40 J. International Business and Entrepreneurship Development, Vol. 13, No.

1, 2021

Traits and entrepreneurial intention: testing the

mediating role of entrepreneurial attitude and
self-efficacy

Imran Anwar*, Mohd Tariq Jamal and

Imran Saleem
Department of Commerce,
Aligarh Muslim University,
India
Email: anwarimran1@gmail.com
Email: tariqjamal92@gmail.com
Email: iscom.amu@gmail.com
*Corresponding author

Prabha Thoudam
College of Business,
University of Buraimi,
Oman
Email: prabha.thoudam@gmail.com

Abstract: Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention phenomenon have

been a subject-matter across the world of academia and many researches have
been undertaken to unfold the mystery of entrepreneurial intention. While
hypothesising the theoretical framework, in this study, the authors have
endeavoured to instrument entrepreneurial traits and the theory of planned
behaviour (TPB) with the application of mediation mechanism. The
cross-sectional study design was adopted to collect the data from 663 students
(368 male and 295 female) of three different universities in India using the
convenience sampling technique. Convergent and discriminant validity of the
data, along with its model fitness, were ensured and tested using CFA while for
testing the hypotheses, SEM technique was employed. Results revealed that
traits and underlying factors of TPB have a direct and positive relationship with
the entrepreneurial intention. Moreover, entrepreneurial traits were found
significantly affecting entrepreneurial attitude and self-efficacy directly while
having a significant indirect relationship with the entrepreneurial intention
through the mediation of entrepreneurial attitude and self-efficacy. This study
significantly contributes to the existing literature in the domain of
entrepreneurial intention by cognising the mediating role of entrepreneurial
attitude between traits and entrepreneurial intention.

Keywords: entrepreneurial intention; risk-taking propensity; locus of control;

LoC; innovativeness; theory of planned behaviour; mediation analysis.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Anwar, I., Jamal, M.T.,
Saleem, I. and Thoudam, P. (2021) ‘Traits and entrepreneurial intention: testing
the mediating role of entrepreneurial attitude and self-efficacy’, J. International
Business and Entrepreneurship Development, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.40–60.

Copyright © 2021 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Traits and entrepreneurial intention 41

Biographical notes: Imran Anwar is currently pursuing his PhD at Department

of Commerce, Aligarh Muslim University in the domain of entrepreneurial
intention. His area of research is entrepreneurial attitude, perceived behaviour
control, opportunity recognition, and social capital. He has expertise in primary
data analysis techniques namely; structural equation modelling, mediation
analysis, moderation analysis, and moderated mediation analysis along with
other statistical methods. Mr. Anwar had also been a faculty at KMCUAF
University, Lucknow and HMPG College, Kanpur during the period 2012-
2016.

Mohd Tariq Jamal is currently pursuing his PhD from the Department of
Commerce, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. His area of research is
organizational behaviour and human resource management and he studies
flexible work arrangements and their impact on employee-related outcomes,
and entrepreneurial intention. He not only studies flexible work arrangements
but he has also been a practitioner of flexible work arrangement during his time
in the corporate sector.

Imran Saleem is a Former Vice-Chancellor at Singhania University, Rajasthan.

He is currently working as a Full Professor and the Dean at the Faculty of
Commerce, AMU, Aligarh and visiting faculty at IIM Kashipur. He has also
served as a Professor and Dean, Faculty of Management and Head, Department
of Management at Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi. He has also served as Head of
Department under World Bank Project, consultant under Social Service
Agreement, United Nations and also as a consultant Lal Bahadur Shastri
National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie. He has varied association
and exposure in the field of academics and publication at various levels.

Prabha Thoudam is working as an Associate Professor in Entrepreneurship in

the Faculty College of Business, University of Buraimi, Al-Buraimi, Sultanate
of Oman. She had also been the Vice-Chancellor of Jayoti Vidyapeeth
Women's University in Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. Her research interest is
entrepreneurship and business venturing.

1 Introduction

Across the globe, entrepreneurship has been a phenomenon of research among the
academia since the outset of this concept by Schumpeter (1934) wherein entrepreneurship
was ratified as indispensable and vital for expanding employment opportunities, and that
might result in the growth of the economy. Numerous studies have been conducted by
many scholars adopting various dimensions and approaches to examine the
entrepreneurship concept and its association with entrepreneurial intention and Shapero
(1975) was the first among them. Over the period of time, the domain of entrepreneurial
intention emerged intensively and got widened as many diversified and interdisciplinary
approaches were made to weave in with the phenomenon of entrepreneurial intention
(Anwar et al., 2020; Thompson, 2009; Yıldırım et al. 2016; Arafat et al., 2018; Bazan et
al., 2019; Roy et al., 2017; Liñán and Chen, 2009; Trivedi, 2016). In these studies,
various dimensions and factors like personality traits, psychology, social and contextual
factors, environment, demographics etc. have been used but with one common objective,
i.e. to predict entrepreneurial intention and to answer the question “what contextual,
psychological, social, and cognitive forces drive an individual’s behaviour towards
42 I. Anwar et al.

entrepreneurial intention?”. Therefore it becomes necessary to unfold the mystery of

entrepreneurial intention adopting different dimensions and methodological approaches
such that the intention might be turned into action and result in a contribution to the
overall development of the economy (Yıldırım et al. 2016).
Indians have considered entrepreneurship as a secondary career option and shown
greater affection towards gainful salaried employment than starting an entrepreneurial
venture (Anwar et al., 2020; Anwar and Saleem, 2019b; Arafat et al., 2018; Roy et al.,
2017) despite the fact that many entrepreneurship development, promotion, and training
programs have been set in motion by the Indian government in recent past and these
government efforts can be witnessed from the report of Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
(GEM) 2018–2019 wherein the TEA rate, i.e. total earlystage entrepreneurial activity
climbed to 11.40% from 9.30% in its previous report for the year 2017–2018 and India
ranked #22nd out of 54 countries in the current year which is nine positions higher than
its rank (i.e. #31st) in the previous year (Bosma and Kelley, 2019; Shukla et al,. 2019).
India secured #6th position among 54 nations in terms of entrepreneurial support, training
and education programs sponsored by the government but still ranked significantly lower
(#20th out of 54) when it comes to entrepreneurial capabilities and perceived opportunity
recognition that are formed by their precursors– entrepreneurial traits; therefore signifies
that Indians still lack in terms of having belief in their entrepreneurial capabilities and
perceiving new business opportunities and not forming the intention to start own business
despite government’s support programs (Anwar et al., 2020; Anwar and Saleem, 2019a;
Roy et al., 2017).
From a thorough and meticulous review of literature on entrepreneurial intention,
authors found that various approaches, such as psychology, education, economics and
management etc., have been adopted to measure entrepreneurial intention combining
internal factors, such as personality traits, behavioural attitude, self-efficacy etc., external
factors such as social norms, role models, opportunity perception, social capital, and
contextual factors such as economic and environmental (Anwar et al., 2020; Roy et al.,
2017; Bazan et al., 2019; Trivedi, 2017; Fayolle, 2008; Brinckmann et al., 2010; Zahra,
1995). Most of these studies have been conducted taking the sample of university
students and fetched significant results and also support the findings of studies by Cooper
et al. (1994) and Kennedy and Drennan (2001) that people equipped with the education
of entrepreneurship and greater levels of personality traits are likelier to succeed in the
entrepreneurial journey.
In the present study, authors have adopted trait approach and combined it with the
theory of planned behaviour using the mediation model. We propose that entrepreneurial
traits, along with entrepreneurial attitude, self-efficacy, and social norms influence the
entrepreneurial intention of university students while mediating the influence of
entrepreneurial traits on the entrepreneurial intention by attitude and self-efficacy. Plenty
of studies have been conducted using mediation approach to determine entrepreneurial
intention taking various cognitive, social, and contextual factors (Anwar et al., 2020;
Anwar and Saleem, 2019a; Fayolle, 2008; Brinckmann et al. 2010; Yıldırım et al. 2016).
Roy et al. (2017) also measured entrepreneurial intention among technology students
using trait approach and mediating effect of perceived self-efficacy, but in this research,
authors have conceptualised that entrepreneurial traits not only affect entrepreneurial
intention through mediating effect of self-efficacy but also affect through mediating role
of entrepreneurial attitude thereby contributing significantly to the existing literature in
the domain of entrepreneurial intention research.
 Traits and entrepreneurial intention 43

2 Theoretical background and hypotheses development

A person’s predisposition towards establishing their own enterprise or inclination towards

being an entrepreneur in the coming years is often referred as entrepreneurial intention
and the person is said to be a nascent entrepreneur (Anwar et al., 2020a; Anwar and
Saleem, 2019; Thompson, 2009). Across the world of academia, the phenomenon of the
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention research has become inevitably
conspicuous and widespread (Fayolle and Liñán, 2014). Researchers profess that
entrepreneurial behaviour is a precursor of entrepreneurial action and predicting
entrepreneurial behaviour is very toilsome and requires a huge amount of rigour (Krueger
et al., 2000). Findings from the longitudinal study conducted by Kautonen et al. (2015)
also affirmed that entrepreneurial action is strongly predicted by entrepreneurial intention
henceforth instigating the question “what are the factors that drive entrepreneurial
intention most which might lead to entrepreneurial action?”
The present study is primarily based on the TPB [Ajzen (1991)] that has been widely
used to measure behavioural attitude and intention of nascent and successful
entrepreneurs and served not only empirically but also as support to theories related to
behavioural studies. TPB has been considered as best predicting theoretical model for
predicting entrepreneurial intention and putting forward that one’s behavioural action
majorly depends upon one’s behavioural intention thus establishing the notion that
stronger behavioural intention would possibly result in behavioural action (Schlaegel and
Koenig, 2014; Krueger and Carsrud, 1993). TPB constitutes three basic predictors,
namely attitude toward behaviour (ATE), perceived behavioural control (PBC) often
called self-efficacy, and social norms (SN).

2.1 TPB and entrepreneurial intention

TPB, generally, had been able to expound the entrepreneurial intention concept from the
extent of 21% (Autio et al., 2001) to 57.5% (Anwar et al., 2020; Liñán and Chen, 2009).
In addition, in many other contexts, TPB could explain the concept of entrepreneurial
intention with higher explanatory power while instrumentalised and conceptualised with
other environmental, demographic, traits, and economic factors (Bazan et al., 2019; Roy
et al., 2017; Trivedi, 2016). Many of empirical researches conducted taking TPB have
successfully resulted in serving some significant statistical and theoretical contribution to
the vast existing literature, yet demanding expansion, on entrepreneurial intention by
confirming that entrepreneurial attitude, social norms, entrepreneurial self-efficacy
positively predict the entrepreneurial intention (Anwar et al., 2020; Anwar and Saleem,
2019a; Roy et al., 2017; Kautonen et al., 2015; Trivedi, 2016; Bazan et al., 2019; Lüthje
and Franke, 2003).
In TPB, very first precursor of the entrepreneurial intention is ‘entrepreneurial
attitude’ that refers to an individual’s behavioural inclination, affection or predisposition
towards a certain behavioural action, i.e. profession or career option, and earlier studies
have affirmed this relationship empirically that greater entrepreneurial attitude positively
enhances one’s entrepreneurial intention drive (Anwar et al., 2020; Anwar and Saleem,
2018; Bazan et al., 2019; Krueger et al., 2000; Autio et al., 1997; Pruett et al., 2009;
Segal et al., 2005; Van Gelderen and Jansen, 2008). In many other fields of research,
marketing, psychology, consumer behaviour studies etc., the behavioural attitude has
been found positively significant in predicting behavioural intention, thus confirming its
44 I. Anwar et al.

ability to predict behavioural intention and it could be proposed that positive behavioural
attitude towards entrepreneurship would lead to stronger entrepreneurial intention.
The second preliminary determinant of entrepreneurial intention in the TPB is ‘social
norms’, which constitute approval or disapproval from one’s family members, friends,
peers or close relatives regarding one’s decision for carrying out a particular behaviour or
action (Ajzen, 1991; Trivedi, 2017). Therefore this pre-notion emphasises upon the
viewpoint and its significance from a reference group and corroborates that positive
opinion or approval from family, friends or relatives regarding one’s decision to start own
business would lead to stronger entrepreneurial intention while negative opinion or
disapproval would discourage one from starting own business hence weakening
entrepreneurial intention (Anwar et al., 2020; Anwar and Saleem, 2019a; Bazan et al.,
2019; Roy et al., 2017; Trivedi, 2016).
‘PBC’ often referred to as self-efficacy is the third basic antecedent of TPB which
alludes to ‘one’s own belief in one’s own capacity in performing a certain behavioural
action’ thus corroborating that greater self-confidence in own capabilities results in better
performance of a behavioural action (Bandura, 1986; Swan et al., 2007; Ajzen, 1991). In
many recent studies, self-efficacy has significantly predicted the entrepreneurial intention
directly and it is affirmed that greater level of self-efficacy leads to stronger
entrepreneurial intention (Anwar et al., 2020; Anwar and Saleem, 2019a; Roy et al.,
2017; Bazan et al., 2019; Trivedi, 2016); therefore the following hypotheses can be
postulated:
H1 Entrepreneurial intention is positively influenced by entrepreneurial attitude.
H2 Entrepreneurial intention is positively influenced by entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
H3 Entrepreneurial intention is positively influenced by supportive social norms.

2.2 Theoretical and empirical relationship between entrepreneurial traits,

entrepreneurial attitude, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial
intention
In the present study, authors have adopted the traits approach of entrepreneurship and
cognised it with the TPB while conceptualising the hypothesised model. This approach to
entrepreneurship is a typical approach to entrepreneurial research. It constitutes
personality characteristics of an individual such as innovativeness, risk-taking propensity,
locus of control (LoC), need for achievement, and ambiguity tolerance. Earlier studies
have confirmed that personality traits are positively attached with one’s entrepreneurial
behaviour and determine one’s entrepreneurial inclination (Anwar and Saleem, 2019b;
Bakotić and Kružić, 2010; Robinson et al., 1991; Ho and Koh, 1992; Koh, 1996). In one
of the earlier researches, Mitton (1989) labelled those as ‘entrepreneurs’ who show some
psychological characteristics like innovativeness, risk-taking propensity, LoC, and
ambiguity tolerance, therefore, having the entrepreneurial self-efficacy to tackle the risk
and uncertainties of the business. Entrepreneurial intention refers to self-determination or
behavioural inclination of an individual which might turn it into the action of setting up
their own business in the near future (Thompson, 2009). A model postulated by Churchill
and Bygrave (1989) explicates that traits concerning entrepreneurs are positively
associated with entrepreneurial intention. Robinson et al. (1991) also proposed how LoC,
 Traits and entrepreneurial intention 45

risk-taking propensity, innovativeness, and ambiguity tolerance would turn out to be

positive predictors of entrepreneurial attitude.

2.2.1 Risk-taking propensity

An individual’s capability to take-up risks or avoid them in odd situations is referred as
‘risktaking propensity’. Entrepreneurship and propensity to take risks are associated with
each other (Anwar and Saleem, 2019b) and risk-taking is the attribute that distinguishes
between entrepreneurs and employed managers (Entrialgo et al., 2000; Thomas and
Mueller, 2000) thus ability to undertake the risk under perilous situations and making
decisions is an inherent quality of entrepreneurs. This notion has also been affirmed by
many researchers that entrepreneurs possess higher propensity to take risk than others
(Anwar and Saleem, 2019b; Gürol and Atsan, 2006; Cho and Lee, 2018; Thomas and
Mueller, 2000).

2.2.2 Locus of control

LoC is termed as an identity variable which refers to one’s inner-belief of ability to have
control on life situations (Leone and Burns, 2000). Koh (1996) and Riipinen (1994)
affirmed that those who are possessing external LoC are having the belief that whatever
happens in their life is because of their fate or others who have an impact on their life
whereas individuals equipped with internal LoC are very determined that they have fuller
control of their life and actions and they have the control over their life situations. A
general perspective is considered about those who have an entrepreneurial attitude and
seek for new venture possibilities are rich with inner LoC (Mueller and Thomas, 2000;
Koh, 1996; Utsch and Rauch, 2000) thus establishing the notion that entrepreneurs are
richer in terms of inner LoC than non-entrepreneurs (Anwar and Saleem, 2019b; Engle
et al., 1997; Thomas and Mueller, 2000).

2.2.3 Innovativeness
The definition of ‘innovativeness’ comprises identifying innovative ways to penetrate a
new market through developing a new product using the relatively latest technology.
Innovativeness is regarded as vital and one of the inevitable characteristics an
entrepreneur needs to possess as entrepreneurs always seek for new opportunities and
endeavour to avail them (Zacharakis, 1997; Entrialgo et al. 2000; Hansemark, 1998).
Drucker also affirmed innovativeness as a must-have personality trait as it pivots an
entrepreneur’s search for potential opportunities systematically so that it can be aligned
with the requirements of the market (Cromie, 2000; Utsch and Rauch, 2000). Stewart
et al. (2003) also advocated innovativeness as a differentiating factor between an
entrepreneur and an employed manager. Furthermore, Mueller (2000) expounds that
innovativeness is an indispensable factor for determining entrepreneurial attitude and
intention of an entrepreneur while Utsch and Rauch (2000) in their study, empirically
substantiated that innovativeness and entrepreneurial intention are closely associated.
Citing the above literature support, we propose the following hypotheses as follows:
H4 Entrepreneurial traits positively influence entrepreneurial intention.
H5 Entrepreneurial traits positively influence entrepreneurial attitude.
46 I. Anwar et al.

H6 Entrepreneurial traits positively influence entrepreneurial self-efficacy.

2.3 Mediating role of entrepreneurial attitude and self-efficacy

Bandura (1986, 1997) has defined entrepreneurial self-efficacy as “one’s belief in one’s
capabilities and skills to start own business and run it successfully”. Since the
entrepreneurship is considered to be such an activity that requires a higher level of
self-efficacy or the sense of self-confidence while executing the business plans or making
decisions, an entrepreneur is supposed to be rich in entrepreneurial self-efficacy terms
(Bandura, 2002). Self-efficacy has long been playing a key role in predicting
entrepreneurial intention (Anwar et al., 2020; Anwar and Saleem, 2019a; Bazan et al.,
2019; Roy et al., 2017; Trivedi, 2016) while other scholars have opined that self-efficacy
is closely incorporated with personality traits like LoC and tendency to take risks (Boyd
and Vozikis 1994; McGee et al., 2009) hence the authors postulate that self-efficacy is
higher in those who are equipped with greater levels of personality traits henceforth
mediating effect of self-efficacy comes into effect while measuring the influence of traits
on entrepreneurial intention. In their study, Mischel and Shoda (1998) also argued in
support of this notion and suggested to adopt mediation process while measuring the
effect of personality traits on entrepreneurial intention.

Figure 1 Hypothesised theoretical model

Note: Bold weighted arrows represent mediating relationships.

Behavioural attitude refers to the predilection of an individual towards a particular action
or activity. This behaviour might be either positive or negative (Ajzen, 1988) while
entrepreneurial attitude is considered as a favourable cognitive force that drives an
individual’s behaviour towards entrepreneurial intention and later action. Concerning the
personality traits with entrepreneurial attitude, it is found that those who are ready to take
risks and find innovative ways of entering into new markets or find newer business
opportunities generally have the positive behavioural attitude toward starting own
business (Cromie, 2000; Utsch and Rauch, 2000). Yan and Hu (2008) also affirmed that
 Traits and entrepreneurial intention 47

personality traits, entrepreneurial attitude, and entrepreneurial intention are positively

related with each other; therefore the authors are postulating that in addition to the direct
effect of personality traits on entrepreneurial intention, there is the positive indirect effect
of traits on entrepreneurial intention through the mediating role of entrepreneurial
attitude. Thus we hypothesise that:
H7 Entrepreneurial attitude mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial traits and
entrepreneurial intention.
H8 Entrepreneurial self-efficacy mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial traits
and entrepreneurial intention.

3 Research methodology

In this manuscript, authors are keen to examine the role of entrepreneurial traits on
entrepreneurial intention of students in Indian universities through the mediating effect of
entrepreneurial attitude and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Furthermore, authors have also
tested the impact of underlying factors of the TPB viz. entrepreneurial attitude,
entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and social norms on entrepreneurial intention. The present
study is based on cross-sectional data collected from the students of business studies
background from three Indian universities viz. Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh, KMC
Language University, and CSJM University Kanpur. The data were collected using
convenience sampling technique that has been used in many previous studies conducted
in the domain of entrepreneurial intention and unearthed significant findings (Anwar et
al., 2020; Roy et al., 2017; Bazan et al., 2019; Anwar and Saleem, 2019b; Krueger et al.,
2000; Fayolle and Gailly, 2005; Liñán and Chen, 2009). A total of 900 questionnaires
(300 each university) were physically distributed to the students in their classrooms, and
they were briefed about the study prior to filling the questionnaire to upraise their
knowledge about entrepreneurial intention phenomenon. Out of 900 administered
questionnaires, 705 were returned as filled-in and during the data screening process, 42
responses were dropped, thus leaving a final sample size of 663 responses accounting for
368 male and 295 female respondents ageing between 18–24 years.
Table 1 Data sample synthesis

University name Total Male Female

Aligarh Muslim University 232 127 105
CSJM University 216 118 98
KMCUAF University 215 123 92
Total 663 368 295

3.1 Development of data collection instrument

Authors have conceptualised a theoretical model embodying five latent constructs viz.
entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurial attitude, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, social
norms, and entrepreneurial traits which are a second-order construct formed taking three
different personality traits, namely propensity to risk, LoC, and innovativeness.
Validated, published, and widely cited scales were adopted for developing the data
48 I. Anwar et al.

collection instrument using Likert type seven-point. We cited Liñán and Chen (2009) to
borrow the scales for entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurial attitude, and
entrepreneurial self-efficacy. For measuring social norm, a scale published by Trivedi
(2016) was adopted, while for the scales for risk-taking propensity, LoC, and
innovativeness, Koh (1996), Levenson (1974), and Jackson (1994) were cited. The
questionnaire comprised a total 38 measurement items, and in addition, questions
regarding demographic properties such as gender, age, parents’ occupation were also
asked. A list of measurement items with their sources of adoption has been given in
Appendix.

3.2 Data screening

The data were first processed for screening and cleaning prior to statistical analysis and
hypotheses testing. At the very first point, during the data entry process, 19
questionnaires were found filled in without being engaged; hence these responses were
removed out of total 705 responses received. Furthermore,16 questionnaires were found
suffering from the issue of missing values, thus eliminated from the dataset. Although the
median replacement method could be implemented to impute the missing responses
(Kline, 1998; Cohen et al., 2003), due to the sufficiency of the data, authors chose
otherwise. In order to look for outliers in the dataset, Cook’s distance method was
employed and seven responses were found showing Cook’s distance statistics above the
threshold 1 (Stevens, 2012) therefore these seven responses were also deleted from the
dataset and a final sample size of 663 responses was left for further statistical analysis
that is considered to be large enough to represent a population over one million (Krejcie
and Morgan, 1970). For applying confirmatory factor analysis to test the validity,
reliability and fitness of the data to the model, a minimum of ten responses are suggested
to have against each measurement item and this study uses 38 measurement items hence a
minimum sample of 380 or above is justified for applying confirmatory factor analysis
and having a sample size of 663 responses justifies the above-said criteria. Another
assumption to apply structural equation modelling and confirmatory factor analysis is the
normality of the data and to fulfil this assumption of normality, the criterion of skewness
statistics was taken into consideration. Kline (1998) suggested that a dataset is said to be
normally distributed if statistics for skewness are ranging between –1 and +1 and
descriptive statistics shown in Table 6 confirm that statistics for skewness are within the
suggested range.
While designing the data collection instrument, authors also considered the remedies
suggested made by Podsakoff and Organ (1986) for making the study free from issues of
common method variance. It was ensured that no double-barrelled statements are
compiled in the questionnaire, and due attention was also paid to making the language of
measurement items simple and error-free with adherence to the conceptuality of the
constructs used in the study. Podsakoff and Organ, (1986) also advocated briefing the
study and its variables to the respondents so as to create psychological separation
regarding the variables while they respond. Apart from these qualitative measures to
reduce down the possibilities of common method variance, authors also statistically
testified that the data is free from any kind of method biases applying Harman’s single
factor test (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). A study is said to be free from common method
bias if all the measurement items under one factor explain not more than 50% variance.
 Traits and entrepreneurial intention 49

All 38 items used in the current study could explain 38.35% variance under one single
factor, thus fulfilling the criteria of Harman’s one-factor.
Further in this study, authors employed confirmatory factor analysis for ensuring the
convergent and divergent validity along with model fitness of the data (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988) which is followed by performing structural equations modelling to testify
the hypothesised framework statistically.
Table 3 Harman’s one-factor test

Extraction sums of squared loadings

Component
Total % of variance Cumulative %
1 9.882 38.346 38.346
Note: Extraction method: principal component analysis, rotation method: varimax

4 Results

4.1 Measurement model: fit indices, reliability, and validity

Primarily this study combines seven latent constructs, namely entrepreneurial intention,
attitude, self-efficacy, social norms, and three personality traits – risk-taking propensity,
LoC, and innovativeness, which form a second-order construct thus authors run two CFA
models– first and second-order measurement models respectively. Table 4 reports fit
indices for the first-order and second-order CFA models. Fit indices for
first-order model were found excellent as follows; CMIN/DF = 1.452, GFI = 0.951,
AGFI = 0.931, NFI = 0.966, CFI = 0.945, RMSEA = 0.038 while indices for
second-order model were found a little lower than first-order model due to a smaller
number of degrees of freedom but still fall under excellent category. Indices are as
follows: CMIN/DF = 1.515, GFI = 0.941, AGFI = 0.919, NFI = 0.948, CFI = 0.929,
RMSEA = 0.042. Enough convergence of each observed item was also witnessed with a
minimum loading of 0.76 in both the measurement models which is above the benchmark
of 0.70 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Hair et al., 2006).
Table 4 CFA model fit indices

Model CMIN/DF GFI AGFI NFI CFI RMSEA

Study model 1.452 0.951 0.931 0.966 0.945 0.038
(first order)
Study model 1.515 0.941 0.919 0.948 0.929 0.042
(second order)
Recommended Acceptable ≥0.90 ≥0.85 ≥.90 ≥0.90 <0.07
value 1–4
Wheaton Shevlin Shevlin Hu and Hu and MacCallum
et al. and Miles and Miles Bentler Bentler et al. (1996)
(1977) (1998) (1998) (1999) (1999)

Convergent validity was confirmed by ensuring that the value of average variance
explained (AVE), measured by making average of squared loadings of observed variables
to their respective latent constructs, is greater than or equal to the suggested limit of 0.50
50 I. Anwar et al.

(Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2006). Composite (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha
reliabilities were also computed for each latent construct and statistics for both
reliabilities (see Table 5) were also found well above the recommended limit of 0.70
(Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Hair et al., 2006).
Table 5 CFA loadings, cronbach’s alpha, CR, and AVE

No. of Avg. CFA Alpha

Variable name CR AVE
indicators loading (α)
Entrepreneurial intention 6 0.784 0.894 0.908 0.614
Entrepreneurial attitude 6 0.815 0.906 0.924 0.664
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy 5 0.822 0.915 0.931 0.676
Social norm 5 0.735 0.855 0.864 0.540
Entrepreneurial traits 0.885 0.897 0.918 0.783
Risk-taking propensity 4 0.752
Locus of control 5 0.772
Innovativeness 6 0.844

Along with ensuring the convergence of observed items to their latent constructs, it is
also desirable to ensure the divergent validity of the latent constructs. Latent constructs
are said to be having enough divergence with other latent constructs when the
convergence of their observed variables is greater than their correlation with other latent
constructs (Chin et al., 1997). To confirm this assumption, the square root of AVE for
every construct (shown on diagonals in bold) was compared with its correlation with
other constructs and it was found that square root of AVE for each construct was higher
than its correlation with other constructs hence confirming the divergent validity of the
data.
Table 6 Correlations, divergent validity, and descriptive statistics

Variable name 1 2 3 4 5
Entrepreneurial intention (.824)
Entrepreneurial attitude .635** (.798)
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy .623** .555** .555**
Social norms .481** .451** .350** (.769)
Entrepreneurial traits .587** .587** .484** .609** (.811)
Mean 6.028 5.913 6.070 5.851 5.770
Standard deviation .777 .793 .747 .924 .788
Skewness -.738 .372 .202 -.013 .199
Kurtosis -.858 -.504 -.607 -.543 -.896
Notes: Square root of AVE has been shown in bold on diagonals and it should be greater
than off-diagonal values for divergent validity. **Correlations are significant at
0.01 level.
Correlation matrix confirms that all the predictors are having a fair correlation with the
outcome variable that provides primary support for testing causal relationships, i.e.,
hypothesis testing. Correlation between entrepreneurial attitude and the entrepreneurial
intention was found highest at 0.635 while least correlation of 0.350 was witnessed
 Traits and entrepreneurial intention 51

between social norms and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Authors also computed

descriptive statistics viz. mean and standard deviation with skewness and kurtosis to
ensure the normality of the data. Suggested range for skewness and kurtosis is between
+1 and –1 (Kline, 1998) and statistics for skewness and kurtosis for all the constructs
were found within the recommended range.

4.2 Hypotheses testing

Authors proposed eight hypotheses for the study testing the direct effects of
entrepreneurial attitude, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, social norms, and entrepreneurial
traits on entrepreneurial intention (H1, H2, H3, and H4) and effect of entrepreneurial
traits on entrepreneurial attitude and entrepreneurial self-efficacy (H5 and H6) while H7
and H8 were to test the indirect effect of entrepreneurial traits on entrepreneurial
intention through the mediating effect of entrepreneurial attitude and entrepreneurial
self-efficacy. Results from structural equation modelling (see Table 7) report that H1 to
H4 are found supported hence proving that entrepreneurial intention is significantly
predicted by entrepreneurial attitude, self-efficacy, social norms, and entrepreneurial
traits while entrepreneurial attitude and entrepreneurial self-efficacy were also
significantly influenced by entrepreneurial traits hence supporting H5 and H6. R2 for the
structural model was found at 0.481, which refers that the 48.10% of entrepreneurial
intention phenomenon is explained by these four predictors.
Table 7 Standardised regression weights (direct, indirect, total, and interaction effects)

Dependent variable Independent variable Std. estimate

Standardised direct effects
Entrepreneurial intention <--- Entrepreneurial attitude .308***
Entrepreneurial intention <--- Entrepreneurial self-efficacy .363***
Entrepreneurial intention <--- Social norm .140***
Entrepreneurial intention <--- Entrepreneurial traits .187***
Entrepreneurial attitude <--- Entrepreneurial traits .605***
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy <--- Entrepreneurial traits .484***
Standardised indirect effects
Entrepreneurial intention <--- Entrepreneurial traits (through EA) .186***
Entrepreneurial intention <--- Entrepreneurial traits (through ESE) .175***
Standardised total effects (direct effect + indirect effect)
Entrepreneurial intention <--- Entrepreneurial traits (through EA) .373***
Entrepreneurial intention <--- Entrepreneurial traits (through ESE) .362***
Notes: All the paths have been found significant at 1% level of significance, i.e.,
***p < 0.01.
Indirect effects were found significant at 1% level of significance, i.e.,
p < 0.01 using Bias-corrected.
Percentile Method using bootstrap at 5000.
EA = entrepreneurial attitude and ESE = entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
52 I. Anwar et al.

4.2.1 Mediation analysis

The indirect effect of entrepreneurial traits on entrepreneurial intention was measured
through the mediating effect of entrepreneurial attitude and entrepreneurial self-efficacy;
thus, H7 and H8 were postulated. Mediating effect was tested while running SEM in
AMOS 20.0 with bootstrapping at 5000 and the significance of indirect effects was
checked using bias-corrected percentile method. Entrepreneurial traits are found affecting
the entrepreneurial intention indirectly through the mediation of entrepreneurial attitude
and entrepreneurial self-efficacy with standardised estimates of 0.186 and 0.175 (see
Table 7) therefore, H7 and H8 were also found supported. Total effects were computed,
making the sum of indirect effects and direct effects.

5 Discussion and conclusions

In many studies, scholars have endeavoured to cognise the TPB with other approaches
and factors viz. traits, cognition, contextual, environmental, and economic factors while
measuring entrepreneurial intention and helped in comprehending the phenomenon
(Anwar et al., 2020; Krakauer et al., 2018; Bazan et al., 2019; Maresch et al., 2016; Wang
et al. 2013; Anwar and Saleem, 2019a; Anwar and Saleem, 2018; Autio et al., 2001;
Krueger et al. 2000; Roy et al., 2017). Various methodological techniques, such as
mediation, moderation etc. have also been applied by different researchers to assess the
entrepreneurial intention (Anwar et al., 2020; Roy et al., 2017; Arafat et al., 2018;
Maresch et al. 2016). The authors, in the present study, have adopted direct and indirect
(mediation) approach to assess the entrepreneurial intention by underlying factors of the
TPB viz. entrepreneurial attitude, social norms, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy and
entrepreneurial traits. First four hypotheses viz. H1, H2, H3, and H4 were framed to
testify the influence of entrepreneurial attitude, self-efficacy, social norms and
entrepreneurial traits on entrepreneurial intention, and results from Table 7 are found
significant with the following standardised estimates: 0.308, 0.363, 0.140, and 0.187
respectively; thereby H1, H2, H3, and H4 are found supported. The fourth hypothesis
stands for positive, but with a comparatively weaker relationship of entrepreneurial traits
on entrepreneurial intention and the results have been found in conformity.
Entrepreneurial traits has been found as a weak yet significant predictor of the
entrepreneurial intention in earlier researches (Roy et al., 2017) and in this study also
showed a weaker strength of the relationship, therefore, is consistent with the literature
and delineates that having certain personality characteristics, such as ability to take risk,
innovative thinking and LoC would enable one to seek for newer entrepreneurial
opportunities hence enhancing entrepreneurial intention.
Furthermore, entrepreneurial attitude and entrepreneurial self-efficacy have been
found strongest predictors of entrepreneurial intention as usual and found consistent with
the results of previous studies (Anwar et al., 2020; Anwar and Saleem, 2019a; Roy et al.,
2017; Bazan et al., 2019; Trivedi, 2017) wherein it has been expounded that greater
levels of entrepreneurial attitude and self-efficacy lead to stronger entrepreneurial
intention. While in this study, social norms has also been found significant with the
weakest coefficient, thereby meaning that societal opinion also has a bearing on forming
one’s entrepreneurial intention. Approval or disapproval from the family, friends, and
peers pertaining to entrepreneurial start-up has a significant role to play while
 Traits and entrepreneurial intention 53

determining one’s entrepreneurial intention. This finding both confirms and differs from
the results of earlier researches (Anwar et al., 2020; Bazan et al., 2019; Roy et al., 2017;
Trivedi, 2016; Wang et al., 2013; Krakauer et al., 2018).

Figure 2 Tested theoretical model

Notes: Bold weighted arrows represent mediating relationships.

All the paths have been found significant at 1% level of significance, i.e.,
**p < 0.01.
Authors also proposed hypotheses H5 and H6 to assess the influence of entrepreneurial
traits on entrepreneurial attitude and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Authors cognised that
propensity to take risk and innovativeness is the precursor of entrepreneurial attitude and
helps entrepreneurs in seeking newer opportunities (Cromie, 2000; Utsch and Rauch,
2000; Yan and Hu, 2008) therefore enhancing one’s entrepreneurial attitude. Results
revealed the strong positive relationship between traits and attitude (B = 0.605) hence
hypothesis H5 is found supported. In literature, traits and self-efficacy have been proven
closely related with each other, and it has been opined that perceived level of
self-efficacy is found higher in those who are prone to take risks and possessing the
self-belief of having control on their life situations (Boyd and Vozikis 1994; McGee
et al.. 2009) hence authors also proposed hypothesis H6 testifying the influence of traits
on self-efficacy and results showed a significant and moderately strong relation between
traits and self-efficacy which is found in conformity with earlier research (Roy et al.,
2017).
Authors also conceptualised the theoretical framework to establish the indirect
relationship between entrepreneurial traits and entrepreneurial intention through the
mediating effect of attitude and self-efficacy, therefore proposed hypotheses H7 and H8.
It was postulated that with the favourable attitude towards entrepreneurship in between,
the direct relationship of traits and entrepreneurial intention further strengthens up (Yan
and Hu, 2008) and results revealed in conformity with this notion. Results from Table 7
54 I. Anwar et al.

reveal that entrepreneurial attitude partially mediates the relationship between traits and
entrepreneurial intention with the standardised coefficient of 0.186 thereby enhancing the
direct effect by 18.60% thus totalling the effect of traits on intention via attitude to
37.30%. Furthermore, the indirect effect of traits on entrepreneurial intention was also
checked through the mediating effect of self-efficacy and results showed that
self-efficacy also partially mediates the direct relationship between traits and
entrepreneurial intention with 17.50% (B = 0.175) indirect effect thereby making the total
effect of traits on intention at 36.20% (see Table 7). This finding of the study is found in
similarity with earlier studies (Roy et al., 2017) and supports the notion that greater self-
efficacy enhances the effect of entrepreneurial traits on entrepreneurial intention,
therefore, making it stronger.
Unlike other researches, this study also suffers from a few limitations despite putting
in enough rigour and ensuring the robustness of the methodology. Present study is based
on cross-sectional design implying that the data were collected at a particular time
measuring the respondents’ perception; therefore, the possibility of variation in the
respondents’ perception might take place over the period of time, and a longitudinal study
would possibly present a better picture. Another limitation is that authors collected the
data from the students of management and business studies thus barring it from implying
the findings on the students of other streams viz. humanities, science, technology, etc.,
therefore opening the possibilities for conducting similar kind of study taking data from
the students of other streams. This study uses the data collected from three universities of
north India only, therefore the findings might not be implementable on the students from
other states of India due to vast diversity in the contextual and cultural factors; hence
another study could be carried out in other states of India in future. Lastly, authors have
used the mediation approach to assess the influence of traits on entrepreneurial intention.
In future studies, moderated mediation approach can be used taking entrepreneurial
education or any other demographic factor as the moderator while measuring the indirect
effect of traits on entrepreneurial intention.

References
Ajzen, I. (1988) ‘Attitudes’, Personality and Behavior, Open Press University, Buckingham.
England.
Ajzen, I. (1991) ‘The theory of planned behavior’, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp.179–211.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988) ‘Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, No. 3, p.411.
Anwar, I. and Saleem, I. (2018) ‘Effect of entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial intention of
Indian students’, International Journal of Research, Vol. 5, No. 12, pp.2306–2316.
Anwar, I. and Saleem, I. (2019a) ‘Entrepreneurial intention among female university students: a
step towards economic inclusion through venture creation’, in Mrinal, S.R., Bhattacharya, B.
and Bhattacharya, S. (Eds.): Strategies and Dimensions for Women Empowerment,
pp.331–342, Central West Publishing, Australia.
Anwar, I. and Saleem, I. (2019b) ‘Exploring entrepreneurial characteristics among university
students: an evidence from India’, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship,
Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.282–295 [online] https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-07-2018-0044.
 Traits and entrepreneurial intention 55

Anwar, I., Saleem, I., Thoudam, P., Islam, K.M.B. and Khan, R. (2020) ‘Entrepreneurial intention
among female university students: examining the moderating role of entrepreneurial
education’, Journal for International Business and Entrepreneurship Development, in press
[online] https://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/forthcoming.php?jcode5jibed.
Anwar, I., Saleem, I., Thoudam, P., Islam, K.M.B. and Khan, R. (in press) ‘Entrepreneurial
intention among female university students: examining the moderating role of entrepreneurial
education’, Journal for International Business and Entrepreneurship Development, in press
[online] https://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/forthcoming.php?jcode5jibed.
Arafat, M.Y., Saleem, I., Dwivedi, A.K. and Khan, A. (2018) ‘Determinants of agricultural
entrepreneurship: a GEM data based study’, International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.345–370 [online] https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0536-1.
Autio, E., Keeley, H., Klofsten, R.M., Parker, G.C. and Hay, M. (2001) ‘Entrepreneurial intent
among students in Scandinavia and in the USA’, Enterprise and Innovation Management
Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.145–160.
Autio, E., Keeley, R.H., Klofsten, M. and Ulfstedt, T. (1997) Entrepreneurial intent among
students: testing an intent model in Asia, Scandinavia and USA’, Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, 1997: Proceedings of the seventeenth annual Entrepreneurship
Research Conference, pp.133–147, Babson College, Wellesley, Mass. [online]http://urn.kb.se/
resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-89842.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988) ‘On the evaluation of structural equation models’, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.74–94.
Bakotić, D. and Kružić, D. (2010) ‘Students’ perceptions and intentions towards entrepreneurship:
the empirical findings from Croatia’, The Business Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, p.209, Cambridge.
Bandura, A. (1986) ‘Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as coeffects of perceived
selfinefficacy’, American Psychologist, Vol. 41, No. 12, pp.1389–1391.
Bandura, A. (1997) The Nature and Structure of Self-Efficacy. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of
Control, WH Freeman and Company, New York, NY.
Bandura, A. (2002) ‘Social cognitive theory in cultural context’, Applied Psychology, Vol. 51,
No. 2, pp.269–290.
Bazan, C., Shaikh, A., Frederick, S., Amjad, A., Yap, S., Finn, C. and Rayner, J. (2019) ‘Effect of
memorial university’s environment and support system in shaping entrepreneurial intention of
students’, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.1–35.
Bosma, N. and Kelley, D. (2019) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Global Report 2018–2019,
pp.1–152 [online] https://www.gemconsortium.org/file/open?fileId550213 (accessed 10
March 2020).
Boyd, N.G. and Vozikis, G.S. (1994) ‘The influence of self-efficacy on the development of
entrepreneurial intentions and actions’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18, No. 4,
pp.63–63.
Brinckmann, J., Grichnik, D. and Kapsa, D. (2010) ‘Should entrepreneurs plan or just storm the
castle? A meta-analysis on contextual factors impacting the business planning– performance
relationship in small firms’, Journal of business Venturing, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.24–40.
Chin, W.W., Gopal, A. and Salisbury, W.D. (1997) ‘Advancing the theory of adaptive
structuration: the development of a scale to measure faithfulness of appropriation’,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.342–367.
Cho, Y.H. and Lee, J.H. (2018) ‘Entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial education and
performance’, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12, No. 2,
pp.124–134 [online] https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-05-2018-0028.
Churchill, N. and Bygrave, W.D. (1989) ‘The entrepreneur ship paradigm (I): a philosophical
look at its research methodologies’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 14, No. 1,
pp.7–26.
56 I. Anwar et al.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. and Aiken, L. (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Routledge, New York [online] https://doi.org/
10.4324/9780203774441.
Cooper, A.C., Gimeno-Gascon, F.J. and Woo, C.Y. (1994) ‘Initial human and financial capital as
predictors of new venture performance’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9, No. 5,
pp.371–395.
Cromie, S. (2000) ‘Assessing entrepreneurial inclinations: some approaches empirical evidence’,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.7–30.
Engle, E.D., Mah, J. and Sadri, G. (1997) ‘An empirical comparison of entrepreneurs and
employees: implications for innovation’, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1,
pp.45–49.
Entrialgo, M., Fernandez, E. and Vazquez, C. (2000) ‘Characteristics of managers as determinants
of entrepreneurial orientation: some Spanish evidence’, Enterprise and Innovation
Management Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.187–205.
Fayolle, A. (2008) ‘Entrepreneurship education at a crossroads: towards a more mature teaching
field’, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 16, No. 04, pp.325–337.
Fayolle, A. and Gailly, B. (2005) Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Assess
Entrepreneurship Teaching Programmes, Working Paper, Center for Research in Change,
Innovation and Strategy of Louvain School of Management, Belgium.
Fayolle, A. and Liñán, F. (2014) ‘The future of research on entrepreneurial intentions’, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 67, No. 5, pp.663–666.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981) ‘Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.39–50.
Gürol, Y. and Atsan, N. (2006) ‘Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students: some
insights for entrepreneurship education and training in Turkey’, Education þ Training,
Vol. 48, No. 1, pp.25–38.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006) ‘Multivariate data
analysis’, 6th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, ‘Humans: critique and reformulation’,
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 87, pp.49–74.
Hansemark, O.C. (1998) ‘The effects of an entrepreneurship programme on need for achievement
and locus of control of reinforcement’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and
Research, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.28–50.
Ho, T.S., and Koh, H.C. (1992) ‘Differences in psychological characteristics between
entrepreneurially inclined accounting graduates in Singapore’, Entrepreneurship, innovation
and Change, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.243–54.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999) ‘Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives’, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.1–55.
Jackson, D.N. (1994) Jackson Personality Index, Sigma Assessments, Port Huron, MI.
Kautonen, T., van Gelderen, M. and Fink, M. (2015) ‘Robustness of the theory of planned
behaviour in predicting entrepreneurial intentions and actions’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp.655–674.
Kennedy, J. and Drennan, J. (2001) ‘A review of the impact of education and prior experience on
new venture performance’, The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation,
Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.153–169.
Kline, R.B. (1998) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, New
York.
Krakauer, P.V.D.C., de Moraes, G.H.S.M., Coda, R. and Berne, D.D.F. (2018) ‘Brazilian women’s
entrepreneurial profile and intention’, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship,
Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.361–380.
Krejcie, R.V. and Morgan, D.W. (1970) ‘Determining sample size for research activities’,
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp.607–610.
 Traits and entrepreneurial intention 57

Krueger Jr., N.F., Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000) ‘Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15, Nos. 5–6, pp.411–432.
Krueger, N.F. and Carsrud, A.L. (1993) ‘Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned
behaviour’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.315–330.
Leone, C. and Burns, J. (2000) ‘The measurement of locus of control: assessing more than meets
the eye?’, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 134, No. 1, pp.63–76.
Levenson, H. (1974) ‘Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of
internalexternal control’, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp.377–383.
Liñán, F. and Chen, Y.W. (2009) ‘Development and cross–cultural application of a specific
instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.593–617.
Lüthje, C. and Franke, N. (2003) ‘The ‘making’ of an entrepreneur: testing a model of
entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT’, Rand Management, Vol. 33, No. 2,
pp.135–147.
MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W. and Sugawara, H.M. (1996) ‘Power analysis and determination
of sample size for covariance structure modeling’, Psychological Methods, Vol. 1, No. 2,
p.130.
Maresch, D., Harms, R., Kailer, N. and Wimmer-Wurm, B. (2016) ‘The impact of entrepreneurship
education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus
business studies university programs’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 104, pp.172–179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.006.
McGee, J.E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S.L. and Sequeira, J.M. (2009) ‘Entrepreneurial self-efficacy:
refining the measure’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.965–988.
Mischel, W. and Shoda, Y. (1998) ‘Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions’,
Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp.229–258.
Mitton, D.G. (1989) ‘The compleat entrepreneur’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 13,
No. 3, pp.9–20.
Mueller, S.L. and Thomas, A.S. (2000) ‘Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a nine country study
of locus of control and innovativeness’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16, No. 1,
pp.51–75.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986) ‘Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects’, Journal of Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.531–544.
Pruett, M., Shinnar, R., Toney, B., Llopis, F. and Fox, J. (2009) ‘Explaining entrepreneurial
intentions of university students: a cross-cultural study’, Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res., Vol. 15,
No. 6, pp.571–594 [online] https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550910995443..
Riipinen, M. (1994) ‘Extrinsic occupational needs and the relationship between need for
achievement and locus of control’, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 128, No. 5, pp.577–588.
Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C. and Hunt, H.K. (1991) ‘An attitude approach to the
prediction of entrepreneurship’, Enterp. Theory Pract., Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.13–31.
Roy, R., Akhtar, F. and Das, N. (2017) ‘Entrepreneurial intention among science & technology
students in India: extending the theory of planned behavior’, International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.1013–1041.
Schlaegel, C. and Koenig, M. (2014) ‘Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: a meta‐analytic test
and integration of competing models’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 38, No. 2,
pp.291–332.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934) ‘Change and the entrepreneur’, Essays of JA Schumpeter, p.9.
Segal, G., Borgia, D. and Schoenfeld, J. (2005) ‘The motivation to become an entrepreneur’, Int. J.
Entrep. Behav. Res., Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.42–57.
Shapero, A. (1975) ‘The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur’, Psychology Today, Vol. 9, No. 6,
pp.83–88.
58 I. Anwar et al.

Shevlin, M. and Miles, J.N. (1998) ‘Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings
on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis’, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 25,
No. 1, pp.85–90.
Shukla, S., Parray, M.I. Chatwal, N.S. Bharti, P. and Dwivedi, A. (2019) Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor India Report 2017-2018 [online] https://www.gemconsortium.org/report/50212.
(accessed 2 February 2020).
Stevens, J.P. (2012) Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, Routledge, Abingdon.
Stewart, W.H., Carland, J.C., Carland, J.W., Watson, W.E. and Sweo, R. (2003) ‘Entrepreneurial
dispositions and goal orientations: a comparative exploration of United States and Russian
entrepreneurs’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp.27–46.
Swan, W., Chang-Schneider, C. and McClarity, K. (2007) ‘Do people’s self-views matter?’, Am.
Psychol., Vol. 62, pp.84–94.
Thomas, A.S. and Mueller, S.L. (2000) ‘A case for comparative entrepreneurship: assessing the
relevance of culture’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.287–301.
Thompson, E.R. (2009) ‘Individual entrepreneurial intent: construct clarification and development
of an internationally reliable metric’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33, No. 3,
pp.669–694.
Trivedi, R. (2016) ‘Does university play significant role in shaping entrepreneurial intention? A
cross-country comparative analysis’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,
Vol. 23, No. 3, pp.790–811.
Trivedi, R. (2017) ‘Entrepreneurial-intention constraint model: a comparative analysis among post-
graduate management students in India, Singapore and Malaysia’, International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.1239–1261.
Utsch, A. and Rauch, A. (2000) ‘Innovativeness and initiative as mediators between achievement
orientation and venture performance’, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.45–62.
Van Gelderen, and Jansen, M.P. (2008) ‘Autonomy as a start-up motive’, J. Small Bus. Enterp.
Dev., Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.23–32.
Wang, Y.L., Ellinger, A.D. and Wu, Y.C.J. (2013) ‘Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition: an
empirical study of RandD personnel’, Management Decision, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp.248–266
[online] https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741311301803.
Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D.F. and Summers, G.F. (1977) ‘Assessing reliability and
stability in panel models’, Sociological Methodology, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.84–136.
Yan, H.D. and Hu, M.C. (2008) ‘Strategic entrepreneurship and the growth of the firm: the case of
Taiwan's bicycle industry’, Global Business and Economics Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.11–34.
Yıldırım, N., Çakır, Ö. and Aşkun, O.B. (2016) ‘Ready to dare? A case study on the entrepreneurial
intentions of business and engineering students in Turkey’, Procedia - Social and Behavioural
Sciences, Vol. 229, pp.277–288, doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.138.
Zacharakis, A. (1997) ‘Entrepreneurial entry into foreign markets’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, pp.23–40, Spring, New York, NY.
Zahra, S.A. (1995) ‘Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: the case of management
leveraged buyouts’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.225–247.
 Traits and entrepreneurial intention 59

Appendix

List of questionnaire items with their source of adoption

Construct name with items of measurement
Entrepreneurship intention Source: Liñán and Chen (2009)
Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements from 1 (total disagreement) to 7
(total agreement).
1 I am ready to make anything to be an entrepreneur
2 My professional goal is becoming an entrepreneur
3 I will make every effort to start and run my own firm
4 I am determined to create a firm in the future
5 I have very seriously thought of starting a firm
6 I have got the firm intention to start a firm someday

Entrepreneurial attitude Source: Liñán and Chen (2009)

Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements from 1 (total disagreement) to 7
(total agreement).
1 Being an entrepreneur would entail great satisfaction for me.
2 If I had the opportunity and resources, I would like to start a business.
3 A career as an entrepreneur is attractive to me.
4 Among various career options, I would rather become an entrepreneur.
5 Being an entrepreneur implies more advantages than disadvantages to me.

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy Source: Liñán and Chen (2009)

Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements from 1 (total disagreement) to 7
(total agreement).
1 I can control the creation process of a new business.
2 If I tried to start a business, I would have a high pro1bability of success.
3 Starting a business and keeping it functional would be easy for me.
4 I know the necessary practical details to start a business.
5 I am prepared to start a viable business.
6 I know how to develop an entrepreneurial project.

Social norm Source: Trivedi (2016)

Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements from 1 (total disagreement) to 7
(total agreement).
1 My immediate family values the entrepreneurial career more than any other careers
2 My classmates would approve of my decision to start a business
3 My friends would approve of my decision to start a business
4 My immediate family would approve of my decision to start a business
5 My friends value the entrepreneurial career more than any other careers
6 My classmates value the entrepreneurial career more than any other careers
60 I. Anwar et al.

Risk-taking propensity Source: Koh (1996)

Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements from 1 (total disagreement) to 7
(total agreement).
1 I am willing to take higher risks for higher returns
2 I never fear moving into a new undertaking, I know nothing about
3 I do not prefer to avoid a situation of earning high returns with high risk
4 I prefer a business that offers high returns with high risks over a secured job with steady
salary

Locus of control Source: Levenson (1974)

Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements from 1 (total disagreement) to 7
(total agreement).
1 My life is determined by my own actions
2 I feel in control of my life
3 When I get what I want, it is usually because I worked hard for it
4 I feel that what happens in my life is mostly determined by my own actions rather than
people in powerful positions
5 Whether or not I am successful in life depends mostly on my ability

Innovativeness Source: Jackson (1994)

Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements from 1 (total disagreement) to 7
(total agreement).
1 I often surprise people with my novel ideas
2 I prefer the work that requires original thinking
3 I like the job which demands more of innovativeness rather than skill and practice
4 I get more satisfaction in coming up with a new idea than mastering a particular skill
5 I like to experiment with various ways of doing the same thing
6 I often surprise people with my novel ideas