share of achievement motivation, self-efficacy and self ... · pdf fileshare of achievement...

International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences © 2013 Available online at www.irjabs.com ISSN 2251-838X / Vol, 4 (9): 2837-2846 Science Explorer Publications

Share of Achievement Motivation, Self-Efficacy and Self-Esteem in Predicting Isfahanian Female’s

Entrepreneurial Behavior

Azam Moradi 1, Maryam Razaviyayn2

1. professor assistant in Payame Noor University; Psychology and Counseling Department, Payame Noor University, 19395-4697 Tehran, I. R. of IRAN

2. MSc in Clinical Psychology,

Corresponding authoremail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determining the share of achievement motivation, self-efficacy and self-esteem in predicting Isfahanian female’s entrepreneurial behavior: The sample consisted of Isfahanian female citizen in who went to 5 selected public libraries at Isfahan City in summer of 2011. Subjects’ entrepreneurial behavior, self- esteem, self- efficacy, and achievement motivation were measured by entrepreneurial behavior scale, Rosenberg's self esteem scale, general self-efficacy scale, and Hermans achievement motivation questionnaire respectively. For assessing demographic characteristics, a researcher-made questionnaire was used. Descriptive statistics and stepwise regression was used for data analysis. Results of stepwise regression showed that achievement motivation can significantly predict the rate of entrepreneurial behavior in females (P=0.00), and adding self- efficacy can increase significantly the predicting power of their entrepreneurial behavior (P=0.00); but adding self- esteem variable to achievement motivation and self- efficacy variables can not increase significantly the predicting power of entrepreneurial behavior in these subjects. Achievement motivation and self-efficacy have an important role in explaining entrepreneurial behavior in Isfahanian females. Key Words: Entrepreneurial behavior, Achievement motivation, Self- efficacy, self- esteem, Females, Isfahan.

INTRODUCTION

Mair (2002) knows entrepreneurial behavior as creative use of resources to pursue opportunities. Some researches have defined entrepreneurial behavior in a different way. For example Gartner knows entrepreneurial behavior as the creation of new organizations,Vesper (1980) points to the creation of new businesses and Van Hippel deems new products as an entrepreneurial behavior(cited by Mair, 2002). Today study of entrepreneurship has applied importance. Reason of this importance is not only to help entrepreneurs better understand their personal needs, But also because of the economic contribution of new entrepreneurial activities (Hisrich and peters, 1989). If entrepreneurship become prevalent at all levels of society, will has dramatic and significant impacts such as social welfare, increase the per capita income and GDP, reducing rate of unemployment and encouraging investment. If entrepreneurship to be accepted by a society, as a lifestyle the society is developing very fast (Shah Hoseini, 2005). The role of perceptions, beliefs, attitudes and social background and environment, creating entrepreneurial intentions and behavior are emphasized (cited by Verheul, Uhlander, and thurik, 2002). According to Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (1977, 1986, cited by Verheul et al, 2002), there are causal relationships between perceptions of individual, characteristics and his environment the type of his behavior. It means that environment and perception of the environment and self influence on behavior, and on other hand person also has a significant impact on the environment. Relationship between entrepreneurial behavior and perceptions about self based on this theory have been widely studied (Boyd and Vozikis, 1994, Krueger and Brazeal, 1994, cited by Verheul et al, 2002). According to Mair(2002) cognitive and emotional abilities haven’t a direct effect on entrepreneurial behavior, but these capabilities, are important for shape person’s perception and cognitive abilities in entrepreneurial tasks and preparing the field of his actions. Mair (2002) as a model, states the

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 4 (9), 2837-2846, 2013

2838

factors that influence entrepreneurial behavior. He classified this model in frame of two total structures: Individual’s Competencies and capacities and the effect of perceived behavioral context. It seems to three Key indices of Individual’s Competencies and capacities are achievement motivation, self-efficacy and self-esteem. Achievement motivation is defined as Personal effort to achieve own goals in the social environment (Elliot and Church, 1997). Self-efficacy is a person’s firmly believe that he can do certain things to do to achieve the desired result successfully (Bandura,1997). Self-esteem is the value of a person attributes to own (Weare, 2000). Recent research suggests that motivational characteristics play an important role in successful entrepreneurial activity (Baum, Locke and Smith, 2000, Stewart and Roth ,2001). McClelland, Clark, Roby and Atkinson (1949) have argued that people with high need for achievement are more likely than those having low need for achievement that involved in aggressive and innovative activities that require a transition plan for the future and person’s responsibilities for work outcomes(cited by Collins, Hanges and Locke, 2006). According to McClelland (1961) people with a high need for achievement prefer to do that requires skill and effort and provides clear feedback on performance and it needs the challenge or moderate risk. He also claims that entrepreneurial situations are more likely to have such features than other positions. Holland’s occupational choice model (1985) suggests that people all over are attracted to jobs that have characteristics that fit their personality. He also argues that satisfactory performance and job satisfaction is higher when there is a fit between the characteristics of the work environment and personality. So as McClelland has suggested it seems that people with high need for achievement, are likely to be attracted to entrepreneurial jobs and are good at it (Collins et al, 2006). On the other hand Process of deciding the choose of jobs is comparable with the process of goal setting in motivation theory (Locke and Latham, 1990, Klein, 1991, Wright, Hollenbeck, Wolf and McMahan, 1995). In both They decide what extent (up and down) they consider their goals, in both people in terms of speed of action to achieve these goals differ, realistic goal setting not only depends on accurate assessments of their own abilities but also depends on careful assessment of the work to be done and environment in which the work must be executed (Earley and Litucy, 1991). Naturally Achievement motivation impact on career goals, evaluations and speed of achieve goals. Also self- efficacy in recent years as one of the determinants of entrepreneurship has been attracted the attention of researchers. According to Koen, Markman, Baron, and Reilly(2001) People with high self-efficacy believe they can effectively and successfully pursue certain activities. They argue self-efficacy variable is a significant predictor for investment. It is believed that individual’s career choices is based on their perception of the their level of expertise in relevant fields (Fagenson and Marcus, 1991, cited by Verheul et al, 2002).About the role of self efficacy construct in different areas of entrepreneurship, including entrepreneurial career preferences, entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurial performance, there is an increasing emphasis (e.g. Krueger and Brazeal,1994; Boyd and Vozikis, 1994). Mair's research (2002) shows that entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs of managers and their cognitive abilities in tasks of entrepreneurship are powerful predictors of entrepreneurial behavior and are important emotional and cognitive tools to stimulate and regulate entrepreneurial behavior. In sum social learning theory and the empirical evidence support the idea that individual differences in self-efficacy have significant effect on entrepreneurial success (Markman and Baron, 2003). Impact of self-esteem on entrepreneurship can be explained based on Korman’s self-consistency theory (Korman, 1977). Korman in self-consistency theory suggests that those who consider themselves worthy are more likely is successes in tasks than those who have a low sense of competence on their job. Reason of this is that each of these two groups that those are consistent with their cognitions. Welsh and White (1981) know self-esteem as one of the common characteristics of entrepreneurs. The truth is that self-esteem impacts on individual choices. People who have low self-esteem, feelings of failure, even when failure did not happen(Healy, Bailey and Anderson, 1973). Ray (1986) in study of risk variable that is a characteristic of entrepreneurs found that self-esteem has a close relationship with risk and can trigger the desire to risk. Those who had desirable level of self-esteem were able to have a good risk fit the requirement of different situations. Aviram’s study (2006) on the lack of jobs, employed and entrepreneurial persons showed that science, tend to be entrepreneurial, self-efficacy, need for achievement and Orientation to action is related to the entrepreneurship. Results of Baum and Lock’s Structural Equation Modeling (2004) showed that goals, self-efficacy and communicated vision have direct impact on the development of economic activity and these factors mediate effect of passion hardiness and new skill development on future development. Hornady (1982) based on the results of own investigation believe that main characteristics of the entrepreneur persons are self-esteem, creativity and achievement motivation. Results of Moradi’s Path analysis (2010) showed that self-efficacy and achievement motivation have a direct effect on entrepreneurial behavior in young females with physical disabilities, But the self-esteem had no direct effect on entrepreneurial behavior of these females.Results of Meta-Analysis on the relationship of


2839

achievement motivation and entrepreneurial behavior have shown that achievement motivation is related both entrepreneurial jobs choose and entrepreneurial performance(Collins et al, 2006). Shaver and Scott (1991) reviewed the research had studied achievement motivation as a important predictor of entrepreneurship. They found that there is a positive correlation between achievement motivation and entrepreneurship. Johnson (1990) examined 23 studies about entrepreneurs Found that in 20 studies, the relationship between achievement motivation and entrepreneurship has been confirmed. Sexton and Bowman(1983) found that despite in various studies different instruments are used to measure achievement motivation, their results suggest that successful entrepreneurs have always had high achievement motivation. Findings of Willson, Kickul and Marlino’s research(2007), confirmed the results of previous research on the relationship between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial career intentions. Luthans and Ibrayeva (2006) in a research using social cognitive theoretical framework found that self-efficacy has a direct effect on entrepreneurial performance and mediated it also. Shokrkon et al(2003) found that there is a multiple correlation of creativity, self-esteem and achievement motivation, and entrepreneurship. Baron and Markman (2002) found that self-efficacy as a valid cognitive construct can distinguish technical entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs. With regards to the need to assess the level of entrepreneurial behavior of females and importance of Identifying factors that play an important role in entrepreneurial behavior of these segments of society and With respect to the literature about important role of achievement motivation, self-efficacy and self-esteem in entrepreneurial behavior, and with regard to this fact that demographics context and specific cultural, social and economical characteristics of Iranian population can highlighting impact of some factors on entrepreneurial behavior, aim of this research is determining contribution of achievement motivation, self-efficacy and self-esteem construct in predicting entrepreneurial behavior of females in Isfahan.

METHOD Research design The design of the present study is a predictive correlation. Statistical population, sample and sampling method The statistical populations of the present study were females referring to 5 public libraries in summer of 2010 who were selected from public library list in Isfahan. The samples of the study were 160 from cited population chosen through accessible method. From 160 rendered questionnaires 114 were completely filled out. Table 1 shows the number of the participants in different levels of demographic characteristics.

Table1. Number of subjects at different levels of demographic characteristics Statistical indices

Variable level variable

frequency Frequency percentage

vocational status governmental vocation 13 11.4 Non-governmental vocation 13 11.4 Jobless 88 77.2

Marital status Married 17 85.1 Unmarried 97 14.9

Education level diploma 35 30.7 Sophomore 9 7.9 graduate 49 4.3 postgraduate 21 18.4

Economic status weak 3 2.6 Moderate 92 80.7 Good 19 16.7

Age mean 25.30

Instrument Demographic characteristics questionnaire Demographic characteristics questionnaire was composed of the questions about vocational status, marital status, educational level, birth year, and economic status (weak, medium, and good). Entrepreneurial Behavior Scale Entrepreneurial Behavior Scale has been designed by Mosahhef, Abedi and Abedi (2006). The scale has 50 items and its reliability using Cronbach's alpha has been calculated 0/89. Also content validity of this scale has


2840

been confirmed (Mosahhef et al, 2006). Moradi(2010) using Cronbach's alpha calculated reliability of Entrepreneurial Behavior Scale 0/90 and because of correlation coefficient of items number 26,21,8,5, 35.37, 49, and 50 of this scale with the total scale score was negative, These items were removed from the scale and The remaining 42 items was used to assess the entrepreneurial behavior of subjects. Hermans achievement motivation questionnaire This questionnaire was made up in the form of 29 incomplete sentences by Hermans (1970) and each of them was followed by 3 or 4 options ranging from “I completely agree” to “I totally disagree”. Getting high scores in this questionnaire would imply having high achievement motivation. The achieved reliability for the achievement motivation questionnaire in various studies was reported suitable (e.g. Hermans, 1970; Talebpour, Nouri and Mowlavi, 2002; Shokrkon etal, 2002). Moreover Hermans (1970) perceived suitable the concurrent and content validity in achievement motivation questionnaire. He has assessed diagnosing reliability of its questions from 0.3 to 0.57. Achievement motivation questionnaire was rendered into Persian and normalized by Shokrkon et.al. (2002), one of its items has been deleted. In a survey by Moradi (2010) the reliability of Herman’s achievement motivation questionnaire was measured 0.71 through administering on 30 members of Isfahanian disables society via Cronbach alpha method. general self-efficacy scale The general 10 item scale of self-efficacy in 2002 was designed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (cited from Schwrzer and Jerusalem, 1995). The participants should recognize the degree of each item’s truth regarding themselves in a four-degree scale from 1 (it is not true) to (it is completely true). The more the scores are, the higher the general feeling of the person’s self-efficacy will be (Rajabi, 2006). Now the previously discussed scale is applied for predicting the adjustment after life change and for assessing the effectiveness of clinical affairs and making changes in the behavior (Asadi Sadeghi Azar et.al. 2006). For German version of general self-efficacy scale, upper range of internal consistency (0.82-0.93) and test-retest reliability was reported to be high (Schwarzes, 1994). Scholz et.al (2002) have also reported a high internal consistency for this scale. Test-retest reliability of general self-efficacy scale achieved through administering on 5 various samples in a six-month period was 0.67, in a one-year period 0.5 to 0.70 and in a two-year period from 0.47 to 0.63 (cited by Wu, 2009). The estimated concurrent validity and the criterion-related validity for the scale of general self-efficacy have been reported suitable in different studies (e.g. Schwarzer, Schmmits and Tang, 2000; Schwarzer, Babler, Kwiatek, Schroder and Zhang, 1997; Jerusalem and Schwrzer, 1979; and Rajabi, 2006). In a survey carried out by Moradi (2010) the reliability of general self-efficacy scale was measured 0.92 through administering on 30 members of disabled society in Isfahan via Cronbach alpha method. Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale Rosenberg’s 10 item scale is scored through Likert scale, which is one of high fame instrument to assess internal aspects of self-esteem (Nosek et.al, 2003). Blascovich and Tomaka (1991) in reviewing the studies published about self-esteem, perceived that in 25% of these studies, Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale was applied. It is interesting because of its shortness and simplicity (Murphy and Murphy, 2006). It is a simple and short questionnaire having appropriate reliability (internal consistency and test-retest) and validity (convergent and divergent) and it is applicable for every age group with education of fifth grade (Rosenberg, 1979). In sum, the results of various studies (e.g. Whiteside-Mensell and Corwyn, 2003; Hujian, 2003; Greenberger, Chen, Dmitrieva and Farruggia, 2003; Weiss, 2002) have proved the reliability and validity of Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale. For example the findings of the study carried out by Schmitt and Allik (2005) on people living in 53 countries, in almost all of them the scores of Rosenberg’s self-esteem relates to neuroticism and romantic attachment style. The above questionnaire was normalized by Shapoorian et.al (1987).The results of the study by Mohammadi (2005) indicated that the correlation of form B of Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale with Cooper Smith self-esteem scale is 0.61 and subscales of depression and anxiety of revised form of SCL-90 are -0.54 and -0.43. In Moradi’s survey (2010) the reliability of Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale was estimated 0.69 through administering it on 30 members of disabled society in Isfahan and via Cronbach alpha.


2841

Data Collection After choosing the samples, the selected public libraries of Isfahan were referred to. Following some agreements with principals of each library, the questionnaires were given to the subjects and informing them how to fill them out as well as emphasizing them regarding confidentiality of their information. 114 out of 160 questionnaires have been filled out completely. Data analysis For data analysis the indices of descriptive statistics such as frequency, mean and standard deviation, as well as stepwise regression have been used. In stepwise regression, the scores of entrepreneurial behavior questionnaire were considered as predicted variable and mean scores of each one of Rosenberg’s self-esteem, Schwarzer and Jerusalem self-efficacy and Herman’s achievement motivation questionnaires considered as predictive variable.

RESULTS Table 2 shows descriptive statistics indices of females’ entrepreneurial behavior, self-esteem, self-efficacy and achievement motivation scores and table 3 shows the descriptive statistics indices of females’ entrepreneurial behavior scores according to different demographic characteristics.

Table2. descriptive statistics indices of females’ entrepreneurial behavior, self-esteem, self-efficacy and achievement motivation scores

Statistical indices variable

mean Standard deviation

range maximum minimum number

entrepreneurial behavior

31/67 6/39 31 42 11 114

Self-esteem 74/46 6/15 28 88 60 114 Self-efficacy 31/15 5/97 25 40 15 114 Achievement motivation

29/24 5/73 29 39 10 114

Table3. the descriptive statistics indices of females’ entrepreneurial behavior scores according to different demographic

characteristics Statistical indices

Variable level variable

Mean Standard deviation

vocational status governmental vocation 30/92 7/33 Non-governmental vocation 30/30 10/95 Jobless 31/98 5/35

Marital status Married 30/44 7/52 Unmarried 31/85 6/20

Education level diploma 30/68 5/30 Sophomore 35/55 5/02 graduate 31/30 6/31 postgraduate 32/52 8/23

Economic status weak 32/66 1/15 Moderate 31/35 6/65 Good 33/05 5/49

Table 2 shows that the mean scores of female citizen’s entrepreneurial behavior, their self-esteem, their self-efficacy and their achievement motivation were sequentially 31.67, 29.24, 31.15 and 74.46. The results of table 3 indicates that the entrepreneurial behavior of jobless females’ is a little higher than other females, that of unmarried females is higher than married ones, that of sophomore females is higher than other educations and that of good economical status is higher than moderate and low economic status. Table 4 indicates internal correlation matrix between self-esteem, self-efficacy and achievement motivation and female citizen’s entrepreneurial behavior.


2842

Table 4. internal correlation matrix between self-esteem, self-efficacy and achievement motivation and female citizen’s

entrepreneurial behavior self-esteem self-efficacy achievement motivation

self-efficacy 0.58***

achievement motivation 0.38

*** 0.49

***

Entrepreneurial behavior 0.28***

0.40***

0.48***

***P<0.001

Based on information of the matrix, there is a significant relationship between entrepreneurial behavior on the one hand and females’s self-esteem, self-efficacy and achievement motivation scores on the other (P=0.00). Moreover, there is a significant relationship between self-esteem and self-efficacy variables, self-esteem and achievement motivation variables, and self-efficacy and achievement motivation variables (P=0.00). Table 5 shows Regression analysis of entrepreneurial behavior variable on the variables of self-esteem, self-efficacy and achievement motivation.

Table 5. Regression analysis of entrepreneurial behavior variable on the variables of self-esteem, self-efficacy and achievement motivation

Variables

Indices

Sum of Squares

df Mean Square F Sig.

achievement motivation

regression 1046.73 1 1046.73 32.78 0.00 residual 3576.26 112 31.93

self-efficacy regression 1222.04 2 611.02 19.94 0.00 residual 3400.95 111 30.64

The results of table 5 show that and achievement motivation and self-efficacy were interred into regression analysis equation and self-esteem was removed from it. The above results indicate that achievement motivation can significantly predict the subjects’ entrepreneurial behavior (P=0.00), and adding self- efficacy can increase significantly the predicting power of their entrepreneurial behavior (P=0.00), but adding self-esteem variable to achievement motivation and self-efficacy cannot significantly increase the prediction power of Isfahanian females’s entrepreneurial behavior; therefore this variable would be removed from the equation. Table 6 shows the determine coefficient and standard error estimates of regression of entrepreneurial behavior variables on achievement motivation, self-efficacy and self-esteem variables. Table 6. determine coefficient and standard error estimates of regression of entrepreneurial behavior variables on achievement

motivation, self-efficacy and self-esteem variables Indices

Variable R R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

achievement motivation 0.48 0.23 5.65 self-efficacy 0.51 0.26 5.53

Results of table 6 shows when the achievement motivation variable is interred into the equation, its correlation square would be 0.23; i.e. in females 0.24 of variance between achievement motivation and entrepreneurial behavior scores are in common; in other word 23% of the changes in entrepreneurial behavior scores are related to achievement motivation scores. When the self-efficacy is added to achievement motivation variable, the amount of correlation square reaches to 0.26; that is in females 0.03 of variance between the scores of achievement motivation and life quality is common; in other word, 3% of the changes in entrepreneurial behavior scores are related to self-efficacy. Table 7 shows raw and standard regression coefficient of achievement motivation and self-efficacy and their significance.

Table 7. raw and standard regression coefficient of achievement motivation and self-efficacy and their significance Indices Variable

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

t

Sig B Std. Error Beta


0.495 0.086 0.476 5.72 0.00


0.380 0.097 0.365 3.905 0.00

self-efficacy 0.240 0.100 0.224 2.392 0.018


2843

The results of table 7 that shows regression coefficient of achievement motivation and of self-efficacy indicates that the absolute effect of achievement motivation and self-efficacy on entrepreneurial behavior is also significant. Table 8 shows Beta coefficients, the amount of t and their significance and partial correlation of removed variable from regression equation.

Table 8. Beta coefficient, the amount of t and its significance and partial correlation of removed variables from regression equation

Indices Variable

Beta In t . Sig Partial Correlation

self-esteem 0.010 0.096 0.924 0.009

The results of table 8 represents that the significance of regression coefficient in self-esteem was more than 0.05, therefore it was not interred into equation; in other word this variable could not significantly increase the prediction power of female’s entrepreneurial behavior. Discussion The results show that there is significant relation between females` entrepreneurial behavior scores and scores of achievement motivation, self- efficiency and self-esteem. According to this study, achievement motivation can significantly predict entrepreneurial behavior of participants. And adding the variable of self- efficiency to achievement motivation could increase the power of predicting entrepreneurial behavior. Although adding self –esteem to achievement motivation and self-efficiency could not significantly increase predicting power of participants entrepreneurial behavior. Findings of this research about effect of achievement motivation on entrepreneurial behavior are consistent with the meta-analysis of Collins et.al (2004), and findings of Shaver and Scott (1991), Johnson (1990), Sexton and Bowman (1983), and shokrkon et.al(2002). Furthermore the results are consistent with the results of the path analysis carried out by Moradi (2010) showing that achievement motivation variable directly affects entrepreneurial behavior of young physically disabled females. The results of this research about effect of achievement motivation on entrepreneurial behavior can be explained based on the McClelland’ theory (1961), Hollands’ pattern of vocational choice(1985) and the theory of motivation about goal setting process. People have higher achievement need are more likely to join in energetic and creative activities that require planning for future and responsibility (McClelland et.al,1985,cited by Collins et al,2006). And entrepreneurial behavior is no exception to this rule. According to McClelland (1961) people with a high achievement need probably prefer to do that requires skill and effort, and Provides a clear performance feedback and It is necessary to moderate the challenge or risk. Achievement Motivation stimulates people to become entrepreneurs, and Prospective entrepreneurs who have founded a new company will also lead to the development ( McClelland,1962). Pattern of vocational choice proposed by Holland (1985) says that people always attract by jobs qualified with them. Holland declared when a person’s features congruous to workplace, job satisfaction increases. So due to McClelland’s idea people with upper achievement motivation would get entrepreneurial jobs and would do it efficiently (Collins et al,2006). On the other hand results of this research can be explained based on motivation theory on goal setting process. Naturally those who have high achievement motivation, consider their career goals relatively high, setting their goals based on accurate assessments of their abilities and works to be done, and quickly take action to achieve goals. The findings about effect of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial behavior is consistent with the results of Wilson et al (2007), Luthans and Ibrayeva (2006) and Baron and Markman (2002) about the role of self-efficacy in entrepreneurship. The findings is also consistent with the results of the Moradi’s path analysis (2010) showed that self-efficacy has direct effect on entrepreneurial behavior in young physically disabled females. The research results about relationship between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial behavior can be explained based on Bandura's social learning theory about belief of people with high self-efficacy in their ability to achieve favorite success. According to social learning theory person's beliefs about their efficacy is basis of energize human behavior (Mair, 2002). Generally people are guided by their beliefs (Bandura, 1994). Self-efficacy beliefs determine which individuals have little incentive to effort or Showing endurance in the face of difficulties (Chen etal, 1998). People who have high efficiency, after the failure or hit the barriers do not question themselves and attribute it failure to insufficient effort, incomplete knowledge or low skills that These are all Printable of


2844

acquisition( Bandura, 1994). People with high self-efficacy Have an innate desire to work, tend to increase their efforts, Show more persistence in the face of obstacles, and act very more effective( Chen et al, 1998). Since self-efficacy has a positive impact on various functions of human, Seem to have similar effects on the entrepreneurship (Markman and Baron, 2003). Efficacy in its own means can be considered as central character to the entrepreneurial acts. A person with high self-efficacy is able to improve performance by positive using from negative feedback. This character is very important in entrepreneurial process that is often associated with many ambiguities because it needs effort and hard work and persistence and planning (Shan, Locke and Colline,2003). Extensive research has been done on their professional self-efficacy, suggest that many people in a broad range of career opportunities, when encounter with challenges of new, unusual and unpredictable opportunities, immediately say "I can not do it". The answer, even when the person is willing to that act and it behavior is rewarded, limits the search behaviors(Hackett, 1995, cited by Arulmani and Arulmani,2004). Seems because of ability to start a new business (provide necessary funding, choosing key partners and potential employees and converting discoveries into salable products or services) requires a high level of conviction, success in entrepreneurship is largely determined by the level of person’s self-efficacy. The research findings about no effect of females' self-esteem on their entrepreneurial behavior, is inconsistent with research held by Hornaday (1982) which indicated self-esteem is the most important characteristic of entrepreneur peoples; but is consistent with the results of path analysis of Moradi (2010) showed that self-esteem has no direct effect on entrepreneurial behavior in young physically disabled females. Of course, based on research results self-esteem was significantly related to females’ entrepreneurial behavior, But because of self-efficacy and achievement motivation have a strong relationship with self-esteem, impact of this variable on females’ entrepreneurial behavior was overshadowed. Failure of self-esteem variable in predicting entrepreneurial behavior can be explained based on this fact that Research on self-esteem in a number of areas of work indicate people who have high self-esteem, When assume something worthwhile will probably insist on difficult tasks (Bandura, 1986). It is likely that Participants in this study didn’t consider entrepreneurship worthy because of reasons such as not become prevalent culture of entrepreneurship in Iranian society, economic instability, and high risk of investing and long period of return money back. Moreover according to some authors such as Ray (1986), self-esteem affects on entrepreneurship through stimulating risk-taking propensity that is one of the important features of entrepreneurs. But in case of subjects of the study probably for reasons that mentioned above, self-esteem not only did not lead to risk-taking, but also prevented risk-taking. Perhaps this is reason of self-esteem has negative effect on entrepreneurial behavior in this research. Among the limitations of this study are inability to generalizability of its findings to other men and other areas. According to these limitations, it is suggested that similar study would be carried out on men and citizens of other areas in order to make the possible role of gender and residency clear.

REFERENCES Arulmani G, Arulmani SN.2004.Career counseling. New Delhi: Tata McGraw- Hill Companies. Asadi Sadeghi Azar I, Vasudeva P, Abdollahi A.2006. Relationship between quality of life, hardiness, self-efficacy and self-esteem amongst

employed and unemployed married women in Zabol. Iran Journal Psychiatry ,1, 104-111. Aviram A.2006.A study of Factors that influence Unemployed persons. Journal of Employment Counsling,43,4,154-167. Bandura A.1986.Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall. Bandura A.1994.Self-efficacy.inv.S.Ramachaudran(Ed.),Encyclopedia of human behaviore (vol.4,pp.71-81).New York: Academic Press. Bandura A.1997.Self-efficacy: The exercise of control .New York: Freeman. Baron RA, Markman GD.2002. Social skills and entrepreneurial success: why the ability to get along well with others may really matter. Journal

of Business Venturing. Baum JR, Lock EA.2004. The relationship of entrepreneurial trait, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Social

Psycholog89,4,587-598. Baum R, Lock EA, Smith KG.2000.A longitudinal model of a multy- dimensional model of venture growth. Academy of Management

Journal,44,292-303. Blascovich J, Tomaka J.1991. Measures of self esteem. In J.P. Robinson and P.R.Shaver(Eds.), Measures of Journal of Personality and Social

Psychological attitudes(pp.115-160). San Diego, CA; Academic Press. Boyd NG, Vozikis GS.1994. The influence of self- efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice,18,63-90. Chen CC, Greene PG, Crick A.1998. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business

Venturing, 13, 295–316. Collins CJ, Hanges PJ, Locke EA.2004.The relationship of achievement motivation to entrepreneurial behavior: A meta-analysis. Human

Performance,17,1,95-117. Earley PC, Litucy TR.1991. Delineating goal and efficacy effects: A test of three models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 81–98. Elliot AJ, Church M.1997. A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology,72,1, 218-232.


2845

Greenberger E, Chen C, Dmitrieva J, Farruggia SP.2003. Item- Wording and dimensionality of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale: Do they matter? Personality and Individual Differences, 35,6, 1241-1254.

Healy C, Bailey M, Anderson E.1973. The relationship of esteem and vocational counseling to range of incorporation scores. Journal of Vocational Behavior,3(1), 69-74.

Hermans HJM.1970. A questionnaire measure of achievement motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(4), 353-363. Hisrich RD, Peters MP.1989. Entrepreneurship: Starting, developing and managing a new enterprise (Homewood, IL: BPI/Irwin). Holland JL.1985. Making vocational choices .Englewood Cliffs, NJ: prentice Hall. Hornaday J.1982. Research about Living entrepreneurs, Inc. Kent, D. Sexton and K. Vesper(eds). Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall. Hujian C.2003.The effect of implicit self-esteem and the relationship of explicit self-esteem and implicit self-esteem. Acta Psychologica

Sinica,35,6,796-801. Jerusalem M, Schwarzer R.1979. The general self-efficacy scale(GSE). [Updated 2006 Oct 7]. Available from: Http://www. Healthpsych.de. Johnson BR.1990.Toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship : the case of achievement motivation and the entrepreneur .

entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,14,39-54. Klein HJ.1991. Further evidence on the relationship between goal setting and expectancy theories. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 49, 230–257. Koen PA, Markman GD, Baaron RA, Reilly R.2001. Cognition and Personality as predictors of Resource attainment among corporate

Entrepreneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship research. Wellesly,MA: Babson college. Korman AK.1977. Organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall. Krueger JrNF, Brazeal DV.1994.Entrepreneurial potential and potential Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,91-104. Locke EA, Latham GP.1990. A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Luthans F, Ibrayeva ES.2006.Entrepreneurial self-efficacy In central Asian transition economies: quantitative and qualitative analyses. Journal

of International Business Studies,37,1,92-110. Mair J.2002. Entrepreneurial behavior in a large traditional firm: Exploring Key drivers. Barcelona: IESE Department of Strategy INsEAd:

Fontainebleau. Markman GD, Baron RA.2003. Person–entrepreneurship fit: why some people are more successful as entrepreneurs than others. Human

Resource Management Review,13,2,281-301. McClelland DC, Clark RA, Roby TB, Atkinson JW.1949. The projective expression of needs. IV: The effect of need for achievement and

thematic apperception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 242-255. McClelland DC.1961.The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van No strand. McClelland DC.1962. Business drive and national achievement. Harvard Business Review, 40(4), 99-112. Mohammadi N.2005. The Preliminary Study of Validity and Reliability of Rosenberg’s Self-esteem Scale. Developmental Pscychology,1(4), 313-

320. Moradi A.2010. The Effect of Self-esteem, Self-Efficacy and Achievement Motivation on Quality of Life and Entrepreneurial Behavior in Young

Females: A Model for Individuals with Physical-Motor Disability. PhD thesis, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. Mosahhef H, Abedi MR, Bahrami F.2006. The effect of career counseling on the entrepreneurial attitude among University of Isfahan students.New

Thoughts on Education, 1(4),49-66. Murphy H, Murphy EK.2006.Comparing quality of life using the world health organization quality of life measure(WHOQL-100) in a clinical and

non-clinical sample: Exploring the role of self-esteem, self-efficacy and social functioning. Journal of Mental Health,15,3,289-300.

Nosek MA, Hughes RB, Swdiund N, Taylor HB, Swank P.2003. Self–esteem and women with disabilities. Social Science and

Medicine,56,8,1737-1747. Rajabi GR.2006. Reliability and validity of the General Self-Efficacy Beliefs Scale (GSE-10). New Thoughts on Education, 2, 1-2, 111-122. Ray DM.1986. Perceptions of risk and new Enterprise formation in Singapore. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellsley, MA: Babons

College. Rosenberg M.1979. Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books. Schmitt DP, Allik J.2005.Simultaneous Administration of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in 53 Nations: Exploring the Universal and Culture-

Specific Features of Global Self-Esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 4, 623-642. Scholz U, Gutierrez Doza B, Sud S, Schwarzer R.2002. Is general self-efficacy a universal construct ? Psychometric findings from 25 countries.

European Journal of Psychological Assessment,18, 242-251. Schwarzer R, Bäßler J, Kwiatek P, Schröder K, Zhang JX.1997. The assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish,

and Chinese versions of the general self efficacy scale. Applied Psychology, 46,1, 69–88. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. 1995. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In S. Wright, & M. Johnston, and J. Weinman, (Eds.), Measures in Health

Psychology: A User’s Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: nferNelson. Schwarzer R, Schmitz GS, Tang C.2000. Teacher burnout in Hong Kong and Germany: A cross-cultural validation of the Maslach Burnout

Inventory. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 13,3, 309–326. Schwarzer R.1994.Optimism, vulnerability and self-beliefs as Health – related cognitions: A systematic overview. Psychology and health,9,161-

180. Sexton DL, Bowman NB.1983. Comparative entrepreneurship characteristics of students: Preliminary Results. Frontiers of entrepreneurship

Research ,Babson College ,Wellesly, MA, 213-232. Shah Hosseini A.2005. Entrepreneurship. Tehran: ayiizh Publication. Shan S, Locke E, Colline C.2003. Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management Review, 13,2,257-279. Shapurian R, Hojat M, Nayerahmadi H.1987. Psychometric characteristics and dimensionality of a Persian version of the Rosenberg Self-

Esteem Scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 65,27-34. Shaver KG, Scott LR.1991. Person process, Choice: The psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,16, 23-45. Shokrkon H, Boroumandnasab M, Najarian B, Shehni Yeylagh M.2003. Examining sample and multirelationships between creativity,

achievement motivation, and self-esteem with entrepreneurship in students of Shahid Chamran University. Journal of Education and Psychology, 9(3-4),1-24.

Stewart WH, Roth PL.2001. Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analysis review. Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 145-153.


2846

Talebpour A, Nouri A, Moulavi H.2002. The effects of cognitive training on locus of control achievement motivation. And academic performance of high school students. Journal of Psychology, 6(1),18-29.

Verheul I, Uhlander I, thurik AR.2002. What is an Entrepreneur?'': self- image, activities and gender. Entrepreneurial council for small business. Puertorico, 47 TH world conference san juan, June 16-18, 2002.

Weare K.2000. Promoting mental and social health: a whole school approach. London: Routledge. Weiss PA.2002. self-esteem: A study of methods of measurements. Dissertation Abstract International: Section B, The Sciences and

Engineering,62,(9-B),32-42. Welsh JA, White JF.1981.Converging on characteristics of entrepreneurs. InK.H.Vesper(Ed.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. Wellsly,

Mass: Babson, Center for entrepreneurial Studies. Whiteside-Mensell L, Corwyn RF.2003. Mean and covariance structures analysis: An examination of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale among

adolescents and adults. Educational and Psychological Measurement,63,1,163-173. Willson F, Kickul J, Marlino D.2007. Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions for entrepreneurship education.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,31,3,387-406. Wright PM, Hollenbeck JR, Wolf S, McMahan GC.1995. The effects of varying goal difficulty operationalizations on goal setting outcomes and

processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 28–43. Wu CH.2009. Factor analysis of the general self-efficacy scale and its relationship with individualism/ collectivism among twenty –five countries:

Application of multilevel confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 699-703.

share of achievement motivation, self-efficacy and self ... · pdf fileshare of achievement...

Documents