August 14, 2009 14:4 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00124

August 14, 2009 14:4 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00124
Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship

Vol. 14, No. 2 (2009) 105–119
© World Scientific Publishing Company
AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF GENDER AND SELF-EFFICACY

IN DEVELOPING FEMALE ENTREPRENEURIAL
INTEREST AND BEHAVIOR
J. Dev. Entrepreneurship 2009.14:105-119. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
FIONA WILSON
by UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA on 01/08/15. For personal use only.
Simmons School of Management

Boston, MA 02215, USA
JILL KICKUL
Stewart Satter Program in Social Entrepreneurship
Berkley Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
NYU Stern School of Business, 44 W 4th Street
Suite 7-97, New York, NY 10012, USA
jkickul@stern.nyu.edu
DEBORAH MARLINO
Simmons School of Management
Boston, MA 02215, USA
SAULO D. BARBOSA
EMLYON Business School, Lyon, France
MARK D. GRIFFITHS
Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA
Received April 2008

Revised February 2009
To capture the talents of the next generations in new venture creation and to maintain the levels of
entrepreneurship in our society, a vibrant “pipeline” of potential entrepreneurs is required. Previous
research has shown this pipeline may still be weak, especially for women entrepreneurs. This paper
explores the relationships between gender, entrepreneurial education, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy
on entrepreneurial intentions and behaviors using the data from different sample groups in three different
stages of education and career development: middle and high school students, MBA students, and early
career adults. The results of our analyses underscore the importance of entrepreneurial self-efficacy
as a key component in understanding entrepreneurship interest and actual career choice. The positive
influence of entrepreneurship education on self-efficacy proved stronger for women than for men.
Implications for entrepreneurship educators as well as study limitations and areas for future research
are discussed.
Keywords: Entrepreneurship; self-efficacy; education; intentions; gender.
105
106 F. Wilson et al.
1. Introduction
It is difficult to overstate the importance of entrepreneurs in the labor force and to wealth
creation. According to the US Small Business Administration, small firms generated up
to 80 percent of the net new job growth over the past decade, represent 99.7 percent of
all employer firms, and employ roughly half of the private sector. Approximately 650,000
small businesses are started every year, of which 28 percent are owned by women.
To capture the talents of women in future new venture creation, a vibrant “pipeline”
of potential entrepreneurs is required. However, previous research has shown that this
pipeline may be weak. This statement may seem unlikely given what we hear about women’s
entrepreneurship. Certainly, the popular press has well documented the increase in the num-
ber of women starting new businesses in America. According to the Center for Women’s
Business Research, majority women-owned firms have continued to grow at around two
times the rate of all firms (42 percent vs. 24 percent) during the last two decades. Almost
as impressive as the statistics documenting the rise of women-owned businesses are the
host of reasons why women start businesses. Women have been reported to have a myriad
of motives for becoming entrepreneurs, including both the so-called “push” motivations
such as economic necessity, job security or job discrimination, as well as the so-called
“pull” motivations such as the desire for balance between work and personal responsibil-
ities, greater challenge and achievement, greater independence and autonomy, greater job
satisfaction or personal fulfillment, better control, greater recognition or equality, and/or
simply the desire to be financially successful (Gatewood et al., 2003). Entrepreneurship
can, and does, then seem to offer a compelling career opportunity for many women.
Nonetheless, despite the gains made by women in recent years, and despite the attrac-
tiveness of the entrepreneurial career path to many women, adult men in the US were shown
to be twice as likely as adult women to be in the process of starting a new business (Reynolds
et al., 2002). Further, research on the career interests of teens, the potential entrepreneurs
of the next generation, has revealed significantly less interest among girls than boys in
entrepreneurial careers (Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998; Marlino and Wilson, 2003; Wilson
et al., 2004).
What accounts for this seemingly enduring gender disparity in entrepreneurial careers?
Can educators and policy makers reduce possible barriers for women starting new busi-
nesses? Although many potential factors may contribute including access to capital, pre-
vious research has shown that entrepreneurial self-efficacy — the self-confidence that one
has the necessary skills to succeed in creating a business — plays an important positive role
in determining level of interest in pursuing an entrepreneurial career among young people
(Kickul et al., 2004). In the same study, it was also found that entrepreneurial self-efficacy
had a stronger effect on intentions for teenage girls than for boys suggesting the perception
that they are able to succeed as entrepreneurs might impact women more than men when
considering career options.
This paper explores the strength of the female entrepreneurship pipeline. Specifically,
we examine the extent to which the gender gap in entrepreneurial intentions existing in
adolescents is also present in young adults between 25 and 34 years old, the age range most
Role of Gender and Self-Efficacy in Developing Female Entrepreneurial Interest and Behavior 107
active in terms of entrepreneurial activity (Reynolds et al., 2002). In addition, the role of self-
efficacy in generating entrepreneurial intentions and actual entrepreneurial behaviors among
women and men beyond the teenage years is explored. Previous research suggests adult
women are more likely to shun entrepreneurial endeavors and to limit their ultimate career
choices because of a lack of confidence in relevant skills (Chen et al., 1998; Bandura, 1992).
Increasing entrepreneurial self-efficacy is therefore likely to be an important mechanism for
improving both the intentions and participation rates of women in entrepreneurial activities.
Because one potential method of raising entrepreneurial self-efficacy is through training,
the role of entrepreneurial education is also examined.
Using data collected in three parallel studies across different age groups, we are able to
examine these issues at three stages in the educational and career pipeline. First, we examine
the role of gender on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intentionality at an early stage (middle
and high school), as well as during a later experiential and educational development stage
(the MBA level). We also examine the role of gender on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and
actual entrepreneurial behavior among individuals in the early stages of their careers (6–10
years post-MBA education). Finally, we explore the influence of entrepreneurship education
on the development of self-efficacy, and the effects of gender on these relationships.
2. Theoretical Background–Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is based on an individual’s perceptions of their own skills/abilities (Bandura,
1989, 1997). Evidence suggests that those with high self-efficacy for a certain task are
more likely to pursue and persist in that task (Bandura, 1997). In a study that investigated
a structural model of socio-cognitive influences — including self-efficacy — on the career
aspirations of children, self-efficacy was shown to have the strongest direct effect on occu-
pational self-efficacy and on career preference (Bandura et al., 2001). In examining gender
differences, the empirical evidence suggests that women are likely to have lower expec-
tations for success in a wide range of occupations (Eccles, 1994), particularly in careers
that have been seen in the past as “non-traditional” for women (Scherer et al., 1990; Ban-
dura et al., 2001; Betz and Hackett, 1981). Studies of US teens have shown that females
have lower confidence levels in areas related to mathematics, finance, decision making, and
problem solving (Marlino and Wilson, 2003). There is also significant evidence to sug-
gest women limit their career aspirations and interests because they believe they lack the
necessary capabilities (Bandura, 1992). Specifically, the effects of self-efficacy on career
choice have been studied with respect to the pursuit of entrepreneurial activity (e.g., Mark-
mam et al., 2002). The research has shown compelling and consistent patterns, indicating
individuals with higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy have higher entrepreneurial intentions
(Chen et al., 1998; DeNoble et al., 1999; Jung et al., 2001; Krueger et al., 2000; Scott and
Twomey, 1988; Segal et al., 2002; Wang et al., 2002).
However, there has been little research that examines the interactions between
entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurial intentions, and gender. Preliminary evidence
indicates females have both lower entrepreneurial self-efficacy and lower entrepreneurial
intentions (Chen et al., 1998; Chowdhury and Endres, 2005; Gatewood et al., 2002;
Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998). Further, females may focus more on perceived skill defi-
ciencies in the entrepreneurial realm. Research by Kickul et al. (2004) demonstrated a
direct relationship between self-efficacy and intentions in girls, and highlighted the sig-
nificance of girls’ self-efficacy on their entrepreneurial aspirations. Additionally, a global
study of adult women’s entrepreneurial activity has shown the importance of self-efficacy
as a factor in influencing actual entrepreneurial participation, an effect independent of other
contextual variables (Minniti et al., 2005).
This literature focusing on gender differences in self-efficacy and career interest led to
our first set of hypotheses.
H1a: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions are lower in female stu-
dents than male students at both middle/high school and MBA stages.
H1b: The effects of gender on entrepreneurial intentions of students are mediated by

entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
2.1. Self-efficacy and actual behavior

Although the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intentions is of inter-
est, we ultimately care about actual behavior. That is, does a relationship exist between
entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurial career preference, and ultimate career choice?
Longitudinal research is needed in this area and early efforts are underway. However,
this research is not specifically related to entrepreneurship (Bandura et al., 2001). In the
interim, cross-sectional research can give us some important insights regarding the connec-
tion between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and behavior.
Research conducted using a sample of founders and non-founders of businesses showed
that individuals who have started businesses have higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy. For
example, Markmam et al. (2002) found evidence that, in high technology industries, inven-
tors with higher self-efficacy choose to exploit their inventions by launching new busi-
nesses, whereas inventors with lower self-efficacy prefer to work for established companies.
Interestingly, another study has shown that among the group of practicing entrepreneurs
(but not among the group of non-entrepreneurs), gender does not have a significant effect
on self-efficacy. This suggests women who choose an entrepreneurial path have higher
entrepreneurial self-efficacy than those who do not (Chen et al., 1998). Similarly, Shaver
et al. (2001) found that nascent women entrepreneurs did not have significantly differ-
ent expectations about entrepreneurial success than their male counterparts. However, in
both studies it is unclear if these similarities in self-efficacy precede or result from actual
entrepreneurial experiences. That is, are women with higher self-efficacy in the relevant
areas more likely to choose entrepreneurship, or does their self-efficacy build after embark-
ing on their careers? In a younger age cohort, Wilson et al. (2004) found that adolescent girls
and boys interested in entrepreneurship did not have significantly different entrepreneurial
self-efficacy. In fact, girls with high levels of interest in entrepreneurship had higher self-
efficacy than boys interested in the same career path, suggesting that high entrepreneurial
self-efficacy may, in part, be because of antecedent factors, which could include both edu-
cational experiences and factors such as parental occupation.
The above literature led to our second set of hypotheses.
H2a: For early career adults, both entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial behavior
are lower in females than in males.
H2b: For early career adults, the effects of gender on entrepreneurial behavior are mediated
by the effects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
2.2. Education and entrepreneurial self-efficacy

The role of education may function as an important role in self-efficacy. Early work by
Bandura (1992) suggests the self-confidence to perform specific tasks successfully can come
from “mastery experiences”. These experiences, or more simply put, “learning by doing”,
seem to be crucial in influencing self-efficacy in future related tasks (Cox et al., 2002). Pro-
viding opportunities to conduct feasibility studies/business plans as well as the participation
in the interaction of a real business start-up, launch, and growth can play an important role
in developing self-efficacy. These experiences may assist individuals in forming judgments
of their own capabilities by comparing themselves to others (Cox et al., 2002). However,
extensive work attempting to examine the effectiveness of formal entrepreneurship edu-
cation has been inconclusive (Cox et al., 2002). This may be because of methodological
issues associated with the lack of clear positive connections between entrepreneurship edu-
cation and outcomes. That is, the outcome measures previously used, including student
satisfaction and performance, may be insufficient indicators of educational effectiveness
(Cox et al., 2002). In fact, self-efficacy is rarely used as an outcome measure. Although a
limited number of studies have examined the effectiveness of entrepreneurship programs
in enhancing self-efficacy (Chowdhury and Endres, 2005; Peterman, 2000), these studies
have been limited in scope and are inconclusive in their findings. For example, using the
theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) to assess the effectiveness of entrepreneurship
programs, Fayolle et al. (2005) found such educational programs had a positive impact on
individuals’ perceived behavioral control, a variable related to self-efficacy (Krueger and
Carsrud, 1993), and a limited effect on entrepreneurial intentions. In a study of 180 women
entrepreneurs, comparisons were made between those who participated in a training inter-
vention program with those who did not. This study showed that the former presented a
significant increase in the confidence in their entrepreneurial abilities, as well as improve-
ments in terms of knowledge, productivity, and profit (Botha et al., 2006). Finally, a recent
but limited study examining the role of education on entrepreneurial self-efficacy suggested
a gender interaction, with education playing a more important role for females (Chowdhury
and Endres, 2005). These findings and previous research on the effects of entrepreneurship
education led to our third and fourth hypotheses.
H3: Entrepreneurship education positively affects entrepreneurial self-efficacy at both the

MBA and early career stages.
Hypotheses 1a and 1b
Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial
Gender Intentions
Self-Efficacy
Hypotheses 2a and b
Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurial
Education Behavior
Hypothesis 3
Fig. 1. Full model predicting actual entrepreneurial behavior.
H4a: Entrepreneurship education positively affects actual entrepreneurial behavior at the

early career stage.
H4b: The effects of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial behavior at the early
career stage are mediated by entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
3. Methodology
To test our hypotheses, we analyzed data gathered in three parallel studies conducted between
2002 and 2004 with three discrete age groups representing various points in the educational
and career life cycle. We used a “multiple-models” approach in our analyses (Baron and
Kenny, 1986) across all three data sets to examine the direct and indirect relationships
between gender, entrepreneurial education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial
intentions and behavior.
3.1. Participants
Our hypotheses were tested using results from three separate but parallel studies. In the
middle/high school study, over 5,000 students in four geographic states or regions (New
England, Illinois, California and Texas/Florida/Tennessee) answered questions on their atti-
tudes, skills, career perceptions and aspirations. The sampling unit was the individual school,
and 29 middle and high schools agreed to participate. Participating school types included
both public and private, coed and single sex, and urban, suburban and rural. Each participat-
ing school administered an eight-page written survey to boys and girls in Grades 7 through
from 12 April to June 2002. To ensure statistically valid sample numbers from each of
several subgroups, quota sampling was used. A total of 4,292 surveys were analyzed, 3,028
from female students and 1,264 from male students (males were underrepresented in the
analysis because of the research focus on teenage girls). The sampling error at 95 percent
confidence for this sample was ±1.5 percent.
In the MBA study, the sampling unit was the individual business school. Seven
schools agreed to participate representing a convenience sample of business schools in
the United States and included Wharton/University of Pennsylvania, Tuck/Dartmouth Col-
lege, Darden/University of Virginia, University of Michigan, Goizueta/Emory University,
McCombs/University of Texas at Austin, and Babcock/Wake Forest University. As with
the Middle/High School study, a non-probabilistic convenience sample was used. Students
from the participating schools were contacted by email and invited to complete the survey
online, and data collection was conducted between November 2003 and April 2004. A total
of 1,132 participants completed the survey and a total of 933 surveys were analyzed, a
response rate of 18.2 percent. Responses from 410 women and 523 men were included in
the analysis. However, responses from international students were omitted from the analysis
to make comparisons with the US-based teen sample more valid. The sampling error at 95
percent confidence for this sample was ±3.2 percent.
For the early career study, five of the seven business schools that participated in the MBA
study agreed to participate: the University of Michigan, Darden, Goizueta, McCombs, and
Babcock. Alumni from these business schools who had received their degrees between six
and 10 years earlier were contacted using the same methods described above. Fieldwork
was carried out between January 2003 and May 2004. A total of 832 participants completed
the survey of which 807 surveys (306 women and 501 men) were analyzed, for a response
rate of 12.7 percent. The sampling error at 95 percent confidence for this sample was ±3.4
percent.
3.2. Measures
In all three studies, entrepreneurial self-efficacy was measured by a six-item self-assessment
scale. The items on this scale represent competencies related to business/entrepreneurial
success, and were developed based on expert interviews with business leaders (Marlino
and Wilson, 2003). The original Marlino and Wilson (2003) 12-item scale was reduced to
six items for the purposes of these analyses because of variation in appropriateness across
samples. In each sample, respondents were asked to compare themselves in these skill
areas to relevant peers. Middle/high school respondents were asked to compare themselves
to the “other kids in their grade”; MBA respondents were asked to compare themselves
to “others in the business world”; and early career respondents were asked to compare
themselves to “peers who are at a similar career stage”. The items included “being able to
solve problems”, “making decisions”, “managing money”, “being creative”, “getting people
to agree with you”, and “being a leader”. Respondents in all samples rated their self-efficacy
level on a five-point Likert scale (1 = a lot worse; 5 = much better). Internal reliability was
0.79 (middle/high school), 0.82 (MBA), and 0.83 (early career adults). Self-ratings in each
area were summed to create an overall entrepreneurship self-efficacy measure.
For both the middle/high school and MBA samples, entrepreneurial intentions were mea-
sured by asking participants how interested they were in starting/owning their own business.
Respondents again rated their interest level on a five-point Likert scale (1 = definitely not
interested; 5 = extremely interested). For the early career sample, where participants were
already engaged in employment, they selected which option best described their current (or
most recent) employer. Entrepreneurial behavior (actual business formation) was measured
by those who selected the “self-employed/own business” option.
Entrepreneurial education was measured by asking participants in the MBA study to
select the concentration of their program. Respondents were allowed to select up to two
from a list of commonly available MBA concentrations including “entrepreneurial”. Using
the same list of possible concentrations, respondents in the early career study were asked to
indicate their concentration during their MBA program. Multiple responses were allowed.
4. Results
To test the first two sets of hypotheses, we employed the mediated regression approach
recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). For our first set of hypotheses, we examined
the role gender plays in entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions for (a)
middle and high school students and (b) MBA students. First, we found gender had a strong
effect in both groups on the measures of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial
intentions (see Table 1). Males in both samples had higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy and
higher entrepreneurial intentions than females did. That is, for our middle and high school
students, the means for self-efficacy were 3.69 (SD = 0.61) for males and 3.61 for females
(SD = 0.67). Additionally, the means for intentions were 3.60 (SD = 1.27) for males and
3.15 for females (SD = 1.32). For our MBA sample, the means for self-efficacy were 2.65
(SD = 0.23) for males and 2.60 for females (SD = 0.26). Additionally, the means for
intentions were 2.41 (SD = 0.82) for males and 2.21 for females (SD = 0.74).
We also found the effects of gender on entrepreneurial intentions were partially mediated
by entrepreneurial self-efficacy. That is, when self-efficacy was considered, the effects of
gender on entrepreneurial intentions, while still significant, were reduced [compare Equa-
tions (2) and (3) in Table 1].
Our second set of hypotheses investigated the role of gender on entrepreneurial self-
efficacy and entrepreneurial behavior (actual business formation) for early career adults.
Again, following the mediated regression approach, we found the same gender differences
Table 1. Results of regression analyses — Standardized regression

weights (beta weights).
Hypotheses H1a and H1b

Dependent Variable (DV) = Entrepreneurial Intentions
Equation Relationships Middle/HS MBA
(1) Gender → Self Efficacy 0.056 0.171
(2) Gender → DV 0.148 0.159
(3) Gender → DV 0.137 0.121
Self-Efficacy → DV 0.119 0.211
R2 0.04 0.07
F 22.34 23.96
BOLD = Significant at the 0.05 level.
on entrepreneurial self-efficacy, but not on entrepreneurial behavior (that is, there was no
discernable difference across gender in terms of actual business formation; see Table 2).
We did however find a significant relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and
entrepreneurial behavior, suggesting at this stage in career development, self-efficacy plays
a more important role than gender. This raises the important and interesting question of
whether entrepreneurial self-efficacy precedes or follows actual entrepreneurial behavior.
To examine our third hypothesis, we used multiple regression to investigate the interac-
tions between entrepreneurial education and gender on entrepreneurial self-efficacy among
(a) MBA students, and (b) early career adults. In both samples, we found that the interaction
of gender and education had a significant influence on self-efficacy (see Table 3). That is,
results revealed females who had received entrepreneurship education were more likely to
have higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy than women who had not. This was the case for
both the MBA students and the early-career stage women.
Last, to test our final set of hypotheses, we examined the relationships between
entrepreneurial education, gender, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy on the entrepreneurial
behavior for early career adults using a moderated mediated regression approach (Baron and
Kenny, 1986). Gender by itself was not significant, nor was education alone. As before, the
interaction of gender and education was significant for our dependent variable, in this case,
actual entrepreneurial behavior. However, when self-efficacy was entered as a mediating
Table 2. Results of regression analyses — Standardized regression weights

(beta weights).
4.1.1. 4.1.2. Hypotheses H2a and H2b

Dependent Variable (DV) = Actual Entrepreneurial Behavior
Equation Relationships Early Career
(1) Gender → Self Efficacy 0.063
(2) Gender → DV 0.028
(3) Gender →DV 0.019
Self-Efficacy → DV 0.138
R2 0.01
F 2.79
Table 3. Results of regression analyses — Standardized regression weights

(beta weights).
4.2. Hypothesis 3
Dependent Variable (DV) = Self-Efficacy
Equation Relationships MBA Early Career
(1) Gender 0.174 0.061
Entrepreneurship Education 0.125 0.042
(2) Interaction of Gender by Education 0.218 0.221
R2 0.07 0.01
F 24.56 2.43
Table 4. Results of regression analyses — Standardized regression

weights (beta weights).
Hypotheses H4a and H4b

Dependent Variable (DV) = Actual Entrepreneurial Behavior
Equation Relationships Early Career
(1) Gender 0.025
Entrepreneurship Education 0.062
(2) Interaction of Gender by Education 0.091
(no longer significant in Step 3)
(3) Mediation: Self-Efficacy 0.121
R2 0.01
F 2.22
variable, the effects of the interaction disappeared. That is, the significant effects of self-
efficacy on behavior swamped the effects of gender and education (see Table 4). We conclude
that although entrepreneurship education significantly affects entrepreneurial behaviors,
the effects “work” through the intervening influence of self-efficacy. This again raises the
question of whether entrepreneurial self-efficacy precedes or follows actual entrepreneurial
behavior.
5. Discussion and Implications

Overall, our analysis supported earlier research suggesting an individual’s perceived abil-
ities in skill areas seen as related to entrepreneurial success play an important role in
shaping entrepreneurial career interest. In addition, gender effects on both perceived
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial career intentions were found at two criti-
cal educational points. As hypothesized, our results indicate significant gender differences
between males and females in terms of self-efficacy and interest in entrepreneurship at
both middle/high school and in MBA programs (i.e., females have significantly lower self-
efficacy and interest). However, our research supports the importance of mastery expe-
riences in increasing self-efficacy (Bandura, 1992), further suggesting targeted education
and training in entrepreneurship may play a role in the development of entrepreneurial
self-efficacy and hence, entrepreneurial intentions. Our research contributes to a new under-
standing of the important role focused education can play for women by demonstrating
that entrepreneurship education is more significant for MBA women than for MBA men
on both entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions. Our results show spe-
cific entrepreneurship education (through a concentration in entrepreneurship) is positively
related to both self-efficacy and to interest in an entrepreneurial career path among MBA
students.
Our findings among early career adults demonstrate a significant relationship between
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and actual entrepreneurial behavior as well (i.e., those with
higher self-efficacy are more likely to have started their own business after graduation). How-
ever, at this early career stage we find that although gender is again related to self-efficacy,
Table 5. Post hoc results MBA students intentions and early career adults realized
entrepreneurial activity by MBA major.
No Intentions for Positive Intentions

Entrepreneurship for Entrepreneurship
MBA female Female Early MBA female Female Early
Major Students Career Adults Students Career Adults
Finance 47% 91% 53% 9%
Marketing 30% 91% 70% 9%
Management 37% 86% 63% 14%
Entrepreneurship 0% 83% 100% 17%
MBA male Male Early MBA male Male Early
Major Students Career Adults Students Career Adults

Finance 30% 91% 70% 9%

Marketing 26% 89% 74% 11%
Management 24% 88% 76% 12%
Entrepreneurship 0% 79% 100% 21%
it is not related to entrepreneurial behavior, indicating gender differences are captured in the
intervening variable of self-efficacy. As noted earlier, this raises the interesting question of
whether entrepreneurial self-efficacy precedes or follows actual entrepreneurial behavior. As
with the MBA students, entrepreneurship education was positively related to entrepreneurial
self-efficacy, with stronger effects for women than for men.
Although the sample of MBA students and early career adults are clearly not related, we
provide the following post hoc results to demonstrate the potential drop off in entrepreneurial
activity between the two life cycle stages. That is, we reexamined the results as if they were
drawn from a longitudinal study. As shown in Table 5, students taking entrepreneurial studies
do tend to become entrepreneurs but only 17 percent of women and 21 percent of men follow
through on their initial intentions. Further, it appears that management and marketing majors
are much more likely to become entrepreneurs than are finance majors. We leave it to future
research to discover whether this difference between entrepreneurial intentions and realized
entrepreneurial activity is real and to probe for the causes of any change in entrepreneurial
desires.
Overall, our research findings imply examining just the relationships between
entrepreneurial career interest/behavior and gender are overly simplistic, and they may
overlook the critical differences captured through self-efficacy. Our findings suggest that
specific entrepreneurship education enhances self-efficacy overall, but plays a particularly
important role for women.
6. Study Limitations and Directions for New Research

Although our three parallel studies allowed us to compare related issues at three different
educational and career stages, our study remains cross-sectional. Thus, causality can be
inferred, but not established (Spector, 1981). Clearly, a true longitudinal study is needed to
establish causal direction among gender, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career behavior.
Moreover, a non-probabilistic method of sampling was used, and therefore the final results
cannot be viewed as representative of the relevant populations in the US. Specifically,
in the middle/high school sample, students living in middle-income zip codes, students
from private schools and Hispanic and White/Caucasian students are over-represented when
compared to the general population. African-American students are under-represented. In
the MBA and early career samples, upper ranges of the socio-economic levels, as well as
Caucasians are over-represented. Not surprisingly, given the makeup of graduate student
populations, both the MBA and early career samples are skewed toward the upper range of
the socio-economic status. More than half of the respondents in each sample (54.1 percent
of the MBAs and 51.8 percent of the early career respondents) described their parents’
socioeconomic status while they were growing up as upper income. At the MBA level, 74.4
percent of the respondents indicated they were Caucasian, and at the early career level this
percentage was 80.7 percent.
As Bandura et al. (2001) suggested, there is “substantial diversity within sexes” and
“modal gender characteristics in perceived self-efficacy should not be imputed to all mem-
bers within each sex group”. Earlier research has shown significant differences in self-
efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions exist among teenage girls of different racial and ethnic
identities (Marlino and Wilson, 2003; Wilson et al., 2004). Future research should explore
these relationships in women of diverse backgrounds at the MBA and early career stage.
Finally, from a methodological viewpoint, future research on the effectiveness of
entrepreneurial education must address at least two important issues: causality and mea-
surement. The causal relations between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial behavior may be
more complex than usually conceived, because theory supports causality in both directions,
suggesting a reflexive process. A similar causality issue may exist between entrepreneurship
education and entrepreneurial intentions, i.e., entrepreneurship courses may foster students’
interest toward entrepreneurship, but students interested in entrepreneurship also tend to
choose to take courses offering entrepreneurial content. Given these causality issues, results
from cross-sectional studies should be analyzed very carefully. Longitudinal research seems
more appropriate to address causality issues, but does not rule out measurement problems.
In particular, there is no consensus on how to assess the effectiveness of entrepreneurship
programs (Gibb, 1997; Henry et al., 2003; Hindle and Cuttling, 2002; Moro et al., 2004;
Peterman and Kennedy, 2003; Wyckham, 1989). We suggest self-efficacy should be con-
sidered as a relevant and meaningful outcome measure for entrepreneurship education, but
this also raises the question of how to measure self-efficacy. Although we believe the mea-
sure we used is valid (from Marlino and Wilson, 2003), we acknowledge the existence of
a great variety of measures addressing self-efficacy in the entrepreneurship literature (e.g.,
DeNoble et al., 1999; Krueger and Dickson, 1994; Markmam et al., 2002), which limits the
comparison of findings.
7. Conclusion
Our results show that providing access to entrepreneurship education is important in fueling
the pipeline of aspiring women entrepreneurs. Developing an individual’s self-efficacy plays
an important role in shaping perceived career options as early as the middle and high school
years. However, while access to education for women in specific entrepreneurial competen-
cies may be needed, it may not be sufficient because the trainee/student needs to perceive
those competencies have been mastered (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993). Thinking holistically
and programmatically about a sequence of entrepreneurship education experiences may give
a realistic sense of what it takes to start a successful business and to develop the necessary
skills along with the self efficacy that is achievable should continue to be a top priority for
entrepreneurship educators. Addressing both entrepreneurial knowledge and self-efficacy
are crucial and especially important for females, because of their observed self-efficacy
bias. We should not assume identical pedagogical methods would raise self-efficacy for
both sexes.
In sum, this research represents a unique integration of three large-scale studies of US-
based individuals across a range of educational and early career experiences. By analyzing
the responses of women and men from the teenage to post-MBA career years, similarities
and differences across gender and life-stage in both entrepreneurial intentions and one of
its key antecedents, self-efficacy, could be explored. Implications for both policy makers
and educators interested in developing and encouraging entrepreneurial behavior emerged.
Most notably, the importance of early entrepreneurship education focusing on increasing
entrepreneurial self-efficacy, especially among girls and women, was underscored. It is our
hope that this and other related research will be instrumental in fueling the pipeline of future
female entrepreneurs.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge The Committee of 200 for their collaboration and the support
of the studies from which these data are drawn. We are also grateful to Cindy Long and
Jacqui C. Falkenheim of the Center for Women’s Business Research for undertaking and
providing access to the MBA and early career portions of the study. Thanks to Douglas T.
Hall for his comments on an earlier version of this paper.
References
Ajzen, I (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179–211.
Bandura, A (1989). Human agency in social-cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184.
Bandura, A (1992). Exercise of personal agency through the self-efficacy mechanism. In Self-Efficacy:
Thought Control of Action, R Schwarzer (ed), 3–38. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Bandura, A (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A, C Barbaranelli, G Caprara and C Pastorelli (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of
children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72(1), 187–206.
Baron, RM and DA Kenny (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Betz, N and G Hackett (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived
career options in college men and women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 399–410.
Botha, M, G Nieman and JV Vuuren (2006). Measuring the effectiveness of the women Entrepreneur-
ship Programme as a training intervention. Paper presented at the IntEnt2006 Conference,
Fundação Getulio Vargas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Chen, C, P Greene and A Crick (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs
from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 295–316.
Chowdhury, S and M Endres (2005). Gender difference and the formation of entrepreneurial
self-efficacy. Presented at United States Association of Small Business (USASBE) Annual
Conference.
Cox, L, S Mueller and S Moss (2002). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial
self-efficacy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1, 2–23.
DeNoble, A, D Jung and S Ehrlich (1999). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The development of a mea-
sure and its relationship to entrepreneurship. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 73–87.
Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

Eccles, J (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 18, 585–609.
Fayolle, A, B Gailly and N Lassas-Clerc (2005). Effect and counter-effect of entrepreneurship educa-
tion and social context on student’s intentions. Paper presented at the IntEnt2005 Conference,
School of Management, University of Surrey.
Gatewood, E, K Shaver, J Powers and W Gartner (2002). Entrepreneurial expectancy, task, effort and
performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Winter, 187–206.
Gibb, A (1997). Small firms’ training and competitiveness. Building upon the small business as a
learning organization. International Small Business Journal, 15(3), 13–29.
Henry, C, F Hill and C Leitch (2003). Entrepreneurship Education and Training. Ashgate: Aldershot.
Hindle, K and N Cuttling (2002). Can applied entrepreneurship education enhance job satisfaction
and financial performance? An empirical investigation in the Australian pharmacy profession.
Journal of Small Business Management, 40(2), 162–167.
Jung, D, S Ehrlich and A DeNoble (2001). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and its relationship to
entrepreneurial action: A comparative study between the US and Korea. Management Interna-
tional, 6(1), 41–53.
Kickul, J, F Wilson and D Marlino (2004). Are misalignments of perceptions and self-efficacy caus-
ing gender gaps in entrepreneurial intentions among our nations’ teens? Presented at Babson
Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Glasgow, Scotland.
Kourilsky, M and M Walstad (1998). Entrepreneurship and the female youth: Knowledge, attitudes,
gender differences and educational practices. Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 77–88.
Krueger, N and A Carsrud (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behavior.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5, 315–330.
Krueger, N and P Dickson (1994). How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: Self-efficacy and
opportunity recognition. Decision Sciences, 25(3), 385–400.
Krueger, N, M Reilly and A Carsrud (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal
of Business Venturing, 15, 411–432.
Markmam, GD, DB Balkin and RA Baron (2002). Inventors and new venture formation: The effects
of general self-efficacy and regretful thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Winter
2002, 149–165.
Marlino, D and F Wilson (2003). Teen Girls on Business: Are They Being Empowered? Boston, MA
and Chicago, IL: Simmons School of Management and The Committee of 200.
Minnitti, M, P Arenius and N Langowitz (2005). 2004 Report on Women and Entrepreneurship.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Wellesley, MA: The Center for Women’s Leadership at
Babson College.
Moro, D, A Poli and C Bernardi (2004). Training the future entrepreneur. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 1(2), 192–205.
Peterman, N (2000). Entrepreneurship and enterprise education: Influencing students’ attitudes

towards entrepreneurship. Doctoral Thesis.
Peterman, N and J Kennedy (2003). Enterprise education: Perceptions of entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129–144.
Reynolds, P, N Carter, W Gartner, P Greene and L Cox (2002). The Entrepreneur Next Door, Char-
acteristics of Individuals Starting Companies in America. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion
Kauffman Foundation.
Scherer, R, J Brodzinski and F Wiebe (1990). Entrepreneurial career selection and gender: A social-
ization approach. Journal of Small Business Management, 28(2), 37.
Scott, M and D Twomey (1988). The long-term supply of entrepreneurs: Students’ career aspirations
in relation to entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 26(4), 5–13.
Segal, G, D Borgia and J Schoenfeld (2002). Using social cognitive career theory to predict self-
employment goals. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 47–56.

Shaver, K, E Gatewood and W Gartner (2001). Differing expectations: Comparing nascent

entrepreneurs to non-entrepreneurs. Presented at Academy of Management, Washington, DC.
Spector, PE (1981). Research Designs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Wang, C, P Wong and Q Lu (2002). Tertiary education and entrepreneurial intentions. Technological
Entrepreneurship, 55–82. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Wilson, F, D Marlino and J Kickul (2004). Our entrepreneurial future: Examining the diverse atti-
tudes and motivations of teens across gender and ethnic identity. Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, 9(3), 177–198.
Wyckham, RG (1989). Measuring the effects of entrepreneurial education programs: Canada and Latin
America. In Educating the Entrepreneurs, G Robert, W Wyckham and C Wedley (eds.), 1–16.
Colombie-Britannique: Faculté d’administration, Université Simon Fraser.

August 14, 2009 14:4 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00124

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

August 14, 2009 14:4 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00124

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

August 14, 2009 14:4 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00124

Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship

AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF GENDER AND SELF-EFFICACY

Simmons School of Management

Received April 2008

Keywords: Entrepreneurship; self-efficacy; education; intentions; gender.

106 F. Wilson et al.

108 F. Wilson et al.

H1b: The effects of gender on entrepreneurial intentions of students are mediated by

2.1. Self-efficacy and actual behavior

2.2. Education and entrepreneurial self-efficacy

H3: Entrepreneurship education positively affects entrepreneurial self-efficacy at both the

110 F. Wilson et al.

Fig. 1. Full model predicting actual entrepreneurial behavior.

H4a: Entrepreneurship education positively affects actual entrepreneurial behavior at the

112 F. Wilson et al.

Table 1. Results of regression analyses — Standardized regression

Hypotheses H1a and H1b

Table 2. Results of regression analyses — Standardized regression weights

4.1.1. 4.1.2. Hypotheses H2a and H2b

Table 3. Results of regression analyses — Standardized regression weights

114 F. Wilson et al.

Table 4. Results of regression analyses — Standardized regression

Hypotheses H4a and H4b

BOLD = Significant at the 0.05 level.

5. Discussion and Implications

No Intentions for Positive Intentions

Major Students Career Adults Students Career Adults

Finance 30% 91% 70% 9%

6. Study Limitations and Directions for New Research

116 F. Wilson et al.

118 F. Wilson et al.

Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

Peterman, N (2000). Entrepreneurship and enterprise education: Influencing students’ attitudes

employment goals. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 47–56.

Shaver, K, E Gatewood and W Gartner (2001). Differing expectations: Comparing nascent

You might also like