self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention: the mediation effect of self-regulation

ORIGINAL PAPER

Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intention:The Mediation Effect of Self-Regulation

Zaidatol Akmaliah Lope Pihie & Afsaneh Bagheri

Received: 16 August 2012 /Accepted: 20 March 2013# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Specifying the mechanism through which perceived self-efficacy affectsone’s behavior has been one of the main concerns of researchers and educatorsparticularly in entrepreneurship domain due to the critical role that entrepreneurialself-efficacy plays in motivating and enabling individuals to establish a new venture.This study examines the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy, self-regulation and entrepreneurial intention using Bandura’s structural path model forthe constructs. The sample was composed of 722 public and private Malaysianuniversity students. The results revealed that students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacyhas the most significant and positive impact on their intention to become an entre-preneur. More specifically, entrepreneurial self-efficacy highly affects students’ en-trepreneurial intention both directly and indirectly. Furthermore, self-regulationpartially mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and students’entrepreneurial intention. Implications of these findings for entrepreneurship researchand education are discussed.

Keywords Entrepreneurial self-efficacy . Self-regulation . Entrepreneurial intention .

University students

Introduction

The decision to pursue entrepreneurship as the career path has received increasingattention by researchers and educators due to the dramatically critical role thatentrepreneurship phenomenon plays in fostering socioeconomic development of bothdeveloped and developing countries (BarNir et al. 2011; Murali et al. 2009; Mastura

Vocations and LearningDOI 10.1007/s12186-013-9101-9

Z. A. L. Pihie :A. Bagheri (*)Faculty of Educational Studies, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor 43400, Malaysiae-mail: [email protected]

Z. A. L. Pihiee-mail: [email protected]

and Abdul Rashid 2008; Matlay 2006, 2005; Busenitz et al. 2003; Mueller andThomas 2000). Consequently, a robust body of studies conducted to identify thepersonal and environmental factors that motivate and prepare individuals and specif-ically university students to enter the challenging process of creating a new venture(e.g. Carsrud and Brännback 2011; McMullen et al. 2008; Liñán 2008; Barbosa et al.2007; Segal et al. 2005; Baum and Locke 2004). Researchers have mostly applied thetheory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991) to explain individuals’ vocational choiceand behavior (Berger and D’Ascoli 2012; Gegenfurtner 2012; Kyndt et al. 2011) aswell as students’ entrepreneurial career selection based on the assumption that thischoice is a complex and deliberate behavior that requires various cognitive processesand can most accurately be predicted by intention (Guerrero et al. 2008; Schjoedt andShaver 2007; Segal et al. 2005; Ajzen 2002; Krueger et al. 2000; Boyd and Vozikis1994). Scholars emphasise that students’ entrepreneurial intention can determine theiractual career choice as an entrepreneur (BarNir et al. 2011; Kickul et al. 2009). Thetheory explains human decision to adopt a specific behavior, such as students’intention to create their own businesses, as a function of the interactions among threemotivational and enabling factors. The first factor is control over behavior thatreflects students’ perceptions of their abilities and skills to perform entrepreneurialtasks. Entrepreneurial skills highly affect students’ sense of ability to execute thetasks needed for establishing their own businesses (BarNir et al. 2011; Liñán 2008).The second factor is attitude towards entrepreneurship that indicates students’ aware-ness of the importance and value of entrepreneurship and their expectations from theresults and consequences of starting their own venture. Students’ attitudes towardentrepreneurship take shape by various personal and environmental factors such asentrepreneurial skills and the value and support of entrepreneurship in their closeenvironment (Liñán 2008). Finally, the third factor is subjective and social norms thatrepresent students’ perceptions of how significant others such as their family andfriends value and support the establishment of a new business and their tendency tocomply with them. The higher students receive support from the significant others,the stronger is their intention to choose entrepreneurship as their future career path(Chen and He 2011). These factors shape students’ intention to pursue entrepreneur-ship and enhance their motivation and desire to establish their own businesses.However, there is little understanding about the factors that influence students’entrepreneurial intention (Fayolle and Gailly 2008; Fayolle et al. 2006).

Prior research has shown that students’ entrepreneurial intention can be influencedand guided by both personal and environmental factors (Souitaris et al. 2007; Fayolleet al. 2006). Specifying these factors and the nature of their interactions is of criticalimportance for university students as potential entrepreneurs in order to enhance theirintention to choose entrepreneurship as their future career and enable them to changetheir intention to a real new business (De Clercq et al. 2012; Culbertson et al. 2011;Fitzsimmons and Douglas 2011). Empirical research has highlighted self-efficacy asthe strongest personal factor that influences students’ entrepreneurial intention (Carrand Sequeira 2007; Zhao et al. 2005).

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy has been defined as the beliefs in individuals’ capac-ities to successfully perform the tasks required for starting and managing a newbusiness and their expectations toward the outcomes of creating a new venture(McGee et al. 2009; Kickul et al. 2008; Cox et al. 2002; DeNoble et al. 1999; Chen

Z.A.L. Pihie, A. Bagheri

et al. 1998). Yet, little is known about the mechanism through which perceived self-efficacy affects behavior in general (Bandura 1997) and students’ entrepreneurialcareer intentions in particular. Recently, Bandura (2012) proposed a model thathighlights self-regulation, the motivation and ability to set personal goals and striveto accomplish the goals, as one of the structural paths through which self-efficacyaffects behavior. Only few researchers investigated the relationship between self-regulation and entrepreneurial intention among students (McMullen and Shepherd2002). Using the model as the research theoretical framework, this study aims toanswer three research questions. First, what is the nature of the relationships amongMalaysian university students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy, self-regulation and theirentrepreneurial intention? Second, what is the relationship between students’ entre-preneurial self-efficacy and self-regulation? Finally, does self-regulation have amediating effect on the relationship between students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacyand intention? The findings provide one of the first empirical studies that explore thelinkages between students’ self-efficacy in performing required roles and tasks forlaunching a new business, ability to guide their behavior toward creating a newventure, and intention to choose an entrepreneurial career. The remaining of thispaper is organized in six sections. First, we describe the theoretical background ofself-efficacy and self-regulation in relation to entrepreneurial intention. Then, wepresent our research method and findings. Finally, we conclude with a discussion ofthe findings in light of their implications for entrepreneurship research, theorydevelopment and education.

Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intention

Self-efficacy is grounded in social cognitive theory (Bandura 1997). The theoryexplains human behavior as “a product of the interplay of intrapersonal influences,the behavior individuals engage in, and the environmental forces that impinge uponthem” (Bandura 2012:11). The interactions among these factors shape one’s beliefs inhaving the ability to successfully perform a specific behavior in a certain situation andhis/her expectations towards the outcomes of the behavior (Bandura 1999). Self-efficacy beliefs highly influence individuals’ selection of an action despite thepresence of alternatives, amount of efforts they expend to execute the action, theirperseverance in the face of difficulties and challenges and their success in performingthe action (Dwyer and Cummings 2001; Bandura 1997). Self-efficacy is both theantecedent and the consequence of an action choice and affects the way in whichindividuals perform their current task and direct their future task accomplishments(Bandura 2000). Bandura (2012) argues that self-efficacy is the most influential factoraffecting behavior because it influences behavior both directly and indirectly throughits impact on other processes and factors such as goal setting, outcome expectationsand perceptions toward facilitators and impediments in the environment. The funda-mental impact of self-efficacy on human behavior led scholars to apply the concept invarious fields such as entrepreneurship.

Scholars argue that vocational choice is a complex process requiring a high senseof self-efficacy (Bryant 2007; Schjoedt and Shaver 2007; Betz and Hackett 2006). Onthe importance of self-efficacy for career selection, Bandura (2012:13) emphasizes

Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intention: The Mediation Effect

that “In the process of career decision making, self-efficacy affects the slate of optionsgiven serious consideration”. Entrepreneurship researchers highlighted the criticalinfluence of self-efficacy on different aspects of a new venture creation process.Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is one’s perceived capacities to successfully perform thetasks and roles of an entrepreneur and his/her expectations toward the consequencesof creating a new venture (BarNir et al. 2011; McGee et al. 2009; Kickul et al. 2008;Chen et al. 1998). Previous research has shown that entrepreneurial self-efficacyhighly affects individuals’ intention and competence to become an entrepreneur, theamount of effort they devote to create a new business, their persistence in facing thechanges and challenges of a new venture creation process, and their success inperforming entrepreneurial roles and tasks (Trevelyan 2011; Chen et al. 1998; Boydand Vozikis 1994). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is also the key personal capabilitythat motivates entrepreneurial behaviors (Tyszka et al. 2011; McGee et al. 2009;DePillis and Reardon 2007; Chen et al. 1998) and enables entrepreneurs to overcomedifficulties during the entrepreneurship process such as opportunity recognition,marshalling resources and improving performance of the new business (Tumasjanand Braun 2012; McGee et al. 2009; Barbosa et al. 2007; Bryant 2006; Markman andBaron 2003). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy, therefore, not only influences individuals’decision to choose an entrepreneurial career but also directs their future performancein the process of managing and developing a new venture (McGee et al. 2009;Bandura 2000).

Specifically for students, entrepreneurial self-efficacy affects their motivation andcompetence to enter the challenging process of starting their own businesses andindicates the extent of their academic preparation for their future career path as anentrepreneur (Bandura 2012). Chen et al. (1998) emphasise that students with astrong sense of efficacy in successfully performing entrepreneurial tasks such asmarketing, financial control, management and risk taking have higher intentions tobecome entrepreneurs than those with low beliefs in their entrepreneurial abilities andskills. A robust body of research has shown the significant positive impact ofentrepreneurial self-efficacy on students’ entrepreneurial career choice (e.g. BarNiret al. 2011; Kickul et al. 2009; Carr and Sequeira 2007; Zhao et al. 2005). Re-searchers argue that entrepreneurial self-efficacy improves students’ entrepreneurialcareer intention by influencing their capacity to manage the process, their attitudestoward entrepreneurship and subjective norms. More specifically, several studieshave shown that students’ beliefs in their abilities and skills to perform the tasks asan entrepreneur affect their entrepreneurial intention through enhancing their sense ofcontrol over the process of entrepreneurship (Liñán 2008; Carr and Sequeira 2007;Zhao et al. 2005; Boyd and Vozikis 1994) and improving their abilities to face thechallenges and overcome the impediments in the process (Zhao et al. 2005). Liñán(2008) provided empirical evidence for the significant impact of students’ perceivedentrepreneurial skills on their entrepreneurial intention through influencing theirattitude toward starting their own businesses, perceived behavioral control andsubjective norms. Liñán concluded that improving students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy can highly enhance their intention to pursue an entrepreneurial careerbecause of its significant impact on all of the factors that shape entrepreneurialintention. Therefore, entrepreneurial self-efficacy has the most significant effect onstudents’ entrepreneurial career intention both directly and indirectly through


strengthening the relationship between other factors that affect their intention tobecome entrepreneurs (Bandura 2012; BarNir et al. 2011; Culbertson et al. 2011).

The influential impact of students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy on their entrepre-neurial career intention has led educators to provide them with a wide variety ofopportunities such as business plan writing, running a small business and workingwith an entrepreneur to enhance their skills and confidence in different tasks and rolesas an entrepreneur (Baum and Locke 2004; Rae and Carswell 2000). Students’involvement in these learning activities shapes their beliefs in their capabilities toperform entrepreneurial tasks and helps them decide on whether to pursue anentrepreneurial career path (Wilson et al. 2007; Souitaris et al. 2007; Fayolle et al.2006; Zhao et al. 2005; Erikson 2003). However, there is little knowledge about howthe acquired self-efficacy in performing entrepreneurial tasks improves students’intention to become an entrepreneur. Moreover, few researchers have examined theassociation between students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurial intentionand other personal attributes such as self-regulation (McMullen and Shepherd 2002).This study aims to address this gap by measuring university students’ entrepreneurialself-efficacy, self-regulation and entrepreneurial intention; the personal capabilitiesthat can be developed by education and training (Tumasjan and Braun 2012; Bryant2006, 2007; Wilson et al. 2007; Fayolle et al. 2006; Ajzen 2002).

Self-Regulation and Entrepreneurial Intention

While self-efficacy has traditionally been used to explain entrepreneurs’ motivationand performance as well as students’ intention to pursue entrepreneurship as theirfuture career (Tyszka et al. 2011; Culbertson et al. 2011; DePillis and Reardon 2007;Segal et al. 2005; DeNoble et al. 1999; Chen et al. 1998), self-regulation has recentlyemerged as a theoretical framework in entrepreneurship research and education(Tumasjan and Braun 2012; Bryant 2006, 2007; Brockner et al. 2004; McMullenand Shepherd 2002). The theory of self-regulation (Higgins 1998) explains howpeople direct their own motivation, thought and behavior in pursue of joy andcomfort and prevention of distress and conflict. However, this tendency can also bechanged by one’s self-regulation; which is the ability to choose and pursue goalsdespite the presence of personal and environmental impediments (Higgins et al.2001). In fact, self-regulation is individuals’ motivation and ability to envisiondesired future events based on their past knowledge and experience and monitorand guide their behavior to realize the vision (Bandura 1997). While self-efficacy isthe ability to successfully perform a specific task in a specific situation, self-regulation is the capability to regularly direct one’s thoughts and behavior to accom-plish the task despite the presence of different obstacles (Bandura 2012). Promotionand prevention focuses are the main components of the self-regulation theory thatcreate the required motivation and ability towards the accomplishment of personalgoals. If people consider the pleasant and lucrative outcomes of achieving a goal, theyare promotion-focused and if they emphasize their security and avoid potentialfailures and losses, they are prevention-focused (Bryant 2007; Brockner et al. 2004;McMullen and Shepherd 2002). Individuals construct their sense of self-regulationbased on their past successes and failures as well as their present situational factors


(Higgins et al. 2001). Since people’s experiences and situations are unique, theirregulatory focus differs in terms of their motivation and ability to anticipate future,develop expectations and goals, determine the outcomes of the goals and choosestrategies to achieve them (Bryant 2009, 2007; Brockner et al. 2004; Bandura 1997).

The theory of self-regulation has recently been applied in entrepreneurship re-search to explain entrepreneurial motivation and behavior (Brockner et al. 2004).When faced with highly complex and uncertain situations, such as those found in theprocess of selection to become an entrepreneur, self-regulation helps define themanner by which individuals approach the decision, evaluate their abilities to enactthe intention and direct themselves to fulfil the required tasks (Bryant 2007, 2006;Brockner et al. 2004). Self-regulatory focus also influences the amount of effortentrepreneurs put into establishing new ventures as well as their success in managingtheir business (Brockner et al. 2004). Promotion focus enables entrepreneurs torecognize various creative and innovative entrepreneurial opportunities (Tumasjanand Braun 2012; Trevelyan 2011; Brockner et al. 2004), decide which entrepreneurialopportunities to exploit (Bryant 2007) and enhance the performance of their newventure (Hmieleski and Baron 2008). Prevention focus, in turn, guides entrepreneursaway from risky and ambiguous tasks such as entering a new industry or market(Trevelyan 2011). Using a sample of 142 graduating business students, McMullenand Shepherd (2002) examine the relationship between self-regulation and students’entrepreneurial intention. The authors conclude that promotion-focused students havehigher intention to establish their own businesses. While, students who areprevention-focused have lower intentions to choose entrepreneurship as their career.Scholars strongly believe that systematic and purposeful interventions, such aseducation and training, can improve self-regulation and thereby students’ intentionand competence to become an entrepreneur (Tumasjan and Braun 2012; Bryant 2006,2007; Brockner et al. 2004). However, there is little empirical research publishedrelated to students’ self-regulation focus and their intention to become an entrepre-neur (McMullen and Shepherd 2002). Furthermore, research on the interactionbetween self-regulation and other personal characteristics such as self-efficacy andits effect on students’ entrepreneurial choice is scarce. This study attempts to narrowthe gap by examining the impact of university students’ self-regulation and entrepre-neurial self-efficacy on their entrepreneurial career intention.

Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Self-Regulation

Despite the conceptual and theoretical commonalities between self-efficacy and self-regulation (Bandura 2012; Bandura 1997), empirical research on the relationshipbetween the two constructs is scarce particularly in entrepreneurship context andeducational settings (Tumasjan and Braun 2012; McMullen and Shepherd 2002).Bandura (1997) emphasises that self-efficacy affects one’s behavior through self-regulatory processes such as motivation to set and pursue personal goals and standards,perseverance in the face of difficulties and confidence in successfully performing a task.Bryant (2007, 2006) highlights the urgent need to incorporate these constructs to betterexplain entrepreneurial behavior. Tumasjan and Braun (2012) found a significant andcomplementary relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy, self-regulation and


entrepreneurs’ ability to recognize creative and innovative opportunities for venturecreation. In educational settings, researchers have mostly focused on the relationshipbetween students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy and their intention to become an entre-preneur (Kickul et al. 2009; Wilson et al. 2007; Fayolle et al. 2006; Zhao et al. 2005).Only few studies have used both of these constructs to examine students’ entrepreneurialintention and behavior (McMullen and Shepherd 2002). This limited understandingaffects the provision of effective educational programs and pedagogical methods basedon students’ entrepreneurial strengths and weaknesses, which is important in thedevelopment of their entrepreneurial intention and competence (Chen et al. 1998).

Recently, Bandura (2012) proposed a structural path model for the relationshipbetween self-efficacy, self-regulation (goals) and behavior. The model shows the keyrole that self-regulation plays in carrying the impact of self-efficacy, outcome expec-tations and sociostructural factors on behavior. He explains the way through whichself-regulation affects behavior as “Cognized goals and personal standards rooted invalue systems function as further incentives and guides for action through self-reactive mechanisms” (Bandura 2012:14). Self-reactive and self-reflective activitiessuch as monitoring and evaluating behavior create the incentives that motivate andguide one’s knowledge, thoughts, emotion, performance and environmental settingstoward achieving a goal. Drawing on the model, this study aims to investigate therelationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy, self-regulation and entrepreneurialintention among Malaysian university students. Furthermore, it examines the hypoth-esized mediating impact of self-regulation on the relationship between entrepreneur-ial self-efficacy and students’ entrepreneurial career intention.

Method

Participants

A total sample of 722 Malaysian students from public (n=331, 45.8 %) and private(n=391, 54.2 %) universities were randomly selected to participate in this study. Thestudents’ details are presented in Table 1. Majority of the students aged between 16and 25 (76.9 %) years (4.8 % of the students were between 26 and 30 years old, 6.6 %were between 31 and 40 years old, and 7.6 % were between 41 and 50 years old). Thesample consisted of 377(52.2 %) males and 342 (47.4 %) females. Most of the studentswere pursuing their Bachelor degrees (n=541, 74.9 %). The students had differenteducational backgrounds: agricultural science (n=104, 14.4 %), information technology(n=82, 11.4 %), accounting and finance (n=41, 5.7 %), and others (n=495, 68.5 %).Majority of the participants had no business experiences (n=491, 68 %) and had nevertaken an entrepreneurship course (n=363, 50.3 %).

Measures

We used validated questionnaires to measure the three constructs appearing in thestructural model including entrepreneurial self-efficacy, self-regulation and entrepre-neurial intention. We measured students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy using the Self-efficacy Skills questionnaire developed by Scherer et al. (1989). The questionnaire


contained five items relating to different tasks and roles of an entrepreneur includingmarketing (selling, selecting a location, advertising and customer service), accounting(obtaining financial resources, bookkeeping, monitoring accounts and budgeting),personnel management (employee selection, discipline, motivation and job analysis),production management (inventory, quality control, manufacturing and arrangingfacilities) and organizing (planning, coordinating projects and assessing performanceof the business). In order to assess students’ self-regulation focus, we used theRegulatory Focus questionnaire developed by Grant and Higgins (2003). Students’promotion focus was measured by six items. An example of the items is ‘Comparedto most people, I am typically unable to get what I want out of life’. The participants’prevention focus was assessed using five items. An example of the items in thissection is ‘I feel like I have made progress toward being successful in my life’.Finally, six items of Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire (Liñán 2008) were usedto assess students’ intention to become an entrepreneur. An example of the items is ‘Iwill make any effort to start and run my own business’. Table 2 shows means,

Table 1 The participants’ detailsParticipants Frequency Percentage

Gender

Male 377 52.2

Female 342 47.4

Age

16–25 577 79.9

26–30 35 4.8

31–40 48 6.6

41–50 56 7.6

Level of study

Masters 53 7.3

Bachelors 541 74.9

Diploma 22 3.0

Others 103 14.3

Field of study

Education of agriculture science 104 14.4

Information technology 82 11.4

Accounting and finance 41 5.7

Others 495 68.5

University

Private 391 54.2

Public 331 45.8

Business experience

Yes 210 29.1

No 491 68.0

Taken an entrepreneurship course

Yes 348 48.2

No 363 50.3


standard deviations and Cronbach’s alpha for all of the items in the instrument.Analysis of internal consistency for the instrument indicated that all of the constructshad values of Cronbach’s alpha greater than .70. Therefore, different sections of theinstrument were reliable to assess students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy, self-regulation and entrepreneurial intention. The students were asked to indicate theiragreement with each statement on a 5 point Likert scale with respond options rangingfrom 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess the reliability andvalidity of the individual items, overall measurement model and the hypothesizedfactor structure for the constructs (Table 3). The items with a loading less than the0.50 threshold were eliminated (Hair et al. 2010). Of the five items on entrepreneurialself-efficacy, one (accounting) was deleted due to its low loading to the factor. Threeitems from promotion focus (Promo 1, Promo 2 and Promo 3), two items from

Table 2 Internal consistency of the instrument

Subscales in the instrument Mean SD Cronbach’salpha

Self-efficacy .84

Marketing 3.37 .93

Accounting 3.16 .97

Personnel 3.46 .87

Production 3.32 .89

Organization 3.41 .90

Self-regulation .71

Promotion focus 20.83 2.84 .67

Promo1: Unable to get what you want 3.35 .74

Promo2: Doing well at different things 3.64 .70

Promo3: Crossing the line that parents draw 3.50 .76

Promo4: Obeying the rules that parents established 3.45 .83

Promo5: Acting in ways that parents thought objectionable 3.40 .76

Promo6: Getting into trouble because of not being careful 3.46 .81

Prevention focus 17.40 2.67 .68

Preve 1: Accomplished things that psyched you to work harder 3.48 .72

Preve 2: Performed well in achieving important things 3.35 .77

Preve 3: Made progress toward being successful in life 3.62 .77

Preve 4: Found few activities in life that captured interests to put effort 3.56 .91

Preve 5: Got on parents’ nerve when growing up 3.37 .86

Entrepreneurial intention .83

Item 4: I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur 3.33 .96

Item 5: I will make every effort to start and run my own business 3.51 .96

Item 8: I have serious doubts about ever starting my own business 3.67 .93

Item 12: I am determined to create a business venture in the future 3.50 .89

Item 16: My professional goal is to be an entrepreneur 3.48 .91

Item 17: I have a very low intention of ever starting a business 3.27 .83


prevention focus (Preve 1 and Preve 2) and two items from entrepreneurial intention(Item 8 and Item 16) were also deleted because of their low loadings to the factors.

Convergent validity of each factor was measured by average variance extracted(AVE >.5) which is the portion of the construct variance explained by its indicators.We also measured discriminant validity of the constructs, the extent to which aconstruct is significantly distinct from others (AVE > r). As shown in Table 3, all ofthe 4 items measuring entrepreneurial self-efficacy had high factor loadings to theconstruct. These items also had acceptable convergent validity (AVE=.54) and dis-criminant validity with self-regulation (.54>.43). This implied that the items used toassess students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy were valid and reliable to measure theconstruct. Self-regulation consisted of two factors (promotion and prevention focus).Convergent validity for the items on promotion and prevention focus were .51 and .43respectively. The two factors had also an acceptable discriminant validity (.51>.31,.43>.31) indicating acceptable validity and reliability of this section of the question-naire. Results from confirmatory factor analysis performed on the four items thatmeasured students’ entrepreneurial intentions indicated that the items had acceptableconvergent validity (AVE=.54) and discriminant validity (.54>.51).

The goodness of fit indices obtained for the measurement model implied thatthe model fits the data well because x2/DF was less than 4, all of the indiceswere greater than .90 and RMSEA was less than .08 (Hair et al. 2010; Ho 2006)[Chi-Square (x2=249.142), degree of freedom (DF=72), p=.000, x2/DF=3.46;

Table 3 Confirmatory factor analysis for the constructs

Constructs Factor loadings P

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy

Marketing .67 ***

Personnel management .78 ***

Production management .72 ***

Organizing .76 ***

Self-regulation

Promotion focus

Pro 4: Obeying the rules that parents established .66 ***

Pro 5: Acting in ways that parents thought objectionable .79 ***

Pro 6: Getting into trouble because of not being careful .70 ***

Prevention focus

Preve 3: Made progress toward being successful in life .62 ***

Preve 4: Found few activities in life that captured interests to put effort .72 ***

Preve 5: Got on parents’ nerve when growing up .61 ***

Entrepreneurial intention

Item 4: I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur .79 ***

Item 5: I will make every effort to start and run my own business .77 ***

Item 12: I am determined to create a business venture in the future .71 ***

Item 17: I have a very low intention of ever starting a business .65 ***

***P<.001


comparative fit index (CFI=.95); goodness of fit index (GFI=.95); adjustedgoodness of fit index (AGFI=.93); Bentler-Bonett normed fit index (NFI=.93);Bollen's incremental fit index (IFI=.94); Tucker-Lewis index (TLI=.93); androot-mean square error of approximation (RMSEA=.058)]. To ensure the Com-mon Method Variance (CMV) does not affect the standardized path coefficientsand the measurement and structural model fit indices, we compared the stan-dardized regression weights of the full measurement model with and without acommon latent factor (Podsakoff et al. 2012; Podsakoff et al. 2003). The resultsindicated the differences between regression weights in all paths of the twomodels were less than 0.2. This indicates the standardized path coefficients and thefit indices of our measurement and structural models were not affected by CMV.

Findings

Building on Bandura’s (2012) structural path model for the relationship betweenself-efficacy, self-regulation and behavior, this study examined the relationshipbetween Malaysian university students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy, self-regulation and entrepreneurial career intention and the mediating effect of self-regulation on the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intentionusing SEM procedures. Figure 1 shows the causal structure, the standardizedcoefficients and the fit indices obtained. The index values found for the rela-tionship between students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy, self-regulation and en-trepreneurial intention indicate the model fits the data well since they meet thecriteria: [Chi-Square (x2=232.147); DF=71, p=.000, x2/DF=3.27; CFI=.95;GFI=.95; AGFI=.93; NFI=.93; IFI=.95; TLI=.93; and RMSEA=.056]. Thus,the relationships among variables were in the expected directions and supportedthe hypothesised causal structure. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy accounted for40 % variance of intention indicating its high impact on students’ intentionsto become an entrepreneur. Self-efficacy also contributes 43 % of the variancein self-regulation. More specifically, self-efficacy affects students’ entrepreneur-ial intention both directly (40 %) and indirectly (52 %). Furthermore, self-regulation accounts for 33 % variance of entrepreneurial intention.

Our findings also showed that self-regulation partially mediates the relationshipbetween self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention (Table 4) because all of the

Fig. 1 Structural model for entrepreneurial self-efficacy, self-regulation and entrepreneurial intention withstandardized regression weights [SELEFFIC self-efficacy, SELREGU self-regulation, PREVEN Prevention,PROMO promotion]


correlations between the variables were significant (p=.000) and the relationshipbetween self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention reduced (Beta=.53>.40) whenwe added self-regulation (Baron and Kenny 1986). Furthermore, the Chi-Square forfull mediation model is less than the Chi-Square for indirect model (249.142<272.014) and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) for full moderation is less thanthe AIC for indirect model (315.142<336.014).

Discussion

This study sought to explore the relationship between university students’ entrepreneur-ial self-efficacy, self-regulation and entrepreneurial career intention and the mediatingimpact of self-regulation on the relationship between the variables based on a structuralpath model recently proposed by Bandura (2012). Our findings provided empiricalevidence for the hypothesized relationship between self-efficacy, self-regulation andbehavior in educational settings and relating to Malaysian university students’ entrepre-neurial intentions. More specifically, this study confirmed that domain-specific self-efficacy has the most significant positive effect on entrepreneurial career intentionsamong university students (BarNir et al. 2011; Culbertson et al. 2011; Zhao et al. 2005;Fayolle et al. 2006; Bandura 1997). Self-regulation had also a significant and positiveimpact on students’ selection to establish their own venture. This finding supports theinfluential effect of self-regulation on students’ intentions to become an entrepreneur(McMullen and Shepherd 2002). Therefore, students’ entrepreneurial intentions can beenhanced through improving their motivation to choose establishing their own busi-nesses as their career path goal and enabling them to face the inherited challenges of anew venture creation process. Furthermore, self-efficacy emerged as the most significantcontributor to students’ entrepreneurial intention because of its strong direct and indirectrelationships with the construct. This highlights self-efficacy as the strongest factorinfluencing students’ selection as an entrepreneur and necessitates providing opportu-nities for them to improve their entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Bandura 2012; Culbertsonet al. 2011;Wilson et al. 2007; Souitaris et al. 2007; Fayolle et al. 2006; Zhao et al. 2005;Chen et al. 1998).

Analysis of the path structure between the constructs under this investigationindicated that self-regulation partially mediates the relationship between entrepre-neurial self-efficacy and students’ entrepreneurial intentions. However, the impact of

Table 4 Regression weights, standard errors and critical ratios of direct and full mediation models

Models B S.E. C.R. Beta p

Direct model

Intention <— Self-efficacy .63 .055 11.43 .53 ***

Full mediation

Self-regulation <— Self-efficacy .25 .040 6.42 .43 ***

Intention <— Self-efficacy .49 .069 7.127 .40 ***

Intention <— Self-regulation .69 .175 3.96 .33 ***


self-regulation on entrepreneurial intention is less than the effect of entrepreneurialself-efficacy on the construct. Bandura (2012) argues that self-efficacy affects behav-ior through self-regulation processes such as enhancing one’s motivation and abilityto set goals and expectations and regulating his/her behavior to achieve the goals. Thesignificant impact of self-efficacy on self-regulation emerging from this study con-firms the associative and complimentary effect of self-regulation and self-efficacy onentrepreneurial behavior (Tumasjan and Braun 2012; Trevelyan 2011; Bryant 2007,2006). Therefore, researchers may need to include these constructs in their studies inorder to provide a better knowledge about entrepreneurial behavior (Bryant 2009,2007). They may also apply the model emerging from this study as a framework todevelop theories on entrepreneurial behavior, including for students’ entrepreneurialintention.

The findings of our study have also several implications for entrepreneurshipeducators. First, the strong impact of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention neces-sitates providing more purposive and effective entrepreneurship education and train-ing for students to enhance their efficacy in performing specific tasks and roles of anentrepreneur. To do so, educators can engage students in various learning opportuni-ties such as business plan writing, role modeling and case studies (Wilson et al. 2007;Fayolle et al. 2006; Chen et al. 1998). Furthermore, entrepreneurship education canoffer a challenging but supportive environment for students to run a small newbusiness rather than stressing only on entrepreneurship theories and traditionalmethods of teaching entrepreneurship (Trevelyan 2011; Fayolle and Gailly 2008;Fuchs et al. 2008; Pittaway and Cope 2007; Zhao et al. 2005). Particularly inMalaysia, there is an urgent need for providing students with the experiential entre-preneurship learning activities (Cheng et al. 2009). Second, the associative andcomplementary relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and self-regulation may help educators to use the synergy and develop students’ entrepre-neurial capabilities and intention more effectively. Since educational methodsfor improving students’ self-regulation is underdeveloped (Bryant 2006), educa-tors may need to utilize the previously established pedagogical activities fordeveloping self-efficacy to also improve students’ self-regulation by emphasiz-ing on more challenging and experimental learning methods and stressing onsuccessful goal achievements (Tumasjan and Braun 2012; Heinonen 2007;Wilson et al. 2007). Therefore, entrepreneurship educators need to be welltrained and equipped with the skills to design and implement various pedagog-ical methods to improve self-efficacy, self-regulation and consequently entrepre-neurial intention of their students.

Limitations

Although this study provides a better knowledge and understanding of the impact ofentrepreneurial self-efficacy and self-regulation on students’ entrepreneurial careerintention, it has several limitations. First, following previous researchers (e.g. DeClercq et al. 2012; BarNir et al. 2011; Culbertson et al. 2011; Kickul et al. 2009;Fayolle et al. 2006; Zhao et al. 2005) we used university students as the participantsof this study. This may affect measuring the actual career choice of students becausevocational intention for some of them may shape later in life. Second, we measured


students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy by their perceptions toward their ability toperform the tasks needed for managing a business (Scherer et al. 1989). Despite thehigh reliability and validity of the questionnaire, it may not capture all of thecapabilities and skills required for the process of establishing a new business (McGeeet al. 2009). Finally, we measured the study constructs at the same time by the samequestionnaire. This common method variance (CMV) may affect the standardizedpath coefficients and the fit indices in the study measurement and structural models(Podsakoff et al. 2003). However, we used two methods to control the effects ofCMV (Podsakoff et al. 2012; Podsakoff et al. 2003). First, we implemented proce-dural remedies related to the questionnaire and design of the items such as includingnegative items among the items measuring the study constructs and separating theitems measuring entrepreneurial self-efficacy and self-regulation and entrepreneurialintention by including the first two constructs in one section of the questionnaire andthe third construct in another part. Second, we measured the effect of CMV byperforming a common latent factor analysis. The results showed that the differencesbetween regression weights in all paths of the two models (with and without thecommon latent factor) were less than 0.2. This indicates CMV has a very low impacton the study findings (Podsakoff et al. 2003).

Conclusion

Based on the findings of this study, it can be concluded that self-efficacy is thestrongest predictor of university students’ entrepreneurial career intentions. Further-more, students’ self-regulation also plays a key role in their decision to become anentrepreneur. This study contributes one of the first empirical supports for the pathstructural model of self-efficacy, self-regulation and behavior proposed by Bandura(2012). Therefore, the model can be used by both entrepreneurship researchers andeducators in their attempts to improve entrepreneurial capabilities and intentionamong students. The model also provides better understanding of the mechanismthrough which students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy affects their vocational choiceas an entrepreneur. However, we only focused on self-regulation as the factor thatcarries the impact of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention. Future research shouldexamine other hypothesized mechanisms such as outcome expectations (physical,social, and self-evaluative) and sociostructural factors (facilitators and impediments)through which self-efficacy influences entrepreneurial behavior (Bandura 2012).Further research can also examine whether the model emerging from this study canexplain entrepreneurial behavior in other contexts rather than universities. The modelcan also be tested to determine if age, gender and education affects the path structurebetween entrepreneurial self-efficacy, self-regulation and intention. Longitudinalstudies should also be conducted to examine if students having entrepreneurial careerintentions will ultimately establish their own businesses. Future research should alsoinvestigate the impact of self-efficacy on students’ entrepreneurial career choice usinginstruments that assess their beliefs in performing different stages of the entrepre-neurship process (McGee et al. 2009) in order to provide a clearer picture of theimpact of their entrepreneurial self-efficacy on their selection to pursue an entrepre-neurial career.


References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior.Organizational Behavior andHumanDecision Processes, 50,179–211.

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of plannedbehavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1–20.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of contro. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Eds.), Handbook of

personality (2nd ed., pp. 154–196). New York: Guilford.Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psycho-

logical Science, 9, 75–78.Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Manage-

ment, 38, 9–44.Barbosa, S. D., Gerhardt, M. W., & Kickul, J. R. (2007). The role of cognitive style and risk preference on

entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Leadership and OrganizationalStudies, 13(4), 86–104.

BarNir, A., Watson, W. E., & Hutchins, H. M. (2011). Mediation and moderated mediation in therelationship among role models, self-efficacy, entrepreneurial career intention, and gender. Journalof Applied Social Psychology, 41(2), 270–297.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychologicalresearch: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation tosubsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 587–598.

Berger, J. L., & D’Ascoli, Y. (2012). Motivations to become vocational education and training educators: aperson-oriented approach. Vocations and Learning, 5, 225–249.

Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (2006). Career self-efficacy theory: back to the future. Journal of CareerAssessment, 14, 3–11.

Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurialintentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, l18, 63–90.

Brockner, J., Higgins, E. T., & Low, M. B. (2004). Regulatory focus theory and the entrepreneurial process.Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 203–220.

Bryant, P. (2006). Improving entrepreneurial education through self-regulatory skills. The NCIIA, 279–289.Bryant, P. (2007). Self-regulation and decision heuristics in entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation and

exploitation. Management Decision, 45(4), 732–748.Bryant, P. (2009). Self-regulation and moral awareness among entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Ventur-

ing, 24, 505–518.Busenitz, L. W., West, G. P., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G. N., & Zacharakis, A. (2003).

Entrepreneurship research in emergence: past trends and future directions. Journal of Management,29(3), 285–308.

Carr, J. C., & Sequeira, J. M. (2007). Prior family business exposure as international influence and entrepre-neurial intent: a theory of planned behavior approach. Journal of Business Research, 60, 1090–1098.

Carsrud, A., & Brännback, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial motivations: what do we still need to know? Journalof Small Business Management, 49(1), 9–26.

Chen, Y., & He, Y. (2011). The impact of strong ties on entrepreneurial intention: an empirical study basedon the mediating role of self-efficacy. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship, 3(2), 147–158.

Chen, C., Greene, P., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs frommanagers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 295–316.

Cheng, M. Y., Chan, W. S., & Mahmood, A. (2009). The effectiveness of entrepreneurship education inMalaysia. Education and Training, 51(7), 555–566.

Cox, L., Mueller, S. L., & Moss, S. E. (2002). The impact of entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurialself-efficacy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(2), 229–247.

Culbertson, S. S., Smith, M. R., & Leiva, P. I. (2011). Enhancing entrepreneurship: the role of goalorientation and self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 115–129.

De Clercq, D., Benson, H., & Martin, B. (2012). The roles of learning orientation and passion for work inthe formation of entrepreneurial intention. International Small Business Journal, 0(0), 1–25.

DeNoble, A. F., Jung, D., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1999). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The development of ameasure and its relationship to entrepreneurial action (pp. 73–87). Waltham: P&R Publications Inc.


DePillis, E., & Reardon, K. K. (2007). The influence of personality traits and persuasive messages onentrepreneurial intention: a cross-cultural comparison.Career Development International, 12(4), 382–396.

Dwyer, A. L., & Cummings, L. C. (2001). Stress, self-efficacy, social support and coping strategies inuniversity students. Journal of counselling, 35, 3.

Erikson, T. (2003). Towards a taxonomy of entrepreneurial learning experiences among potential entre-preneurs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10(1), 106–112.

Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2008). From craft to science: teaching models and learning processes inentrepreneurship education. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(7), 569–593.

Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship educationprogrammes: a new methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(9), 701–720.

Fitzsimmons, J. R., & Douglas, E. J. (2011). Interaction between feasibility and desirability in the formationof entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 431–440.

Fuchs, K., Werner, A., &Wallau, F. (2008). Entrepreneurship education in Germany and Sweden: what role dodifferent school systems play? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), 365–381.

Gegenfurtner, A. (2012). Dimensions of motivation to transfer: a longitudinal analysis of their influence onretention, transfer, and attitude change. Vocations and Learning. doi:10.1007/s12186-012-9084-y.

Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). Optimism, promotion pride, and prevention pride as predictors ofquality of life. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(12), 1521–1532.

Guerrero, M., Rialp, J., & Urbano, D. (2008). The impact of desirability and feasibility on entrepreneurialintentions: a structural equation model. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4, 35–50.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010).Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). USA:Pearson Prentice Hall.

Heinonen, J. (2007). An entrepreneurial-directed approach to teaching corporate entrepreneurship atUniversity level. Education and Training, 49(4), 310–324.

Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46.

Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001).Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: promotion pride versus preventionpride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3–23.

Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (2008). Regulatory focus and new venture performance: a study ofentrepreneurial opportunity exploitation under conditions of risk versus uncertainty. Strategic Entre-preneurship Journal, 2, 285–299.

Ho, R. (2006). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS.Florida: Chapman and Hall.

Kickul, J., Wilson, F., & Marlino, D. (2008). Are misalignments of perceptions and self-efficacy causinggender gaps in entrepreneurial intentions among our nation’s teens? Journal of Small Business andEnterprise Development, 15(2), 321–335.

Kickul, J., Gundry, L. K., Barbosa, S. D., & Whitcanack, L. (2009). Intuition versus analysis? Testingdifferential models of cognitive style on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and the new venture creationprocess. Journal of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(2), 439–453.

Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions.Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5/6), 411–432.

Kyndt, E., Govaerts, N., Dochy, F., & Baert, H. (2011). The learning intention of low-qualified employees: akey for participation in lifelong learning and continuous training. Vocations and Learning, 4, 211–229.

Liñán, F. (2008). Skill and value perceptions: how do they affect entrepreneurial intention? InternationalEntrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4, 257–272.

Markman, G. D., & Baron, R. A. (2003). Person–entrepreneurship fit: why some people are moresuccessful as entrepreneurs than others. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 281–301.

Mastura, J., & Abdul Rashid, A. Z. (2008). Entrepreneurship education in developing country, exploration onits necessity in the construction program. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 6(2), 178–189.

Matlay, H. (2005). Researching entrepreneurship and education Part 1: what is entrepreneurship and does itmatter? Education and Training, 47(8/9), 665–677.

Matlay, H. (2006). Researching entrepreneurship and education Part 2: what is entrepreneurship educationand does it matter? Education and Training, 48(8/9), 704–718.

McGee, J. E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S. L., & Sequeira, J. M. (2009). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: refiningthe measure. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33, 965–988.

McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2002). Regulatory focus and entrepreneurial intention: action bias inthe recognition and evaluation of opportunities. In W. D. Bygrave et al. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepre-neurship research. Babson Park: Babson College.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12186-012-9084-y

McMullen, J. S., Bagby, D. R., & Palich, L. E. (2008). Economic freedom and the motivation to engage inentrepreneurial action. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(5), 875–895.

Mueller, S. L., & Thomas, A. S. (2000). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a nine country study of locusof control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 51–75.

Murali, S., Mohani, A., & Yuzliani, Y. (2009). Impact of personal qualities and management skills ofentrepreneurs on venture performance in Malaysia: opportunity recognition skills as a mediating factor.Technovation, 29, 798–805.

Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence.International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases inbehavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88, 879–903.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social scienceresearch and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psycology, 65, 539–569.

Rae, D., & Carswell, M. (2000). Using a life-story approach in entrepreneurial learning: the development ofa conceptual model and its implications in the design of learning experiences. Education and Training,42(4/5), 220–227.

Scherer, R. F., Adams, J. S., Carley, S. S., & Wiebe, F. A. (1989). Role model performance effects ondevelopment of entrepreneurial career preference. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(3), 53–71.

Schjoedt, L., & Shaver, K. G. (2007). Deciding on an entrepreneurial career: a test of the pull and pushhypotheses using the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics data. Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice, 31(5), 733–752.

Segal, G., Borgia, D., & Schoenfeld, J. (2005). The motivation to become an entrepreneur. InternationalJournal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 11(1), 42–57.

Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurialintention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources.Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 566–591.

Trevelyan, R. (2011). Self-regulation and effort in entrepreneurial tasks. International Journal of Entre-preneurial Behavior & Research, 17(1), 39–63.

Tumasjan, A., & Braun, R. (2012). In the eye of the beholder: how regulatory focus and self-efficacyinteract in influencing opportunity recognition. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(6), 622–636.

Tyszka, T., Cieslik, J., Domurat, A., & Macko, A. (2011). Motivation, self-efficacy, and risk attitudes amongentrepreneurs during transition to a market economy. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 124–131.

Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurialcareer intentions: implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,31(3), 387–401.

Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development ofentrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265–1272.

Professor Dr. Zaidatol Akmaliah Lope Pihie is a lecturer at the faculty of educational studies, UniverisitiPutra Malaysia. She has many published papers in entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship, education, leader-ship and educational administration. She has also presented papers on entrepreneurship education atMalaysian and international conference. Her research interests are: entrepreneurship development amonguniversity students, educational leadership and school improvement.

Afsaneh Bagheri is currently a post doctorate research fellow at the faculty of Education, University PutraMalaysia. She has published papers on different areas of entrepreneurship education including entrepre-neurial leadership, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention. She has also presented papers on entrepre-neurship education at Malaysian and international conference. Her research interests are: entrepreneurshipcompetencies development among university students and entrepreneurial leadership.


self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention: the mediation effect of self-regulation

Documents