Education + TrainingEmerald Article: Entrepreneurship education: How psychological, demographic and behavioural factors predict the entrepreneurial intentionCarla S. Marques, João J. Ferreira, Daniela N. Gomes, Ricardo Gouveia Rodrigues

Article information:

To cite this document: Carla S. Marques, João J. Ferreira, Daniela N. Gomes, Ricardo Gouveia Rodrigues, (2012),"Entrepreneurship education: How psychological, demographic and behavioural factors predict the entrepreneurial intention", Education + Training, Vol. 54 Iss: 8 pp. 657 - 672

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400911211274819

Downloaded on: 19-11-2012

References: This document contains references to 61 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Emerald Author Access

For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Entrepreneurship educationHow psychological, demographic and

behavioural factors predict theentrepreneurial intention

Carla S. MarquesCETRAD Research Unit, University of Tras-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD),

Vila Real, Portugal

Jo~ao J. FerreiraNECE – Research Centre in Business Sciences,

University of Beira Interior (UBI), Covilha, Portugal

Daniela N. GomesSchool of Management, Instituto Politecnico do Cavado e Vale do Ave,

Barcelos, Portugal, and

Ricardo Gouveia RodriguesManagement and Economics Department and NECE,University of Beira Interior (UBI), Covilha, Portugal

Abstract

Purpose – Based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), the purpose of this paper is to approachentrepreneurial intention (EI) and the factors preceding the founding of EI among secondary students,both studying general academic and specific professional programs, and thereby establish causalrelationships between psychological, demographic and behavioural factors.Design/methodology/approach – A sample of secondary students, both studying generalacademic and specific professional programs, was chosen. Data were collected through questionnairesand analysed with resource to structural equation models (SEM) to measure the causal relationshipsamong different constructs.Findings – The results show that the EI of secondary school students is influenced by suchdemographic, psychological and behavioural factors. However, the hypothesis of becomingentrepreneurs in the future remains independent of the fact of whether or not students had alreadyexperienced engagement with entrepreneurship-related themes having no impact on EI. These resultsraise a series of pertinent questions and deserve being subject to a more profound reflectionand not only among the scientific and academic community but also among political and governmententities.Originality/value – The paper provides important evidence to expand entrepreneurship educationspecifically in the field of secondary school education. These students are already about to face choicesover their professional careers. This remains valid whether or not students intend to proceed withhigher education studies or to join the workforce. Therefore this research contributes towards meetinga better understanding of EI and the factors preceding the formation of this intention amongsecondary school students.

Keywords Portugal, Secondary schools, Curricula, Entrepreneurialism, Entrepreneurial intention,Theory of planned behaviour, Entrepreneurship education, Secondary school teaching

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm

Education þ TrainingVol. 54 No. 8/9, 2012

pp. 657-672r Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0040-0912DOI 10.1108/00400911211274819

Research funded by CETRAD and NECE, R&D Centres was funded by the Multiannual FundingProgramme of R&D Centres of FCT – Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology,Ministry of Education and Science.

657

Entrepreneurialintention

1. IntroductionDeemed one of the newest paradigms of the socioeconomic sciences, entrepreneurshiphas generated a great deal of interest in the last couple of decades and not only acrossthe scientific and academic community but also in the political sphere. Theentrepreneurship education is high on the political agenda and currently a top priorityfor countries worldwide (Mitra and Matlay, 2004). The European Union has itselfdefined entrepreneurship as a lifelong skill and calling on member states to fosterand develop entrepreneurial attitudes throughout the entire scope of educationfrom primary school through to university and not to mention technical andprofessional secondary and higher education institutes (Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, 2006).

There is broad consensus as to the role played by the education system in overallentrepreneurship (Lundstrom and Stevenson, 2002). There have been arguments thateducation for entrepreneurship should begin as early as possible (e.g. Birdthistle et al.,2007; Cheung and Au, 2010; Paco et al., 2011a, b; Rodrigues et al., 2012). The phasesof infancy and adolescence are frequently identified as the preferential periods fordeveloping positive attitudes in relation to entrepreneurship and the acquisitionof basic knowledge on the theme (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003). According to Gormanet al. (1997), this is especially valid in the cases of primary and secondary schoolstudents. The pertinence of entrepreneurship education, specifically in the field ofsecondary school education, may be justified on various grounds. First, these studentsare already about to face choices over their professional careers. This remains validwhether or not students intend to proceed with higher education studies or to join theworkforce. Developing entrepreneurial potential in secondary schools brings anotheradvantage as it raises the likelihood self-employment becomes a career option prioreven to the decision to advance with one’s studies. Hence, secondary schools shouldboost student awareness as regards the fact entrepreneurship might represent a futurecareer option (Commission of the European Communities, 2006).

Within the context of vocational education, entrepreneurship education takes onparticular relevance and may prove particularly effective when approached asindividuals are about to engage with active life (Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, 2006) and when reflection on future career options are consequentlymore frequent and wide reaching. Another motive derives from the current scenarioof deep and significant changes to the labour market and characterised by anexponential rise in youth unemployment and the incidence of underemployment.Facing such conditions, young people starting their active lives encounter fewemployment opportunities and hence self-employment very often becomes a survivalstrategy (Haftendorn and Salzano, 2003).

Despite the importance thereby attributed to secondary school-based educationfor entrepreneurship, there have been very few studies even attempting to evaluate theeffectiveness and actual impact on entrepreneurial intention (EI) at this teaching level(Peterman and Kennedy, 2003; Lepoutre et al., 2010). Peterman and Kennedy (2003)demonstrate how entrepreneurship education programmes in secondary schools areespecially important to future EI. Lepoutre et al. (2010) also find evidence in favour ofthe effectiveness of such programmes and how entrepreneurship education at this levelrepresents a tool for fostering entrepreneurial attitudes and competences in studentsat a young age. The aforementioned studies were applied to students undertakinggeneral academic programmes. As regards professional secondary schools, studiesseeking to measure the impact of education for entrepreneurship are even scarcer

658

ET54,8/9

(Haftendorn and Salzano, 2003; Frank et al., 2005). Thus, this research aims tocontribute towards meeting the shortcomings identified in the literature with thecorresponding objective of generating a better understanding of EI and the factorspreceding the formation of this intention among secondary school students bothstudying general academic programmes and professional courses. In order to analysesuch effects, we establish causal relationships between psychological, demographicand behavioural factors.

The paper is therefore structured up into five sections. After this introductionsection, the second sets out the literature existing on EI and the factors preceding theformation of this mental goal. Furthermore, we design the conceptual researchmodel and the research hypotheses. The third deals with the methodology applied,sample, methods and variables. The fourth section discusses the results obtained.Finally, the fifth part presents the conclusions and main implications and suggestionsfor future research.

2. EI and research modelThere is substantial consensus in the literature on the capacity of intention to predictentrepreneurial behaviour. EI-based models have been identified as the best meansto predict entrepreneurial activities (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993), given such intentionsare perceived as immediate antecedents of real behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Intentionmay be defined as an indicator of the will to try something or the effort one is preparedto apply to behave in a particular manner (Ajzen, 1991). The intention is thus thecognitive representation of a person’s willingness to display a certain behaviour(Fayolle et al., 2006b). According to Von Graevenitz et al. (2010), just as intentionforeruns behaviour, certain specific attitudes also predict intention. Ajzen (1987, 1991)and Krueger et al. (2000) take up this line of thinking and find intention is determinedby attitudes and add that these are shaped and moulded by exogenous variablessuch as the situational circumstances and variables.

According to Linan and Chen (2009), research on personality characteristics anddemographic variables have enabled the identification of significant relationshipsbetween certain demographic features and characteristics of individuals and puttingentrepreneurial behaviours into practice. According to a third perspective, as from themoment when the decision to become an entrepreneur appears plausible, voluntaryand aware (Krueger et al., 2000), it would seem reasonable to analyse just how sucha decision is taken. Hence, EI would be a preceding and determining factor forengaging in business behaviours (Kolvereid, 1996). Therefore, the intention toundertake a specific behaviour will depend on the attitudes of persons to suchbehaviours (Ajzen, 1991). More favourable attitudes will foster more viable intentionsto implement a specific behaviour and vice-versa (Linan and Chen, 2009). Based on thislatter approach, some entrepreneurship-based research models emerged and proposingcognitive premises for explaining such phenomena. Ajzen’s (1987, 1991) theoryof planned behaviour (TPB) became one of the main theoretical models and adoptedwidely for research projects approaching EI (Linan, 2008).

Having come thus far, whoever seeks to study EI faces the issue of choosing themost appropriate approach to adopt. Gartner (1989) and Rodrigues et al. (2012) answerthis by putting forward evidence about the need to measure EI by incorporatingassumptions deriving from two approaches: the psychological and the behavioural.In essence, the psychological theory seeks to identify the respective psychologicalprofile distinguishing entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs (Begley and Boyed, 1987;

659

Entrepreneurialintention

Green et al., 1996). Therefore, at the core of this theory reside the entrepreneur, andhis/her characteristics represent the key to explaining entrepreneurship as aphenomenon (Gartner, 1989). The literature has identified many characteristics asassociated to entrepreneurship (Paco et al., 2011b; Rodrigues et al., 2012) and including:the locus of control (LC), the propensity to risk (PR), self-confidence (SC), the need forachievement (NA), the tolerance for ambiguity (TA) and the capacity to innovate (CI).Finally, the literature on entrepreneurial behaviour as a predictive factor for successor failure is broadly based upon the personalities and demographic variables of therespective entrepreneurs. Taking into account this target population (secondary schoolstudents), we considered it appropriate for this study to report on the age, gender,education and family background variables. Hence, we arrive at the following researchhypotheses:

H0(1). There is a relationship between demographic variables and the EI ofsecondary school students;

H0(2). There is a relationship between psychological features and the EI ofsecondary school students.

The psychological approach dominated the field of entrepreneurship through to theearly 1980s. However, studies based on entrepreneur profile as a determinant factor inbusiness success have come in for constant criticism. Similarly, there are authorswho take a stand against demographics influencing EI (e.g. Robinson et al., 1991; Fayolleet al., 2006a). According to Izquierdo and Buelens (2008), the existing literature showsthat efforts to predict entrepreneurial behaviour through personality or demographiccharacteristics return limited levels of explanatory power. This conclusion is backed upby Shapero and Sokol (1982), Gartner (1989) and Ajzen (1991). Ajzen (1987) goes to theextent of stating attitudes explain over 50 per cent of the variations in intention and thatintentions, in turn, explain around 30 per cent of the variations in behaviour. Gartner(1989) responds to this question by arguing that the psychological approach in itselfis insufficient to explaining entrepreneurship related phenomena. Correspondingly,identifying EI would seem a process requiring, in addition to recognising thepsychological and demographic characteristics of potential entrepreneurs, analysis ofanother facet – the behavioural approach.

The majority of intention-based models fall within the scope of the pillars makingup Ajzen’s (1987, 1991) TPB. TPB is applied to the study of individual behaviour andwhere there is a short time lapse between intention and action. Based upon thispremise, TPB has frequently been deployed to explain the mental process leading up tofounding a business. In particular, authors such as Kolvereid (1996), Krueger et al.(2000), Linan (2004), Fayolle et al. (2006a, b) and Souitaris et al. (2007) apply thistheory to make inferences about EI. Some researchers have specifically incorporatedstudent samples in order to measure the effects of entrepreneurship education on EI.Paco et al. (2011a, b) and Rodrigues et al. (2012) apply TPB to the particular context ofsecondary teaching. The high quantity of research dedicated to testing, developingand criticising TPB has demonstrated its utility and robustness for the purpose ofstudying EI. According to the assumptions underpinning TPB, intention is a functionof three determinant factors: personal attitudes (PA) towards behaviour, the subjectivenorms (SN) of behaviour and perceived behavioural control (PBC). These threeconstructs are deemed antecedents to intention.

660

ET54,8/9

PA to behaviour reflect in the favourable or unfavourable evaluation that anindividual makes about a specific behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). In the specific case of thisstudy, this relates to the level of positive or negative evaluation an individual placeson the idea of becoming an entrepreneur. Earlier research has shown there is a positiverelationship between PA and EI (e.g. Kolvereid, 1996; Krueger et al., 2000; Souitariset al., 2007). In turn, SN refer to the perceived social pressures to behave – or notbehave – in a particular way (Ajzen, 1991). In particular, this construct serves to measurethe individual’s (i.e. the student’s) perception of “persons of personal relevance”(e.g. family and friends) in approving or otherwise of a decision to become anentrepreneur (Ajzen, 2001). The Ajzen model maintains that the more favourable theexpectation and the social pressure, the greater will be the inclination to engage in suchbehaviour. The PBC dimension is defined as perception of the difficulty or the ease ofadopting a particular behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), in this study, that of becoming anentrepreneur. This concept refers to self-possession of the feeling of a capacity to startand run one’s own company. It is easy to deduce how this third construct is interrelatedwith that of individual know-how and experience and with one’s evaluation of theobstacles susceptible to preventing the success of such behaviour. The literature broadlyargues that PBC bears a positive influence on EI (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993). Hence, thegreater the sense of behavioural control, the greater the intention to actually carry out thebehaviour (Kolvereid, 1996; Krueger et al., 2000; Souitaris et al., 2007).

The contribution of each of these three constructs towards configuring the intentionhas yet to be firmly established and may change on a case-by-case basis. Ajzen (1991), ina review of 16 TPB-based empirical studies, concluded that the SN tends to contributevery little to the intention to engage in different behavioural patterns. More recentresearch, and focused on the field of entrepreneurship, has presented similar results onthis variable (e.g. Krueger et al., 2000; Linan and Chen, 2009). Nevertheless, there areother studies demonstrating the importance of SN to explaining EI (e.g. Kolvereid, 1996;Souitaris et al., 2007). Van Gelderen et al. (2008) justify the relevance of applying SN instudies on student EI by affirming that this population in particular are engaged in aprocess of discovering their respective preferences in terms of career and hence theopinions of parents, colleagues, friends and others relevant figures may prove highlyinfluential within the scope of this process. Contrary to the SN, PBC is described in theliterature as a significant factor for predicting intention, even in the field of EI. In relationto the PA variable, the literature returns no criticism as regards its capacity to predict EI.Ajzen’s TPB also accepts that the model might be expandable to include other variableswhenever their respective relevance may be justified and tested. Based upon theliterature review above, we arrive at our next research hypotheses:

H0(3). The antecedents to intention positively influence the EI of secondary schoolstudents;

H0(3a). There is a positive relationship between a PA favourable toentrepreneurship and the EI of secondary school students;

H0(3b). There is a positive relationship between SN favourable to entrepreneurshipand the EI of secondary school students;

H0(3c). There is a positive relationship between PBC and the EI of secondaryschool students.

661

Entrepreneurialintention

The thesis that entrepreneurship is susceptible to stimulation, nurture anddevelopment by education has been gaining ground both inside and outsideacademic circles. The number of researches dedicated to studying the influencebetween entrepreneurship education and EI is sizeable and its conclusions are difficultto ignore. Nevertheless, the actual relationship between these two variables has not yetbeen clearly established. We correspondingly encounter studies in whichentrepreneurship education generates an indirect effect on EI through its impact onantecedents (e.g. Krueger and Carsrud, 1993; Krueger and Brazeal, 1994; Linanand Chen, 2009). On the contrary there are studies such as those by Linan (2004) andFayolle et al. (2006a) that suggest a direct relationship between entrepreneurshipeducation and EI. Furthermore, the results returned by Rodrigues et al. (2012) also donot favour any connection between entrepreneurship education and EI. In keeping withthese findings, we propose the following hypothesis:

H0(4). Entrepreneurship education influences the EI of secondary school students.

Studying intention in order to predict a specific behaviour type proves particularlyimportant when such behaviour is rare, difficult to observe or displaced in time(Krueger and Brazeal, 1994). Studies do show that intention is a good predictiveindicator of action even when there is temporal displacement, as is the case with careeroptions (Lent et al., 1994). Such features are present in our study given our targetsample is made up of students, whose behaviour has not effectively generated anyaction thus rendering it impossible to measure in terms of whether or not they haveactually set up a company. Therefore, the analysis we undertake shall focus on EI andnot on any actual implementation of such intention.

Based upon these considerations and given the research objectives set out, thefollowing research model was adopted (Figure 1).

3. Methodology3.1 Sample, methods and variablesThis study compares secondary school students taking general academic programmesand vocational course programmes. Hence, the research methodology adopted first

TPBPsychological features

Locus of control, propensity torisk, self-confidence, need for

recognition, tolerance ofambiguity and capacity to

innovate

Demographic variables

Age, gender, education (typeof course) and family

background

H0(1) H0(3a)

H0(3b)

H0(3c)

Personal attitude

Subjectivenorm

Perceivedbehavioural

control

Entrepreneurialintention

Education for

Entrepreneurship

H0(4)

H0(2)

Figure 1.Conceptual research model

662

ET54,8/9

involved data collection through a questionnaire structured around Likert scales andvalidated by earlier studies (Rodrigues et al., 2012; Linan and Chen 2009). For themeasurement of EI and related constructs, we applied the Linan and Chen (2009) scaleand for the measurement of the psychological feature, we applied the Koh (1996) scale.A total of 202 students responded of whom 104 attended general programmes and98 were taking vocational courses. Data were handled and analysed with recourse tothe IBM SPSS 19.0 and IBM AMOS 19 software programs. Cross-referencing theanalysis undertaken highlighted two findings from this sample: 52.5 per cent ofstudents on general academic programme have company owners in their family eventhough it is students attending vocational courses that display a greater level of EI(54.5 per cent). Nevertheless, when questioned about the possibility of actually openingup their own companies, they respond with lower levels of affirmation than studentson general academic programmes. We may conclude that the hypothesis of theirbecoming future business owners is significant irrespective of the type of coursesstudents attend (w2¼ 1.506; gl¼ 4; p¼ 0.826).

Following this brief description, providing a better understanding of the broadcharacteristics of our sample, we proceeded with confirmatory factorial analysis(CFA) of the variables related to EI, that is, the psychological, demographic andbehavioural factors regarding secondary school students. The objective of this generallinear modelling technique is the empirical validation of the constructs (factors)according to the model proposed (demographic characteristics, psychological factors,TPB and entrepreneurship education). The hexa-factorial model of originalpsychological factors, made up of 36 items adjusted to a sample of 202 studentsreturned a poor quality of adjustment (w2(579)¼ 1,558.811; w2/gl¼ 2.692; CFI¼ 0.491;GFI¼ 0.627; PCFI¼ 0.452; PGFI¼ 0.545; RMSEA¼ 0.093; p(RMSEAp0.05)¼ 0.000;MECVI¼ 9.000). Following the removal of the majority of items, returning factorialweightings of o0.5 as well as those items reporting modification indexes suggestingthe saturation of factors different to those proposed in the original version, thesimplified “psychological factors” measurement instrument contained four factors:“LC” (three items), “SC” (two items), “need for recognition” (two items) and “toleranceto ambiguity” (six items). The simplified model provided a good quality of modeladjustment (w2/gl¼ 1.368; CFI¼ 0.971; GFI¼ 0.969; PCFI¼ 0.566; PGFI¼ 0.452;RMSEA¼ 0.043; p(RMSEAp0.05)¼ 0.589; MECVI¼ 0.394). In addition, thesimplified model presented a significant higher level of adjustment quality than theoriginal model for the sample under study (wdif

2 (135)¼ 1,530.085) as well as aconsiderably lower MECVI result (0.394 vs 9.000).

The discriminant validity of the factors was evaluated through comparing AVEwith the squared correlation of factors. The majority of factors reported discriminantvalidity as the squared correlation is below the respective AVE value with theexception of the “LC” factor “SC” (r2¼ 0.745) and “SC” with “need for recognition”(r 2¼ 0.707). However, the w2-difference test between the model with fixed factorcorrelation set at 1 (wr

2) and the unrestricted model (wu2) proved significant

wdif2 (1)¼ 88.723, po0.001 and wdif

2 (1)¼ 66.673, po0.001 for these relationships.Therefore, applying a 0.001 level of significance, we may affirm the existence ofdiscriminant validity between these factors. Hence, we may correspondingly confirmthe validity and reliability of the constituent factors of the “psychological factors”measurement instrument. However, as the “SC” factor presented fairly low levels forsome reliability evaluation measures (CR and Cronbach’s a) as well as for AVE, theconvergent validity indicator, this is not included within the framework of the final

663

Entrepreneurialintention

model. Relative to the factorial validity and reliability of the model for ascertainingEI through the TPB among secondary school students, the original “TPB”measurement instrument is made up of four factors: “PA” (five items), “SN” (threeitems), “PBC” (six items) and “EI” (six items).

The original tetra-factorial TPB model made up of 20 items adjusted to a 202student sample displays an acceptable level of adjustment quality (w2(164)¼ 373.326;w 2/gl¼ 2.276; CFI¼ 0.882; GFI¼ 0.836; PCFI¼ 0.653; PGFI¼ 0.649; RMSEA¼ 0.080;p(RMSEAp0.05)¼ 0.000; MECVI¼ 2.368). After removing the items “Theentrepreneurial career appears fairly unattractive” and “With various options open,I would still prefer to become an entrepreneur” from the “PA” factor, the items“I believe I would be totally unable to set up a viable business” and “From myperspective, it would be very difficult to develop a business idea” from the “PBC” factorand the items “I have serious doubts about the chance about one day startinga company” and “I have very little intention of one day ever setting up my owncompany” from the “EI” factor, which all returned factorial weightings of below 0.5and having then correlated the errors in the items “I am going to make efforts to set upand run my own company” with “I have decided to set up a company in the future”from the “EI” factor following analysis of the modification indexes, the “TPB”measurement instrument is attributed four factors: “PA” (three items), “SN” (threeitems), “PBC” (four items) and “EI” (four items). This simplified model attained agood quality of model adjustment (w2(70)¼ 140.099; w2/gl¼ 2.001; CFI¼ 0.943; GFI¼0.908; PCFI¼ 0.725; PGFI¼ 0.605; RMSEA¼ 0.071; p(RMSEAp0.05)¼ 0.026;MECVI¼ 1.073). Additionally, the simplified model reported a significantly higherlevel of adjustment quality than the original model for the sample under study(wdif

2 (94)¼ 233.227) as well as a considerably lower MECVI level (1.073 vs 2.368).The discriminant validity of the factors was evaluated by comparing the AVE with

the squared correlation. The majority of the factors demonstrate discriminant validityas the squared correlation is below the respective AVE results with the exceptionof “PA” and “PBC” (r2¼ 0.557), “PBC” and “EI” (r2¼ 0.682) and “PA” and “EI”(r2¼ 0.837). However, the w2-difference test between the model with factor correlationset at 1 (wr

2) and the unrestricted model (wu2) proved significant wdif

2 (1)¼ 85.138, po0.001,wdif

2 (1)¼ 48.934, po0.001 and wdif2 (1)¼ 58.416, po0.001 for these relationships.

Therefore, taking a 0.001 level of significance, we may affirm the existence ofdiscriminant validity among these factors. These results confirm the validity andreliability of the constituent “TPB” measurement instrument factors. Table I sets outthe correlations between the various factors.

Validating the measure scales through CFA, the respective model factor scores weregenerated in order to subsequently apply them in analysis of the proposed model.

Correlation (r) r2 p-value

Personal attitudes 2 Perceived behavioural control 0.746 0.557 ***Perceived behavioural control 2 Entrepreneurial intent 0.826 0.682 ***Subjective norm 2 Perceived behavioural control 0.471 0.222 ***Personal attitudes 2 Subjective norm 0.515 0.265 ***Subjective norm 2 Entrepreneurial intent 0.42 0.176 ***Personal attitudes 2 Entrepreneurial intent 0.915 0.837 ***

Note: ***pp0.001

Table I.“TPB” relative factorcorrelations

664

ET54,8/9

4. ResultsThe proposed causal model was evaluated over two phases using ML estimationmethod, as described by Byrne (2009). In a first phase, we ascertained the qualityof the adjustment measurement model before then moving onto testing the quality ofthe adjustment and the plausibility of the structural model. Trajectories are deemedsignificant at po0.01.

4.1 The measurement sub-modelThe model under study adjusted to the 202 student sample returned a satisfactory levelof adjustment quality (w2(196)¼ 308.444; w2/gl¼ 1.574; CFI¼ 0.926; GFI¼ 0.884;PCFI¼ 0.717; PGFI¼ 0.628; RMSEA¼ 0.053; MECVI¼ 2.439; p(RMSEAp0.05)¼ 0.302). Four observations display DM2 values suggesting they representoutliers even though the adjustment difference was not significant and hence CFA wascarried out for all observations. Following analysis of the factorial weightings,individual item and modification index reliability testing, only errors in the items “I amgoing to make efforts to set up and run my own company” and “I have decided to set upa company in the future” from the “EI” factor were subject to correlation. Thesimplified model (w2(195)¼ 297.733; w2/gl¼ 1.527; CFI¼ 0.932; GFI¼ 0.888;PCFI¼ 0.718; PGFI¼ 0.627; RMSEA¼ 0.051; MECVI¼ 2.397; p(RMSEAp0.05)¼0.421) recorded a slight improvement in its adjustment level in relation to the original(wdif

2 (1)¼ 10.711) as well as a slightly lower MECVI level (2.397 vs 2.439).

4.2 The structural sub-modelAnalysis of the structural model’s trajectories demonstrate that the “PA-EI”trajectory takes the greatest weighting and is statistically significant at a bilateral testlevel of significance below 1 per cent (bAP.IE¼ 0.723; pp0.001). The “PBC-EI”trajectory also attains statistical significance at 1 per cent (bCBP.IE¼ 0.307; p¼ 0.010).The “SN-EI” trajectory returns a slightly negative weighting but remainsstatistically significant at 10 per cent (bNS.IE¼�0.121; p¼ 0.055). The “NA-EI”trajectory holds statistical significance at 5 per cent (bNR.IE¼ 0.283; p¼ 0.017).Meanwhile, the “TA-EI” trajectory displays a significance level of below 1 per cent(bTA.IE¼�0.350; pp0.001). The “LC-EI” trajectory records a slightly negativeweighting at a 1 per cent level of significance (bLC.IE¼�0.311; p¼ 0.001).The “CE-EI” trajectory proved non-significant (bCE.IE¼ 0.045; p¼ 0.294). Finally,the “FBO-EI” trajectory holds a slightly negative weighting while achieving statisticsignificance at 5 per cent (bMot.IE¼�0.087; p¼ 0.045). The model under study, depictedin the Figure 2, returns the following standardised factorial value weightings in thefinal simplified causal sub-model.

The restricted model, including the factorial weightings and variances/fixedco-variances for general academic and vocational course students, did not returna significantly worse level of adjustment than the model with free parameters(wdif

2 (10)¼ 10.445; p¼ 0.000), showing the non-variance of the structural modelbetween the two student types. However, there are some conclusions to be reachedfollowing analysis of the factorial weightings (or regression coefficients) as presentedin Table II.

Table III sets out the factorial weights of the factor items for the two groups understudy. As may be noted, through this analysis, the factorial weights display somedifferences in certain instances between students on general academic courses andprofessional courses.

665

Entrepreneurialintention

5. ConclusionsThis research focused on understanding EI and the factors preceding the formation ofsuch intention and to this end positing causal relationships between psychological,demographic and behavioural factors. Based on TPB as a valid instrument fordetermining such intention, we applied the question to the current Portuguesesecondary school structure (general academic and vocational-based programmes) withthe objective of grasping the role performed by entrepreneurship education. Our studyresults portray a relationship between family antecedents and the EI of secondaryschool students. Despite some authors maintaining that this is a positive relationship,hence, individuals with family members owning and running businesses report a highpropensity towards entrepreneurship (e.g. Hisrich, 1990; Mathews and Moser, 1996),

Figure 2.Structural sub-model

GE PEHypotheses Direction Estimate p-value Estimate p-value

1 Entrepreneurialintention

’ Family antecedents �0.147 0.019* �0.034 0.586

2a Entrepreneurialintention

’ Need for recognition 0.041 0.759 0.493 0.021*

2b Entrepreneurialintention

’ Tolerance ofambiguity

�0.149 0.131 �0.505 ***

2c Entrepreneurialintention

’ Locus of control �0.164 0.178 �0.440 0.008

3a Entrepreneurialintention

’ Personal attitude 0.542 *** 1.389 0.209

3b Entrepreneurialintention

’ Subjective norm �0.132 0.118 �0.039 0.867

3c Entrepreneurialintention

’ Perceivedbehavioural control

0.505 *** �0.434 0.721

4 Entrepreneurialintention

’ Education forentrepreneurship

0.093 0.134 0.124 0.901

Table II.Hypotheses andcorrespondingsignificances of impactson EI for generaleducation (GE)and professionaleducation (PE)

666

ET54,8/9

this relationship proved negative in our sample. According to Drennan et al. (2005), forindividuals who have a positive vision of family member entrepreneurial experiences,setting up a company is something desirable. Therefore, the results obtained by thisstudy may indicate that student participants do not have a positive experience of thebusiness activities of their parents, siblings, uncles/aunts or grandparents and,consequently perceive starting and running companies as an undesirable goal. Suchentrepreneurial activities frequently do require some sacrifices and frequently at thecost of family life and therefore students, having perceived themselves as deprived oftheir nearest and dearest at certain points in their upbringing may not wish to continuewith this same cycle. It should be highlighted that only the demographic variablereturned a relationship with EI in our sample. The lack of effective power of thesevariables to predict entrepreneurial behaviour had already been identified by authorsincluding Robinson et al. (1991) and Fayolle et al. (2006a). Another conclusion is howpsychological features bear an influence on the EI of secondary school students. The“LC-EI” trajectory displays a slightly negative weighting with a 1 per cent level ofsignificance (bLC.IE¼�0.311; p¼ 0.001). These results are in keeping with theexplanation put forward by Kobia and Sikalieh (2010) who maintain that personsmay feel able to wield control over others but feel impotent when challenged by socialand economic issues. Similarly, the “TA-EI” trajectory recorded a negativeweighting, with a significance level of below 1 per cent (bTA.IE¼�0.350; pp0.001).These values may be related to the characteristics inherent to the sample itself givenparticipants represent a population currently in a growth phase of personalitydevelopment and thus still building certain capacities such as the aptitude forleadership and uncertainty.

GA PEFactors Items l p-value L p-value

Personalattitudes

With various options open, I would still preferto become an entrepreneur 0.831 *** 0.747 ***If I had the opportunity and the resources,I would love to set up my own business 0.755 *** 0.800 ***Running a business would give me moreadvantages than disadvantages 0.630 *** 0.680 ***

Subjectivenorm

My colleagues approve of my decision tolaunch a company 0.900 *** 0.935 ***My friends approve of my decision to launcha company 0.819 *** 0.615 ***My closest family members approve of mydecision to launch a company 0.776 *** 0.635 ***

Perceivedbehaviouralcontrol

I am ready and able to control the process ofsetting up a new company 0.741 *** 0.637 ***

Setting up and running a company would beeasy for me 0.691 *** 0.550 ***If I try and set up a company, I would have ahigh chance of being successful 0.649 *** 0.551 ***I know all the practical details necessaryto start a business 0.601 *** 0.353 0.003

Note: ***pp0.001

Table III.Factorial weights of

antecedent to intentionitems by GE and PE

student groups

667

Entrepreneurialintention

Furthermore, the “NA” variable proves statistically significant at 5 per cent(bNR.IE¼ 0.283; p¼ 0.017), positively influencing the EI of the secondary schoolstudents covered by this study. McClelland had identified NA as a strongentrepreneurial characteristic in as early as 1961. Our results find support in thestudies of Hornaday and Bunker (1970), and Dinis et al. (2008). We would alsohighlight how the study of Dinis et al. (2008) also focused on a secondary schoolstudent sample. As regards the relationship between antecedents to intention and theEI of secondary school students, we verify that there is a positive relationship betweenfavourable PA towards entrepreneurship and the EI of students. In fact, of the threeantecedents to intention, the relationship between PA and EI generated the greatestsignificance. Hence, we may affirm that a favourable evaluation of the role ofentrepreneur positively impacts on the EI of secondary school students. These resultscorroborate the studies by Paco et al. (2011a) and Paco et al. (2011b), which alsoapproached these issues at this phase in the educational system. As regards the SN inthe sample under study, the “SN-EI” trajectory presents a negative but statisticallysignificant weighting at 10 per cent (bNS.IE¼�0.121; p¼ 0.055). This variable isrelated to the perception the student holds of whether family, friends and colleagueswould approve of any decision to become an entrepreneur. Reflection on this negativerelationship certainly raises questions, especially as to the values of this generationthat seems to wish to “swim against the tide”. We would also highlight the poorcontribution made by this variable towards explaining EI.

On the literature, we pointed out the low level of explanatory power of the SNs asidentified in other studies (e.g. Krueger et al., 2000; Linan and Chen, 2009; Paco et al.,2011a, b). It should be further emphasised that in relation to the antecedents to EI,Ajzen (1991) draws attention to the importance of each factor being dependent on thebehaviours and the contexts in effect for each research. Finally, we find there is apositive relationship between PBC and the EI of secondary school students,demonstrating that the feeling of being able to undertake a particular behaviour (inthis study, that of an entrepreneur) and the perception of control over this behaviourpositively effects the EI of secondary school students. These results are congruentwith the findings of studies by Krueger and Carsrud (1993), Krueger et al. (2000),Souitaris et al. (2007), Linan and Chen (2009) and Paco et al. (2011a, b).

In conclusion, we would highlight that the model assumes the existence ofcorrelations between the three antecedents of intention (PA, SN and PBC). Observationof the relationships resulting from analysis of the structural equations also enables usto point out that the effects of the SN on EI may be experienced in a more indirect waythrough the influence of PA and PBC. Regarding the role played by entrepreneurshipeducation in the formation of EI among secondary students, our results do not supportany impact of such entrepreneurially focused education on the actual formation of EIamong students in the sample. We would highlight that despite this, the “I feel veryattracted towards the opportunity of becoming an entrepreneur” indicator, thosestudents reporting higher EI were those who had already come into contact with thetheme of entrepreneurship (58.9 per cent). However, the hypothesis of becomingentrepreneurs in the future remains independent of the fact of whether or not studentshad already experienced engagement with entrepreneurship-related themes havingno impact on EI. While somewhat surprising, these results are not unprecedented.Studies such as those by Boissin and Emin (2007), Rodrigues et al. (2012) alsoconcluded that entrepreneurship education failing to impact on EI. Oosterbeek et al.(2010) conclude that the effect of entrepreneurship education may even have a negative

668

ET54,8/9

impact on EI. These results raise a series of pertinent questions and deserve beingsubject to a more profound reflection and not only among the scientific and academiccommunity but also among political and government entities.

In sum, regarding issues relating to the existence of differences in EI amongstudents on the different courses, we concluded that 54.5 per cent of vocational coursesstudents display EI against 45.5 per cent of students on more general academicprogrammes. However, the probability of them becoming entrepreneurs is significantirrespective of the type of study programme. Correspondingly, multi-group analysis ofthe structural equations model registered no variance in the structural model betweenthe two types of study programme. The study’s research results highlight the need forpolitical decision makers to take into consideration the most appropriate means ofintegrating entrepreneurship education into secondary school curricula programmes.Furthermore, attention should also be paid to teacher training, an aspect which, in ouropinion, would prove fundamental to the effectiveness of any such reforms. Finally,greater parental awareness about the benefits of entrepreneurship education, thusleading them to encouraging and supporting their children from a young age, wouldfacilitate this process. To close, we may state that while it is important to educateabout entrepreneurship, it proves fundamental to educate for entrepreneurship throughnurturing entrepreneurial school cultures.

This research does have certain underlying limitations that are clarified here inorder to ensure future studies may provide a better vision of the relationships existingbetween the variables analysed. First, we would point to the limited scope of thesample that, and given the complexity of some of the multivariate statisticaltechniques, does not enable the extraction of other relationships between the variousdimensions under study. In fact, it would be very interesting to understand whether theexplanatory powers of the psychological and demographic factors rises in accordancewith the perspective of authors such as Shapero and Sokol (1982), Krueger et al. (2000)and Boissin and Emin (2007). They all argue that the influence of exogenous variables,such as personality features and demographic characteristics, indirectly impact on EIthrough the antecedents. Furthermore, in relation to the sample, we shouldfurthermore add that as it represents only students in attendance at but a singleschool, this study is limited by the context prevailing in that particular school andhence cannot be said to accurately portray the student population of secondary schoolsacross Portugal.

References

Ajzen, I. (1987), “Attitudes, traits, and actions: dispositional prediction of behavior in personalityand social psychology”, Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 1-63.

Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, Vol. 50 pp. 179-211.

Ajzen, I. (2001), “Nature and operation of attitudes”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52,pp. 27-58.

Begley, T. and Boyed, D. (1987), “Psychological characteristics associated with performance inentrepreneurial firms and small businesses”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 2, pp. 79-93.

Birdthistle, N., Hynes, B. and Fleming, P. (2007), “Enterprise education programmes in secondaryschools in Ireland – a multi-stakeholder perspective”, Education þ Training, Vol. 49 No. 4,pp. 265-76.

Boissin, J.-P. and Emin, S. (2007), “Les etudiants et l’entrepreneuriat: L’effet des formations”,Gestion 2000, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 25-42.

669

Entrepreneurialintention

Byrne, B.M. (2009), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, andProgramming, 2nd ed., Taylor & Francis, Routledge Academic, New York, NY.

Cheung, C.-K. and Au, E. (2010), “Running a small business by students in a secondary school:its impact on learning about entrepreneurship”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,Vol. 13, pp. 45-63.

Commission of the European Communities (2006), “Communication from the commission to thecouncil, the European Parliament, The European Economic and Social Committee and theCommittee of the regions”, Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: FosteringEntrepreneurial Mindsets Through Education and Learning, COM , Brussels, 13 February.

Dinis, A., Paco, A., Ferreira, J., aposo, M. and Rodrigues, R. (2008), “Start-up business intentionsamoung secondary students”, ESU Conference 2008 on entrepreneurship, pp. 1-17.

Drennan, J., Kennedy, J. and Renfrow, P. (2005), “Impact of childhood experiences on thedevelopment of entrepreneurial intentions”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship andInnovation, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 231-8.

Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. and Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006a), “Assessing the impact of entrepreneurshipeducation programmes: a new methodology”, Journal of European Industrial Training,Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 701-20.

Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. and Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006b), “Effect and counter-effect of entrepreneurshipeducation and social context on student’s intentions”, Estudios de Economıa Aplicada,Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 509-23.

Frank, H., Korunka, C., Lueger, M. and Mugler, J. (2005), “Entrepreneurial orientation andeducation in Austrian secondary schools: status quo and recommendations”, Journal ofSmall Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 259-73.

Gartner, W. (1989), “‘Who is an entrepreneur?’ Is the wrong question”, Entrepreneurship Theoryand Practice, Vol. 13, pp. 47-68.

Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997), “Some research perspectives on entrepreneurshipeducation; enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten-yearliterature review”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 56-77.

Green, R., David, R. and Dent, M. (1996), “The Russian entrepreneur: a study of psychologicalcharacteristics”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 49-58.

Haftendorn, K. and Salzano, C. (2003), Facilitating Youth Entrepreneurship, Part I: An Analysis ofAwareness and Promotion Programmes in Formal and Non-Formal Education,International Labour Office, Geneva.

Hisrich, R. (1990), “Entrepreneurship/intrapreneurship”, American Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2,pp. 209-22.

Hornaday, J. and Bunker, C. (1970), “The nature of the entrepreneur”, Personnel Psychology,Vol. 23, pp. 47-54.

Izquierdo, E. and Buelens, M. (2008), “Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions: theinfluence of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and attitudes”, IntEnt2008 Conference, Oxford,OH, 17-20 July.

Kobia, M. and Sikalieh, D. (2010), “Towards a search for the meaning of entrepreneurship”,Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 110-27.

Koh, H. (1996), “Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics: a study of Hong KongMBA students”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 12-25.

Kolvereid, L. (1996), “Predictions of employment status choice intentions”, EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 47-57.

Krueger, N. Jr and Brazeal, D. (1994), “Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs”,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 91-104.

670

ET54,8/9

Krueger, N. Jr and Carsrud, A. (1993), “Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of plannedbehavior”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 315-30.

Krueger, N. Jr, Reilly, M. and Carsrud, A. (2000), “Competing models of entrepreneurialintentions”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 Nos 5/6, pp. 411-32.

Lent, R., Brown, S. and Hackett, G. (1994), “Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of careerand academic interest, choice, and performance”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 45,pp. 79-122.

Lepoutre, J., Van den Berghe, W., Tilleuil, O. and Crijns, H. (2010), “A new approach to testing theeffects of entrepreneurship education among secondary school pupils”, Working PaperSeries No. 2010/01, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Gent.

Linan, F. (2004), “Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education”, Piccolla Impresa/SmallBusiness, Vol. 3, pp. 11-35.

Linan, F. (2008), “Skill and value perceptions: how do they affect entrepreneurial intentions?”,International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 257-72.

Linan, F. and Chen, Y.-W. (2009), “Development and cross-cultural application of a specificinstrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 593-617.

Lundstrom, A. and Stevenson, L. (2002), On the Road to Entrepreneurship Policy, SwedishFoundation for Small Business Research, Stockholm.

Mathews, C. and Moser, S. (1996), “A longitudinal investigation of the impact of familybackground and gender on interest in small firm ownership”, Journal of Small BusinessManagement, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 29-43.

Mitra, J. and Matlay, H. (2004), “Entrepreneurial and vocational education and training: lessonsfrom eastern and central Europe”, Industry and Higher Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 53-69.

Oosterbeek, H., Van Praag, M. and Ijsselstein, A. (2010), “The impact of entrepreneurshipeducation on entrepreneurship skills and motivation”, European Economic Review, Vol. 54,pp. 442-54.

Paco, A., Ferreira, J., Raposo, M., Rodrigues, R. and Dinis, A. (2011a), “Behaviours andentrepreneurial intention: empirical findings about secondary students”, Journal ofInternational Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 20-38.

Paco, A., Ferreira, J., Raposo, M., Rodrigues, R. and Dinis, A. (2011b), “Entrepreneurial intentionamong secondary students: findings from Portugal”, International Journal ofEntrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 92-106.

Peterman, N. and Kennedy, J. (2003), “Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptions ofentrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 129-44.

Robinson, P., Stimpson, D., Huefner, J. and Hunt, H. (1991), “An attitude approach to theprediction of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 4,pp. 13-30.

Rodrigues, R.G., Dinis, A., Paco, A., Ferreira, J. and Raposo, M. (2012), “The effect of anentrepreneurial training programme on entrepreneurial traits and intention of secondarystudents”, in Burger-Helmchen, T. (Ed.), Entrepreneurship – Born, Made and Educated,InTech, Rijeka, pp. 77-92.

Shapero, A. and Sokol, L. (1982), “Social dimensions of entrepreneurship”, in Kent, C., Sexton, D.and Vesper, K. (Eds), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,NJ, pp. 72-90.

Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S. and Al-Laham, A. (2007), “Do entrepreneurship raise entrepreneurialintention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration andresources”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 22, pp. 566-91.

671

Entrepreneurialintention

Van Gelderen, M., Brand, M., Van Praag, M., Bodewes, W., Poutsma, E. and Van Gils, A. (2008),“Explaining entrepreneurial intentions by means of the theory of planned behavior”,Career Development International, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 538-59.

Von Graevenitz, G., Harhoff, D. and Weber, R. (2010), “The effects of entrepreneurship education”,Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 76, pp. 90-112.

Further reading

Baumol, W. (1968), “Entrepreneurship in economic theory”, The American Economic Review,Vol. 58, pp. 64-71.

Byabashaija, W. and Katono, I. (2011), “The impact of college entrepreneurial education onentrepreneurial attitudes and intention to start a business in Uganda”, Journal ofDevelopmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 127-44.

Douglas, E. and Shepherd, D. (2002), “Self-employment as a career choice: attitudes,entrepreneurial intentions, and utility maximization”, Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 81-90.

Drucker, P. (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Ho, T. and Koh, H. (1992), “Differences in psychological characteristics betweenentrepreneurially inclined and non-entrepreneurially inclined accounting graduates inSingapore”, Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Change: An International Journal, Vol. 1,pp. 243-54.

Knight, F. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit, Houghton Mifflin, New York, NY.

Leibenstein, H. (1968), “Entrepreneurship and development”, American Economic Review, Vol. 38No. 2, pp. 72-83.

McClelland, D. (1961), The Achieving Society, Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.

Miner, J. (2000), “Testing a psychological typology of entrepreneurship using business founders”,Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 43-69.

Reynolds, P., Storey, D. and Westhead, P. (1994), “Cross-national comparison of the variation innew firm rates”, Regional Studies, Vol. 28, pp. 443-56.

Rotter, J. (1966), “Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement”,Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, Vol. 80, pp. 1-28.

Schumpeter, J. (1934), Theory of Economic Development, Oxford University Press,New York, NY.

Shane, S. (2007), A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus,Edward Elgar, Aldershot.

Stewart, W. and Roth, P. (2001), “Risk taking propensity differences between entrepreneursand managers: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1,pp. 145-53.

Van Praag, C. and Cramer, J. (2001), “The roots of entrepreneurship and labour demand:individual ability and low risk aversion”, Economica, Vol. 68 No. 269, pp. 45-62.

Wortman, M. (1987), “Entrepreneurship: an integrating typology and evaluation of the empiricalresearch in the field”, Journal of Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 259-79.

Corresponding authorJo~ao J. Ferreira can be contacted at: jjmf@ubi.pt

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

672

ET54,8/9