the content validity of the scale. Procedia .Social and Behavioral Sciences. It means that their entrepreneurial motivation can be manipulated by other factors which should be examined in future studies. 46. (2001). Evaluating these factors in the context of Vietnam is necessary. and their life purposes to realize what they like to do and whom they want to be. G. M.2011. However. their future selves.mentioned theoretical framework. H. 50(2). 179–211. should be taken into consideration. researchers might try to use the “action mindset” as an alternative. B. besides using the concept of “entrepreneurial intention”. is.. REFERENCES: Ajzen. doi:10. Bazzazian. Enayati. Klofsten. N. attitudes toward entrepreneurship do affect students’ entrepreneurial intention in all countries around the world. 41(4). the previous study showed that a more detailed the program is. subsequent researchers might consider testing different groups of factors or combine components of these elements based on inference from background theories. Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. It is great importance as the mission of the education program in general and the entrepreneurship education program in particular. Research Policy.1016/j.06.2012. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. “need for achievement” will have more motivation for entrepreneurship in Vietnam’s context.. 145–160. S.. & Hay.507 Aşkun.. Such other factors as personal characteristics. T. As for the factors of entrepreneurship education program. which is separate from the regular business agenda.09. where learners are influenced heavily by families..

doi:10.. M. & Fiet. J. & Luzhuang. Emin. Ambiguity Tolerance.10. Z. D. Self-Efficacy. & Bhawe.. I. Innovation. & Fuentes-Fuentes. Personality traits versus work values: Comparing psychological theories on entrepreneurial intention. Madani. Beverly Hills. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship. Procedia . (1997).. Hong. Cui. (2014).jbusvent. O.. V. doi:10.. J. 40(4). Retrieved from https://us. Qian. Entrepreneurship Quality of College 9 .1007/s11569-007-0005-8 Hong..1177/10717919070130040901 Haynie.2008.009 Dodescu.07. doi:10.ibusrev. D.10. S.003 Fligstein. 820– 826.). 30. Journal of Business Venturing.1016/j. 1291–1296. M. Procedia . B.06. (2011).250 Gupta. doi:10.sagepub.. doi:10. The Relationship Between Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Meta-Analytic Review. R. M. Social Skill and Institutional Theory. G.2011. R.. (2010). 73–85. (2011).. 397–405. P. 593–606. 51(3).. M. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work .1016/S2212-5671(14)00560-7 Espíritu-Olmos. Journal of Business Research.12095 Boissin. doi:10. C. Miao.. M. K. 13(4).Social and Behavioral Sciences.2010. Z. 38(2).Social and Behavioral Sciences. a.-P. A. G. H.emj..1016/j. (2009). P. American Behavioral Scientist. W. Mosakowski.sbspro.654 Hofstede.007 Chand. doi:10. (1980). 84. J. (2014). & Herbert.. 217–254.Actualization.07.2015. L.. J... 37–47. A.jbusres. The Influence of Proactive Personality and Stereotype Threat on Women’s Entrepreneurial Intentions.02. Procedia Economics and Finance. doi:10. R. N.. A situated metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mindset.. doi:10. G. H. 222–230.1016/j.2009. doi:10.Bae. Rodríquez-Ariza. Hofstede. & Sastre-Castillo. O.1016/j...1016/j. The relationship between creativity and achievement motivation with high school students’ entrepreneurship. J. N.10593445 Brandstätter. Self-Esteem. (2015).. E. Students and Entrepreneurship: A Comparative Study of France and the United States. 217–229.2013. 33(1). Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. & Chirilă.1111/etap. Personality and Individual Differences. Rastegar. T. T.1080/08276331. G. E. doi:10. Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Pop-Cohuţ.related Values. & Ghorbani.. M. doi:10. V. CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. and Self. The Study of the Relationships Between Achievement Motive. M. 20(6).. (2012).2011. with the Orientation of Entrepreneurship in the Islamic Azad University of Khomein Students. R. Shepherd. doi:10. & Minkov.com/en-us/nam/cultures-consequences/book665 Hofstede. (2010).001 Fernández-Pérez. New York: McGraw . F..001 Heydari. J. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. & Earley. L..02. F.Hill. National culture. networks and ethnic entrepreneurship: A comparison of the Indian and Chinese immigrants in the US. & Rostami. 101–122.2014. & Marvdashti. Alonso-Galicia. Jahromi. (2015). 1083–1090. M. 15(14). 22(2). I. Professional and personal social networks: A bridge to entrepreneurship for academics? European Management Journal. 25(2). International Business Review.1016/j.1177/0002764297040004003 Ghasemi... Branchet.1016/j. C. (2013). Do Practice Stages Encourage Students in Economics to Practice Entrepreneurship? Practeam Project. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (3rd ed. D. S. M.paid. (2007). C. (2011).sbspro.

I. 32(5). & Arnulf. M. G. S. W.2014. doi:10.euroecorev. The effect of early entrepreneurship education: Evidence from a field experiment. The influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial intentions .331 Huber.02.emj. & Reilly. D. & González-Tirados. N.1016/j. doi:10.1016/j. doi:10. Institutional Change and Economic Performance (1st ed.009 North. doi:10. 53–62. 11(3). L.011 Pruett. International Journal of Business and Social Science.. N.sbspro. (2009).. (2013). D. M.. H.2014. A. (2014). 1907–1913. 351–366. doi:10. and Vietnam. Rose. & Ukpong. D. M. (2015).2307/2234910 Obembe.1007/s11365-006-0003-2 Maes. J. Competing Models of Entrepreneurial Intentions. (2000). doi:10. S. (1990)..02. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Students Related to Entrepreneurial Education. S.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0 Kuckertz. Lim. J. 132–141. I. 72. 76–97. 5(1). K.. 571–594.. & Fox. Entrepreneurship and occupational choice: Genetic and environmental influences. Toney. Influences of parental occupation on occupational choices and professional values. Shinnar.egypro. S. Competing mindsets in entrepreneurship: The cost of doubt.. (2014).09. European Economic Review. E..1108/13552550910995443 10 . Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. doi:10. Sloof.. F. 76(1). Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship.002 Krueger Jr.. Market Institutions..jebo.09. Explaining entrepreneurial intentions of university students: a cross-cultural study. R...jbusvent.001 Lee. doi:10.... & Wagner. M.Social and Behavioral Sciences. E. 17. Pathak. V. H. B. Institutional Change and Economic Performance.1016/j. (2006). pp... R. 411. and Entrepreneurship Potential: a Comparative Study of the United States. Bryant. In Motivation and Personality.2015.. E.06. 145. R.03.. 14(01). J. 784–794. 15(5/6).1037/h0039764 Mathisen. & Kapasuwan. 25(5). (2010).1016/j. L. doi:10.001 Maslow. A. 21– 37. New York: Longman. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research.1016/j. M. 15(6).2010. S. Entrepreneurial Traits and Motivations of the Youth – an Empirical Study in Ho Chi Minh City – Vietnam.).005 Pablo-Lerchundi. 2(3). M. 3–14.ijme. J. Nicolaou. M. Procedia . Leroy. & Phan. doi:10. 5–11. Understanding the students ’ perspectives towards entrepreneurship. 62–72).-H.jbusres.1016/j. C.1016/j. A. Journal of Business Venturing. C. Taiwan. D. Chang. Influences on students attitudes toward entrepreneurship: A multi-country study. (1970). F. (2009). International Journal of Management Education. Energy Procedia.2013. (2014). Institutions. doi:10. European Management Journal. (2014). Gender differences in entrepreneurial intentions: A TPB multi-group analysis at factor and indicator level.2014. doi:10. doi:10. (3rd ed..01. 524–539.2009.. R. Llopis.02. Journal of Business Research. Tseng. & Van Praag. Morales-Alonso. Otesile. J. Unmotivated Behaviour.1016/j. Cultural Values. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. doi:10. R.. T.. & Sels.Investigating the role of business experience. & Li. Journal of Business Venturing. O.. B..003 Nguyen. Institutions.1142/S1084946709001120 Nguyen.2012.. (2010). & Shane.

. M.07.. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Z. S. Locke. Exploring the Antecedents of Entrepreneurial Intention on Turkish University Students. 27(4). S. a. Zerbinati. & King. & Breitenecker. L. & Al-Laham.. doi:10. M. V. Measuring entrepreneurial orientation of university students. J. 13(2). doi:10. The effects of attitudes and perceived environment conditions on students’ entrepreneurial intent: An Austrian perspective.. doi:10. (2003)... J. Human Resource Management Review. J. Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students? Journal of European Industrial Training. B. doi:10.. R. 566–591. & Ruth Woodier-Harris. doi:10.09.econedurev. 55(8/9). (2007). (2008). Wdowiak. Avolio.obhdp. & Collins. How does enterprise and entrepreneurship education influence postgraduate students’ career intentions in the New Era economy? Education + Training. Chaturvedi.. doi:10. A. Journal of Managerial Psychology (Vol. S. C.005 Souitaris. Narayanan. 15(4). 926–948. doi:10. doi:10.. Gender and entrepreneurship: a review and process model. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. 27). S. doi:10. (2009). 142–159. (2013).2014. 272–291. & Wu. S. 429–438.1016/j... M. doi:10. S. Almer-Jarz.1016/j.1108/ET05-2012-0059 Shane. Does school choice increase the rate of youth entrepreneurship? Economics of Education Review. S. Education + Training. 51(4). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning. D... 752–774. Z. (2012). D. 22(4).. S. 54(8). 624–640.093 Zhang. M. 744–760. 33(2). 291–332. a. G. D. (2009). & Meek. A.1016/j.jbusvent. J.1016/j. 55(7). D.. 110(2). … Larsson.05. D. doi:10. doi:10. (2013). Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. 93–107.Rae. Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intent: A Meta-Analytic Test and Integration of Competing Models..2007. 841–850.1108/ET-07-2013-0095 Schlaegel.002 Sullivan. R. E. N. Education + Training. (2012).2009. K.. Arvey. Zyphur. & Down.1108/03090590910939049 Wu. Education + Training. Entrepreneurial motivation. E. J. & Do?anay. C. 150.1108/14626000810917843 Yurtkoru. inspiration and resources.12087 Schwarz..002 CONTACT INFORMATION Hieu Chi Phan 11 .sbspro. Procedia . 38(2). The genetic basis of entrepreneurship: Effects of gender and personality. E.1016/S1053-4822(03)00017-2 Sobel. (2014). a.Social and Behavioral Sciences..1108/00400911211274864 Turker. R. & Koenig. & Selcuk. H.01. The impact of higher education on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in China. (2008). doi:10. (2009). R. a. K. Ku?cu. J. S. Journal of Business Venturing. Personality or environment? A comprehensive study on the entrepreneurial intentions of university students.1108/00400910910964566 Sesen..1108/02683941211235373 Taatila..1111/etap.. V.2006. (2014). 257–279. W.

. Tan Binh Dist..com Tien Thi Thanh Ngo Polytechnic Vocational College 185 – 187 Hoang Van Thu. Binh Thanh Dist.vn HP: 01885268775 12 .edu..vn Tam Thi Gia Pham Ly Tu Trong Technical College 390 Hoang Van Thu St.edu.cs2@ftu. Ward 25. University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City 59C Nguyen Dinh Chieu St. Ho Chi Minh City ngothithanhtien83@gmail. Ho Chi Minh City phanchihieu. Ho Chi Minh City vietcq@ueh. District 3. Phu Nhuan Dist.Foreign Trade University 15 D5 St.com Viet Quoc Cao Faculty of Management. Ho Chi Minh City phamthigiatam@gmail.