Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2554.htm
IJEBR
25,6 Big five personality traits,
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and
entrepreneurial intention
1188 A configurational approach
Received 22 July 2018
Revised 2 November 2018
Faruk Şahin
26 December 2018 Fethiye Faculty of Business Administration, Mugla Sitki Kocman University,
Accepted 15 January 2019 Mugla,Turkey
Hande Karadağ
Faculty of Economics, Administrative and Social Sciences, MEF University,
İstanbul, Turkey, and
Büşra Tuncer
Fethiye Faculty of Business Administration, Mugla Sitki Kocman University,
Mugla, Turkey
Abstract
Purpose – The literature considers the big five personality traits and entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) to be
important individual-level factors that determine entrepreneurial intention. However, little is known about the
profiles of personal characteristics of individuals who express a high level of entrepreneurial intention.
The purpose of this paper is to carry out a comparative analysis of personal characteristics that contribute to
new business start-up intention.
Design/methodology/approach – Using survey data from two samples, fuzzy set qualitative comparative
analysis ( fsQCA) was performed to extract patterns of personal characteristics (i.e. the big five personality
traits and ESE) that impact entrepreneurial intention.
Findings – The outcomes of the analyses demonstrate that a high level of entrepreneurial intention can be
realized through multiple configurations of the big five personality traits and ESE.
Practical implications – This paper can inform practice on entrepreneurship education. Specifically, the
paper includes implications for the development of ESE, and for understanding multiple configurations of
personal characteristics that lead to a high level of entrepreneurial intention.
Originality/value – This paper addresses an identified need to understand how personal characteristics
operate conjointly and among individuals.
Keywords Entrepreneurial intention, fsQCA, Entrepreneurial self-efficacy, Big five personality traits
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The belief that entrepreneurs have unique personalities has a long tradition in the field of
research in entrepreneurship (Gartner, 1988). However, within the last two decades, the
personality discussion in entrepreneurship has re-emerged, criticizing the initial traits
studies from many perspectives, including the personality measures not being specifically
developed for entrepreneurs (Robinson et al., 1991); trying to measure too many traits,
thereby causing weak linkages among constructs; and using insufficient quantitative
methods (Baum et al., 2014). In this re-emerging stream, the role of personality attributes in
International Journal of becoming an entrepreneur began to be discussed from a fresh and revived perspective. As a
Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research result, a consensus formed among entrepreneurship scholars about the critical role of
Vol. 25 No. 6, 2019
pp. 1188-1211
personality traits in entrepreneurial decisions and actions (Baum and Locke, 2004),
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1355-2554
supported by the results of several meta-analyses (Collins et al., 2004; Zhao and Seibert,
DOI 10.1108/IJEBR-07-2018-0466 2006; Rauch and Frese, 2007; Zhao et al., 2010), particularly after the 2000s.
The personality dimension of entrepreneurship and its relationship with entrepreneurial Big five
intention can be discussed from a career choice perspective (Bird, 1988; Katz and Gartner, 1988), personality
as choosing a career is intentional (Boyd and Vozikis, 1994). The choice of entrepreneurship as traits
a career is affected by a number of determinants, including self-efficacy (Krueger, 1993; Krueger
et al., 2000), education (Shahab et al., 2018), gender (Dawson and Henley, 2012; Mehtap et al.,
2017), age (Kenny and Rossiter, 2018) and social context (Schölin et al., 2016; Henley et al., 2017;
Bellò et al., 2018). One definition of entrepreneurial intention is “a self-acknowledged conviction 1189
by a person that they intend to set up a new business venture and consciously plan to do so at
some point in the future” (Thompson, 2009, p. 676). The intention to become an entrepreneur is
commonly regarded as the major antecedent of entrepreneurial behavior (Bird, 1988; Krueger
et al., 2000), as intentions “are the best predictor of planned behavior, particularly when that
behavior is rare, hard to observe, or involves unpredictable time lags” (Krueger et al., 2000,
p. 413). The role of personality in entrepreneurship career choice is also being discussed within
the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) framework, as ASA proposes that individuals tend to
select work environments with people that share the same personality profiles as theirs
(Schneider, 1987). Thus, in this argument, entrepreneurs are regarded as individuals who act to
work independently by establishing their ventures.
This study considers the big five personality traits and entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE)
as determinant factors in an individual’s entrepreneurial intention. The decision to focus on
these personal characteristics is dependent on the widespread evidence of the predictive roles
of the big five personality traits and ESE in entrepreneurial intention (e.g. Zhao and Seibert,
2006; Zhao et al., 2010). While recent meta-analyses have shown that personality does play an
important role in entrepreneurship, previous empirical findings in the investigation of specific
personalities in relation to entrepreneurial intention produced mixed results. For example,
Brandstätter (2011) summarized the findings of five meta-analyses on personality aspects of
entrepreneurship and showed that patterns in meta-analyses are not reflected for each of the
big five personality traits. Moreover, the patterns of results from meta-analyses of Zhao and
Seibert (2006) and Zhao et al. (2010) overlap but are not completely congruent. In general, it can
be concluded that, of the big five personality traits, conscientiousness, openness to experience,
emotional stability and extraversion, including ESE, are positively associated with intention
to become an entrepreneur. These findings may lead researchers to a definitive understanding
of what causes individuals to have a high level of intention to start up a business or be
self-employed, but do not help to determine certain profiles of personal characteristics of
individuals who express a high level of entrepreneurial intention. Given recent advances in the
research methods (Gabriel et al., 2018) and contemporary developments in entrepreneurship
research (Kraus et al., 2018), it is timely to move from a variable-oriented approach to a
person-oriented approach, which enables researchers to understand how variables operate
conjointly and among individuals.
Instead of following a symmetry-based method of data analysis (such as correlations and
regressions), a configurational comparative approach was followed in the present study.
This configurational analytic approach investigates the interdependencies between several
personality traits and their relationships with ESE within a person to lead to a high (or low)
level of entrepreneurial intention. This approach allows researchers to gain more insight
into theoretical and practical understanding of the personality profiles of individuals who
become, or strive to become, successful entrepreneurs. Accordingly, the aim of the current
study is to analyze the big five personality traits, or combinations of these traits, that lead to
a high (or low) level of entrepreneurial intention. Moreover, the study aims to identify the
role of ESE as a relevant condition that combines with the big five personality traits to lead
to a high (or low) level of entrepreneurial intention.
In the present study, a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis ( fsQCA) was used to
achieve these goals. In recent years, the configurational comparative approach,
IJEBR specifically the fsQCA, has attracted much attention across diverse disciplines, including
25,6 the field of business management (e.g. Roig-Tierno et al., 2016) and the field of
entrepreneurship (Kraus et al., 2018). Based on set theory and Boolean logic, the fsQCA is
generally viewed as a middle ground between quantitative (variable-oriented) and
qualitative (case-oriented or person-oriented) methodological approaches (Ragin, 2008).
Because the fsQCA allows for equifinality (the possibility of many pathways or
1190 combinations of causally relevant conditions linked to the same outcome) and causal
asymmetry (the possibility of differences between the pathways to the presence and the
absence of the same outcome), this analytic approach has important advantages over
traditional approaches (i.e. regression-based approaches) (Woodside, 2013). Rather than
considering personal characteristics in isolation, the fsQCA is able to identify how the big
five personality traits and ESE combine to achieve a high (or low) level of entrepreneurial
intention (Ragin, 2000, 2008; Fiss, 2011; Woodside, 2013).
By using the configurational comparative approach, this study aims to contribute to both
theory and practice. Several studies call for more research on person-oriented research
(Gabriel et al., 2018) in the field of entrepreneurship (Kraus et al., 2018), as well as the role of
personal-level variables in the configuration of entrepreneurial intention (Fayolle and Liñán,
2014). The present study extends trait-oriented research in the field of entrepreneurship to
focus on the person as opposed to traits. Doing so offers a fresh perspective on the
personality profiles that facilitate entrepreneurial intention and offers novel insight for
people making occupational decisions. Moreover, this study could potentially inform
practice, particularly on entrepreneurship education. For example, while some traits are
difficult to change, previous studies provide examples of interventions that can easily
influence self-efficacy (e.g. Rauch, 2014).
The present study is structured as follows. After the introductory section, the literature
review and propositions are presented. Subsequently, the methods and findings of the
fsQCA are reported. Finally, the theoretical and practical implications of the study’s findings
are discussed and recommendations for future studies provided.
Theoretical background
The big five personality traits and entrepreneurial intention
Personality traits are “dispositions to exhibit a certain kind of response across various
situations” (Rauch and Frese, 2007, p. 355) that are highly stable over time (Baum et al.,
2014). Due to the complexity of human personality, a comprehensive model named the Big
Five model was developed to explain major personality traits in five broad categories
(Goldberg, 1990). After the emergence of the model, widespread support was received for the
five factors – conscientiousness, openness to experience, emotional stability, extraversion
and agreeableness – proposed by the model, causing the big five be the most widely used
reference in personality studies (Gosling et al., 2003; Brandstätter, 2011).
Whether the personality dimensions of the Big Five model have an impact on
entrepreneurial intention has been the focus of a number of studies (Zhao and Seibert, 2006;
Zhao et al., 2010). Below, a brief literature review is presented to affirm the relevance of the
big five personality traits to entrepreneurial intention.
Conscientiousness. Conscientious individuals tend to be hard-working, well planned and
organized, and dependable in fulfilling their responsibilities and duties (Costa and McCrae,
1992; Zhao and Seibert, 2006; Ariani, 2013). Conscientiousness is closely linked with
entrepreneurship, as a person who has a high need for achievement and motivation for goal
achievement is more likely to become an entrepreneur (McClelland, 1961; Baum and Locke,
2004). Entrepreneurs are individuals who do not like repetitive and routine work, who
take personal responsibility and who want to see the concrete results of their decisions
(Antoncic et al., 2015). Conscientiousness has been found to be the personality construct Big five
demonstrating the largest difference between entrepreneurs and managers (Zhao and personality
Seibert, 2006). The conscientiousness dimension was also found to be one of the two traits
constructs most strongly linked with entrepreneurial intention in the meta-analysis by
Zhao et al. (2010). While conscientiousness was not found to differ significantly between
entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs in a recent study (Antoncic et al., 2015), Wang et al.
(2016) identified a significant association between the personality constructs of 1191
conscientiousness, openness to experience and extraversion among university students.
Openness to experience. This dimension of Big Five model is defined as an individual’s
intellectual curiosity for new concepts, ideas and beliefs, as well as their willingness to try out
the new and unprecedented (Zhao and Seibert, 2006; Ariani, 2013). An individual who scores
high on openness to experience is expected to have a vivid imagination and be creative, with a
unique way of thinking and a desire to explore new ideas (Liang et al., 2013). These attributes
are crucial for individuals who plan to establish their own business (Rothmann and Coetzer,
2003). An entrepreneur is an innovative and creative person, according to Schumpeter (1934).
Openness to experience is found to be one of the constructs most significantly differing
between entrepreneurs and professional career holders, together with extraversion and
emotional stability (Chan et al., 2015). Consistent with that finding, Zhao et al. (2010) found in
their meta-analysis that openness to experience was the personality trait second most highly
associated with the intention of becoming an entrepreneur.
Emotional stability. Individuals are regarded as emotionally stable if they are calm or even
relaxed under stressful conditions. Having negative emotions like depression, low self-esteem,
hostility, anger or fear that lead to high levels of neuroticism are also linked with low emotional
stability (Costa and McCrae, 1992). It is generally agreed among scholars and practitioners that
in order to establish and manage a new venture, a person has to be high in self-confidence,
perseverance and resilience, and able to perform successful stress management under difficult
conditions (Baron and Markman, 1999; Zhao and Seibert, 2006). Research studies have
produced mixed results on this personality trait. In their empirical study, Antoncic et al. (2015)
did not find a significant difference for neuroticism between entrepreneurs and non-
entrepreneurs, whereas a positive association was found between emotional stability and the
intention to become an entrepreneur in the meta-analysis by Zhao et al. (2010).
Extraversion. Individuals who have high extraversion scores are more likely to be warm,
friendly, talkative, sociable, energetic and outgoing, as well demonstrating assertiveness and
dominance in social relations. Individuals who possess high social and communication skills
frequently demonstrate assertion and persuasion. Entrepreneurs need to build and manage
their teams and promote their new venture ideas to employees, investors and customers (Shane,
2003), which is likely to be easier for extraverts than for introverts. Despite that, previous
literature on the extraversion trait of entrepreneurs is not conclusive (Zhao and Seibert, 2006;
Zhao et al., 2010). While no significant difference was found between entrepreneurs and
managers in the meta-analysis by Zhao and Seibert (2006), the meta-analysis by Rauch and
Frese (2007) indicated higher extraversion score for entrepreneurs than for managers. In a
recent study, entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs significantly differed in extraversion and
openness to experience traits (Antoncic et al., 2015). The meta-analysis by Zhao et al. (2010)
found a positive association between extraversion and entrepreneurial intention.
Agreeableness. Individuals who have high levels of agreeableness tend to be trusting,
altruistic, caring and forgiving (Zhao and Seibert, 2006). As entrepreneurs might possess
cooperativeness, patience and friendliness to a degree, these individuals also need to exert
high energy levels and motivation, which can destroy their relationships (Antoncic et al.,
2015). While entrepreneurs have to establish trusting relationships with stakeholders and
team members (Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990; Shane and Cable, 2002), they are also
IJEBR responsible for the survival of their business in tough situations, which sometimes requires
25,6 the entrepreneur to be self-centered or even manipulative (Zhao and Seibert, 2006).
Empirical evidence shows that being agreeable is negatively associated with becoming an
entrepreneur (Wooten et al., 1999), though the results of the meta-analysis by Zhao et al.
(2010) did not indicate a significant correlation between the agreeableness construct of the
Big Five model and entrepreneurial intention.
1192
Self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention
Self-efficacy is “an individual’s belief in one’s capability to organize and execute courses of
action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). According to the
propositions of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), the behaviors, action courses and
perseverance levels of individuals are linked to high levels of self-efficacy. Individuals with
high levels of self-efficacy are found to prefer more challenging tasks and have higher
resilience in the face of obstacles (Bandura, 1997). Perceived self-efficacy “is an attribution, one
of personal competence and control in a given situation” (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994, p. 94).
A person’s self-efficacy determines their persistence and resilience in achieving personal goals
(Bandura, 1977), and higher levels of self-efficacy lead to approaching harder tasks with more
optimism (Zhao et al., 2005). The self-efficacy construct, studied by various disciplines as the
personal perception of having a skills set, is accepted as more important than possessing
actual skills in determining an individual’s behavior (Krueger and Dickson, 1994).
In entrepreneurship research, the ESE construct “measures a person’s belief in their ability
to successfully launch an entrepreneurial venture” (McGee et al., 2009, p. 965), and requires
succeeding in tasks like innovation, marketing, management and finance that are related to
the establishment of a new venture (Chen et al., 1998; Hsu et al., 2017). ESE is found to be
positively associated with new venture performance, particularly in very young ventures
(McGee and Peterson, 2017). Perceived feasibility of entrepreneurial acts is an important
antecedent of entrepreneurial intention; thus higher levels of ESE increase the intention to
choose entrepreneurship as a career (Krueger, 1993). Launching a new venture is viewed as
“an intentional act that involves repeated attempts to exercise control over the process in order
to achieve the desired outcome” (Arenius and Minniti, 2005, p. 235). Thus, among other
constructs of personality, ESE is theoretically proposed as a major antecedent of the intention
to become an entrepreneur (Bird, 1988; Boyd and Vozikis, 1994; Krueger et al., 2000; Laviolette
et al., 2012; Crespo et al., 2018; Newman et al., 2018). Self-efficacy beliefs are strongly related to
entrepreneurial intention, as “entrepreneurship clearly represents planned, intentional
behavior” (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994, p. 93). Judgments about self-efficacy have an influence
on behavior and the attainment of goals while strongly affecting entrepreneurial intention and
the possibility that entrepreneurial intention will be followed by entrepreneurial actions
(McGee et al., 2009). Particularly after the introduction of Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned
behavior, an important line of research emerged to investigate the relationship between ESE
and entrepreneurial intention (Kickul et al., 2009; Engle et al., 2010; Piperopoulos and Dimov,
2015; Bellò et al., 2018; Hsu et al., 2018; Laviolette et al., 2012; Schmutzler et al., 2018). Empirical
studies indicate a significant positive association between the two constructs (Chen et al., 1998;
DeNoble et al., 1999; Arenius and Minniti, 2005; Zhao et al., 2005; Barbosa et al., 2007; Drnovšek
et al., 2010; Shahab et al., 2018). Newman et al. (2018) conducted a systematic review of the
literature on ESE and concluded that there is a significant positive link between ESE and the
entrepreneurial intention of both students and working people.
Measurement of variables
Outcome. In the present study, the scale developed by Thompson (2009) was used for
assessment of entrepreneurial intention. This scale included items related to intention or
plans to establish a business, learn about starting a firm, look for business opportunities,
and find initial resources to start a firm. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which
each statement was true about themselves based on a seven-point scale, anchored by 1
(untrue) to 7 (very true). A sample item was “Intend to set up a company in the future.”
Cronbach’s α was 0.747 for the student sample and 0.762 for the employee sample.
Conditions. The Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) by Gosling et al. (2003) was used to
assess the big five personality traits – agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion,
openness to experience and emotional stability. This inventory is a brief measure of the big
five personality dimensions – two items for each of the five dimensions. Participants
responded to the TIPI using a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). Example items in the TIPI include “I see myself as extraverted, enthusiastic”
(extraversion) and “I see myself as dependable, self-disciplined” (conscientiousness). The
reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) of these scales ranged from 0.694 to 0.767 for the student sample
and from 0.673 to 0.731 for the employee sample.
In the literature, various measures are employed in the assessment of ESE (Schjoedt and
Craig, 2017). In our study, ESE was assessed using the scale developed by Kristiansen and
Indarti (2004). This scale is a unidimensional measure of ESE which includes two items.
Example items in the scale include “I have leadership skills that are needed to be an
entrepreneur” and “I have the mental maturity to start to be an entrepreneur.” Responses
from participants were recorded on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The scale had a good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s
α of 0.757 for the student sample and 0.803 for the employee sample.
Empirical results
Analysis of necessary conditions
The fsQCA analysis usually starts with a necessity analysis to identify those conditions that
have a necessary relationship with the outcome of interest (Ragin, 2006; Fiss, 2007;
Schneider and Wagemann, 2012).
Consistency and coverage measures are central in evaluating the degree of fitness of the
cases in a data set to an association of necessity or sufficiency. Consistency evaluates
the extent to which the same outcome is produced by cases with the same attributes
IJEBR All sample
25,6 Descriptive statistics Calibration criteria
Outcomes/Conditions Mean SD Min. Max. 95% 50% 5%
Outcome
Entrepreneurial intention – EI 22.85 8.79 6 42 38 23 6
1196 Conditions
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy – ESE 10.51 2.86 2 14 14 11 5
Table I. Extraversion – EXTRA 9.60 3.08 2 14 14 9.76 4
Descriptive statistics Agreeableness – AGREE 6.44 2.48 2 14 11 7 2
and calibration values Conscientiousness – CONSC 10.37 2.66 2 14 14 10 6
for conditions and Emotional stability – ESTAB 7.40 2.76 2 14 13 8 3
outcome variables Openness to experiences – OPEN 10.79 2.59 3 14 14 11 6
(i.e. combinations of conditions) within a given data set. Coverage is a measure that indicates
“the degree of relevance of certain causes or causal combinations to explain the outcome of
interest” (Ragin, 2006, 2008). For a condition to be considered as necessary, the consistency
and coverage thresholds should be over 0.90 and 0.80, respectively (Schneider and
Wagemann, 2012).
Table II indicates the results of the necessity analysis for a high level of entrepreneurial
intention in both student and employee samples, as well as for its absence (low level of
entrepreneurial intention). Considering the student sample, the consistency scores range
between 0.50 and 0.77 and the coverage scores range between 0.53 and 0.74 ( for presence or
absence). With regard to the employee sample, the consistency scores range between 0.50
and 0.77 and the coverage scores range between 0.53 and 0.74 ( for presence or absence).
As shown in Table II, none of the six conditions passes these thresholds; therefore, these
conditions are necessary neither for causing individuals to have a high level of
entrepreneurial intention nor for individuals to have a low level of entrepreneurial intention.
These findings, therefore, lend support to the first proposition.
Sensitivity analyses
Several robustness checks and sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine whether the
solutions are robust to the use of alternative thresholds for consistency and the frequency of
cases per configuration (Schneider and Wagemann, 2012).
IJEBR 1.0
25,6 0.9
0.8
0.7
1200 0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Student sample
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Figure 1. 0.1
Fuzzy subset relation
diagram for the entire 0.0
solutions and the 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
outcome (Y)
Employee sample
First, the lowest acceptable consistency score of 0.80 was changed to 0.85, while retaining the
frequency threshold of three for the number of observations. In the student sample, 63 cases
fell into configurations, and 70 cases in the employee sample, exceeding the minimum solution
frequency and the consistency score of 0.85. For both samples, fewer solutions emerged for the
presence of high level of entrepreneurial intention (i.e. three instead of four solutions for the
student sample); however, minor changes were observed. Specifically, ESE and openness to
experience were the core conditions in the solutions, and interpretation of the results remains
largely the same for both samples. Second, the frequency threshold of three for the number of
observations per configuration was changed to five, while retaining the consistency score of Big five
0.80. Setting the frequency threshold to five ensured that 47 cases in the student sample and personality
81 cases in the employee sample were captured for the analysis. Similar to the first sensitivity traits
analysis, fewer solutions emerged and minor changes were observed.
Regarding the low level of entrepreneurial intention, the results of the two sensitivity
analyses were similar to those reported before. There was no distinguishable solution for a
low level of entrepreneurial intention for either sample. In summary, these sensitivity 1201
analyses yielded essentially similar configurations, thus adding robustness to the initial
results of the present study.
Conclusions
This study offers a holistic picture of how the personalities of individuals impact their
intention to start new businesses. The results derived from the use of the fsQCA may enable
researchers in the field of entrepreneurship to rethink the personal characteristics of
individuals in trying to understand their entrepreneurial intention. More specifically, this
study provided empirical evidence that shows that there are various configurations, Big five
incorporating several personal characteristics, equifinally leading to a high level of personality
entrepreneurial intention. This study not only provides empirical and methodological traits
implications for researchers in the area of entrepreneurship, but is also of practical relevance
to educators and policymakers.
References 1205
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Antoncic, B., BratkovicKregar, T., Singh, G. and DeNoble, A.F. (2015), “The big five personality –
entrepreneurship relationship: evidence from Slovenia”, Journal of Small Business Management,
Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 819-841.
Arenius, P. and Minniti, M. (2005), “Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship”, Small Business
Economics, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 233-247.
Ariani, D.W. (2013), “Personality and learning motivation”, European Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 5 No. 10, pp. 26-38.
Aronsson, M. (2004), “Education matters – but does entrepreneurship education? An interview with
David Birch”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 289-292.
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986), “Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as coeffects of perceived
self-inefficacy”, American Psychologist, Vol. 41 No. 12, pp. 1389-1391.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York, NY.
Barbosa, S.D., Gerhardt, M.W. and Kickul, J.R. (2007), “The role of cognitive style and risk preference on
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 86-104.
BarNir, A., Watson, W. and Hutchins, H. (2011), “Mediation and moderated mediation in the
relationship among role models, self-efficacy, entrepreneurial career intention, and gender”,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 270-297.
Baron, R.A. and Markman, G.D. (1999), “Cognitive mechanisms: potential differences between
entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs”, in Reynolds, P., Bygrave, W., Manigart, S., Mason, C.,
Mason, C., Meyer, G., Sapienza, H. and Shaver, K. (Eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research,
Babson College, Babson Park, FL, pp. 123-137.
Baum, J.R. and Locke, E.A. (2004), “The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to
subsequent venture growth”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 4, pp. 587-598.
Baum, J.R., Frese, M. and Baron, R.A. (2014), “Born to be an entrepreneur? Revisiting the personality
approach to entrepreneurship”, in Baum, J.R., Frese, M. and Baron, R.A. (Eds), The
Organizational Frontiers. The Psychology of Entrepreneurship, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 41-65.
Bellò, B., Mattana, V. and Loi, M. (2018), “The power of peers: a new look at the impact of creativity,
social context and self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intentions”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 214-233.
Berger, E.S.C. (2016), “Is qualitative comparative analysis an emerging method? – Structured literature
review and bibliometric analysis of QCA applications in business and management research”, in
Berger, S.C.E. and Kuckertz, A. (Eds), Complexity in Entrepreneurship, Innovation and
Technology Research: Applications of Emergent and Neglected Methods, Springer International,
Cham, pp. 287-308.
Bird, B. (1988), “Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 442-453.
IJEBR Boyd, N.G. and Vozikis, G.S. (1994), “The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial
25,6 intentions and actions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 63-77.
Brandstätter, H. (2011), “Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: a look at five meta-analyses”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 222-230.
Chan, K.Y., Uy, M.A., Chernyshenko, O.S., Ho, M.H.R. and Sam, Y.L. (2015), “Personality and
entrepreneurial, professional and leadership motivations”, Personality and Individual
1206 Differences, Vol. 77, pp. 161-166.
Chen, C.C., Greene, P.G. and Crick, A. (1998), “Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish
entrepreneurs from managers?”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 295-316.
Collins, C.J., Hanges, P.J. and Locke, E.A. (2004), “The relationship of achievement motivation to
entrepreneurial behavior: a meta-analysis”, Human Performance, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 95-117.
Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1992), “Four ways five factors are basic”, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 653-665.
Cox, L., Mueller, S. and Moss, S. (2002), “The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial
self-efficacy”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 229-247.
Crespo, N.F., Belchior, R. and Costa, E.B. (2018), “Exploring individual differences in the relationship
between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intentions: evidence from Angola”, Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, doi: 10.1108/JSBED-03-2017-0105.
Dawson, C. and Henley, A. (2012), “Push versus pull entrepreneurship: an ambiguous distinction?”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 697-719.
De Clercq, D., Honig, B. and Martin, B. (2013), “The roles of learning orientation and passion for work in
the formation of entrepreneurial intention”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 31,
pp. 652-676.
DeNoble, A., Jung, D. and Ehrlich, S. (1999), “Initiating new ventures: the role of entrepreneurial
self-efficacy”, Babson Research Conference, Babson College, Wellesley, MA.
Drnovšek, M., Wincent, J. and Cardon, M.S. (2010), “Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and business start‐up:
developing a multi‐dimensional definition”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 329-348.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Schoonhoven, C.B. (1990), “Organizational growth: linking founding team,
strategy, environment, and growth among US semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 504-529.
Engle, R.L., Dimitriadi, N., Gavidia, J.V., Schlaegel, C., Delanoe, S., Alvarado, I., He, X., Buame, S. and
Wolff, B. (2010), “Entrepreneurial intent: a twelve-country evaluation of Ajzen’s model of
planned behavior”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 35-57.
Envick, B.R. and Langford, M. (2000), “The five-factor model of personality: assessing entrepreneurs
and managers”, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 6-17.
Farashah, A. (2015), “The effects of demographic, cognitive and institutional factors on development of
entrepreneurial intention: toward a socio-cognitive model of entrepreneurial career”, Journal of
International Entrepreneurship, Vol. 13, pp. 452-476.
Fayolle, A. and Liñán, F. (2014), “The future of research on entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 67, pp. 663-666.
Fiss, P.C. (2007), “A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1180-1198.
Fiss, P.C. (2011), “Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization
research”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 393-420.
Gabriel, A.S., Campbell, J.T., Djurdjevic, E., Johnson, R.E. and Rosen, C.C. (2018), “Fuzzy profiles:
comparing and contrasting latent profile analysis and fuzzy set qualitative comparative
analysis for person-centered research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 877-904.
Gartner, W.B. (1988), “Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question”, American Journal of Small Big five
Business, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-33. personality
Glaub, M. and Frese, M. (2011), “A critical review of the effects of entrepreneurship training in traits
developing countries”, Enterprise Development and Microfinance, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 335-353.
Goldberg, L.R. (1990), “An alternative description of personality: the big-five factor structure”, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 1216-1229.
Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J. and Swann, W.B. Jr (2003), “A very brief measure of the big five 1207
personality domains”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 37, pp. 504-528.
Henley, A., Contreras, F., Espinosa, J.C. and Barbosa, D. (2017), “Entrepreneurial intentions of
Colombian business students: planned behaviour, leadership skills and social capital”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1017-1032.
Holland, J.L. (1985), Making Vocational Choices, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hsu, D.K., Wiklund, J. and Cotton, R.D. (2017), “Success, failure, and entrepreneurial reentry: an
experimental assessment of the veracity of self‐efficacy and prospect theory”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 19-47.
Hsu, D.K., Burmeister-Lamp, K., Simmons, S.A., Foo, M.D., Hong, M.C. and Pipes, J.D. (2018), “I know
I can, but I don’t fit’: perceived fit, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention”, Journal of
Business Venturing, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.08.004.
Hussein, S.N.A. and Aziz, H.H.A. (2017), “The big five personality dimensions as a predictor of
entrepreneurial status in Egypt”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business,
Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 423-443.
Katz, J. and Gartner, W.B. (1988), “Properties of emerging organizations”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 429-441.
Kenny, B. and Rossiter, I. (2018), “Transitioning from unemployment to self-employment for over 50s”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 234-255.
Kerr, S.P., Kerr, W.R. and Xu, T. (2017), Personality Traits of Entrepreneurs: A Review of Recent
Literature (No. w24097), National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
Kickul, J., Gundry, L.K., Barbosa, S.D. and Whitcanack, L. (2009), “Intuition versus analysis? Testing
differential models of cognitive style on entrepreneurial self‐efficacy and the new venture
creation process”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 439-453.
Kolvereid, L. (1996), “Prediction of employment status choice intentions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 47-58.
Kraus, S., Ribeiro-Soriano, D. and Schüssler, M. (2018), “Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis
(fsQCA) in entrepreneurship and innovation research – the rise of a method”, International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 15-33.
Kristiansen, S. and Indarti, N. (2004), “Entrepreneurial intention among Indonesian and Norwegian
students”, Journal of Entrerprising Culture, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 55-78.
Krueger, N. (1993), “The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture
feasibility and desirability”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Krueger, N. and Dickson, P.R. (1994), “How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: perceived
self‐efficacy and opportunity recognition”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 385-400.
Krueger, N.F. Jr and Brazeal, D.V. (1994), “Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 91-104.
Krueger, N.F. Jr, Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000), “Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 Nos 5–6, pp. 411-432.
Laviolette, E.M., Lefebvre, R. and Brunel, O. (2012), “The impact of story bound entrepreneurial role
models on self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 720-742.
IJEBR Lee, L., Wong, P.K., Der Foo, M. and Leung, A. (2011), “Entrepreneurial intentions: the influence of
25,6 organizational and individual factors”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 124-136.
Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R. and Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014), “The relationship between
the entrepreneurial personality and the big five personality traits”, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 63, pp. 58-63.
Liang, C., Chang, C.C. and Hsu, Y. (2013), “Personality and psychological factors predict imagination:
1208 evidence from Taiwan”, Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 27, pp. 67-74.
Liñán, F. (2004), “Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education”, Piccola Impresa/Small
Business, Vol. 3, pp. 11-35.
Liñán, F. and Fayolle, A. (2015), “A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: citation,
thematic analyses, and research agenda”, International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 907-933.
Liñán, F., Rodríguez-Cohard, J.C. and Rueda-Cantuche, J.M. (2011), “Factors affecting entrepreneurial
intention levels: a role for education”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 195-218.
McClelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society, Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.
McClelland, D.C. (1985), Human Motivation, Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL.
McGee, J.E. and Peterson, M. (2017), “The long-term impact of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and
entrepreneurial orientation on venture performance”, Journal of Small Business Management,
doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12324.
McGee, J.E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S.L. and Sequeira, J.M. (2009), “Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: refining
the measure”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 965-988.
Mehtap, S., Pellegrini, M.M., Caputo, A. and Welsh, D.H. (2017), “Entrepreneurial intentions of young
women in the Arab world: socio-cultural and educational barriers”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 880-902.
Miao, C., Qian, S. and Ma, D. (2016), “The relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and firm
performance: a meta-analysis of main and moderator effects”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 87-107.
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.
Mwasalwiba, E.S. (2010), “Entrepreneurship education: a review of its objectives, teaching methods,
and impact indicators”, Education + Training, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 20-47.
Newman, A., Obschonka, M., Schwarz, S., Cohen, M. and Nielsen, I. (2018), “Entrepreneurial
self-efficacy: a systematic review of the literature on its theoretical foundations, measurement,
antecedents, and outcomes, and an agenda for future research”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 110, pp. 403-419.
Nowiński, W., Haddoud, M.Y., Lančarič, D., Egerová, D. and Czeglédi, C. (2017), “The impact of
entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and gender on entrepreneurial
intentions of university students in the Visegrad countries”, Studies in Higher Education,
Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 361-379.
Piperopoulos, P. and Dimov, D. (2015), “Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship education,
entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 970-985.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Ragin, C.C. (1987), The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies,
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Ragin, C.C. (2000), Fuzzy Set Social Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Ragin, C.C. (2006), “Set relations in social research: evaluating their consistency and coverage”, Political Big five
Analysis, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 291-310. personality
Ragin, C.C. (2008), Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond, University of Chicago Press, traits
Chicago, IL.
Ragin, C.C. and Davey, S. (2016), Fuzzy-Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis 3.0, Department of
Sociology, University of California, Irvine, CA.
Ragin, C.C. and Fiss, P.C. (2008), “Net effects analysis versus configurational analysis: an empirical 1209
demonstration”, in Ragin, C.C. (Ed.), Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 190-212.
Rauch, A. (2014), “Predictions of entrepreneurial behavior: a personality approach”, in Chell, E. and
Karatas-Ozkan, M. (Eds), Handbook of Research on Small Business and Entrepreneurship,
Edward Elgar, London, pp. 165-183.
Rauch, A. and Frese, M. (2007), “Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: a
meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation,
and success”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 353-385.
Rihoux, B. and Ragin, C.C. (2009), Configurational Comparative Methods, Sage, London.
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, pp. 13-32.
Roig-Tierno, N., Huarng, K.-H. and Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2016), “Qualitative comparative analysis: crisp
and fuzzy sets in business and management”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 4,
pp. 1261-1264.
Rothmann, S. and Coetzer, E.P. (2003), “The big five personality dimensions and job performance”, SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 68-74.
Rotter, J.B. (1954), Social Learning and Clinical Psychology, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Schjoedt, L. and Craig, J.B. (2017), “Development and validation of a unidimensional domain-specific
entrepreneurial self-efficacy scale”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 98-113.
Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2004), “Pathways to successful entrepreneurship: parenting, personality,
early entrepreneurial competence and interests”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 65 No. 3,
pp. 498-518.
Schmutzler, J., Andonova, V. and Diaz-Serrano, L. (2018), “How context shapes entrepreneurial
self-efficacy as a driver of entrepreneurial intentions: a multilevel approach”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, doi: 10.1177/1042258717753142.
Schneider, B. (1987), “The people make the place”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 437-453.
Schneider, C.Q. and Wagemann, C. (2012), Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to
Qualitative Comparative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Schölin, T., Broomé, P. and Ohlsson, H. (2016), “Self-employment: the significance of families for
professional intentions and choice of company type”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 329-345.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), Reprint in Clemence, R.V. (Ed.), Change and the Entrepreneur, Essays of J.A.
Schumpeter, Addison Wesley, Cambridge, pp. 248-266.
SenyKan, A.K., Adegbite, E., El Omari, S. and Abdellatif, M. (2015), “On the use of qualitative
comparative analysis in management”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 4,
pp. 1458-1463.
Shahab, Y., Chengang, Y., Arbizu, A.D. and Haider, M.J. (2018), “Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and
intention: do entrepreneurial creativity and education matter?”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-12-2017-0522.
Shane, S. and Cable, D. (2002), “Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures”,
Management Science, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 364-381.
IJEBR Shane, S.A. (2003), A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus, Edward
25,6 Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Stewart, W.H. and Roth, P.L. (2007), “A meta-analysis of achievement motivation differences
between entrepreneurs and managers”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 45 No. 4,
pp. 401-421.
Taormina, R.J. and Kin-Mei Lao, S. (2007), “Measuring Chinese entrepreneurial motivation: personality
1210 and environmental influences”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour& Research,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 200-221.
Thiem, A., Baumgartner, M. and Bol, M. (2016), “Still lost in translation! A correction of three
misunderstandings between configurational comparativists and regressional analysts”,
Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 742-774.
Thompson, E.R. (2009), “Individual entrepreneurial intent: construct clarification and development of
an internationally reliable metric”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 669-694.
Wagemann, C. and Schneider, C.Q. (2010), “Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy sets:
agenda for a research approach and a data analysis technique”, Comparative Sociology, Vol. 9
No. 3, pp. 376-396.
Wang, J.H., Chang, C.C., Yao, S.N. and Liang, C. (2016), “The contribution of self-efficacy to the
relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial intention”, Higher Education, Vol. 72
No. 2, pp. 209-224.
Wilson, F., Kickul, J. and Marlino, D. (2007), “Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial
career intentions: implications for entrepreneurship education”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 387-406.
Woodside, A.G. (2013), “Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: calling for
adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and
crafting theory”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 463-472.
Wooten, K.C., Timmerman, T.A. and Folger, R. (1999), “The use of personality and the five-factor model
to predict new business ventures: From outplacement to start-up”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 82-101.
Zhao, H. and Seibert, S.E. (2006), “The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: a
meta-analytical review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 259-271.
Zhao, H., 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.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E. and Lumpkin, G.T. (2010), “The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial
intentions and performance: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 381-404.
Further reading
Ajzen, I. (2002), “Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned
behavior”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 665-683.
Bullough, A., Renko, M. and Myatt, T. (2014), “Danger zone entrepreneurs: the importance of resilience
and self-efficacy for entrepreneurial intentions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 38
No. 3, pp. 473-499.
Chen, S.C., Hsiao, H.C., Chang, J.C., Chou, C.M., Chen, C.P. and Shen, C.H. (2015), “Can the
entrepreneurship course improve the entrepreneurial intentions of students?”, International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 557-569.
Davidson, A.R. and Jaccard, J.J. (1979), “Variables that moderate the attitude- behavior relation:
results of a longitudinal survey”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 1364-1376.
Fietze, S. and Boyd, B. (2017), “Entrepreneurial intention of Danish students: a correspondence Big five
analysis”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, personality
pp. 656-672.
Kakouris, A. (2016), “Exploring entrepreneurial conceptions, beliefs and intentions of Greek
traits
graduates”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 109-132.
Kautonen, T., Van Gelderen, M. and Tornikoski, E.T. (2013), “Predicting entrepreneurial behaviour:
a test of the theory of planned behaviour”, Applied Economics, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 697-707.
1211
Lans, T., Gulikers, J. and Batterink, M. (2010), “Moving beyond traditional measures of entrepreneurial
intentions in a study among life‐sciences students in the Netherlands”, Research in Post‐
Compulsory Education, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 259-274.
Markman, G.D., Balkin, D.B. and Baron, R.A. (2002), “Inventors and new venture formation: the effects
of general self‐efficacy and regretful thinking”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 149-165.
Shapero, A. (1984), “The entrepreneurial event”, in Kent, C.A. (Ed.), Environment for Entrepreneurship,
D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA, pp. 21-40.
Shirokova, G., Osiyevskyy, O. and Bogatyreva, K. (2016), “Exploring the intention–behavior link in
student entrepreneurship: moderating effects of individual and environmental characteristics”,
European Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 386-399.
Solesvik, M. (2017), “A study of personal initiative as a mediator between self-efficacy and
entrepreneurial intentions”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2017 No. 1, p. 15614,
doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2017.15614abstract.
Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S. and Al-Laham, A. (2007), “Do entrepreneurship programmes raise
entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration
and resources”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 566-591.
Wu, S. and Wu, L. (2012), “The impact of higher education on entrepreneurial intentions of university
students in China”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 No. 14,
pp. 752-774.
Zhang, P. and Cain, K.W. (2017), “Reassessing the link between risk aversion and entrepreneurial
intention: the mediating role of the determinants of planned behavior”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 793-811.
Corresponding author
Faruk Şahin can be contacted at: faruksahin@mu.edu.tr
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