See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330568892

Determinant factors of entrepreneurial intention among university students

in Brazil and Portugal

Article  in  Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship · January 2019

DOI: 10.1080/08276331.2018.1551459

CITATIONS READS

103 3,100

3 authors:

Rui Fragoso Weimar Freire Rocha

Universidade de Évora Universidade Estadual Do Oeste Do Parana
118 PUBLICATIONS   631 CITATIONS    121 PUBLICATIONS   399 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

António Manuel Xavier

CEFAGE
51 PUBLICATIONS   263 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Grupo de Pesquisas em Desenvolvimento Regional e Agronegócio GEPEC / Research Group on Regional Development and Agribusiness View project

Fatores de Qualidade e Satisfação nos Serviços de Call Center - Brasil View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rui Fragoso on 22 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship

ISSN: 0827-6331 (Print) 2169-2610 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsbe20

Determinant factors of entrepreneurial intention

among university students in Brazil and Portugal

Rui Fragoso, Weimar Rocha-Junior & António Xavier

To cite this article: Rui Fragoso, Weimar Rocha-Junior & António Xavier (2019): Determinant
factors of entrepreneurial intention among university students in Brazil and Portugal, Journal of
Small Business & Entrepreneurship, DOI: 10.1080/08276331.2018.1551459

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2018.1551459

Published online: 22 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 16

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsbe20
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP
https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2018.1551459

Determinant factors of entrepreneurial intention among

university students in Brazil and Portugal
Rui Fragosoa, Weimar Rocha-Juniorb
nio Xavierc
and Anto
a
CEFAGE (Center For Advanced Studies in Management and Economics), University of
Evora,
Evora,
Portugal; bGraduation Program in Regional Development and Agribusiness, University of the Paran
a
West, Toledo, Brazil; cCEFAGE-UE (Center For Advanced Studies in Management and Economics),
University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article aims to assess how personality traits, training and Received 12 May 2018
entrepreneurial education, social recognition, self-efficacy and Accepted 20 November 2018
entrepreneurial attitude influence entrepreneurial intention to
KEYWORDS
create a new venture among university students in Portugal and
entrepreneurial intention;
Brazil. The additional effects of gender, country of origin, and personality traits; self-
family background are also evaluated. A conceptual framework efficacy; entrepreneurial
based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour is proposed consider- attitude; survey; regression
ing a set of hypotheses, which were tested via a survey with analysis; Portugal; Brazil;
a cross-section design applied to a sample of 600 university university students
students from both countries. The results led to the conclusion that
personality traits, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial attitude are

MOTS CLES
strong predictors of entrepreneurial intention and that the effects intention entrepreneuriale;
of social recognition and country of origin are not significant. traits de personnalit
e;
auto-efficacit
e; attitude
ABSTRAIT entrepreneuriale; sondage;
Cet article vise a e
valuer comment les traits de personnalite
, la analyse de r
egression;
Portugal; Br
esil;
etudiants
formation et l’
education entrepreneuriale, la reconnaissance sociale,
universitaires
l’auto-efficacit
e et l’attitude entrepreneuriale influencent l’intention
entrepreneuriale de cr
eer une nouvelle entreprise parmi les

etudiants universitaires au Portugal et au Br
esil. L’effet additif du
sexe, du pays d’origine et de l’origine familiale est
egalement

evalu
e. Un cadre conceptuel bas
e sur la Th
eorie du Comportement
Pr
evu est propos
e en consid
erant un ensemble d’hypotheses, qui
a e
t
e test
e a travers une enqu^ete transversale applique
e a un

echantillon de 600
etudiants universitaires des deux pays. Les
r
esultats ont permis de conclure que les traits de personnalit
e,
l’auto-efficacit
e et l’attitude entrepreneuriale sont de puissants
pr
edicteurs de l’intention entrepreneuriale et que les effets de la
reconnaissance sociale et du pays d’origine ne sont pas significatifs.

1. Introduction
Global GDP growth in 2016 was 3.1% and the forecasts for 2017 and 2018 are also
modest (3.4 and 3.6%) (International Labour Organization 2017). These figures show

CONTACT Rui Fragoso rfragoso@uevora.pt CEFAGE (Center For Advanced Studies in Management and
Economics), University of
Evora, Largo dos Colegiais, 7000, –
Evora, Portugal.
ß 2019 Journal of the Canadian Council for Small Business and Entrepreneurship/Conseil de la PME et de l’entrepreneuriat
2 R. FRAGOSO ET AL.

that countries’ economies have low capacity to generate enough jobs, improve
employment quality in existing jobs and share the gains of economic growth. In
many countries of the world, an increasing number of university graduates do not
find a job in the sector they were trained in. However, entrepreneurship has been
considered a key issue of economic growth and development (Baumol 1968; Premand
et al. 2016; Schumpeter 1912). Nowadays, it is seen as an engine of economic growth
and is important for job creation, revenue generation, and hence wealth creation
(Adekiya and Ibrahim 2016; Romer 1994). Young people, particularly graduate
students, who are entrepreneurs and start a new business are an exceptional and
vital group in the development of entrepreneurial activities (Glinskiene and
Petuskiene 2011).
Intentions are the best predictor of individual behaviour (Krueger and Brazeal
1994), and a good predictor of the decision to become an entrepreneur (Bird, 1988).
The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) could help to understand the entrepreneur-
ial process (Krueger, Reilly, and Carsrud 2000; Kolvereid 2016), in this case among
university students. From the studies made to identify which factors influence entre-
preneurial intention, two main research streams have arisen. One stream is more
focused on issues related to personality traits or characteristics such as self-efficacy
(Ajzen 2002; Wilson, Kickul, and Marlino 2007), need for achievement (McClelland
1961; Hansemark 1998) and tolerance for ambiguity (Teoh and Foo 1997). Another
stream is more dedicated to the contributions of demographic and socioeconomic
context (Li~n
an, Rodriguez and Rueda-Cantuche 2005; Wilson, Kickul, and Marlino
2007). Societal gender roles (Mueller and Datoon 2008), culture (Reardon 1991), and
economic and institutional factors (Hayton and Cacciotti 2014) are others that have
been referred to as positively related to entrepreneurial intention. Among students,
start-up capital, family background, gender group, and age also influence their
entrepreneurial intention (Salami 2007; Shane, Locke, and Collins 2003). Personality
traits and self-efficacy have been used to predict students’ entrepreneurial intention
(Adekiya and Ibrahim 2016; Kristiansen and Indarti 2004) and most studies also
suggest a positive relationship between entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial
intention (Kautonen, van Gelderen, and Fink 2015; S
anchez 2013; Walter,
Parboteeah, and Walter 2013). However, a few studies have been dedicated to the
role that individual, cultural, and socio-economic factors play in students’ intention
to create and run a new business after finishing their university studies.
Thus, this study addresses the determinant factors of entrepreneurial intention
among university students in Brazil and Portugal. Based on TPB, it aims to assess
how personality traits, self-efficacy, training and entrepreneurial education, social rec-
ognitio, and entrepreneurial attitude influence students’ entrepreneurial intention.
Another aim of the study is to assess how students’ entrepreneurial intention can be
different due to gender, country of origin, and family background. The study was
conducted via a survey applied to a sample of university students in Brazil and
Portugal. Evidence suggests that many people intend to be entrepreneurs while they
are relatively young (Shirokova, Osiyevskyy, and Bogatyreva 2016); hence university
students are an important group to study. The results provide important findings for
policy makers and universities that are committed to an entrepreneurial culture.
 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP 3

In the following section, a literature review is provided, which addresses the theor-
etical background from which testable hypotheses are derived. The third section
describes the methodology, considering the sample, measures, procedures, and statis-
tics. The fourth section presents the results and the fifth section provides a discus-
sion. Finally, the sixth section is dedicated to the main conclusions.

2. Literature review and hypotheses

2.1. Theoretical perspectives
Several theories have been developed to explain the entrepreneurial process. Most of
them state that first, entrepreneurs form the intention to create a new business, being
influenced by socio-cultural factors, and then, if this intention is strong enough, they
carry through the action. A theory that supports this study is TPB (Ajzen 1991),
which considers intention as a function of three antecedents: attitude (a favourable or
unfavourable evaluation of the behaviour), perceived behavioural control (perceived
ease or difficulty in performing the behaviour) and subjective norm (perceived social
pressure to perform or not perform the behaviour) (Adekiya and Ibrahim 2016;
Ajzen 1991; Shirokova, Osiyevskyy, and Bogatyreva 2016). According to this theory,
entrepreneurial behaviour is a planned and intentional process where beliefs and
assumptions are taken from a given context or environment and act as predictors of
entrepreneurial intentions (Adekiya and Ibrahim 2016).
A different perspective can be based on competences. According to Structuration
Theory (Giddens 1984), entrepreneurship can be viewed as a process where individu-
als behave within and interact with their environment. This environment provides
scripts that guide individual behaviours and interactions, with education being an
important resource. If the scripts are successfully employed over time, they become
the basis for individual competences (Morriset al. 2013). A focus on competences can
allow key issues to be captured that may influence entrepreneurial intentions. Bird
(1995) concluded that the competency approach applied to an entrepreneurial context
can be a baseline standard for creating a new venture. The perspective of competen-
ces is different from that of entrepreneurial traits. While the former emphasizes the
role of competences in the entrepreneurial process, the latter attempts to associate
traits, such as beliefs, perceptions, and assumptions resulting from culture and educa-
tion, to the entrepreneurial process.

2.1.1. Entrepreneurial intention

Krueger (1993) defines entrepreneurial intention as the commitment that an individ-
ual has to starting a new business and it can be considered a key antecedent of entre-
preneurial behaviour. In this study, as in Adekiya and Ibrahim (2016) and Ladd,
Hind, and Lawrence (2018), entrepreneurial intention is the intentional behaviour
perceived among university students to create a new venture after finishing
their studies.
From this perspective, entrepreneurial intention models are robust frameworks to
better understand entrepreneurial processes. Several models of entrepreneurial inten-
tion have been proposed in the entrepreneurship literature (Bird 1988; Boyd and
4 R. FRAGOSO ET AL.

Vozikis 1994; Chattopadhyay and Ghosh 2008; Krueger and Brazeal 1994). In these
models, intentions are key determinants of entrepreneurial action and mediate the
influence of demographic variables, personal characteristics, personality traits, and
social, cultural, and environmental variables on entrepreneurial behaviour and action.
In this study, personality traits, training, and entrepreneurial education, social recog-
nition, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial attitude are considered the most relevant fac-
tors towards entrepreneurial intention among university students. Furthermore, the
effect of the students’ gender, nationality, and family background is also taken into
account in our analysis.

2.2. Personality traits and entrepreneurial intention

The entrepreneurial intention construct is significantly related to personality traits
(Zhao and Seibert 2006). The most relevant factors used to explain entrepreneurial
intention are perceived behavioural and personality traits (L
ın
an and Chen 2009).
Shapero and Sokol’s (1982) event model is often used to explain the link between
personality traits and entrepreneurial intention. This model is similar to the model of
Ajzen (1991) and comprises three components: perceived desirability, perceived feasi-
bility, and propensity to act.
The construct of personality traits describes behavioural patterns in individuals
(Koh 1996). Its importance in studying the differences between entrepreneurs and
non-entrepreneurs is well known to researchers. Several studies have been carried out
and three factors have emerged from them to characterize the construct of personality
traits: (1) high need for achievement; (2) internal locus for control; and (3) risk tak-
ing propensity (Chattopadhyay and Ghosh 2008). Thus, the following hypothesis
is formulated:
Hypothesis 1 – Personality traits do not have any significant positive effect on
entrepreneurial intention.

2.3. Training and entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial intention

Some studies show that people who start a business have a higher level of education
than those who do not (Bates 1995; Bowen and Hisrich 1986). Despite this relationship,
it has been argued that formal education, in general, does not promote entrepreneurship.
However, specialized courses and education in enterprise have been associated
with promoting entrepreneurial behaviour (Peterman and Kennedy 2003). Training
and entrepreneurial education could enable students to acquire the skills required
to create a new venture and manage a business (Kimwolo, Saina, and Cheserek 2012).
Early exposure to entrepreneurial training and education may be particularly effective
in promoting interest in entrepreneurship (Dyer 1995).
Entrepreneurial training plays a crucial role in the intention to start a business
(Lee-Gosselin and Grise 1990). Among other variables, formal learning from
entrepreneurship courses had the strongest influence on new venture intentions
(Zhao, Seibert, and Hills 2005). Adekiya and Ibrahim (2016) confirmed a positive
and significant effect of entrepreneurial training and education on entrepreneurial
 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP 5

intention. In this study, the construct of training and entrepreneurial education

is defined based on specialized courses that student took in addition to university
studies, their usefulness in terms of entrepreneurship and the knowledge they have
of entrepreneurs in the family and among friends. Thus, the following hypothesis
was formulated:
Hypothesis 2 – Training and entrepreneurial education do not have any significant
positive effect on entrepreneurial intention.

2.4. Social recognition and entrepreneurial intention

Hayton and Caccioti (2014) define culture as the values, beliefs, and expected behaviour
that are common across people from a given territory. Zahra and George (2002) state
that entrepreneurial actions are facilitated by values and socially shared beliefs. Cultural
heritage and direct experience are both important in forming entrepreneurial beliefs
(Karayiannis 1993). According to the model of De Pillis and Reardon (2001), perceived
appropriateness is the degree to which entrepreneurship is perceived as proper and
accepted by others in society as a suitable career. In this study, a construct of social rec-
ognition is considered in an attempt to represent the perceived appropriateness of De
Pills and Reardon’s model. Thus, we formalize the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3 – Social recognition does not have any significant positive effect on
entrepreneurial intention.

2.5. Self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention

Self-efficacy is the strong personal belief in skills and abilities to start a given task
directed towards success (Bandura 1997; Pihie 2009). It is associated with entrepre-
neurial intention and is one of the core competencies considered in entrepreneurial
intention models (Ajzen 2002). Chen, Green, and Crick (1998) introduced self-
efficacy as a criterion to distinguish entrepreneurs from others who do not have an
interest in creating a new venture. Improving students’ self-efficacy is important
because it enables them to be committed to challenges for a long time and to develop
plans and strategies to achieve high entrepreneurial goals (Shane, Locke, and Collins
2003). For young people, entrepreneurial orientation (intention and behaviour)
is stronger for those who exhibit higher self-efficacy (Schmitt-Rodermund and
Vondracek 2002). Therefore, we formulate the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4 – Self-efficacy does not have any significant positive effect on
entrepreneurial intention.

2.6. Entrepreneurial attitude and entrepreneurial intention

Attitude is a psychological tendency in which an individual assesses a particular
phenomenon with some degree of favour or disfavour (Kinicki and Krietner 2009).
Attitude is important in any setting because a strong attitude would influence
a person’s behaviour (Zimmerman 2008). According to the model proposed by Ajzen
6 R. FRAGOSO ET AL.

and Fishbein (1980), the expectations and beliefs of an individual about an object or
event build a positive or negative attitude towards this object, which is translated into
intention and then into behaviour, including the creation of a new venture. Thus,
attitude predicts intentions, which in turn predict behaviour toward the creation of
a new venture.
Actions taken to start a new business are intentional and are determined by
attitudes, which are associated with multiple influences, such as personal traits and
situational influences (Ajzen 1991; Krueger, Reilly, and Carsrud 2000; Shirokova,
Osiyevskyy, and Bogatyreva 2016). In TPB, intention is also a function of attitude, i.e.
a favourable or unfavourable evaluation of the performance of an action (Ajzen 1991;
Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Zimmerman 2008). Douglas and Shepherd (2002) found
a relationship between entrepreneurial attitude and the intention to be self-employed.
They reported that entrepreneurial intention is stronger for those that have a more
positive entrepreneurial attitude. According to Van Gelderen et al. (2008), students’
intention toward entrepreneurship and their entrepreneurial behaviour are shaped by
an entrepreneurial attitude. First, the students develop an attitude towards the cre-
ation of a new venture and this attitude leads to the intention to start a new venture.
When this intention is strong enough, the students carry out the action of becoming
an entrepreneur. Based on these premises, the following hypothesis is formulated:
Hypothesis 5 – Entrepreneurial attitude does not have any significant positive effect on
entrepreneurial intention.
In addition to the factors mentioned above, the entrepreneurial intention can
be moderated by other variables. In this study, we also considered that differences
on entrepreneurial intention can be due to the effect of students’ gender, country
as a measure of environmental characteristics and family background.

2.7. Gender
Usually, the idea that men have stronger entrepreneurial intentions than women
is accepted (Zhao, Seibert, and Hills 2005). Despite some authors considering
that gender has little influence on entrepreneurship, other researchers argue that
some differences are still important, such as cognitive perspectives (Brush 1992),
psychological traits (Sexton and Bowman-Upton 1990), and driving forces towards
entrepreneurship (Maes, Leroy, and Sels 2014). In general, women tend to show lower
entrepreneurial attitudes, perceived behaviour control, and subjective norm compared
to men (Hauset al. 2013).

2.8. Environmental characteristics: country

The country of origin is closely associated with some environmental characteristics.
Several studies have found significant environmental antecedents of entrepreneurial inten-
tion, which include regional context, formal and informal country-level institutions and
access to capital (Dohse and Walter 2012). The level of economic development, financial
availability, and government regulations are among the factors that may influence entre-
preneurial intention (Shirokova, Osiyevskyy, and Bogatyreva 2016).
 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP 7

Independent
variables

Personality
traits
Dependent
variables
Training &
education
Entrepreneurial
intention
Social
recognition

Self Moderators
efficacy x Gender
x Country
x Family
Entrepren. background
Attitude

Figure 1. The conceptual framework.

2.9. Family background

Family background regards those people whose family members are involved in
entrepreneurial activities (Bae et al. 2014). Several empirical studies state the import-
ance of parental experience in children’s entrepreneurial intention (Van Auken, Fry,
and Stephens 2006). Parents who are business owners can influence their children’s
entrepreneurial career, since they can benefit from the family’s social capital, such as
contacts with customers and suppliers and business partners. Growing up in an entre-
preneurial environment makes the learning process of doing business easier and cre-
ates positive beliefs about an entrepreneurial career (Chlosta et al. 2012). It is also
usual for the family to assist their children by transferring some financial capital
(Dunn and Holtz-Eakin 2000).

2.10. Conceptual framework

Thus, based on the conceptual framework presented above, it is proposed that
the constraints of personality traits, self-efficacy, training, and entrepreneurial
education, social recognition and entrepreneurial attitude do not have any significant
influence on students’ entrepreneurial intention and in addition to that, students’
entrepreneurial intention is not different due to the effect of gender, country, or
background family (Figure 1).

3. Methodology
3.1. Data collection and sample
This study follows a deductive method and cross-sectional survey design (Zikmund
2005). The population addressed includes university students from the University of
8 R. FRAGOSO ET AL.

Evora in Portugal, and from the University of the Paran
a State (Unioeste), the
Federal University of the Paran
a State (UFPR), and the Pontifical Catholic University


of the Paran
a State (PUC/PR) in Brazil. The University of Evora is an old (450 years)
European university with almost 8000 students and the three Brazilian universities
have in total almost 70,000 students. They are representative of the Paran
a State and
their students represent some characteristics of university students in Brazil and
Latin America.
The sample comprises students from these four universities, the majority being
undergraduate students in economics and management. A total of 600 students were


planned, distributed among the University of Evora (26%), Unioeste (18%), PUC/PR
(23%), and UFPR (33%), i.e. 150 participants from Portugal and 450 from Brazil.
The sample’s constituents were chosen according to a convenience sampling tech-
nique since their selection depended on the researchers’ criteria, namely the probabil-
ity of getting a response. From 600 questionnaires planned, 422 were recovered. This
is a response rate of 70%, which can be considered good. In most cases, the missing
values represented a very low percentage of responses, often below 2% and were
randomly distributed.

3.2. Questionnaire development

In order to carry out the survey design, a questionnaire divided into seven blocks
of questions was developed. The first block addresses the socio-demographic
characteristics of participants (gender, age, socioeconomic status, country of origin,
family background, and knowledge of English language). The remaining six blocks of
questions addresses the outcome variable and the explanatory variables. The outcome
variable is represented by the construct of entrepreneurial intention and the explana-
tory variables comprising the constructs of personality traits, training and entrepre-
neurial education, social recognition, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial attitude.
The items used to measure the outcome and the explanatory variables were opera-
tionalized through attitude questions, which are very common in self-completion
questionnaires. They seek to find individual positioning on an issue and are very
useful to determine reactions towards a stimulus. Usually, the items were scored
using a Likert scale (1932). In its original version, the Likert scale is composed of five
categories (five points), but different scale sizes have been discussed. Some authors
argue that increasing the number of categories can improve the scale’s reliability
(Churchill and Peter 1984). However, Viswanathan, Sudman, and Johnson (2004)
found that 7 points is the maximum number of categories that human beings can dis-
tinguish and judge. Thus, all attitude questions were scored on a 7-point Likert scale.
The second block of questions is dedicated to the outcome variable associated with
the construct of entrepreneurial intention. This construct intends to measure how
determined the students are to create a new venture in the future and is composed of
three items, which were inspired by the study of Li~ n
an and Chen (2009).
The third block of questions is related to the construct of personality traits
and aims to describe behavioural patterns in individuals, which can be associated as
 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP 9

fostering entrepreneurial intention. For this construct, we chose 7 items (Li~ n
an and
Chen 2009; De Pillis and Reardon 2001).
The fourth block of questions addresses training and entrepreneurial education.
Several authors, for instance Zhao, Seibert, and Hills (2005), state that formal learning
from entrepreneurship courses is important for the intention of creating new
ventures. In this study, the construct of training and entrepreneurial education aims
to assess if the students take other specific courses in entrepreneurship in addition
to university studies and how important are they to entrepreneurial intention. It
comprises 7 items, which were adapted from Walter and Block (2016).
The fifth group of questions is associated with the construct of social recognition.
The degree to which entrepreneurship is perceived as proper and is accepted by
society as a suitable career can help to predict entrepreneurial intention (De Pillis
and Reardon 2001). Thus, this construct includes five items, which aims to assess how
family, friends, society, and the country’s culture approve an entrepreneurial career.
The sixth group of questions is dedicated to the construct of self-efficacy. This
construct aims to measure personal belief in skills and abilities that can be associated
with entrepreneurial intention. It is composed of 9 items inspired by the studies of
McGee et al. (2009), Bandura (1997) and Pihie (2009).
Finally, the seventh group of questions operationalizes the construct of
entrepreneurial attitude and is composed of four items, which assess how favourable
entrepreneurial activity is for the potential entrepreneur (Miranda, Chamorro-Mera,
and Rubio 2017).

3.3. Procedure and statistics

The questionnaire was applied during the academic year of 2015–2016 in the classroom
at the end of a lecture period. Before its application, all the items were assessed and
revised by other researchers of the Department of Management of the University of


Evora in order to validate its contents. After collecting the questionnaire, the answers
were coded and serially numbered for statistical analysis. A descriptive analysis of the
first block of questions was performed with the respondents’ characteristics.
The constructs associated with the outcome variable and explanatory variables
were built considering the mean of the respective items’ scores, which was also
the procedure followed by Adekiya and Ibrahim (2016). Then, the Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient was used to assess construct reliability. Eunseong and Seongkoonk (2015)
argue that Cronbach’s alpha is the best choice among all published reliability coeffi-
cients and recommends values greater than 0.7 for considering construct reliability.
Table 1 show that all constructs have a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient above 0.7. The
lowest coefficients were obtained for the constructs of personality traits (0.715) and
social recognition (0.722). The remaining constructs exhibit a Cronbach’s alpha well
above 0.7, namely between 0.820 and 0.935 in the case of entrepreneurial attitude.
Thus, we can deduce that the study constructs satisfy assumptions of reliability.
A descriptive analysis of the constructs was made to obtain better cognitive
access to data and a correlation analysis was performed to determine the degree of
association between them. To verify the hypotheses established in the conceptual
10 R. FRAGOSO ET AL.

Table 1. Reliability analysis of the questionnaire items.

Cronbach’s alpha No. of items
Entrepreneurial intention 0.898 4
Personality traits 0.715 7
Training and entrepreneurial education 0.820 7
Social recognition 0.722 5
Self-efficacy 0.883 9
Entrepreneurial attitude 0.935 4
Source: Field survey, 2015 and 2016.

framework, the relationship between the outcome and explanatory variables was
operationalized through the following linear regression model

Yj ¼ b0 þ b1 X1j þ b2 X2j þ b3 X3j þ b4 X4j þ b5 X5j þ ej

In this model, Yj is the outcome variable associated with entrepreneurial intention.

The remaining variables on the right-hand side of the equation are the explanatory
variables, which include: X1j – personality traits; X2j – training and entrepreneurial
education; X3j – social recognition; X4j – self-efficacy; and X5j – entrepreneurial
attitude. The estimated coefficients comprise the constant (b0) and the remaining
coefficients associated with the respective explanatory variables. The term ej is the
error associated with each j case. The differences in entrepreneurial intention due
the effects of gender, country of origin, and family background were assessed through
a Student t-test.

3.4. Features of respondents

The respondents are students of undergraduate and master’s courses in economics
and/or management (87.5%), with some other students from engineering, biology,
and tourism. The students were classified according to the following socio-demo-
graphic characteristics: gender, age, knowledge of the English language and socioeco-
nomic status. Regarding gender, 53% students are female, while 47% are male. The
average age is 23 years old with a standard deviation of 0.221 years, the maximum
and minimum age being 55 and 19 years old. More than a third of the students have
a good knowledge of English, which is the language of business nowadays.
Socioeconomic status was assessed on a scale of 7 levels, with 57% of students being
classified in level 3 and 78% in the lower three levels.

4. Results
4.1. Descriptive analysis of the major variables
To give a broad outlook of the study constructs, a descriptive analysis is presented in
Table 2. All constructs except training and entrepreneurial education have a positive
perception among the respondents. The construct of entrepreneurial intention
presents a favourable mean average score of 4.365. In this construct, the items have
very close scores, which range between 4.16 for the determination to create a new
venture in the future and 4.49 for the goal of being an entrepreneur.
 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP 11

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of items.

Variable/Item N Min. Max. Average Stand. Dev.
Entrepreneurial intention:
1. My personal goal is to be entrepreneur 405 1 7 4.49 1.743
2. I am determined to create a new venture in 405 1 7 4.16 1.860
the future
3. I am willing to do whatever it takes to be an 405 1 7 4.44 1.888
entrepreneur
Mean 405 – – 4.365 1.722
Personality traits:
1. I am an extrovert person that likes to talk, keep 413 1 7 5.16 1.610
contacts and be with other people
2. I am affable, pleasant and easy-going and I am 413 1 7 5.34 1.325
interested in other people
3. I am independent, I have my own ideas and I 413 1 7 5.23 1.262
do not copy ideas from others
4. My success depends more on my skills than on 413 1 7 5.14 1.338
the institutional environment
5. I am not afraid to take the financial risks in an 413 1 7 3.92 1.608
entrepreneurial activity
6. I am continually looking for new opportunities 413 1 7 4.87 1.466
7. I often look for activities that make me happy 413 1 7 5.71 1.328
Mean 413 – – 5.053 0.866
Training and entrepreneurial education:
1. In addition to university studies, I did specialised 322 1 7 3.11 1.711
courses in business
2. In addition to university studies, I did specialised 322 1 7 2.71 1.624
studies in leadership
3. In addition to university studies I did specialised 322 1 7 2.97 1.701
studies in entrepreneurship
4. My training and entrepreneurial education have 322 1 7 3.98 1.735
been useful in improving the knowledge in
entrepreneurship
5. My training and entrepreneurial education have 322 1 7 4.11 1.939
been useful in improving my entrepreneur-
ial intention
6. I personally know entrepreneurs in my family 322 1 7 4.33 1.666
7. I personally know entrepreneurs among 322 1 7 4.34 1.488
my friends
Mean .322 – – 3.650 1.179
Social recognition:
1. My family approves of my creating a new venture 407 1 7 5.20 1.580
2. My friends approve of my creating a new venture 407 1 7 5.54 1.333
3. Entrepreneurship is recognised in the culture of 407 1 7 4.26 1.554
my country
4. The role of the entrepreneur in the economy is 407 1 7 3.49 1.479
well recognised
5. My culture considers it more advantageous to be 407 1 7 4.04 1.330
an entrepreneur in comparison to other jobs
Mean 407 – – 4.507 1.061
Self-efficacy:
1. For me, it is easy to create and manage a 411 1 7 3.70 1.467
new venture
2. If I create a new venture I will probably 411 1 7 4.19 1.592
be successful
3. I have the capacity to recognise opportunities 411 1 7 5.04 1.456
4. I am creative 411 1 7 5.09 1.549
5. I have good skills for solving problems 411 1 7 5.48 1.258
6. I have good skills in leadership 411 1 7 5.29 1.403
7. I have good skills in communication 411 1 7 5.29 1.461
8. I have good skills for developing new products 411 1 7 4.57 1.539
and services
9. I have good skills for establishing professional 411 1 7 5.15 1.454
relationships
(continued)
12 R. FRAGOSO ET AL.

Table 2. Continued.
Variable/Item N Min. Max. Average Stand. Dev.
Mean 413 – – 4.867 1.050
Entrepreneurial attitude:
1. I want to get some experience before creating my 408 1 7 5.27 1.774
own business
2. Being an entrepreneur is attractive to me 408 1 7 4.90 1.840
3. If I have an opportunity and resources, I would 408 1 7 5.48 1.745
like to be an entrepreneur
4. Being an entrepreneur brings me great satisfaction 408 1 7 5.28 1.796
Mean 408 – – 5.232 1.565
Source: Field survey, 2015 and 2016.

Among the explanatory constructs, personality traits have a mean average score
of 5.053. In this case, five of the seven items have average scores above the mean
average. The construct of training and entrepreneurial education exhibits a negative
perception for students (3.650) since the mean average score is below the central
value (4) of the scale used (from 1 to 7). Four items out of seven have negative scores
(below 4), which are mainly related to the perception of students about specialized
courses they did in business, leadership, and entrepreneurship in addition to their
university studies, as well as their usefulness in improving knowledge of entrepre-
neurship. The mean average score of the social recognition construct is 4.507,
with the contribution of the items related to the approbation of family and friends to
create a new venture being relevant. The students’ perception of self-efficacy is
favourable with a mean average score of 4.857. In this case, the lowest scores are
obtained for the items related to the ease of creating and managing a new business
and to the probability of having success in a new business. Finally, the construct of
entrepreneurial attitude has the highest mean average score (5.232) among the study
constructs. Only the item associated with the attractiveness of being an entrepreneur
has a score below 5. The item with the highest score is associated with the desire to
be an entrepreneur if an opportunity and resources are available.
Table 3 presents the statistics on skewness and kurtosis. Large values of skewness
and kurtosis suggest non-normality and low values indicate movements toward nor-
mality. In this case, values of skewness and kurtosis are always within the range of -1 to
1, indicating that the distribution of scores from answers is neither tilted extremely to
right or left. Thus, we can conclude that the normality assumption is assured.

4.2. Correlation analysis of variables

In order to determine the degree and nature (direct or inverse) of the relationship
between variables, a Pearson’s correlation analysis was performed for the major
variables (Table 4). Usually, it is used to measure the relationships between numerical
variables on a Likert scale (Adekiya and Ibrahim 2016; Zikmund, 2005). The
entrepreneurial intention has a positive and significant relationship with all numeric
variables of the regression model since the correlation coefficients are positive and
the p-value is always less than 0.01 (p < .01). The constructs of personality traits,
self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial attitude show the strongest relationships with entre-
preneurial intention, with correlation coefficients of 0.589, 0.6, and 0.744, respectively.
 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP 13

Table 3. Statistics on skewness and kurtosis of major variables.

Skewness Kurtosis
N
Statistic Statistic Std. error Statistic Std. error
Entrepreneurial intention 405 0.299 0.120 0.096 0.240
Personality traits 413 0.035 0.136 0.516 0.271
Training and entrepreneurial education 322 0.408 0.121 0.496 0.241
Social recognition 407 0.731 0.120 0.969 0.240
Self-efficacy 411 1.044 0.121 0.409 0.241
Entrepreneurial attitude 408 0.242 0.121 0.783 0.242
Source: Field survey, 2015 and 2016.

Table 4. Correlation matrix of major variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Entrepreneurial intention 1
405
2. Personality traits 0.589 1
397 413
3. Training and entrepreneurial education 0.441 0.344 1
313 316 322
1. Social recognition 0.368 0.339 0.388 1
391 400 314 407
2. Self-efficacy 0.600 0.625 0.428 0.421 1
395 404 317 403 411
3. Entrepreneurial attitude 0.744 0.492 0.446 0.439 0.591 1
392 401 317 400 403 408

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
Source: Field survey, 2015 and 2016.

Despite the statistical significance at the 0.01 level, the relationships between entrepre-
neurial intention and the explanatory variables of social recognition and self-efficacy
are weaker, since the correlation coefficients are 0.441 and 0.368, i.e. less than 0.5.

4.3. Regression analysis

The regression model is used to determine the explanatory power of the independent
(explanatory) variables on the dependent (outcome) variable. Before exploring the
meaning of the regression coefficients, it is necessary to assure the major assumptions
of the linear regression model (collinearity, linearity, and homoscedasticity). These
assumptions are related to the outcome variable and explanatory variables and to the
relationship as a whole (Hair et al. 2010; Mar^ oco 2003; Wooldridge 2006).
Multicollinearity arises in a regression model when the explanatory variables
are strongly correlated. Under this condition, the analysis of the regression model
is extremely confusing and meaningless because it is difficult to identify, which
explanatory variables are really influencing the outcome variable. In optimal situa-
tions, the explanatory variables are not correlated and the model and their coefficients
can be used for inference and estimation. Multicollinearity can be found in several
ways. An intuitive way to find the presence of multicollinearity is the analysis of
bivariate correlations between the explanatory variables. However, the literature does
not suggest any correlation threshold that allows a collinearity situation to be
identified. Table 5 presents several collinearity statistics for the explanatory variables,
such as the Eigen value, condition index, tolerance and variance inflation factor
14 R. FRAGOSO ET AL.

Table 5. Collinearity statistics.

Eigen value Condition index Tolerance Variance inflation factor
Personality traits 0.462 4.135 0.547 1.829
Training and entrep. Education 0.299 5.138 0.747 1.338
Social recognition 0.191 6.430 0.726 1.378
Self-efficacy 0.061 11.352 0.485 2.063
Entrepreneurial attitude 0.040 14.117 0.610 1.639
Gender 0.029 16.618 0.980 1.021
Country 0.016 21.922 0.842 1.188
Family background 0.010 27.802 0.865 1.157
Source: Field survey, 2015 and 2016.

Figure 2. Normal P–P plot of regression standardised residuals.

(VIF). The tolerance values range between 0.547 and 0.980; these are well above the
threshold value of 0.1, below which the presence of a multicollinearity problem is
indicated (Cooper and Schindler 2003). The condition index, eigenvalue, and variance
inflation factor (VIF) also present values that allow us to conclude that the model has
no multicollinearity problems. The largest condition index is 27.8, which is less than
the threshold of 30 stated by Cooper and Schindler (2003). In addition, neither the
eigenvalue is close to zero nor is VIF greater than 5 (Mar^ oco 2003).
Homoscedasticity implies that the variance of the outcome variable is constant for
values of the explanatory variables. This means that the regression model only should
be used if the residuals have a normal distribution with average zero (cj = N(0,r)).
The normality of residuals can be assessed graphically and in Figure 2, the normal
p–p of regression standardizsed residuals is presented. In this figure, it is evident that
the residuals of the outcome variable are distributed along zero (0), meaning that the
homoscedasticity assumption is verified in the regression model. The graphical ana-
lysis of residuals also allows a conclusion about the linearity of the model since the
residuals do not exhibit any non-linear pattern. Thus, we can assume that the
assumptions of homoscedasticity and linearity are assured. However, it is important
 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP 15

Table 6. Model summary indicators.

R R2 Adjusted R2 Estimate standard error Durbin–Watson
0.778 0.606 0.595 1.062 1.887
Source: Field survey, 2015 and 2016.

Table 7. ANOVA statistics of regression.

Model Sum of square Df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 490.459 8 61.307 54.401 0.000a
Residual 318.930 283 1.127
Total 809.389 291
Outcome variable: Entrepreneurial intention.
a
Predictors: (Constant), Personality traits; Training and entrepreneurial education, Social recognition, Self-efficacy,
Entrepreneurial attitude, Gender, Country, Family background.
Source: Field survey, 2015 and 2016.

to assess the independence of the residuals (Cov(ej, el) = 0). In Table 6, the
Durbin–Watson indicator is presented, which can be used to test the independence
of residuals. The value of this indicator (1.887) is greater than its highest critical
value, and according to the decision rule (Mar^ oco 2003), the null hypothesis can be
rejected. Thus, we also conclude that the residuals are independent and hence there is
no autocorrelation among them.
Since the assumptions of multicollinearity, homoscedasticity, and linearity, as well
as the independence of residuals, were successfully tested, the linear regression model
can be used to explore the relationships between the explanatory and outcome varia-
bles. In addition to the Durbin–Watson indicator, Table 6 also presents the summary
indicators of R, R2, adjusted R2, and the standard deviation error of the regression.
The R2 and adjusted R2 values of 0.606 and 0.595 indicate that about 60% of
the variance in entrepreneurial intention is explained by the explanatory variables.
Thus, the regression model predicts entrepreneurial intention well, since the explana-
tory power of the regression is higher than 50%, which is the threshold considered
acceptable for applications in the areas of social sciences (Mar^ oco 2003). The results
of ANOVA regression analysis in Table 7 also allows corroboration of the good
prediction capacity of the regression model. The F statistic is 54.401 with 291 degrees
of freedom (8 from the regression and 283 from residuals) and the whole regression
is significant at the 0.01 level (p-value = .000 < .01). Therefore, the null hypothesis is
rejected and all b regression coefficients are different from zero.
The regression coefficients and the results of hypothesis testing are presented in
Table 8. These results show that personality traits have a significant and positive
effect on entrepreneurial intention at the 0.01 significance level with a t-statistic
of 3.802 and p = .000 (p < .01). This empirical evidence allows the rejection of
hypothesis 1, which states that personality traits are not positively related to
the entrepreneurial intention at any significance level. The standardized regression
coefficient is 0.192, meaning that an increase of 100% in the explanatory variable
results in an increase of 19.2% in the outcome variable. Therefore, extrovert, pleasant,
and independent people that take on financial risks and are continually looking for
new opportunities have stronger entrepreneurial intention.
The statistical tests show that despite the positive effect of training and entrepre-
neurial education on entrepreneurial intention, it is not significant since the t-statistic
16 R. FRAGOSO ET AL.

Table 8. Regression coefficients.

Non-standardised
coefficients Standardised
coefficients
b Std. Error Beta t Sig.
Constant 2.228 0.439 – 5.075 0.000
Personality traits 0.373 0.098 0.192 3.802 0.000
Training and entrepreneurial education 0.106 0.061 0.075 1.744 0.082
Social recognition 0.038 0.072 0.023 0.526 0.599
Self-efficacy 0.295 0.090 0.176 3.275 0.001
Entrepreneurial attitude 0.530 0.053 0.478 9.999 0.000
Gender 0.178 0.126 0.053 1.416 0.158
Country 0.106 0.159 0.027 0.670 0.503
Family background 0.022 0.143 0.006 0.153 0.879
Outcome variable: Entrepreneurial intention.
Source: Field survey, 2015 and 2016.

is 1.744 and p = .082 (p > .05). In this case, the hypothesis 2, which states that
training and entrepreneurial education do not have any significant positive effect
on entrepreneurial intention, is not rejected at a significance level of 0.05. However,
this hypothesis has empirical support to be rejected at a significance level of 10%.
Therefore, results indicate that specialized courses in entrepreneurship beyond
university studies are not important to developing entrepreneurial intention.
Social recognition also has no significant effect on entrepreneurial intention.
This relationship shows a t-statistic of 0.526 and p = .599 (p > .05), which leads to
hypothesis 3 not being rejected. This hypothesis says that social recognition does not
have any significant positive effect on entrepreneurial intention. These results allow
us to conclude that the acceptance of family and friends’ and recognition from others
are not important to developing entrepreneurial intention.
The model results show a positive and significant relationship between self-efficacy
and entrepreneurial intention at the 0.01 significance level, with a t-statistic of
9.999 and p = .001 (p < .01). Thus, there is strong empirical evidence for rejecting
hypothesis 4, which states that self-efficacy does not have a positive effect
on entrepreneurial intention. The value of the standardized beta coefficient allows us
to conclude that an increase of 100% in self-efficacy implies an increase of 17% in
entrepreneurial intention. In fact, these results suggest that students who have good
skills in entrepreneurship and business can develop entrepreneurial intention better.
The results reveal that entrepreneurial attitude has a great impact on entrepreneurial
intention at the 0.01 significance level, with a t-statistic of 9.999 and p = .000 (p <
.01). The value of the standardized beta coefficient is 0.478, effectively revealing the
strong effect that this variable has on the development of entrepreneurial intention.
An increase of 100% in the entrepreneurial attitude will lead to an increase in entrepre-
neurial intention of 47.8%. Thus, the empirical evidence allows the rejection of the
hypothesis 5, which proposes that entrepreneurial attitude does not have a significant
positive effect on entrepreneurial intention.

4.3. The effect of gender, country and family background

The effects of gender, country and family background on entrepreneurial intention
were also considered in our analysis via a Student t-test in order to compare the
 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP 17

mean of independent samples. Tables 9 and 10 present the descriptive statistics and
the independent samples test of entrepreneurial intention for the group variables of
gender, country, and family background.
The results suggest that on an average, men have higher entrepreneurial intention
than women, which is also less disperse since the standard deviation is 1.409 for
men and 1.679 for women. According to the Student t-test, the difference in
entrepreneurial intention between men and women is significant when equal varian-
ces are not assumed (p = .031 < .05). Therefore, entrepreneurial intention in men
can be considered stronger than in women.
For the country effect, the descriptive statistics suggest that Brazilian students have
higher entrepreneurial intention than Portuguese students since mean values are
5.301 and 5.040, respectively. The variance of entrepreneurial intention is also higher
in Brazilian students (1.588 against 1.489). However, the difference between means is
not significant, since with equal variance assumed (p = .676 > .05), the null hypoth-
esis of equal means is not rejected (p = .139 > .05). Thus, the empirical evidence
leads to the conclusion that entrepreneurial intention is not different between stu-
dents from Portugal and Brazil.
Finally, the family background effect, which was assessed considering if the
students have or do not have any family member who is an entrepreneur. The
descriptive statistics reveal that on an average, students with a family background
of entrepreneurship have higher and less disperse levels of entrepreneurial intention
than students without this family background. However, the independence samples
test shows that this difference is not significant at the 0.05 level, as with equal varian-
ces assumed (p = .281 > .05) the null hypothesis of equal means between samples
only can be rejected at the 0.1 significance level (p = .057 < .1). Therefore, entrepre-
neurial intention is different between students who have a family member entrepre-
neur and those who do not, only at a 0.1 significance level.

5. Discussion
This article aims to assess how personality traits, training, and entrepreneurial
education, social recognition, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial attitude influence
entrepreneurial intention. An analytical framework comprising five main hypotheses
that predict entrepreneurial intention was formulated. In addition, the significant
differences in entrepreneurial intention due to gender, country of origin, and family
background were assessed through a Student t-test. The analysis of data allowed four
predictors of entrepreneurial intention to be found, three at the 0.01 significance level
and one at the 0.1 significance level. The moderator effect of gender, country, and
family background on entrepreneurial intention is only significant for gender. In the
case of family background, the effect is significant only at the 0.1 level.
The first hypothesis proposes that there is no significant positive influence of per-
sonality traits on entrepreneurial intention. The results allowed this hypothesis to
be rejected at a statistically significant level, meaning that personality traits can be
considered as a predictor of entrepreneurial intention. Çolakoḡ u and G€ oz€
ulkara (2016)
demonstrated that the students who showed stronger entrepreneurial intention are
18 R. FRAGOSO ET AL.

more innovative, have a higher need for achievement and greater locus of control and
are more alert compared with students who do not have this intention.
The second hypothesis, which says that training and entrepreneurial education do
not have any significant positive influence on entrepreneurial intention is only
rejected at the 0.1 significance level. As in previous studies, a higher significance level
was expected. For instance, Adekiya and Ibrahim (2016) found that the entrepreneur-
ship training programmes have a significant effect on the tendency of students to
engage in future entrepreneurial intentions. This is consistent with Zhao, Seibert, and
Hills (2005) and Lee-Gosselin and Grise (1990). However, there are also studies that
did not find a strong relationship between formal education and entrepreneurship
(Peterman and Kennedy 2003). In our case, the students recognize the importance of
training on entrepreneurship, but many of them did not do any course or training in
this area.
The third hypothesis, which states that social recognition does not have any
significant positive effect on entrepreneurial intention, is not statistically significant,
and hence it was not rejected. This result seems contrary to previous studies, such as
Karayiannis (1993), who suggested that social and cultural approval by society can
contribute to entrepreneurial activities. However, the same author claimed that entre-
preneurial actions are facilitated by values and socially shared beliefs. This means that
social recognition only can be a predictor of entrepreneurial intention if it accepts
and valorizes an entrepreneurial career. However, this is not the case in Portuguese
and Brazilian societies, where entrepreneurship is accepted and promoted, but socially
it is neither recognized nor valorized. Therefore, in this context, social recognition is
not a predictor of entrepreneurial intention.
The fourth hypothesis, which predicts that self-efficacy does not have a significant
positive effect on entrepreneurial intention, was rejected. This is in accordance with
previous studies, which showed a positive relationship between high levels of self-
efficacy and entrepreneurial activity (Arenius and Minniti 2005; Holienka, Pilkov
a,
and Jancovicov
a 2016; Lukes et al. 2013; Wong and Lee 2015).
Similarly, the fifth hypothesis, which states that entrepreneurial attitude does not
have a significant positive effect on entrepreneurial intention, was rejected. This result
is consistent with theory and other previous studies. For instance, Ajzen (1991)
explained intentions through attitudes, perceived behavioural control and subjective
norms. Zimmerman (2008) concluded that attitude toward a behaviour predicts
intention, which in turn predicts a behaviour.
Finally, there are differences in entrepreneurial intention due to gender, country of
origin, and family background. The statistical evidence supports that men have higher
levels of entrepreneurial intention than women. This statement is aligned with the
perspectives of other authors such as Zhao, Seibert, and Hills (2005), who argued
that men have stronger entrepreneurial intention than women. Due to the lack of
empirical support in the statistical tests, the differences in entrepreneurial intention
due to the country effect are not significant at all and the differences due to family
background are only significant at the 0.1 level. Chlosta et al. (2012), argue that
children who have entrepreneur parents are more influenced to become entrepreneurs
in the future. The effect of the country of origin is associated with environmental and
 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP 19

Table 9. Descriptive statistics of entrepreneurial intention for group variables of gender, country
and family background.
Variables Group N Mean Standard deviation Std. Error Mean
Gender Female 217 5.077 1.679 0.114
Male 191 5.408 1.409 0.102
Country Brazil 301 5.301 1.588 0.092
Portugal 107 5.040 1.489 0.144
Family Background Without 133 5.019 1.646 0.143
With 273 5.334 1.522 0.092
Source: Field survey, 2015 and 2016.

Table 10. Independent samples test of entrepreneurial intention for group of variables of gender,
country, and family background.
Levene’s test for
equality
of variances t-test for equality of means
95% Confidence
interval of
Std. the difference
Sig. Mean error
F Sig. t gl (2-tailled) difference difference Lower Upper
Gender:
Equal variances 7.677 0.006 2.142 406 0.033 0.331 0.155 0.635 0.027
assumed
Equal variances 2.166 405.109 0.031 0.331 0.153 0.632 0.030
not assumed
Country:
Equal variances 0.175 0.676 1.483 406 0.139 0.261 0.176 0.085 0.607
assumed
Equal variances 1.530 197.725 0.128 0.261 0.171 0.075 0.597
not assumed
Family background:
Equal variances 1.167 0.281 1.907 404 0.057 0.316 .16538 0.641 0.010
assumed
Equal variances 1.857 244.337 0.065 0.316 .16990 0.650 0.019
not assumed
Source: Field survey, 2015 and 2016.

contextual features, which are generally antecedents of entrepreneurial intention

(Dohse and Walter 2012). However, in this study, compared students from Portugal
and Brazil, two brother countries with mainly similar cultural issues.

6. Conclusion
This article aimed to assess how personality traits, training, and entrepreneurial edu-
cation, social recognition, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial attitude influence entre-
preneurial intention, and if gender, country of origin, and family background provide
any additional effect among university students in Portugal and Brazil. A survey with
a cross-section design was carried out and the results allow the conclusion that per-
sonality traits, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial attitude are strong predictors of
entrepreneurial intention. Training and entrepreneurial education also has a positive
influence on entrepreneurial intention, but at a lower significance level. Men have
higher entrepreneurial intentions than women and students that have a family mem-
ber entrepreneur might more easily become entrepreneurs in the future. The article
20 R. FRAGOSO ET AL.

also leads to the conclusion that social recognition and the country of origin have an
insignificant effect on entrepreneurial intention, at least among Portuguese and
Brazilian university students.

6.1. Theoretical implications

From a theoretical viewpoint, the article contributes to two major research streams.
First, it contributes to a better understanding of the mechanisms that are behind
entrepreneurial intention among university students. We examined entrepreneurial
intention among university students considering the role of individual, cultural and
socio-economic factors. On the individual level, we focused on the predictor role of
personality traits, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial attitude, and on the moderator
effect of gender and family background. The cultural and socio-economic perspective
is taken into account through the predictor effect of social recognition, training, and
entrepreneurial education and the moderator effect of the country of origin. Scrutiny
of the results allows the conclusion that individual factors are the most important in
forming entrepreneurial intention among university students in Brazil and Portugal.
Secondly, the study also contributes to a better understanding of the role played
by the Theory of Planned Behaviour in the context of entrepreneurship. It provides
a detailed analysis of the determinant factors of entrepreneurial intention. However,
previous studies mainly focused on understanding the drivers of entrepreneurial
intention, in general, this study is focused on young entrepreneurship, namely
university students who are finishing their degrees.

Practical implications
From a practical viewpoint, the empirical results of this study can be interesting
for policy makers, since they can help to design new policy measures to promote an
entrepreneurial culture, as well as developing existing entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Another area of the public that can benefit from this study is higher education
institutions, for whom our results can help to improve their policies and contents
of entrepreneurship courses. The study corroborates the view that entrepreneurial
intention depends on drivers and moderators, the most important factors beyond
individual control. Thus, the article provides insights regarding the profile of students
with the highest entrepreneurial intentions, which can be used to design training
and entrepreneurial programmes that stimulate the relevant personality traits and
self-efficacy skills.

Limitations and suggestions for further research

The cross-sectional survey applied to a sample of university students from four
universities in Portugal and Brazil is an approach with some shortcomings that
should be taken into account in future researches. First, the sample was limited only
to university students from two countries with many cultural similarities. Second,
compared with other previous studies, the sample size seems to be limited. Perhaps,
 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP 21

a larger sample would have allowed more significant results, namely in the case of the
Portuguese university, where the sample consists of only 150 students. Another issue
that could help to better understand the findings of the study is the variety of family
firms, which is not made clear in the questionnaire used. Finally, despite the recognized
advantages of the cross-sectional survey design in this type of research, as all informa-
tion is accessed at the same time, there is no control for temporal issues related
to the predictors of entrepreneurial intention. This is particularly true in the case
of entrepreneurial attitude, where we do not know the importance of reverse causality
since entrepreneurial intention also can have a positive influence on attitude.
The findings of this study open a promising set of new researches. One is the def-
inition of entrepreneurial profiles among university students towards entrepreneurial
intention. Other promising line of research is related to the moderate effect that some
constructs might play in reinforcing an entrepreneurial intention, such as self-efficacy.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
The authors are pleased to acknowledge financial support from Fundaç~ao para a Ci^encia e a
Tecnologia [grant UID/ECO/04007/2013] and FEDER/COMPETE [POCI-01-0145-
FEDER-007659].

ORCID
Weimar Rocha-Junior http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3108-6690
Ant

onio Xavier http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8158-3732

References
Adekiya, A., and F. Ibrahim. 2016. “Entrepreneurship Intention among Students. The
Antecedent Role of Culture and Entrepreneurship Training and Development.” The
International Journal of Management Education 14 (2): 116–132.
Ajzen, I. 2002. “Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory
of Planned Behavior.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32: 1–20.
Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Journal of Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes 50 (2): 179–211.
Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior.
Englewood. Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Arenius, P., and M. Minniti. 2005. “Perceptual Variables and Nascent Entrepreneurship.”
Small Business Economics 24 (3): 233–247.
Bae, T. J., S. Qian, C. Miao, and J. O. Fiet. 2014. “The Relationship between Entrepreneurship
Education and Entrepreneurial Intentions: a Meta-analytic Review.” Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice 38 (2): 217–254.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.
Bates, T. 1995. “Self-employment Entry across Industry Groups.” Journal of Business Venturing
10 (2): 143–156.
22 R. FRAGOSO ET AL.

Baumol, W. 1968. “Entrepreneurship in Economic Theory.” American Economic Review,

Papers and Proceedings 58 (2): 64–71.
Bird, B. 1995. Toward a Theory of Entrepreneurial Competency. In Advances in
Entrepreneurship Firm Emergence and Growth, edited by J. Katz, 52–72. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Bird, B. J. 1988. “Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas: The Case for Intention.” Academy of
Management Review 13 (3): 442–453.
Boyd, N., and G. Vozikis. 1994. “The Influence of Self-Efficacy on the Development of
Entrepreneurial Intentions and Actions.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 19 (1):
63–77.
Bowen, D. D., and R. D. Hisrich. 1986. “The Female Entrepreneur: A Career Development
Perspective.” Academy of Management Review 11 (2): 393–407.
Brush, C. G. 1992. “Research on Women Business Owners: past Trends, a New Perspective
and Future Directions.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 (4): 5–30.
Chattopadhyay, R., and A. K. Ghosh. 2008. “Entrepreneurial Intention Model-Based
Quantitative Approach to Estimate Entrepreneurial Success.” Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship 21 (1): 1–21. doi:10.1080/08276331.2008.10593410
Chen, C., R. Green, and A. Crick. 1998. “The Self-efficacy Expectations and Occupational
Preferences of Females and Males.” Journal of Business Venturing 13 (4): 295–316.
Chlosta, S., H. Patzelt, S. B. Klein, and C. Dormann. 2012. “Parental Role Models and the
Decision to Become Self-employed: the Moderating Effect of Personality.” Small Business
Economics 38 (1): 121–138.
Churchill, G. A., and J. P. Peter. 1984. “Research Design Effects on the Reliability of Rating
Scales: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Marketing Research 21 (4): 360–375.
Çolakoḡ u, N., and I. G€ ulkara. 2016. “A Comparison Study on Personality Traits Based on
oz€
the Attitudes of University Students toward Entrepreneurship.” Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences 229: 122–40.1
Cooper, D. R., and P. S. Schindler. 2003. Business Research Methods. 8th Ed. Boston: McGraw-
Hill Irwin.
De Pillis, E. G., and K. K. Reardon. 2001. Culture, Personality, Role Models, Persuasion: What
Makes One Want to Become an Entrepreneur? In Proceedings of the eighteenth annual
entrepreneurship research conference. Babson Park, MA: Babson College
Dohse, D., and S. Walter. 2012. “Knowledge Context and Entrepreneurial Intentions among
Students.” Small Business Economics 39 (4): 877–895.
Douglas, E. J., and D. A. Shepherd. 2002. “Self-employment as a Career Choice: Attitudes,
Entrepreneurial Intentions, and Utility Maximization.” Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice
26 (3): 81–90.
Dyer, W. G. Jr. 1995. “Towards a Theory of Entrepreneurial Careers.” Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice 19 (2): 7–21.
Dunn, T., and D. Holtz-Eakin. 2000. “Human Capital and the Transition to Selfemployment:
Evidence from Intergenerational Links.” Journal of Labor Economics 18 (2): 282–305.
Eunseong, C., and K. Seongkoonk. 2015. “Cronbach’s Alpha: Well Known but Poorly
Understood.” Organizational Research Methods 18 (2): 207–230.
Glinskiene, R., and E. Petuskiene. 2011. “The Incentive of Entrepreneurship as the Force of
Country’s Economic Development.” Economics and Management 16: 179–188.
Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. United States: University of California Press.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis.
Pearson, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Hansemark, O. C. 1998. “The Effects of an Entrepreneurship Program on Need for
Achievement and Locus of Control of Reinforcement.” International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research 14 (1): 28–50.
Haus, I., H. Steinmetz, R. Isidor, and R. Kabst. 2013. “Gender Effects on Entrepreneurial
Intention: a Meta-analytical Structural Equation Model.” International Journal of Gender
and Entrepreneurship 5 (2): 130–156.
 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP 23

Hayton, J. C., and G. Cacciotti. 2014. Is there an entrepreneurial culture? A review of empir-
ical research. In ERC research paper No.16.
Holienka, M., A. Pilkov
a, and Z. Jancovicov
a. 2016. “Youth Entrepreneurship in Visegrad
Countries.” Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 4 (4): 105–121.
International Labour Organization. 2017. World Employment Social Outlook – Trends. Geneve:
IOL.
Karayiannis, A. D. 1993. Entrepreneurial Pluralism and Cultural Diversity. University of
Piraeus.
Kautonen, T., M. van Gelderen, and M. Fink. 2015. “Robustness of the Theory of Planned
Behavior in Predicting Entrepreneurial Intentions and Actions.” Entrepreneurship: Theory
and Practice 39 (3): 655–674.
Kinicki, A., and R. Krietner. 2009. The Nature of Attitudes, Organizational Behavior. NY: Mc
eGraw Hill Companies Inc, 10020.
Kimwolo, A. K., C. K. Saina, and G. J. Cheserek. 2012. “Effects of Credit Training Skills on
Sales Performance among Women Entrepreneurs in Elgeiyo Marakwet County, Kenya.”
Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences 3 (6): 945–950.
Koh, H. C. 1996. “Testing Hypotheses of Entrepreneurial Characteristics: A Study of Hong
Kong MBA Students.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 11 (3): 12–25.
Kolvereid, L. 2016. “Preference for Self-employment Prediction of New Business Start-up
Intentions and Efforts.” The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 17
(2): 100–109.
Kristiansen, S., and N. Indarti. 2004. “Entrepreneurial Intention among Indonesian and
Norwegian Students.” Journal of Enterprising Culture 12(1) : 55–78.
Krueger, N. F., M. D. Reilly, and A. L. Carsrud. 2000. “Competing Models of Entrepreneurial
Intentions.” Journal of Business Venturing 15 (5–6): 411–432.
Krueger, N. F., and D. V. Brazeal. 1994. “Entrepreneurial Potential and Potential
Entrepreneurs.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 18 (3): 91–104.
Krueger, N. F. 1993. “The Impact of Prior Entrepreneurial Exposure on Perceptions of New
Venture Feasibility and Desirability.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18 (1): 5–21.
Ladd, T., P. Hind, and J. Lawrence. 2018. “Entrepreneurial Orientation, Waynesian Self-
efficacy for Searching and Marshaling, and Intention across Gender and Region of Origin.”
Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship 1–21, doi:10.1080/08276331.2018.1459016.
Likert, R. 1932. “A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes.” Archives of Psychology 140:
44–53.
n
an, F., and Y. W. Chen. 2009. “Development and Cross-cultural Application of a Specific
Li~
Instrument to Measure Entrepreneurial Intentions.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33
(3): 593–617.
n
an, F., J. C. Rodr
ıguez, and J. M. Rueda-Cantuche. 2005. “Factors Affecting Entrepreneurial
Li~
Intention Levels.” 45th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Amsterdam,
23–27 August 2005.
Lee-Gosselin, H., and J. Grise. 1990. “Are Women Owner-managers Challenging Our
Definitions of Entrepreneurship? An in-depth Survey.” Journal of Business Ethics 9 (4–5):
423–433. (No.
Lukes, M., J. Zouhar, M. Jakl, and P. Ocko. 2013. “Faktory Ovlivnujici Vstup Do Podnikani:
Zacinajici Podnikatele v Ceske Republice.” Politick
a Ekonomie 61 (2): 229–247.
Maes, J., H. Leroy, and L. Sels. 2014. “Gender Differences in Entrepreneurial Intentions:
A TPB Multi-group Analysis at Factor and Indicator Level.” European Management Journal
32 (5): 784–794.
Miranda, F., A. Chamorro-Mera, and S. Rubio. 2017. “Entrepreneurship in Spanish
Universities: An Analysis of the Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intention.” European
Research on Management and Business Economics 23 (2): 216–233.
Moroco, J. 2003. An
alise Estat
ıstica com  Utilizaç~ao do SPSS. Lisboa: Ediç~
oes S
ılabo.
McClelland, D. C. 1961. The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
24 R. FRAGOSO ET AL.

McGee, J. E., M. Peterson, S. L. Mueller, and J. M. Sequeira. 2009. “Entrepreneurial Self-

Efficacy: Refining the Measure.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33 (4): 965–988.
Morris, M. H., J. W. Webb, J. Fu, and S. Singhal. 2013. “A Competency-Based Perspective on
Entrepreneurship Education: Conceptual and Empirical Insights.” Journal of Small Business
Management 51 (3): 352–369.
Mueller, S. L., and M.. Datoon. 2008. “Gender Role Orientation as a Determinant of
Entrepreneurial Self e Efficacy.” Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 13 (01): 3–20.
Peterman, N. E., and J. Kennedy. 2003. “Enterprise Education: Influencing Students’
Perceptions of Entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28 (2): 129–144.
Pihie, Z. 2009. “Entrepreneurship as a Career Choice: An Analysis of Entrepreneurial Self-
Efficacy and Intention of University Students.” European Journal of Social Sciences 9 (2):
338–349.
Premand, P., S. Brodmann, R. Almeida, R. Grun, and M. Barouni. 2016. “Entrepreneurship
Education and Entry into Self-Employment among University Graduates.” World
Development 77: 311–327.
Reardon, K. K. 1991. Persuasion in Practice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Romer, P. 1994. “The Origins of Indigenous Growth.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (1):
3–22.
Salami, S. O. 2007. “Influence of Culture, family and among Female Students in Tertiary
Institutions.” Journal of Women in Management Review 22 (8): 650–665.
S
anchez, J. C. 2013. “The Impact of an Entrepreneurship Education Program on
Entrepreneurial Competencies and Intention.” Journal of Small Business Management 51 (3):
447–465.
Shane, S.,. E. A. Locke, and C. J. Collins. 2003. “Entrepreneurial Motivation.” Human Resource
Management Review 13 (2): 257–279.
Shapero, A., and L. Sokol. 1982. The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In Encyclopedia of
Entrepreneurship, edited by C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, and K. H. Vesper , 72–89. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Schmitt-Rodermund, E., and F. W. Vondracek. 2002. “Occupational Dreams, choices and
Aspirations: Adolescents’ Entrepreneurial Prospects and Orientations.” Journal of
Adolescence 25 (1): 65–78.
Schumpeter, J. A. 1912. The Theory of the Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits,
Capital, Credit, Interest and Business Cycle. Cambridge: Harvard Press.
Sexton, D. L., and N. Bowman-Upton. 1990. “Female and Male Entrepreneurs: Psychological
Characteristics and Their Role in Gender-related Discrimination.” Journal of Business
Venturing 5 (1): 29–36.
Shirokova, G., O. Osiyevskyy, and K. Bogatyreva. 2016. “Exploring the Intention – behaviour
Link in Student Entrepreneurship: Moderating Effects of Individual and Environmental
Characteristics.” European Management Journal 34 (4): 386–399.
Teoh, H. Y., and S. L. Foo. 1997. “Moderating Effects of Tolerance for Ambiguity and Risk
Taking Propensity on the Role Conflict-perceived Performance Relationship: Evidence from
Singaporean Entrepreneurs.” Journal of Business Venturing 12: 67–81.
Van Auken, H., F. L. Fry, and P. Stephens. 2006. “The Influence of Role Models on
Entrepreneurial Intentions.” Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 11 (02): 157–167.
Van Gelderen, M., M. Brand, M. van Praag, W. Bodewes, E. Poutsma, and A. van Gils. 2008.
“Explaining entrepreneurial intentions by Means of the Theory of Planned Behaviour.”
Career Development International 13 (6): 538–559.
Viswanathan, M., S. Sudman, and M. Johnson. 2004. “Maximum versus Meaningful
Discrimination in Scale Response: Implications for Validity of Measurement of Consumer
Perception about Products.” Journal of Business Research 57: 8–24.
Walter, S. G., K. P. Parboteeah, and A. Walter. 2013. “University Departments and Self-
employment Intentions of Business Students: A Cross-level Analysis.” Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 37 (2): 175–200.
 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP 25

Walter, S. G., and J. H. Block. 2016. “Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education: An

Institutional Perspective.” Journal of Business Venturing 31 (2): 216–233.
Wilson, F., J. Kickul, and D. Marlino. 2007. “Gender, entrepreneurial Self-efficacy, and
Entrepreneurial Career Intentions: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education.”
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31 (3): 387–401.
Wooldridge, J. 2006. Introduç~ao a Econometria. S~ao Paulo: Thomson Learning Inc.
Wong, P. K., and L. Lee. 2005. “Antecedents for Entrepreneurial Propensity in Singapore.”
NUS Entrepreneurship Centre working papers No. WP2005-12. Singapore: NUS.1
Zahra, S. A., and G. George. 2002. “Absorptive Capacity: A Review Re-conceptualization and
Extension.” Academy of Management Review 27 (2): 185–202.
Zhao, H., and S. E. Seibert. 2006. “The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Entrepreneurial
Status: A Meta-analytical Review.” Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (2): 259–271.
Zhao, H., S. Seibert, and G. Hills. 2005. “The Mediating Role of Self-efficacy in the
Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions.” Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (6):
1265–1272.
Zikmund, W. G. 2005. Sampling Designs and Sampling Procedures: Business Research Methods.
Ohio: South Western.
Zimmerman, R. D. 2008. “Understanding the Impact of Personality Traits on Individual’s
Turnover Decision. A Metal Analytical Model.” Journal of Personnel Psychology 61 (2):
309–348.

View publication stats