entrepreneurial intention and values: results from a … · 2016. 10. 5. · entrepreneurial...

Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. 2016. Vol. 13. N 2. P. 240–255.

ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION AND VALUES:RESULTS FROM A RUSSIAN POPULATION SURVEY

P. SCHMIDTa,b, A.N. TATARKOa

Introduction

In Eastern Europe an increase inentrepreneurial activity has been amajor challenge after the intensivetransformation process from a commu-nist system to a market society.

Entrepreneurial intentions best reflectthe commitment of individuals to starta new business (Engle et al., 2010).

As entrepreneurial activities areimportant determinants for long-termeconomic growth (Hmieleski & Baron,2009), understanding these determinants

AbstractThis article examines the relationship between value orientations and Entrepreneurial Intentionaccording to Reasoned Action Approach. The empirical base of this study relied on the results ofa representative survey conducted in 2 regions of Russia (the Central Federal District and theNorth Caucasian Federal District). The total sample included 2,061 respondents. Interviewswere conducted with representative samples of 1,026 respondents from the Central FederalDistrict of Russia, including Moscow, and 1,035 respondents from the North Caucasian FederalDistrict of Russia. It A subsample (269 pers.) was selected from this sample. The subsample wascomposed of the respondents intending to open a business in the next 2 years. The results ofresearch carried out in the framework of Reasoned Action Approach allowed us to confirm thevalidity of the Theory of Planned Behaviour in the Russian sample. The questionnaire includedmethods related to the assessment of values (PVQ-R), entrepreneurial intentions, and demo-graphic variables. To establish convergent and divergent validity of all the constructs of the the-ory of planned behaviour, attitudes toward the behaviour, social norms, perceived behaviouralcontrol, and intention as well as an additionally introduced concept of implementation intention,we tested our measurement model simultaneously for all measures. For this purpose we conduct-ed a simultaneous confirmatory factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimation for estimat-ing all parameters. It was also found that the value of Self-Direction (Action) is positively asso-ciated with the components of the model of entrepreneurial planned behaviour (attitude, subjec-tive norm, perceived behavioural control). Value of Security (Personal) is negatively associatedwith an attitude toward the idea of opening a new business.

Keywords: theory of planned behaviour, values, entrepreneurial behaviour.

а National Research University Higher School of Economics, 20 Myasnitskaya Str., Moscow, 101000,Russian Federationb Justus Liebig-Universität Gießen, Ludwigstrasse 23, D-35390 Giessen, Hessen, Germany

Entrepreneurial Intention 241

is central to an economy’s well-being(Sternberg & Wennekers, 2005). Inrecent years there have been severalstudies using the reasoned actionapproach (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010),also often referred to as the theory ofplanned behaviour (TOPB), as a theo-retical framework to explain entrepre-neurial intention and behaviour. Theempirical results corresponded to thoseof the general meta-analyses sum-marised in Fishbein and Ajzen (2010).However, for closing the intention-behaviour gap, Gollwitzer (1999) hasargued that it would be necessary tointroduce the concept of implementa-tion intention. These implementationintentions are usually formed after ageneral intention has been formed andwould fully mediate the effect of inten-tion on behaviour. In addition the rolesvalues play were discussed, andwhether values have either a direct orindirect effect on intentions (Liñán,2008).

In our paper we address these1.issues by answering the followingresearch questions while using a sub-sample of our large population sample:

Can we establish both convergent2.and discriminant validity for the con-cepts of attitude, norms, perceivedbehavioural control, intention, andimplementation intention?

Are we able to confirm the postu-3.lated model of the theory of plannedbehaviour including implementationintention with Russian populationdata?

Which of the new values of the4.enlarged concept of human valuesdeveloped by Schwartz et al. (2012)have predictive and explanatory powerfor the intention to start a new busi-ness, and are their effects fully mediat-

ed by the constructs of the theory ofplanned behaviour?

Theory

Intentions are indications of a per-son’s readiness to perform a specificbehaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen 2010,p. 39). Starting a business represents aclearly planned and intentional behav-iour, and this has been discussed inten-sively in entrepreneurial research(Bird, 1988; Krueger & Carsrud, 1993;Carsrud & Brannback, 2009; Liñán &Chen, 2009). However, in the last yearsGollwitzer (Gollwitzer, 1999; Goll -witzer & Brandstätter, 1997; Goll -witzer & Sheeran, 2006) has arguedthat the step from intention to behav-iour has to be analyzed in more detail.He proposed a new concept called“implementation intention”. This typeof intention comes out of more concretesteps people will undertake to reach acertain goal. Such additional stepsseem to be effective because they allowpeople to delegate control of their goal-directed behaviours to the social con-text (the stimulus situation). Examplesin the context of entrepreneurialresearch are questions of whether peo-ple have started to write a business planor attempted to borrow money from abank if necessary.

Empirical studies have confirmedthe relevance of implementation inten-tions as bridges between general inten-tions and concrete behaviour (Goll -witzer & Sheeran, 2006). How ever,Ajzen et al. (2006) have challenged thisby arguing that it is the commitment,and not the implementation intention,that leads to a higher consistencybetween intention and behaviour. Wetried to replicate this finding in a field

242 P. Schmidt, A.N. Tatarko

study but could not establish sufficientdivergent validity of the conceptsintention, implementation intention,and commitment (Zercher, 2010).Therefore, this different evaluation ofthe role of implementation intention isstill not settled.

According to the theory of plannedbehaviour, attitudes toward the behav-iour, social norms, and perceivedbehavioural control are the only directand positive antecedents of inten -tion.This has been confirmed by a seriesof meta-analyses (Fishbein & Ajzen,2010).

Given the overwhelmingly positiveempirical evidence we can now formu-late explicitly the propositions derivedfrom the theory of planned behaviourand combine them with the concept ofimplementation intention:

H1: The higher the intention tostart a new business, the higher theimplementation intention to start thenew business.

H2: The more positive the attitudetoward starting a new business, thehigher the intention to start a newbusiness.

H3: The higher the perceivedbehavioural control concerning thestart of a new business, the higher theintention to start a new business.

H4: The stronger the social normsfor starting a new business, the higherthe intention to start a new business.

Hypotheses H2—H4 are derivedfrom the theory of planned behaviour,and H1 is part of Gollwitzer’s (1999)concept of implementation intention.

Fishbein and Ajzen (2010) arguedthat a series of more distal backgroundfactors (individual, social, and informa-tional) influence attitudes, norms, andperceived behavioural control. In the

context of our research and taking intoaccount the limited interview time, wehave selected those which were seen asespecially relevant and/or had somesupporting empirical evidence. Withinthe group of individual determinants,the concept of values has become espe-cially important in recent years.Because of its theoretical foundationand its refined measurement instru-ments, we have chosen to use ShalomSchwartz’s (1992) value theory in thepresent study.

Both on an empirical and theoreti-cal level, a systematic comparison ofthe most prominent value concepts ofHofsteede, Inglehart, and Schwartz arestill missing. However, comparisons ofthe value theory and measurements ofInglehart and Schwartz show a higherreliability and validity of the valuedimensions of Schwartz (Datler, Jago -dzin ski, & Smidt, 2013).

The original theory specifies10 basic values that are ordered in a cir-cular motivational structure. Schwartz(2012) has proposed a refinement ofthe theory and the measurement ofthese 10 basic human values to reducethe problems of reliability and validity.He suggested a substantial increase inthe number of values and proposed topartition the continuum into 19 morenarrowly defined, conceptually preciseand discrete values instead of the origi-nal 10. In pretest studies we translatedand validated the new instrument foruse in the present research. Schwartz(1992) suggested that the value struc-ture could be summarized by distin-guishing four higher-order values thatform two dimensions: self-enhance-ment vs. self-transcendence and open-ness to change vs. conservation. Thevalues grouped within each of the four


higher-order values often exhibit simi-lar correlations with a large number ofdifferent behaviours, attitudes, andpersonality variables (Schwartz, 2006).Furthermore, Schwartz (Schwartz etal., 2012) postulates that the latentvariables for each of the 19 variablesshould load on the appropriate higher-order variable. Three of the original 10values, ( hedonism, stimulation, andachievement), were so narrowlydefined that they required no furthersubdividing. The others were subdivid-ed based both on conceptual considera-tions and empirical evidence.

This expansion from 10 to 19 valueswithout doubt increases the complexi-ty of the theory. Now the question ofhow to derive propositions for explain-ing attitudes, norms, perceived behav-ioural control, intention, and behaviourby values arises. In principle, one canformulate propositions on the level ofthe four underlying basic concepts, onthe level of the 10 values, or on thelevel of the 19 values.

As starting a new business can beregarded as a type of innovation, we usethe conceptual model of Fishbein andAjzen (2010, p. 22) to generate morespecific propositions relating specifichigher-order values and attitude, norms,and perceived behavioural control(Jaccard & Jacoby, 2010, pp. 137—176).Openness to Change values like Self-Direction and Stimulation especiallypromote the motivation to act innova-tively including starting one`s ownbusiness. This should lead to a morepositive attitude toward starting a newbusiness and could also lead to higherperceived norms because of the selec-tion effects (homophily) within socialnetworks. However, we would expectsmall effects on perceived behavioural

control due to cognitive dissonanceeffects. Self-Direction (Action) mightlead to a downward bias in the percep-tion of difficulties and barriers. Exp -licitly one can formulate the followinghypotheses:

H5: The higher the Self-Direction(Action) value, the more positive the at -titude toward starting a new business is.

H6: The higher the Self-Direction(Action) value, the more positive thenorms concerning the start of a newbusiness are.

H7: The higher the Self-Direction(Action) value, the higher the per-ceived behavioural control.

Security (Personal) value shouldhave the opposite effect. If, for people,personal security is a very high value,the risk of starting a new business willbe threatening and their attitudetoward starting their own business willtend to be more negative. Similarly,people with high Security (Personal)value will tend to display lower per-ceived behavioural control. The explic-it propositions are elaborated in the fol-lowing three hypotheses:

H8: The higher the Security (Per -sonal) value, the more negative the at ti -t ude toward starting a new business is.

H9: The higher the Security (Per -sonal) value, the more negative thenorms concerning the start of a newbusiness are.

H10: The higher the Security (Per -sonal) value, the lower the perceivedbehavioural control.

To test the hypotheses we specifieda sequence of models described below.We start with a test of the underlyingmeasurement model of the theory ofplanned behaviour to establish its con-vergent and divergent validity using a


subsample of our representative sam-ple. Next, we proceed to test a structur-al equation model to explain intentionand implementation intention to start anew business in Russia. Finally, weenlarge the model by testing whetherthe effects of values and demographicvariables on intention are fully mediat-ed by attitude, norms, and perceivedbehavioural control.

Sample and Measurements

Sample

The total sample included 2,061respondents. Interviews were conductedwith representative samples of 1,026respondents from the Central FederalDistrict of Russia, including Moscow,and 1,035 respondents from the NorthCaucasian Federal District of Russia.The questionnaire included methodsrelated to the assessment of values,entrepreneurial intentions, and demo-graphic variables. A more detaileddescription of the methodology of thestudy is presented below. In addition tothese methods, the questionnaire includ-ed a filter question: “Are you thinkingabout starting your own business withinthe forthcoming two years?” The possi-

ble answers were: “Yes”, “Maybe/Notsure” and “No”. Next, two subgroups ofrespondents from the entire sample wereselected for further analysis. The firstgroup (n = 269) included the respon-dents who answered either “Yes”, or“Maybe/ Not sure” — they were labeledthe “intenders.” The number of peoplewho did not plan to start a new businesswithin the next two years was 1,792.Further, a second group of 270 respon-dents was selected from this part of therepresentative sample, who matched theintenders in their socio-demographiccharacteristics (“non-intenders”).

The distribution of respondentsaccording to gender, age, and educationin both subsamples was equal: female —42.4% (for “intenders”) and 44.4% (for“non-intenders”); age (median) — 30years old (for both groups). In bothgroups most of the respondents had aspecialized secondary education orhigher education and were employed.Therefore, there were practically nodifferences between the two groupswith respect to gender, age, education,and distribution of their current occu-pations, which allowed testing of thehypotheses by comparing the groups.

Table 1 presents the distribution ofthe professional status of respondents’

Professional StatusFather % (for 269)

Father % (for 1,789)

Mother % (for 269)

Mother % (for 1,789)

Employee 68.4 65.1 62.5 53.7

Self-employed 10.5 5.5 4.8 4.1

Not working 5.1 6.9 26.7 26.1

Father/Mother deceased/absentwhen the respondent was 14

16.0 22.5 6.0 6.1

Table 1Distribution of professional status of respondents’ parents assessed retrospectively

at age 14 years


parents, assessed retrospectively at therespondent’s age of 14 years. Par ti -cipants were asked the following ques-tion: When you were 14, did yourfather (mother) work as an employee,was he (she) self-employed, or was he(she) not working at that time?

An interesting finding revealed inTable 1, is that presently in Russia thefather’s self-employment status is twiceas high only for those who intend tostart a new business, whereas no differ-ence is found for the mother’s self-employment status.

Measures

Behavioural intention (� = .72) wasmeasured using a two-item question-naire on a 7-point Likert scale, similarto that used by Ajzen (2002). Example:“How likely is it that you will start abusiness within the next two years?”with answers ranging from “veryunlikely” (�3) to “very likely” (3).

Behavioural attitude (� = .86) wasmeasured using two statements.Example: “The idea of starting a busi-ness within the next two years is forme...” with answers ranging on a 7-pointLikert scale from “very inappropriate”(�3) to “very appropriate” (3).

Subjective norms (� = .60) weremeasured using two items. Example:“Most people who are important to methink I should start my own businesswithin the next two years.” For bothstatements answers ranged on a 7-pointLikert scale from “strongly disagree”(�3) to “strongly agree” (3).

Perceived behavioural control (� = .93)was measured using two items.Example: “For me to start a businesswithin the next two years is...” withanswers ranging on a 7-point Likert

scale from “very difficult” (-3) to “veryeasy (3).

Implementation intention (� = .73)was measured using three items follow-ing Gollwitzer’s (1999) approach. Forexample: “Are you currently savingmoney for your intention to start abusiness?” with answers ranging on a5-point Likert scale from “No, I am not”(1) to “I have been actively doingthis/have already done this” (5).

Portrait Value Questionnaire Revised(PVQ-R). The new version of theRussian version of the Schwartz valueinstrument included 57 value items,representing each type of value(Schwartz et al., 2012). In accordancewith the key, an average rating is calcu-lated for the 19 values corresponding tothe 19 types of motivation (or individ-ual-level values) delineated by Schwartz.

Initial results suggest that theinstrument functions well to measurethe 19 values, and this refers both toconvergent and divergent validity(Schwartz et al., 2012). However, inthis study we used only the values thatare on two axes — Conservation (Secu -rity (Personal) value) and Openness toChange (Self-Direction (Action)value) — because they are the most rel-evant predictors for starting a newbusiness and for innovation in general(see Dollinger, Burke, & Gump, 2007;Lebedeva & Schmidt, 2012).

Results

Simultaneous Confirmatory FactorAnalyses: Model 1

To establish convergent and diver-gent validity of all the constructs of thetheory of planned behaviour (Ajzen,1991), attitude toward the behaviour,


social norms, perceived behaviouralcontrol, and intention as well as theadditionally introduced concept ofimplementation intention (Gollwitzer,1999), we tested our measurementmodel simultaneously for all measures(Brown, 2006). For this purpose weconducted a simultaneous confirmato-ry factor analysis using maximum like-lihood estimation to estimate allparameters using the computer pro-gram AMOS version 21 (Arbuckle,2012). We deleted one indicator ofintention because of significant errorcorrelations with some indicators ofattitude. The fit of the model was goodaccording to the recommended criteriafor goodness of fit (Brown, 2005; Huand Bentler, 1999): �2 = 121,001; df = 44;

�2/df = 2.75; CFI = .935; RMSEA == .08; CAIC default model consider-ably lower than the CAIC of the satu-rated model (Byrne, 2010, p. 82).

Figure 1 illustrates the measure-ment model for the TOPB constructswith the standardized coefficients.

All factor loadings are significantand higher than .40. The standardisedloadings of the TOPB constructs aremuch higher than 0.4, whereas thelower loadings of the implementationitems may reflect their greater speci-ficity because they refer to differentconcrete actions taken and not tointention in general. As one can seefrom the path diagram, all items loadonly on the factor (construct) theywere to supposed to and on no other

Figure 1Model 1 — Simultaneous confirmatory factor analysis results for the TOPB constructs and

implementation intention


construct. Therefore, convergent valid-ity was established. Furthermore, noconstruct had to be combined withanother one because of extremely highcorrelations between them. As predict-ed from theory, all correlations betweenthe factors intention, implementationintention, attitude toward the behav-iour, and perceived behavioural controlare positive. The most critical case isthe correlation between intention andimplementation intention, which israther high. However, even in this casethe model containing both factors wasbetter confirmed by the data than themodel postulating only one factor forall intention and implementation items.To check for method effects (PodsakoffMacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003),we compared a confirmatory modelwith only one general factor with amodel which specified all the five sub-stantive factors just discussed and amodel with the five substantive factorsplus a method factor. For the last modelwe had to constrain the loadings of themethod factor to be equal, because oth-erwise we could not reach a proper solu-tion (see Brown, 2006). All global fitmeasures did not indicate a significant-ly better fit for the model with methodeffects (AIC: 129.49 vs. 132.69; CFI:.968 vs .965; RMSEA .061 vs. .064;�2/df: 1.92 vs. 2.03). The first numberrepresents the result for the modelwithout method effects and the secondnumber the model with method effects.As a consequence, we did not take intoaccount a method factor in the subse-quent structural equation models.

Structural Equation Models

Model 2: Determinants of Intentionand Implementation Intention: What

role do attitudes, norms and PBCplay?

We have specified Model 2 in Figure 2based on the theory of planned behav-iour and its direct measures (Ajzen,1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010) supple-mented by the concept of implementa-tion intention (Gollwitzer, 1999).Implementation intention is specifiedin Model 2 as a dependent constructwhich is only directly influenced by theintention to start a new business. Thereasoning for this is that intention is amore general tendency which influ-ences a more concrete implementationintention (Gollwitzer, 1999; Gollwitzer& Sheeran, 2006). The intention itselfis determined by the three constructs:attitude toward the behaviour, socialnorms, and perceived behavioural con-trol as postulated by the theory andconfirmed in all meta-analyses(Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). We postulatethat there is a total mediation of theeffects of attitude, norms, and PBC onimplementation intention via intentionas argued above. The standardisedcoefficients both for the structuralmodel and the measurement model canbe found in Figure 2.

For the estimation we used the max-imum likelihood estimation procedureavailable in the program AMOS ver-sion 21.

The model of full mediation as spec-ified here was not significantly worsethan a model with direct influences ofattitude, norms, and perceived behav-ioural control on implementation inten-tion. The measures of global fit are sat-isfactory (CFI = 0.961, RMSEA = 0.06,�2/df = 2,031, AIC default model = 133.61vs. AIC saturated model =132). As onecan see in Figure 2, intention has a very


strong effect (.80) on implementationintention and as demonstrated here andin the confirmatory factor analysisdescribed above, divergent validity hasbeen established thus empirically cor-roborating the assumption of two inde-pendent constructs. As it has been shownin meta-analyses (Fishbein & Aizen2010), the predictors of attitude towardthe behaviour, norms, and PBC are alsoin our model all positively and signifi-cantly correlated. However, one can seethat attitude is more strongly correlatedwith norms and PBC than norms arewith PBC. The effects of attitude andPBC on intention are as expected:strong, positive, and significant (.61;.45). Also, in our model social norms hasa positive and significant effect (.59).

Model 3: A MIMIC Model for theTOPB, Implementation Intention,Values, and Demographics

In Model 3 we firstly tested whethervalues have a significant effect on atti-tudes, norms, and PBC and whether theimpact of values on intention and imple-mentation intention is fully mediated byattitude, norms, and PBC. Secondly, weexamined how the influence of demo-graphic variables on intention operates.As postulated by the TOPB (Fishbein &Ajzen, 2010, pp. 225—235), we assumefull mediation which means that thedemographic variables influence inten-tion and implementation intention onlyvia attitude, norms, and PBC and,therefore, not directly.

Figure 2Model 2 — Determinants of Intention and Implementation Intention


In addition, we postulated that self-employment of father and mother shouldalso have an effect on values of self-deter-mination and subjective security. Theacronym MIMIC stands for multipleindicators multiple causes (Jöreskog &Goldberger, 1975; Kline, 2011, pp. 322—325).This type of SEM model is called aMIMIC model because the model con-tains both formative and reflective indi-cators in addition to the latent variablesthemselves. The demographic variablesare the formative observed variables,which influence the latent constructsrepresented by values and the constructsof the TOPB including implementationintention. In contrast to the formativeindicators the items to measure valuesand the TOPB constructs are seen asreflective indicators determined by theirrespective constructs (Brown, 2006;Bollen & Davis, 2009).

Model 3 in Figure 3 represents onlythose paths that were at least signifi-cant at the 5% level. In the sense of theseminal paper by Jöreskog (1993), whodifferentiates strictly between confir-matory, alternative, and model generat-ing models, our final model belongs tothe third category. The fit of this Model3 seems to be sufficient: �2 = 206.913with 137 degrees of freedom, �2/df =1.510, CFI = .959, RMSEA = .044,CAIC for our model (default model) =556,433 compared to CAIC for the sat-urated model = 1,252,995.

Firstly, the path diagram revealsthat the factor loadings of all con-structs are sufficiently high to establishconvergent validity. In Figure 3, onecan see that the relation between inten-tion and implementation intention didnot change (0.80) compared with thecoefficient in Model 2. As there is no

Figure 3Model 3 — Standardized Coefficients for the Integrated Model of Demographic Variables,

Values, Theory of Planned Behaviour Constructs, and Implementation Intention


other direct effect on implementationintention, the explained variance ofimplementation intention also did notchange (.64). The same is true for theexplained variance of intention (.73).

Let us now refer to the relationsbetween values, attitude, norms, per-ceived behavioural control, intention,and implementation intention. As pre-dicted, there is no direct relationbetween the two values and intentionand implementation intention, whichconfirms the fully mediated model spec-ification outlined in Fishbein and Aizen(2010). Self-Determination (Action)seems to be the only significant value ofthe higher-order factor Openness toChange for the prediction of attitude(.40), norms (.35), and PBC (.45). Thepositive and significant effects corrobo-rate the theoretical hypotheses for thisdimension of Openness to Change. Theonly subdimension of Conservationthat has an impact seems to be Security(Personal), which has, however, only anegative effect on attitude. This meansthe more people value Security (Per -sonal) as a value, the more negativetheir attitude toward starting their ownbusiness is (�.24). The negative sign ofthe coefficient also confirms the theo-retically postulated hypothesis.

The explained variance of attitude is.16, of norms .19, and of PBC .21 thatshows that important variables are stillmissing in our model specification. Theexplained variances of Self-Deter mi -nation (Action) and Security (Per so -nal) by demographics are even consid-erably lower (.03 and .09).

Summary and Discussion

Our findings are consistent withsome empirical results using the theory

of planned behaviour as a framework toexplain entrepreneurial behaviour. Inour study only attitude toward thebehaviour and perceived behaviouralcontrol had a statistically significanteffect. Autio et al. (2001) found thatsocial norms had only a weak effect,Liñán and Chen (2009) reported thatnorms had only an indirect effect viaattitudes and perceived behaviouralcontrol, and Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud(2000) found no significant effect at all.In contrast to this, Kolvereid (1996),Tkachev and Kolvereid (1999), andZapkau et al. (2015) found that allthree determinants of intention had asignificant effect, as the theory pre-dicts. Concerning such inconsistentfindings, Fishbein and Ajzen (2010)argue that depending on situationaland contextual factors these coeffi-cients can vary considerably and cansometimes be nonsignificant. Liñán andChen (2009) have taken up this pointand argued that social norms may havea stronger influence in collectivisticcultures and a weaker one in individu-alistic cultures. The breakdown of theSoviet Union certainly led to a longerperiod of anomia (i.e., normlessness),and this could explain the finding thatnorms had no significant effect in ourstudy. However, in the Caucasus regionthe culture is much more collectivisticthan in central Russia around Moscow.However, our sample size in therestricted sample was very small, so wecould not use a multi-group MIMICModel to test this assumption.However, in the big sample the Cau -casus region had significant effects onvalues and intention. Additionally wecould show that intention and imple-mentation intention could be estab-lished as separate constructs although


they are closely related and that alleffects from attitude and perceivedbehavioural control were fully mediat-ed by intention. Concerning the values,we could confirm the assumption ofFishbein and Ajzen (2010) that valuesare important but more distal predic-tors. Their effect on intention andimplementation intention was, as pre-dicted, fully mediated by attitude,norms, and perceived behavioural con-trol. In the descriptive analysis it wasfound that all subdimensions of open-ness were higher for those individualswho intended to start a new business,whereas for all those individuals whohad no intention to start a business, allsubdimensions of conservation werehigher. Regarding the subdimensions ofopenness, we could demonstrate thatself-determination of actions seems tobe the only significant and positivedeterminant.

As in the study of Zapkau et al.(2015), we did not find any significantconnection between prior role modelexposure and the intention to start abusiness. Neither self-employment offathers nor of mothers had an effect.There was one exception; however, theself-employment of mothers had even anegative effect on perceived behaviour-al control. One explanation for thismight be that respondents with self-employed mothers get a more realisticview on the problems of starting a newbusiness.

However, this explanation wouldhave to be tested in new studies. Theexplanation provided by Zapkau et al.(2015) for the insignificant findingswas twofold. Firstly, they argued that

samples of business owners were oftenused instead of representative samples.Secondly, prior research has mostlyneglected to take into account how apositive or negative role model expo-sure was actually perceived by therespondents. Concerning the effect ofgender and its mediation by attitude,norms, and perceived behavioural con-trol, in a meta-analysis Haus et al.(2013) could demonstrate that thedirect effect of gender is rather low.This corresponds to our results.

One major limitation of intention-based research is that the strength ofthe relation between intention andbehaviour and its stability can be onlyobserved in longitudinal studies(Davidsson & Honig, 2003).

However, numerous studies andmeta-analyses have shown the closeconnection between intention andbehaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).Since our study was designed as a lon-gitudinal study and had 2 assessiblesteps, we had the opportunity at theend of the year to test the predictivevalidity of the research assets used bymeasuring the actual behaviour ofthose participants who had earilerexpressed the intent to start a newbusiness.

Acknoledgements

The article was prepared within theframework of the Basic Research Pro -gram at the National Research Univer -sity Higher School of Economics(HSE) and supported within theframework of a subsidy by the RussianAcademic Excellence Project “5-100”.


References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human DecisionProcesses, 50, 179—211.

Ajzen, I. (2002, September). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological consid-erations. (Revised January, 2006). Retrieved from http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/ikg/zick/ajzen%20construction%20a%20tpb%20questionnaire.pdf

Ajzen, I., Czasch, C., & Flood, M. G. (2006). From intentions to behaviour: Implementation intention,commitment, and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1356—1372.doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00485.x

Arbuckle, J. (2012). IBM SPSS Amos 21 user’s guide. Amos Development Corporation, Chicago.Autio, E., Keeley, R. H., Klofsten, M., Parker, G. G. С., & Hay, M. (2001). Entrepreneurial intent among stu-

dents in Scandinavia and in the USA. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 2(2), 145—160.Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas. The case for intention. Academy of Management

Review, 13(3), 442—453.Bollen, K. A., & Davis, W. R. (2009). Causal indicator models: Identification, estimation, and testing.

Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 498—522. doi:10.1080/10705510903008253Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Multivariate applications series. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic

concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Carsrud, A. L., & Brannback, M. (Eds.). (2009). International studies in entrepreneurship: Vol. 24.

Understanding the entrepreneurial mind: Opening the black box. New York: Springer. Datler, G., Jagodzinski, W., & Schmidt, P. (2013). Two theories on the test bench: Internal and external

validity of the theories of Ronald Inglehart and Shalom Schwartz. Social Science Research, 42(3),906-925. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.12.009

Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs.Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00097-6

Dollinger, S. J., Burke, P. A., & Gump, N. W. (2007). Creativity and values. Creativity Research Journal,19, 91—103. doi:10.1080/10400410701395028

Engle, R. L., Dimitriadi, N., Gavidia, J. V., Schlaegel, C., Delanoe, S., Alvarado, I., … Wolff, B. (2010).Entrepreneurial intent: A twelve-country evaluation of Ajzen’s model of planned behaviour.International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 16(1), 35—57. doi:10.1108/13552551011020063

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behaviour: The reasoned action approach. NewYork: Psychology Press.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. AmericanPsychologist, 54, 493—503. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstätter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186—199.

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 38, 69—119.doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1

Haus, I., Steinmetz, H., Isidor, R., & Kabst, R. (2013). Gender effects on entrepreneurial intention: ameta-analytical structural equation model. International Journal of Gender andEntrepreneurship, 5(2), 130—156.


Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Entrepreneurs’ optimism and new venture performance: Asocial cognitive perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 473—488. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.41330755

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinaryjournal, 6(1), 1—55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory construction and model-building skills. New York: Guilford Press.Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing

structural equation models (pp. 294—316). Newbury, CA: Sage.Jöreskog , K. G., & Goldberger, A. S. (1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and mul-

tiple causes with a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 10, 631—639.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press. Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice, 21(1), 47—57.Krueger, N. F., & Carsrud, A. L. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned

behaviour. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5(4), 315—330.Krueger, N. F. Jr., Reilly, M. D. & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial inten-

tions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 411—432. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0Lebedeva, N., & Schmidt, P. (2012). Values and attitudes towards innovation among Canadian,

Chinese, and Russian students. Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP04/SOC/2012.

Liñán, F. (2008). Skill and value perceptions: How do they affect entrepreneurial intentions? InternationalEntrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4, 257—272. doi:10.1007/s11365-008-0093-0

Liñán, F., & Chen, Y.-W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrumentto measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 593—617.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases inbehavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88(5), 879—903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances andempirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1—65.

Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Les valeurs de base de la personne: théorie, mesures et applications. RevueFrançaise de Sociologie, 47, 929—968.

Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., ... Konty, M. (2012).Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103,663—688. doi:10.1037/a0029393.

Sternberg, R., & Wennerkers, S. (2005). Determinants and effects of new business creation using glob-al entrepreneurship monitor data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 193—203. doi:10.1007/s11187-005-1974-z.

Tkachev, A., & Kolvereid, L. (1999). Self-employment intentions among Russian students.Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 11(3), 269—280.

Zapkau, F. B., Schwens, C., Steinmetz, H., Kabst, R. ( 2013). Disentangling the effect of prior entrepre-neurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention. Unpublished manuscript, University of Düsseldorf,Düsseldorf, Germany.


Zapkau, F. B., Schwens, C., Steinmetz, H., & Kabst, R. (2015). Disentangling the effect of prior entre-preneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 639—653.doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.007

Zercher, F. (2010). Determinanten der Teilzeitarbeit: Modellierung mit der Theorie des geplantenVerhaltens und Strukturgleichungsmodellen (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Gießen,Gießen, Germany.

Peter Schmidt — professor, Justus Liebig University of Giessen(Giessen, Germany); professor, National Research University HigherSchool of Economics.E-mail: [email protected]

Alexander N. Tatarko — associate professor, Faculty of Social Sciences,School of Psychology, senior researcher, International Laboratory forSocio-Cultural Research, National Research University Higher Schoolof Economics, D.Sc.E-mail: [email protected]

Предпринимательское намерение и ценности личности: результаты опроса российского населения

П. Шмидтa,b, А.Н. Татаркоa

a Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики», 101000, Россия,Москва, ул. Мясницкая, д. 20b Гиссенский университет имени Юстуса Либиха, Ludwigstrasse 23, D-35390 Giessen, Hessen, Germany

Резюме

В данной статье рассматривается взаимосвязь между ценностными ориентациями ипредпринимательским намерением с опорой на теорию разумного действия.Эмпирической базой данного исследования явились результаты репрезентативного опро-са, проведенного в двух регионах России (Центральный федеральный округ и Северо-

Предпринимательское намерение 255

Кавказский федеральный округ). Общий объем выборки включал 2061 респондента,в Центральном федеральном округе опрошены 1026 респондентов и в Северо-Кавказс -ком — 1035 респондентов. Затем из общей выборки было отобрано 269 респондентов, наме-ревающихся открыть собственный бизнес в течение ближайших двух лет. Все дальнейшиевиды математико-статистического анализа проводились именно на этой подвыборке.Результаты нашего исследования позволили подтвердить валидность теории разумногодействия на российской выборке и применительно к предпринимательскому поведению.Анкета включала в себя методы, направленные: а) на оценку индивидуальных ценностныхориентаций (PVQ-R Ш. Шварца); б) оценку предпринимательских намерений; в) оценкусоциально-демографических характеристик респондентов. Для выявления конвергентнойи дивергентной валидности всех конструктов, влияющих на намерение, в соответствии стеорией планируемого поведения (в основе которой лежит теория разумного действия),мы, помимо основных составляющих намерения (аттитюд, социальные нормы, восприни-маемый поведенческий контроль), дополнительно добавили в модель конструкт «реализа-ция намерения». Связь всех вышеописанных конструктов была протестирована в моделиодновременно. С этой целью мы провели симультанный конфирматорный факторный ана-лиз, используя метод максимального правдоподобия при оценке параметров. Далее мыпроверили гипотезы о связи ценностных ориентаций с компонентами планируемого пове-дения (аттитюд, социальные нормы, воспринимаемый поведенческий контроль). Былопоказано, что такая ценность, как «Самостоятельность действия», позитивно связана совсеми компонентами планируемого предпринимательского поведения. Ценность«Безопасность личная» продемонстрировала отрицательную связь с отношением к идееоткрытия нового бизнеса (предпринимательским аттитюдом).

Ключевые слова: теория планируемого поведения, ценности, предпринимательскоеповедение, предпринимательское намерение.

Шмидт Питер — профессор социологии, Гиссенский университет (Гиссен, Германия);Международная научно-учебная лаборатория социокультурных исследований, На цио -нальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики».Контакты: [email protected]

Татарко Александр Николаевич — доцент, департамент психологии, факультет социаль-ных наук, и ведущий научный сотрудник, Международная научно-учебная лабораториясоциокультурных исследований, Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшаяшкола экономики», доктор психологических наук.Контакты: [email protected]

entrepreneurial intention and values: results from a … · 2016. 10. 5. · entrepreneurial...

Documents