Predicting entrepreneurial intentions of freshmen ...

Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies Predicting entrepreneurial intentions of freshmen students from EAO modeling and personal background: A Saudi perspective Wassim J. Aloulou

Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 07:37 14 June 2016 (PT)

Article information: To cite this document: Wassim J. Aloulou , (2016),"Predicting entrepreneurial intentions of freshmen students from EAO modeling and personal background", Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. 180 - 203 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-09-2015-0050 Downloaded on: 14 June 2016, At: 07:37 (PT) References: this document contains references to 87 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 23 times since 2016*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2016),"Entrepreneurial intentions of university students in an emerging economy: The influence of university support and proactive personality on students’ entrepreneurial intention", Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. 162-179 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ JEEE-10-2015-0058 (2016),"Framing the entrepreneurial university: the case of the National University of Singapore", Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. 134-161 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-09-2015-0046 (2016),"The antecedents of entrepreneurial innovative behavior in developing countries, a networked grounded theory approach (case study Iran)", Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. 225-262 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-07-2015-0038

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emeraldsrm:586319 []

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

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.


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

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/2053-4604.htm

JEEE 8,2

180

Predicting entrepreneurial intentions of freshmen students from EAO modeling and personal background A Saudi perspective


Received 9 September 2015 Revised 24 December 2015 Accepted 28 January 2016

Wassim J. Aloulou Department of Business Administration, College of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to study the effects of personal background and entrepreneurial attitudes on entrepreneurial intentions of Saudi Freshmen students of Al Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University. After reviewing the literature and related theories on entrepreneurship, attitudes and intentions, this study provides a conceptual framework trying to identify the effects of most influential factors on individual’s intention to become an entrepreneur. Design/methodology/approach – Through a survey study developed from previous empirical studies, the paper aims to investigate the significant elements of intentions from a sample of 103 students randomly selected. This study is both descriptive and analytical using correlations and multiple regressions. Findings – The findings show that significant correlations among variables were found. The achievement and innovation attitudes are significant elements to entrepreneurial intentions. Students scored quite high on them, but, moderate on personal control and self-esteem attitudes. Students might have a real intention for starting their own businesses later that could be sustained during their studies at university. Additionally, entrepreneurs among relatives and entrepreneurship training were also the other significant elements to intentions. Research Limitations/implications – Implications for future research are described and some pragmatic recommendations are provided to promote students’ entrepreneurial initiatives and behaviors at university. Social Implications – The exploratory analysis suggests the need to develop more the awareness of students to entrepreneurship as potential career choice to help them to be active in the society. Originality/value – In this paper, the Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation model is validated for a Saudi university considered as a specific context. Broader reflections about a freshman student entrepreneurship as refocused research agenda is also considered by undertaking some new research and developing a comprehensive and contextual framework. Keywords Saudi Arabia, Intention, Entrepreneurial attitude orientation, Freshmen students, Student background Paper type Research paper

Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies Vol. 8 No. 2, 2016 pp. 180-203 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2053-4604 DOI 10.1108/JEEE-09-2015-0050

1. Introduction Nowadays, entrepreneurship is seen as a key factor to economy and sustainable development. It contributes to grow country’s competitiveness in its national and


international markets; cope with unemployment as a solution to this ever-growing problem; encourage entrepreneurs in bringing innovative ideas into market and achieve their personal blossoming (Acs and Szerb, 2010; European Commission, 2006; Zoltan, 2006). At individual level, entrepreneurship is also considered as one of the key competences for the development of lifelong learning (European Commission, 2004). All decision-makers, researchers and practitioners agree that entrepreneurs are the ones who provide jobs and innovate and achieve significant changes in the economic structure of a society. Considering the role of entrepreneurship at country level, several partners have monitored the economic development of many countries and linked the extent of their economic progress to entrepreneurship. For example, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) published regular reports to understand the economic growth and prosperity through the level of entrepreneurship activities. In fact, the GEM framework focused on different components linked to social, cultural, political and economic context (national and entrepreneurial framework conditions), to social values toward entrepreneurship as a good career choice, to individual perceived attributes (demographic, psychological and motivational aspects) and to entrepreneurial activity (Kelley et al., 2010; Singer et al., 2015). Having conceived a new complex indicator to measure entrepreneurship and development in the world, Acs and Szerb (2010) provide a new look into the entrepreneurial country profile by proposing the Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index which embodies the contextual features of entrepreneurship by focusing on three elements: attitudes, activities and aspirations. Moreover, several researchers argue that nations and regions which are characterized by a culture that is prone to entrepreneurship may have higher start-up rates (Beugelsdijk and Noorderhaven, 2004). Hence, attitudes toward entrepreneurship can contribute to increase economic growth at regional level (Bosma and Schutjens, 2011). Given the importance of entrepreneurship culture among people (Henderson and Robertson, 2000; Kolvereid, 1996; Moy et al., 2003; Soomro and Shah, 2015), our research focuses on studying the influences of entrepreneurial attitudes, at individual level, on intentions of Saudi university students toward entrepreneurship seen as a potential career option and an alternative to face unemployment. In reality, the unemployment problem becomes more and more weighty. In fact, according to the official statistics from official websites of the Saudi Central Department of Statistics and Information, the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency and the Saudi Ministry of Education, the unemployment rate is estimated at more than 11 per cent among youth ages (⬎15 years): 6 per cent for Saudi males and 33 per cent for Saudi females. The number of graduates from public and private higher educational institutions increases each year to go from 115,000 students in 2009 to more than 300,000 in 2014. This number from all levels of higher education stood at 185.1 thousand in academic year 1434/1435 Hijri (SAMA, 2015). Moreover, it has been mentioned officially that Saudi context is almost favorable to practice businesses easily according to some published reports such as Doing Business report (World Bank, 2014) or Global Competitiveness report (World Economic Forum, 2015). However, the country has the lowest Total Entrepreneurial Activity rate among the factor-driven economies in the region, according to GEM report in 2010 (Kelley et al., 2010). In fact, only 9.3 per cent of the Saudi population adult (18-64 years old) was

Predicting entrepreneurial intentions 181

JEEE 8,2


182

actively involved in the start-up of new business or owned a business less than three and half years old. Additionally, findings show divergent results when 86.6 per cent of the respondents consider entrepreneurship as a potential career choice, 69 per cent stated that they have capabilities to seize entrepreneurial opportunities and launch new ventures, but only 1 per cent of them reported that they had entrepreneurial intention (EI). From these facts, a debate is opened up on studying factors such as attitudes toward entrepreneurship of young Saudi students that may explain their EIs. This debate started yet with some recent empirical studies conducted at Saudi University to identify the main factors affecting entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions of enrolled students and graduates (Alexandre-Leclair et al., 2013; Almobaireek et al., 2011; Almobaireek and Manolova, 2012). Likewise, investigating what attitudinal factors determine entrepreneurial intent is a critical issue in entrepreneurship research. Then, examining what student background characteristics are linked with entrepreneurial intent is a critical issue too. A central question that arises is what are the attitudinal and background factors that determinate the EIs of Saudi freshmen students? The study has three objectives: (1) The paper attempts to examine key factors that determine Saudi freshmen students’ intention to start a new business. From a selected literature review, the paper presents how to measure the main variables and their influences. (2) It attempts to describe our sample of students enrolled for their first year in higher education at Al Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), and then summarize the main findings. (3) It presents some conclusions, discusses some theoretical and practical implications and proposes at the end a refocused agenda for freshmen students’ entrepreneurship in addressing the need of encouraging students to consider entrepreneurship as a potential career choice. 2. Literature review The past 50 years has been marked by the increasing focus on multidimensional, heterogeneous and complex nature of entrepreneurial behavior. As process and career behavior, entrepreneurship is concerned with the process of starting a new business (Gartner, 1985), and EI represents an individual’s intent to start a new business (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994). Our understanding of EIs is guided by mobilizing mainly the concept of attitude orientation and by using the theoretical and empirical attitude and intention-based models to develop a research framework. 2.1 Entrepreneurial attitude orientation The attitudinal perspective is one of the main area of entrepreneurship research. Researchers looked at entrepreneurial behavior through this perspective based on the idea of the consistency of entrepreneurial attitude as a measure of this behavior. In this study, attitude is a key concept related to entrepreneurship among individuals (freshmen students in this study). The literature shows some ambiguity in defining attitude. In fact, there are two fundamental approaches to entrepreneurial attitude. The first approach considers attitude as unidimensional construct defining entrepreneurial attitude as ones’ feeling,


thought and conation toward entrepreneurship. In this sense, entrepreneurial behavior is a function of attitude toward the value, benefit and favorability of entrepreneurship and mostly represented by affective reaction alone (Robinson et al., 1991a; Dömötör and Hader, 2007). While, the second approach holds that entrepreneurial attitude is a multi-dimensional construct. From Robinson’s et al. (1991a) point of view, this construct is called Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation (EAO) and encompasses four key components including need for achievement in business (referring to perceived results and outcomes of entrepreneurship and driving one to take responsibilities of launching a new business); innovation in business (thinking in bringing new innovative ideas, products or methods); personal control over behavior (reflecting perceptions of control and influencing the outcome of venture creation outcomes); and perceived self-esteem in business (referring to self-confidence and perceived entrepreneurial competencies of individuals in conjunction with his business affairs). Here, entrepreneurial behavior is a function of these four components in terms of three dimensions: affection, cognition and conation. The combination of these three dimensions motivates one to become entrepreneur (Figure 1). Here, the EAO is based on the tripartite model of attitude rather than on demographics or personality theory. Several research studies focused on attitudes toward entrepreneurship as the adequate approach to characterize entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs compared to the trait approach dealing with personal qualities or demographic characteristics (Robinson et al., 1991a; Dömötör and Hader, 2007). The trait approach failed to provide plausible interpretation of entrepreneurship phenomenon because of its heterogeneous nature and the diversity of entrepreneurs. The idea of establishing an ideal personal patterns related to entrepreneur was criticized by several researchers (Gartner, 1988, 1989; Robinson et al., 1991a; Dömötör and Hader, 2007). It has shown also the difficulty to interpret entrepreneurial behavior through only psychological characteristics.


2.2 Entrepreneurial intention Deciding to start a new business is supposed to be planned and preceded by an intention to do so. EI has been described as a conscious state of mind that directs attention (and therefore experience and action) toward a specific object (goal) or the pathway to achieve it (means) (Bird, 1988). In this study, it represents a university student’s intent to start a new business (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994). Intention toward a behavior has mentioned to be the single, direct and best predictor of planned behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen, 1991; Krueger, 1993). According

Figure 1. EAO sub-constructs and dimensions

JEEE 8,2


184

to Ajzen (1991), it captures the degree to which people show their motivation and willingness to execute the desired behavior: the higher the intention to undertake the behavior, the higher the probability of performing it. Add to this, Krueger et al. (2000) has explained that entrepreneurship is intentional and a planned behavior. Since entrepreneurial behavior is intentional and when it is rare, hard to observe, or involves unpredictable time lags (Bird, 1988; Krueger and Brazeal, 1994), many researchers agreed that it can be predicted by EI and that new business formation is a deliberately designed behavior (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993). Essentially, entrepreneurship is viewed as a process of venture creation (Gartner, 1985) and EI is crucial in this process. In this study, EI is especially best predicted by attitude and defined here as an individual’s cognitive inclination to pursue an entrepreneurial career after graduation. 2.3 Student background The demographic characteristics revealed to be the best individual demographic predictors of entrepreneurial behavior (Robinson et al., 1991a). This present study employed a subset of the many different demographic characteristics: • The gender variable seems to also play a key role in this prediction (Keat et al., 2011; Scherer et al., 1989, 1990; Veciana et al., 2005; Strobl et al., 2012). A linkage exists between gender and the EIs of Freshman student, in that this study expects males to be more likely to express EI than females. • The existence of entrepreneur among parents/relatives (parents: father, mother; relatives: brother, sister, uncle […]) appears to be another element to increase EI of the student (Autio et al., 2001; Davidsson, 1995; Keat et al., 2011; Kolvereid, 1996; Scherer et al., 1989; Veciana et al., 2005). A linkage exists between having an entrepreneur among close relatives as a role model and the EIs of Freshmen students, in that this study expects those students having such role models to be more likely to express EIs than those students having no role model. • Entrepreneurship training: Robinson et al. (1991a, 1991b) state that internal control leads to a positive entrepreneurial attitude and most students who receive entrepreneurial formation may develop a higher level of control and self-efficiency. Thus, several research studies found that exposing students to entrepreneurship training is expected to mobilize their attitudes which, in turn, can have a positive effect on intentions to start a new business (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003; Athayde, 2009; Fayolle and Gailly, 2013). • Participating in associations as a social experience: This experience is believed to influence EIs according to several researchers (Guerrero et al., 2008; Fayolle and Gailly, 2013). 2.4 Development of a research model 2.4.1 Intention-based models. In presenting the evolution and the empirical analysis of the most important EI models, Guerrero et al. (2008) identified five intention-based models in literature to study the different factors that influence EI: • Shapero’s Entrepreneurial Event (Shapero and Sokol, 1982) which considers the business creation as an event that can be explained with the interaction between initiatives, abilities, management, relative autonomy and risk. According to this study, the personal choice to start a new venture depends on three elements: the

•


•

•

•

•

perception of the desirability, the propensity to act and the perception of feasibility. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991) which considers human behavior as planned and therefore being preceded by intention toward that behavior. The TPB postulates three conceptually independent determinants of intention: attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms with respect to the behavior and perceived control over the behavior. Attitudes refer to the degree to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior in question. EAO model (Robinson et al., 1991a) as more profitable approach to predict behavior than personality traits as forerunners of entrepreneurial actions. Attitudes do change more easily and more often than personality traits. Attitudes can therefore also be changed deliberately to be, for instance, more favorable toward entrepreneurship. It seems to be more viable to change an individual’s attitudes than his/her other personality characteristics. More information on entrepreneurial attitudes could therefore be useful when entrepreneurship and the development thereof are important. Intention basic model (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993) which examines the relationship between attitudes and EIs using a scale to permit greater flexibility in the analysis of exogenous influences, attitudes and intentions. Entrepreneurial Potential Model (EPM; Krueger and Brazeal, 1994): based on the previous models of Shapero and Ajzen, EPM uses a socio-psychological perspective and considers that environmental factors affect the decision to create a new firm. The potential to start a business is defined on three critical constructs: perceived desirability, perceived feasibility and propensity to act. Davidsson Intention Model (Davidsson, 1995): According to this model, intention can be influenced by two elements: the conviction defined by general attitudes and domain attitudes, and the current situation.

The research framework about EI is based on the TPB and the EAO models. It will be introduced in the next section. 2.4.2 The theory of planned behavior. We consider starting business as intentional and planned behavior (Krueger et al., 2000; Autio et al., 2001). EIs are critical to this process, establishing the first in a series of actions to organizational creation (Bird, 1988). Moreover, intentions toward a behavior can be strong indicators of that behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). As literature on EI is rapidly evolving field of research with different major contributions (Engle et al., 2010; Linan and Fayolle, 2015), our understanding of EIs is guided by the TPB of Ajzen’s (1991) as one of the most widely used theory in this area. This theory suggests that behavior is predicted by behavioral intentions, and it provides a useful framework to understand the complexities of human social behavior (Ajzen, 1991). We focus on attitudes as one of three main antecedents of intentions (attitude toward behavior, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control). In fact, if individuals do not intend to become an entrepreneur, then possessing entrepreneurial attitudes loses significance (Burton and Swanson, 2012).


JEEE 8,2


186

Overall, the theory has received strong empirical support in explaining entrepreneurial career choices (Kolvereid, 1996; Krueger et al., 2000; Peterman and Kennedy, 2003). To the original theoretical TPB framework, entrepreneurship researchers have integrated some personal or situational factors having influences on intentions such as family background, gender, past experiences, entrepreneurship training and education (Davidsson, 1995; Kolvereid, 1996; Krueger et al., 2000; Guerrero et al., 2008; Fayolle and Gailly, 2013). 2.4.3 Integrating EAO model as a validated instrument for measuring attitudes. Based on their criticism to the entrepreneurial traits approach, Robinson et al. (1991a) proposed the use of attitude theory to distinguish entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs, and then developed and validated specifically a scale for predicting entrepreneurship using attitudes. The attitude theory offers both theoretical and practical benefits to the study of entrepreneurship (Roberts and Robinson, 2010). The EAO scale is an instrument conceived to explain attitude prediction. It encompasses four different subscales (achievement, innovation, personal control and self-esteem) and three fundamental dimensions (cognition, affection and conation) (Robinson et al., 1991a). The scale has successfully discriminated between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs in several research contexts (Robinson et al., 1991a, 1991b; Huefner et al., 1996). The EAO subscales are found to discriminate between entrepreneurs, owner-managers, and non-entrepreneurs, and the entrepreneur group means for each of the subscales was significantly higher than the other two groups (Huefner et al., 1996). The advantage of the EAO scale is that is “more domain-specific, which increases the correlation with actual behavior and reduces unexplained variability” (Harris and Gibson, 2008, p. 569). Specifically designed to measure and predict entrepreneurship, the EAO Scale has been used in several studies about potential entrepreneurs so as to be tested and retested in different contexts, extended in different manners and for different purposes (McCline et al., 2000; Lindsay et al., 2007; Athayde, 2009; and Steenekamp et al., 2011 […]). In empirical studies, the EAO scale used for examining and comparing entrepreneurial attitudes of students enrolled in several fields and programs at universities, community colleges and secondary schools in different countries and regions: USA (Gibson et al., 2008, 2011a, 2011b; Gibson and Gibson, 2010; Harris and Gibson, 2008a; Harris et al., 2011; Hatten and Ruhland, 1995; Harris et al., 2007); Hong Kong (Koh, 1995); Malaysia (Shariff and Saud, 2009; Ismail et al., 2013; Soomro and Shah, 2015); Singapore (Tan et al., 1996); Uganda (Byabashaija and Katono, 2011); Carribean (Esnard-flavius, 2010); Trinidad and Tobago (Esnard, 2012); and South Africa (Lope Pihie and Bagheri, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b). The Scale was used for the purpose of comparing entrepreneurial attitudes of students from different countries: USA and Iranian students (Fakharazadeh and Johnson, 2010); American and Chinese business students (Gibson et al., 2011a, 2011b; Harris and Gibson, 2008b); Chinese and Brazilian students (Gibson et al., 2009); and African Americans (Gibson et al., 2014). For other purposes of comparison, the EAO scale was used to compare between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs in the different countries (Stimpson et al., 1990; Robinson et al., 2001; McCline et al., 2000; Shetty, 2004; Kundu and Rani, 2008; Van Wyk and Boshoff, 2004; Roberts and Robinson, 2010).


2.4.4 Proposed research model and hypothesis development. Extant research on EI suggests a positive relationship between attitudes and intentions and aspirations (Autio et al., 1997; Bird, 1988; Davidsson, 1995; Hj Othman and Ishak, 2009; Kolvereid, 1996; Krueger et al., 2000). Our study examines the attitudes and intentions of students based upon a model which posits that EIs stem from a combination of antecedents (entrepreneurial attitude orientation in business and student background). Figure 2 depicts this model based upon the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) and the EAO model (Robinson et al., 1991a, 1991b). Based upon our literature review, we formulate two main hypotheses to test whether there are relationships between student background and EI and between EAO (components and dimensions) and EI. In considering the previous theoretical framework, the hypotheses are the following:


H1. There will be a positive relationship between EAO components (achievement; innovation; personal control; self-esteem) and EI to start a new business. H2. There will be a positive relationship between student background (gender, entrepreneurs among relatives, entrepreneurship training, participation in associations) and EI to start a new business. 3. Method 3.1 Sample This research employed a survey method to measure the EAO and EI of Saudi freshmen students of IMSIU. A sample of 103 survey questionnaires was randomly selected from 200 questionnaires distributed in the study showing a response rate of 51.5 per cent. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that data were gathered in second semester of the university year 2013-2014. Questionnaires were distributed and completed anonymously in teaching classrooms (paper and pencil version) with the cooperation of some colleagues. Data were collected with the help of three fresh graduate students well trained in the field of data collection and treatment. We used descriptive statistics, and Table I included relevant demographic characteristics of the sample. Participants were students enrolled for the first time at university in the College of Economics and Administrative Sciences (60.2 per cent male, 39.8 per cent female), ranging in age from less than 18 to more than 27 years old, with a majority of students between 18 and 21 years old (88.3 per cent). The majority of students were single (n ⫽ 98).

Figure 2. The proposed entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions model

JEEE 8,2


188

Background (personal and demographic characteristics) Sex Male Female 62 (60.2) 41 (39.8) Age (years) ⫺18 ⫹ 18 and ⫺21 2 (1.9) 91 (88.3) Marital status Single Married 98 (95.1) 5 (4.9) Father’s level of education Before Secondary Secondary 28 (27.9) 17 (16.5) Mother’s level of Before Secondary education Secondary 34 (33) 31 (30.1) Father occupation Yes No 79 (76.7) 17 (16.5) Mother occupation Yes No 17 (16.5) 84 (81.6) Entrepreneurs among relatives Parent owner Relatives (brother, uncle . . .) Parent/relative Business experience (starting/involving in) Professional experience in firms Entrepreneurship training

Table I. Frequency distribution of sample (N ⫽ 103)

Category Frequency n (percentage %)

Variable

Participation in associations Entrepreneurial intention

Yes 23 (22.3) Yes 35 (34) Yes 46 (44.7) Yes 28 (27.2) Yes 16 (15.5) Yes 19 (18.4) Yes 30 (29.1) Yes 61 (59.2)

No 80 (77.7) No 56 (54.4) No 57 (55.3) No 73 (70.9) No 77 (74.8) No 84 (81.6) No 70 (68) No 42 (40.8)

⫹ 21 10 (9.7) University 44 (42.7) University 33 (32) Retired 4 (3.9) Retired –

After University 9 (8.7) After University 1 (1) Defund 2 (1.9) Defund –

Missing 5 (4.9) Missing 4 (4) Missing 1 (1) Missing 2 (1.9)

Missing 12 (11.7)

Source: Author’s elaboration

Regarding father’s and mother’s level of education, data show that father (51.4 per cent) is well educated (with university level or more) than mother (33 per cent). However, 81.6 per cent of students have mothers with no professional occupation and only 16.5 per cent of students have fathers with no professional occupation. Regarding business antecedents of their family, we can observe that 77.7 per cent of students do not have an entrepreneur parent (father/mother) and 54.4 per cent of students do not have an entrepreneur relative (brother, sister or uncles). Furthermore, more than 68 per cent of them have no business experience or professional experience in firms or have no training in entrepreneurship or no participation in associations related to social, sport and religion activities. Instead of


that, 59.2 per cent of students have an EI to pursue an entrepreneurial career as starting new business in the future. 3.2 Questionnaire, measures and data analysis 3.2.1 Questionnaire development. The research questionnaire used in the study is structured and self-administered questionnaire. Originally, it was developed in English, then, translated to Arabic and back-translated to ensure the accuracy and appropriateness of language. A first Arabic version of questionnaire was made and has been, then, reviewed by three academicians and pilot-tested on 15 students. Some changes on questionnaire were made to improve its readability and format. The questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first part concerned with the EAO scale developed by Robinson et al. (1991a) that was used to assess the students’ entrepreneurial attitude orientation. The second part included statements of EI adopted from several researchers (such as Kolvereid, 1996, and Schwarz et al., 2009): a yes or no question and a scale of three items to measure the likelihood of starting a new business. The last part included items about respondents’ background information such as gender, entrepreneurs among relatives (parents/relatives), entrepreneurship training and participation in associations. 3.2.2 Measures of variables and data analysis. In measuring students’ entrepreneurial attitude, this study used an instrument of EAO (Robinson et al., 1991a) and consisting of four sub-scales (Achievement, Innovation, Personal Control, and Self-Esteem). Each sub-scale is measured in three components, including cognition, affection and behavior. The total number of items in this instrument is 75 items. Respondents are requested to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement with each item on a five-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)[1]. To minimize response-set bias and the halo effect, some statements are reverse-scored. For each item, a higher score indicates a higher level of that characteristic. On the contrary, the lower the score rated shows, the lower level of that characteristic. We followed a two-step procedure using SPSS software (version 21) to assess validity and reliability. An exploratory analysis was conducted to assess the underlying factor structure of scale items. To do this, we removed items with factor loading less than 0.40. The remaining items were examined further by factor analysis with Varimax rotation, and results revealed all remaining factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and KMO more than 0.6. In next step, Cronbach’s ␣ was used to assess the reliability of each construct. Cronbach’s ␣ for each construct was greater than 0.70, the cutoff value suggested by Nunnally (1978). The Table II provides the reduction dimensionality and the criteria (KMO, principal factoring, Cronbach’ alpha and number of items remained in study). We measured entrepreneurial attitudes with the EAO scale (Robinson et al., 1991a, 1991b) providing a composite score based on four attitude subscales: achievement (Cronbach’ ␣ ⫽ 0.90), innovation (Cronbach’ ␣ ⫽ 0.93), personal control (Cronbach’ ␣ ⫽ 0.88), self-esteem (Cronbach’ ␣ ⫽ 0.87). EIs have been measured in different ways in different studies. To measure it, Kolvereid (1996) focused on the preferences for entrepreneurship career by choosing between two alternatives: starting his/her own business or working for other. Krueger (1993) used a dichotomous variable, with a yes/no statement: “Do you think you’ll ever start a business?”. We adopt this yes/no statement after Krueger (1993), Peterman and


JEEE 8,2

Sub-construct of the EAO


Achievement

Dimension

Affective Behavioral Cognitive Innovation Affective 190 Behavioral Cognitive Personal control Affective Behavioral Cognitive Self-esteem Affective Table II. Validity and Behavioral reliability of the EAO Cognitive and entrepreneurial items intention scales Entrepreneurial intention scale

No. of items (deleted) 7 (0) 8 (2) 8 (0) 8 (0) 9 (0) 9 (1) 3 (0) 6 (0) 3 (0) 6 (0) 3 (0) 5 (0) 75 (3) 3 (0)

KMO 0.81 0.83 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.65 0.82 0.62 0.80 0.64 0.8 0.726

% of variance accounted 51.83 53.47 52.15 50.06 54.43 49.93 65.56 56.56 64.97 53.07 65.99 50.97 55.75 80.839

Cronbach’s alpha 0.71 0.82 0.86 0.85 0.78 0.85 0.73 0.76 0.68 0.76 0.68 0.75

0.906

0.929

0.88

0.872

0.871

Kennedy (2003) and Kennedy et al. (2003). Focusing on a time dimension, intention is also measured by the probability of starting business in the next 1, 2, 5 or 10 years (Krueger et al., 2000; Davidsson, 1995; Byabashaija and Katono, 2011; Peterman and Kennedy, 2003; Kennedy et al., 2003; Kolvereid, 1996). However, from Autio et al. (1997, 2001) and Schwarz et al. (2009), we adopt here an index of three questions to measure the dependent variable, intention, by: Q1. “How interested are you in setting up your own business?” (five response categories from “very unlikely” to “very likely”). Q2. “How likely is it that you will set up (another) business during the next two years?” (five response categories from “very unlikely” to “very likely”). Q3. “How likely is it that you will set up (another) business during the next five years?” (five response categories from “not likely at all” to “very likely”). The demographic characteristics revealed gender, entrepreneur among parents/ relatives, entrepreneurship training, participating in associations as a social experience to be tested if they are the best individual demographic predictors of entrepreneurial behavior. This present study employed a subset of the many different demographic characteristics: • Gender as a dummy variable: Gender ⫽ 1 if the student is male, 2 if female (Keat et al., 2011; Scherer et al., 1989, 1990; Veciana et al., 2005; Strobl et al., 2012). • Entrepreneur among parents/relatives: Measured by a yes/no statement: Yes ⫽ 1 (exist); No ⫽ 2 (doesn’t exist). • Entrepreneurship training: Measured by a yes/no statement: Yes ⫽ 1 (if have received it); No ⫽ 2 (if have not received it). • Participating in associations as a social experience: Measured by a yes/no statement: Yes ⫽ 1; No ⫽ 2. Using statistical software, data were analyzed to determine whether relationship existed between variables. Following accepted standards applied by several researchers


(Koh, 1995; Harris and Gibson, 2008a; Keat et al., 2011 […]), we measure the correlations between variables and the linear regression models between independent variables and dependent variable. 4. Results Descriptive statistics among EAO variables (components and dimensions) and EI can be shown in Table III. In this study (N ⫽ 103), overall, participants’ intentions toward entrepreneurship were high with a statistical mean of 3.23 ⫾ 0.77 on a five Likert scale (measured with three items). The majority of the mean scores of participants for the EAO variables (components) were above than 3.47 (Table IV). We calculated correlations among variables used for the study. By using Pearson’s correlation analysis, a significant correlation between scales was determined at two levels, i.e. p ⫽ 0.05 and p ⫽ 0.01 (Tables III and IV). In this study, EI was found to be significantly and positively correlated to the three dimensions (affective, behavioral and cognitive) of achievement and innovation attitudes, to one dimension of personal control attitude (behavioral). However, EI was found to be positively but non-significantly correlated to self-esteem dimensions. All variables related to EAO components were correlated to each other at the significant level p ⫽ 0.01. The Table IV shows positive relationships between EAO components and EI, but, significant ones with only some components (achievement and innovation). The correlation analysis shows that there are negative and significant relationships between EI and some student background variables such as having a parent or relative as owner, and having attended an entrepreneurship training session. But, there are no significant correlations between intentions and gender and participation in association (Table V). It is observed that students with parents/relatives as entrepreneurs (correlation ⫽ ⫺0.335, p ⫽ 0.01) and who attended entrepreneurship training sessions (correlation ⫽ ⫺0.229, p ⫽ 0.05) have more EIs than those who do not have parents or relatives as entrepreneurs and did not attend entrepreneurship training sessions. Multiple regression is designed to test hypotheses where two steps are involved. Student background controlled first (with model 1 or 3). Then, step two involved both the control and independent variables. The EI is the dependent variable. The results of the hypothesis testing are shown in Tables VI and VII. From model 1, there is a significant relationship between having relatives as entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship training and EI. The model explains 20.5 per cent of the variation in EI (R2 ⫽ 0.205). From the model 3, there is only a significant relationship between having at least a parent/relative as entrepreneur and EI. The model explains 16.6 per cent of the variation in EI (R2 ⫽ 0.166). However, in step 2, after adding the independent variables to the model 2, it explains an additional 30.4 per cent of the variation in EI. This R2 is significant, F(9, 78) ⫽ 3.792 at p ⫽ 0.1 per cent. The results demonstrate that the existence of entrepreneurs among relatives (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.454, t ⫽ ⫺3.061, p ⬍ 0.01), the entrepreneurship training (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.416, t ⫽ ⫺2.286, p ⬍ 0.05) and the achievement attitude (␤ ⫽ 0.388, t ⫽ 1.677, p ⬍ 0. 1) are the three significant variables in the model. Therefore, hypotheses 1 and 2 were partially supported. From model 4, it explains an additional 31 per cent of the variation in EI. This R2 is significant, F(8, 91) ⫽ 5.100 at p ⫽ 0 per cent. The results demonstrate that the existence of entrepreneurs among parents/relatives (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.410, t ⫽ ⫺2.982, p ⬍ 0.01), the


0.113

0.060

3.72 3.64 3.92

0.047

Self-est. Aff. Beh. Cog.

0.109

4.22 3.78 3.88

0.201*

Pers. Con. Aff. Beh. Cog.

0.065

0.280** 0.441** 0.287** 0.467** 0.503** 0.559** 0.381** 0.525** 0.455** 1 0.616** 0.501** 0.452** 0.419** 0.418** 0.470** 0.528** 0.498** 0.368** 0.539** 0.442** 0.616** 1 0.503** 0.294** 0.385** 0.357** 0.322** 0.522** 0.527** 0.378** 0.580** 0.349** 0.501** 0.503** 1

0.366** 0.386** 0.378** 0.468** 0.394** 0.359** 1 0.556** 0.413** 0.381** 0.368** 0.378** 0.395** 0.482** 0.482** 0.541** 0.657** 0.605** 0.556** 1 0.609** 0.525** 0.539** 0.580** 0.436** 0.325** 0.470** 0.515** 0.397** 0.615** 0.413** 0.609** 1 0.455** 0.442** 0.349**

Notes: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); ** correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); the Table IV shows positive relationships between EAO components and entrepreneurial intention, but, significant ones with only some components (achievement and innovation)

0.68 0.047 0.73 0.113 0.73 0.060

0.70 0.065 0.72 0.201* 0.78 0.109

0.63 0.306** 0.532** 0.436** 0.528** 1 0.618** 0.514** 0.468** 0.541** 0.515** 0.467** 0.470** 0.322** 0.63 0.292** 0.459** 0.642** 0.522** 0.618** 1 0.626** 0.394** 0.657** 0.397** 0.503** 0.528** 0.522** 0.63 0.240* 0.568** 0.469** 0.572** 0.514** 0.626** 1 0.359** 0.605** 0.615** 0.559** 0.498** 0.527**

0.312** 0.387** 0.306** 0.292** 0.240*

4.09 3.75 3.97

0.232*

Innov Aff. Beh. Cog.

Self-esteem Beh. Cog.

0.51 0.232* 1 0.484** 0.556** 0.532** 0.459** 0.568** 0.366** 0.395** 0.436** 0.280** 0.452** 0.294** 0.60 0.312** 0.484** 1 0.479** 0.436** 0.642** 0.469** 0.386** 0.482** 0.325** 0.441** 0.419** 0.385** 0.69 0.387** 0.556** 0.479** 1 0.528** 0.522** 0.572** 0.378** 0.482** 0.470** 0.287** 0.418** 0.357**

Aff.

4.38 3.91 4.15

Personal control Aff. Beh. Cog.

0.77 1

Innovation Beh. Cog.

3.23

Aff.

Intention Ach. Aff. Beh. Cog.

Achievement Beh. Cog.

Mean

Table III. Means, standard deviation (S.D.) and Pearson’s correlations between intention and EAO components’ dimensions (affective, behavioral and cognitive)

Variable

Aff.

192

SD Intention


JEEE 8,2


entrepreneurship training (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.415, t ⫽ ⫺2.304, p ⬍ 0.05), the achievement attitude (␤ ⫽ 0.433, t ⫽ 1.928, p ⬍ 0. 1) and the innovation attitude (␤ ⫽ 0.431, t ⫽ 1.790, p ⬍ 0.1) are the four significant variables in the model. From model 5, there is significant relationship between having relatives as entrepreneurs, entrepreneurship training, cognitive achievement attitude dimension and affective innovation attitude dimension and EI. The model explains 35.7 per cent of the variation in EI (R2 ⫽ 0.357). From the model 6 (with the parent/relatives as entrepreneurs added), there is an increase in the variation in EI (R2 ⫽ 0.371) and in the coefficients (␤) for selected variables. This R2 is significant, F(16, 83) ⫽ 3.060 at p ⫽ 0 per cent. The results demonstrate that the existence of entrepreneurs among parents/relatives (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.441, t ⫽ ⫺3.063, p ⬍ 0.01), the entrepreneurship training (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.394, t ⫽ ⫺2.037, p ⬍ 0.05), the cognitive achievement attitude (␤ ⫽ 0.350, t ⫽ 2.357, p ⬍ 0.05) and the affective innovation attitude (␤ ⫽ 0.373, t ⫽ 2.253, p ⬍ 0.05) are the four significant variables in the model. Additionally, hypotheses 1 and 2 were partially supported.


5. Discussions The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between student background and EOA with the EIs among Saudi freshmen students. We hypothesized that there are significant relationships between variables. Extensive literature has been reviewed to conceptualize EIs (as dependent variable) through student background and entrepreneurial attitudes (as independent variables). After calculating reliability and validity of an adapted instrument (EAO scale), the results show that significant correlations among variables were found. The achievement and innovation attitudes are significant elements to entrepreneurship intention. And since attitudes affect and predict intentions which, in turn, predict behavior (Ajzen, 2001; Krueger and Carsrud, 1993), it can be concluded that the entrepreneurial attitudes of Saudi freshmen students are quite high. Students might have a real intention for starting their own businesses later (after graduation) that could be supported during their university studies. They scored high in dimensions of achieving attitude, innovative attitude and personal control. However, they recorded a moderate score in self-esteem. These findings were similar to Lope Pihie and Baghero (2011b). Efforts should be taken to augment business self-esteem among students and keep self-improving through practice in business. These efforts would help them gain experience to build the confidence, especially from immediate role models (friend, professors […]).

Variable Intention Achievement Innovation Personal control Self-esteem

Mean

SD

Intention

Achievement

Innovation

Personal control

Self-esteem

3.23 4.15 3.94 3.96 3.47

0.77 0.49 0.54 0.61 0.35

1 0.388** 0.328** 0.151 0.035

0.388** 1 0.754** 0.613** 0.384**

0.328** 0.754** 1 0.720** 0.582**

0.151 0.613** 0.720** 1 0.557**

0.035 0.384** 0.582** 0.557** 1

Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

Table IV. Means, SD and Pearson’s correlations between intention and EAO components

3.23 1.40 1.78 1.62 1.55 1.82 1.70

Intention Gender Parent owner Relative owner Parent/relative owner Entrep. training Partic. association

0.77 0.49 0.42 0.49 0.50 0.39 0.46

SD 1 ⫺0.098 ⫺0.195* ⫺0.383** ⫺0.335** ⫺0.229* ⫺0.079

Intention

Parent owner ⫺0.195* ⫺0.183 1 0.187 0.597** 0.046 ⫺0.047

Gender ⫺0.098 1 ⫺0.183 0.026 0.052 0.029 0.058

⫺0.383** 0.026 0.187 1 0.754** 0.061 0.013

Relative owner ⫺0.335** 0.052 0.597** 0.754** 1 0.026 ⫺0.022

Parent/relative owner

Notes: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); ** correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

Mean

Table V. Means, S.D. and Pearson’s correlations between intention and student background

Variable


⫺0.229* 0.029 0.046 0.061 0.026 1 0.295**

Entrep. training

⫺0.079 0.058 ⫺0.047 0.013 ⫺0.022 0.295** 1

Partic. association

JEEE 8,2

194

Model 1 Student background Gender


Entrepreneurs among relatives Parent Relatives At least parent/relative Entrepreneurship training Participating in associations EAO Achievement Innovation Personal control Self-esteem R R2 Adjusted R2 F

Model 2

⫺0.067

⫺0.039

⫺0.215 ⫺0.517***

⫺0.200 ⫺0.454***

⫺0.410** 0.017

⫺0.416** 0.045

Model 3

Model 4

⫺0.127

⫺0.087

⫺0.506*** ⫺0.407 ⫺0.035

⫺0.410*** ⫺0.415** 0.043


0.388* 0.433* 0.320 0.431* ⫺0.275 ⫺0.234 ⫺0.127 ⫺0.360 0.453 0.552 0.407 0.556 0.205 0.304 0.166 0.310 0.156 0.224 0.131 0.249 4.227 (p ⫽ 0.2%) 3.792 (p ⫽ 0.1%) 4.728 (p ⫽ 0.2%) 5.100 (p ⫽ 0%)

Notes: *** Significant at p ⬍ 0.01; ** significant at p ⬍ 0.05; * significant at p ⬍ 0.1

Mainly, higher score in entrepreneurial attitudes of freshmen students revealed that these attitudes need to be developed and sustained in future through entrepreneurial and extra-curricular activities, and conducive environment of learning. Therefore, freshmen students should be armed with necessary capabilities and the university needs to encourage, promote and sustain their interest in getting involved in entrepreneurship activities in campus. Moreover, the results of this study revealed that parents as entrepreneurs has no influence on entrepreneurial intent among students, because few parents were already in business. On the contrary, relatives as entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship training contribute to development of achieving attitude, personal control and innovative attitude which influence EIs. In addition, gender had no significant effect on intentions to start a business which means that female students are as likely as male students to become entrepreneurs and set up their own businesses. There was no significant difference of entrepreneurial attitude among male and female students. 6. Conclusion, implications and research limits This study investigated whether EI of Saudi freshmen students is influenced by student background and entrepreneurial attitude orientation. The results indicated significant relationship between some entrepreneurial attitudes and some student background variables and EI. This research provides implications at both the theoretical and practical levels and then of the society in general. From a theoretical perspective, our findings support the argument that attitudinal characteristics play an important role in understanding entrepreneurship and enhancing the number of would-be entrepreneurs. Because attitudes are likely to lead to intentions, and these, in turn, to behaviors (Ajzen, 1991;

Table VI. Regression results of student background and EAO components on entrepreneurial intention

JEEE 8,2


196

Table VII. Regression results of student background and EAO components’ dimensions on entrepreneurial intention

Model 5

Model 6

Student background Gender

⫺0.084

⫺0.135

Entrepreneurs among relatives Parent Relatives At least parent/relative Entrepreneurship training Participating in associations

⫺0.311 ⫺0.391** ⫺0.441*** ⫺0.377* ⫺0.001

⫺0.394** ⫺0.003

EAO Achievement Affective Behavioral Cognitive

⫺0.199 0.163 0.341**

⫺0.177 0.234 0.350**

Innovation Affective Behavioral Cognitive

0.351* ⫺0.071 0.126

0.373** ⫺0.079 0.145

Personal control Affective Behavioral Cognitive

⫺0.058 0.059 ⫺0.206

⫺0.099 0.073 ⫺0.205

Self-esteem Affective Behavioral Cognitive R R2 Adjusted R2 F

⫺0.064 ⫺0.113 ⫺0.074 0.598 0.357 0.201 2.287 (p ⫽ 0.8%)

⫺0.087 ⫺0.009 ⫺0.169 0.609 0.371 0.250 3.060 (p ⫽ 0%)

Notes: *** Significant at p ⬍ 0.01; ** significant at p ⬍ 0.05; * significant at p ⬍ 0.1

Krueger and Carsrud, 1993), future research should continue to consider what factors are related to entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions (Harris et al., 2007). The findings will contribute to grow the body of literature on students’ entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions in Saudi context. Future studies should continue to explore possible links between other independent determinants of intention: self-efficacy, subjective norms (Esnard-flavius, 2010; Esnard, 2012). From a practical level, entrepreneurial attitudes of students necessitate to a long-term planning and policy making at the Saudi university and its deanships (of preparation programs and of student affairs) to facilitate new venture creation for younger generation. The Saudi university should focus on more practical education and training to improving some specific attitudes such as personal control and self-esteem through the delivery of more appropriate educational programs. Overall,


the findings will benefit lecturers and their institutions in identifying the factors that might influence students’ intention to become entrepreneurs. Their intention can be influenced by entrepreneurship courses in which students can enroll. It will not be surprising to mention the role of entrepreneurship education on EIs (Fayolle and Gailly, 2013; Harris et al., 2007; Henderson and Robertson, 2000; Lope Pihie and Baghero, 2010a; Peterman and Kennedy, 2003). As for the society, this study sheds light on some social implications. In fact, it suggests the need for the college in the university to enhance more the awareness of students to the topic of entrepreneurship as an alternative career option. It may help them to be active in the society as future enterprising individuals. This topic may be formally included in the college curricula. Several studies have tested the validity and reliability of the EAO scale in different social and cultural situations. The present study contributes by examining the generalizability of the EAO scale at Saudi university context for a specific category of students. Additional research should continue to examine the entrepreneurial attitudes of other categories of students in different academic contexts (Gibson et al., 2011a, 2011b). Future research needs to be undertaken by increasing the generalizability of studies based on other samples of data to be collected from current Saudi entrepreneurs so as to allow comparisons with would-be entrepreneurs and empirically formulate the proposed profile to be developed. Future studies on entrepreneurial attitude and intention differences before and after the entry into the university would help researchers to make a stronger conclusion about the stability of freshmen students’ attitudes and intentions in future and about the factors enabling or inhibiting this stability (university context, education, activities […]). As suggested by Degeorge and Fayolle (2013), we may question if entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions of freshmen students are stable or not over time by conducting longitudinal studies. These studies will give a clearer picture of the effectiveness of activities and actions to be undertaken to nurture entrepreneurship culture at university. The study focused only on freshmen students in Saudi context and particularly at Saudi university (IMSIU). The findings did not permit the generalization to other Saudi Freshmen students in the country. A replication of the study at other institutions should provide new and useful information as suggested by Burton and Swanson (2012) in their research. This study should be extended also to all other categories of students: Sophomore, Junior and Senior students at university. It would also be insightful to compare the results between these students enrolled in different levels of study at university. At the end, we can enrich the positioning of entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions research within broader reflections about a freshman student entrepreneurship. This research stream would be interesting given the very limited number of conceptual and empirical studies made at this time. In the future, we may go toward refocused research agenda considering this specific population at university, exactly as suggested by Nabi et al. (2010) for graduate entrepreneurship. This agenda will intend to detect entrepreneurial potential of students at earlier time and offer to them the needed awareness and capacity building programs to sustain their entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions over time until they will be graduated from university. This would add substantial value to understand EIs for students living a transition in education life from secondary school to university.



JEEE 8,2

Note 1. Originally, the study of Robinson et al. (1991a) used a ten-point scale for measures. But, Dawes (2008) stated that data characteristics do not change according to the number of scale points used. His study found that the five- and ten-point scales produced the same mean score as each other, once they were rescaled.

198

References Acs, Z.J. and Szerb, L. (2010), “The global entrepreneurship and development index (GEDI)”, Paper presented at the Summer Conference on “Opening up Innovation: Strategy, Organization and Technology”, Imperial College London Business School, London, 16-18 June. Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211. Alexandre-Leclair, L., Aloulou, W. and Redien-Collot, R. (2013), “New directions for Saudi women entrepreneurial intentions”, ICIE 2013: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Jordan, 4-5 March. Almobaireek, W.N., Alshumaimeri, A.A. and Manolova, T.S. (2011), “Entrepreneurial intentions among Saudi Univer sity students: the role of motivations and start-up problems”, International Journal of Management and Business, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 51-65. Almobaireek, W.N. and Manolova, T.S. (2012), “Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Entrepreneurial intention among Saudi university students”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 6 No. 11, pp. 4029-4040. Athayde, R. (2009), “Measuring enterprise potential in young people”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 481-500. Autio, E., Keeley, R.H. and Klofsten, M. (1997), “Entrepreneurial intent among students: testing an intent model in Asia, Scandinavia, and USA”, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA. Autio, E., Keeley, R.H., Klofsten, M., Parker, G.G.C. and Hay, M. (2001), “Entrepreneurial intent among students in Scandinavia and in the USA”, Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 145-160. Beugelsdijk, S. and Noorderhaven, N. (2004), “Entrepreneurial attitude and economic growth: a cross-section of 54 regions”, The Annual of Regional Science, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 199-218. Bird, B.J. (1988), “Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 21-29. Bosma, N. and Schutjens, V. (2011), “Understanding regional variation in entrepreneurial activity and entrepreneurial attitude in Europe”, The Annals of Regional Sciences, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 711-742. Burton, J.M. and Swanson, L.A. (2012), “Entrepreneurial attitudes of university students”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 283-298. Byabashaija, W. and Katono, I. (2011), “The impact of college entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention to start a business in Uganda”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 127-144. Davidsson, P. (1995), “Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions”, paper presented at the RENT IX, Piacenza, 23-24 November. Dawes, J. (2008), “Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 61-77.

Degeorge, J.M. and Fayolle, A. (2013), “Is entrepreneurial intention stable through time? First insights from a sample of French students”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 7-27. Dömötör, R. and Hader, C. (2007), “Traits versus attitudes in predicting future entrepreneurship”, in Iandoli, L. and Raffa, M. (Eds), Entrepreneurship, Competitiveness and Local Development: Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, Chapter 4, pp. 81-94.


Engle, R.L., Dimitriadi, N., Gavidia, J.V., Schlaegel, C., Delanoe, S., Alvarado, I., He, X., Buame, S. and Wolff, B. (2010), “Entrepreneurial intent: a twelve-country evaluation of Ajzen’s model of planned behavior”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 35-57. Esnard, T. (2012), “Agripreneurs and/or agriculture science teachers? An examination of agribusiness students entrepreneurial attitudes orientations and entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 87-103. Esnard-flavius, T. (2010), “Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial attitude orientations: the case of the Carribean”, International Business and Economic Research Journal, Vol. 9 No. 13, pp. 17-31. European Commission (2004), “Helping to create entrepreneurial culture: a guide on good practices promoting entrepreneurial attitudes skills through education”, Publications – Enterprise Policy, p. 52. European Commission (2006), “Entrepreneurship education in Europe: fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through education and learning”, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/files/education/effects_impact_high_edu_ final_report_en.pdf Fakharazadeh, A. and Johnson, A. (2010), “Comparing the entrepreneurial attitudes of US and Iranian students”, Journal of Asian Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 97-110. Fayolle, A. and Gailly, B. (2013), “The impact of entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: hysteresis and persistence”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 1-19. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Beliefs, Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Gartner, W.B. (1985), “A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 696-706. Gartner, W.B. (1988), “Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question”, American Journal of Small Business, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-32. Gartner, W.B. (1989), “Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 27-37. Gibson, L.G. and Gibson, R.A. (2010), “Entrepreneurial attitudes of arts and business students”, ICSB International Council for Small business World Conference Proceedings, Ghana, January. Gibson, L.G., Gibson, R.A. and Zhao, S. (2011), “Factors affecting entrepreneurial attitudes of American and Chinese business students”, Proceedings of the USASBE, Hilton Head Island, p. 1021. Gibson, S., Harris, M. and Mick, T. (2008), “An examination of the relationship between personality and entrepreneurial attitudes among US college students”, ASBE 34th Annual Conference, Albuquerque, pp. 93-106.


JEEE 8,2

Gibson, S., Harris, M., Mick, T. and Burkhalter, T.M. (2011), “Comparing the entrepreneurial attitudes of university and community college students”, Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 11-18. Gibson, S.G., Harris, M.L. and Barber, D. (2009), “Comparing the entrepreneurial attitudes of Chinese and Brazilian students”, Southern Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 56-70.


200

Gibson, S.G., Harris, M.L., Walker, P.D. and McDowell, W.C. (2014), “Investigating the entrepreneurial attitudes of African Americans: a study of young adults”, Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 107-125. Guerrero, M., Rialp, J. and Urbano, D. (2008), “The impact of desirability and feasibility on entrepreneurial intentions: a structural equation model”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 35-50. Harris, M. and Gibson, S. (2008b), “An examination of the entrepreneurial attitudes of US versus Chinese students”, American Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-20. Harris, M.L. and Gibson, S.G. (2008a), “Examining the entrepreneurial attitudes of US business students”, Education ⫹ Training, Vol. 50 No. 7, pp. 568-581. Harris, M.L., Gibson, S.G. and Mick, T.D. (2011), “Examining the relationship between personality and entrepreneurial attitudes: evidence from US college students”, Small Business Institute® Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 21-53. Harris, M.L., Gibson, S.G. and Taylor, S.R. (2007), “Examining the impact of small business institute participation on entrepreneurial attitudes”. Journal of Small Business Strategy, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 57-75. Hatten, T.S. and Ruhland, S.K. (1995), “Student attitude toward entrepreneurship as affected by participation in an SBI program”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 224-227. Henderson, R. and Robertson, M. (2000), “Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career”, Career Development International, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 279-287. Hj Othman, N. and Ishak, S. (2009), “Attitude towards choosing a career in entrepreneurship amongst graduates”, European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 419-434. Huefner, J.C., Hunt, H.K. and Robinson, P.B. (1996), “A comparison of four scales predicting entrepreneurship”, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 56-80. Ismail, N., Jaffar, N. and Hooi, T. (2013), “Using EAO model to predict the self-employment intentions among the universities’ undergraduates in Malaysia”, International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 282-287. Keat, O.Y., Selvarajah, C. and Meyer, D. (2011), “Inclination towards entrepreneurship among university students: an empirical study of Malaysian university students”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 206-220. Kelley, D., Bosma, N. and Amoros, J.E. (2010), “Global entrepreneurship monitor”, Global Report, p. 85. Kennedy, J., Drennan, J., Renfrow, P. and Watson, B. (2003), “Situational factors and entrepreneurial intentions”, 16th Annual Conference of Small Enterprise Association of Australia and New Zealand, University of Ballarat, Mount Helen, 28 September, pp. 1-12. Koh, H.C. (1995), “Factors associated with entrepreneurial inclination: an empirical study of business undergraduates in Hong Kong”, Journal of Small Business Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 29-41.

Kolvereid, L. (1996), “Organisational employment versus self employment: reasons for career choice intentions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 23-31. Krueger, N.F. (1993), “Impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 5-21.

Predicting entrepreneurial intentions

Krueger, N.F. and Brazeal, D.V. (1994), “Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 91-103.


Krueger, N.F. and Carsrud, A.L. (1993), “Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned behaviours”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 315-330. Krueger, Jr, N.F., Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000), “Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 411-432. Kundu, S.C. and Rani, S. (2008), “Human resources’ entrepreneurial attitude orientation by gender and background: a study of Indian Air Force trainees”, International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 77-101. Linan, F. and Fayolle, A. (2015), “A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1-27. Lindsay, W., Lindsay, N. and Jordaan, A. (2007), “Investigating the values-entrepreneurial attitude-opportunity recognition relationship in nascent entrepreneurs”, 4th Regional Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Brisbane. Lope Pihie, A.Z. and Bagheri, A. (2010a), “Improving university students’ entrepreneurial attitudes through learning by doing method”, Journal of International Social Research, Vol. 3 No. 14, pp. 298-306. Lope Pihie, A.Z. and Bagheri, A. (2010b), “Entrepreneurial attitude and entrepreneurial efficacy of technical secondary school students”, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 351-366. Lope Pihie, A.Z. and Bagheri, A. (2011a), “Malay secondary school students’ entrepreneurial attitude orientation and entrepreneurial self-efficacy: a descriptive study”, Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 316-322. Lope Pihie, A.Z. and Bagheri, A. (2011b), “Are teachers qualified to teach entrepreneurship? Analysis of entrepreneurial attitude and self-efficacy”, Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 18, pp. 3308-3314. McCline, R.L., Bhat, S. and Baj, P. (2000), “Opportunity recognition: an exploratory investigation of a component of the entrepreneurial process in the context of the health care industry”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 81-94. Moy, J.W.H., Luk, V.W.M., Wright, P.C. (2003), “Perceptions of entrepreneurship as a career: views of young people in Hong Kong”, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 16-40. Nabi, G., Holden, R. and Walmsley, A. (2010), “Entrepreneurial intentions among students: towards a re-focused research agenda”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 537-551. Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Peterman, N.E. and Kennedy, J. (2003), “Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 129-144. Roberts, L.P. and Robinson, P.B. (2010), “Home-based entrepreneurs, commercial entrepreneurs and white-collar workers: a comparative study of attitudes toward self-esteem, personal

201

JEEE 8,2

control and business growth”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 333-353. Robinson, P.B., Ahmed, Z.U., Dana, L.P., Latfullin, G.R. and Smirnova, V. (2001), “Towards entrepreneurship and innovation in Russia”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 230-240.

202

Robinson, P.B., Huefner, J. and Hunt, H.K. (1991b), “Entrepreneurship research on student subjects does not generalize to real world entrepreneurs”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 42-50.


Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C. and Hunt, K.H. (1991a), “An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 13-31. Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency, SAMA (2015), “Fifty first annual report”, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Riyadh. Scherer, P.D., Adams, J., Carley, S. and Wiebe, F. (1989), “Role model performance effects on development of entrepreneurial career preference”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 53-81. Scherer, R., Brodzinski, J. and Wiebe, F. (1990), “Entrepreneurial career selection and gender: a socialization approach”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 37-44. Schwarz, E.J., Wdowiak, M.A., Almer-Jarz, D.A. and Breitenecker, R.J. (2009), “The effects of attitudes and perceived environment conditions on students’ entrepreneurial intent: an Austrian perspective”, Education ⫹ Training, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 272-291. Shapero, A. and Sokol, L. (1982), “Social dimensions of entrepreneurship”, in Kent, C.A., Sexton, D. and Vesper, K. (Eds), The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 72-89. Shariff, M.N.M. and Saud, M.B. (2009), “An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship on students at Institution of Higher Learning in Malaysia”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 129-135. Shetty, P. (2004), “Attitude towards entrepreneurship in organizations”, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 53-68. Singer, S., Amoros, J.E., Moska, D. (2015), “Global entrepreneurship monitor, 2014”, Global Report, available at: www.babson.edu/Academics/centers/blank-center/global-research/gem/ Documents/GEM%202014%20Global%20Report.pdf (accessed 20 June 2015). Soomro, B.A. and Shah, N. (2015), “Developing attitudes and intentions among potential entrepreneurs”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 304-322. Steenekamp, A.G., Van der Merwe, S.P. and Athayde, R. (2011), “Application of the Attitude Toward Enterprise (ATE) test on secondary school learners in South Africa”, South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 314-332. Stimpson, D.V., Robinson, P.B., Waranusuntikule, S. and Zheng, R. (1990), “Attitudinal characteristics of entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs in the United States, Korea, Thailand, and the People’s Republic of China”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 49-56. Strobl, A., Kronenberg, C. and Peters, M. (2012), “Entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions: assessing gender specific differences”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 452-468.

Tan, W.L., Long, A. and Robinson, P. (1996), “Entrepreneurship attitude orientation and the intention to start a business”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 50-56. Van Wyk, R. and Boshoff, A.B. (2004), “Entrepreneurial attitudes”, South African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 33-38.


Veciana, J.M., Aponte, M. and Urbano, D. (2005), “University students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship: a two countries comparison”, The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 165-182. World Bank (2014), “Doing business 2015: going beyond efficiency – Saudi Arabia”, World Bank Group, Washington, DC, available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/1 0/20357587/doing-business-2015-going-beyond-efficiency-saudi-arabia (accessed 08 January 2015). World Economic Forum (2015), “Global competitiveness report 2014-2015”, available at: www3. weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2014-15.pdf (accessed 08 January 2015). Zoltan, A.C. (2006), “How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth?”, Innovation: Technology, Governance, Globalization, Winter, MIT Press, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 97-107. Corresponding author Wassim J. Aloulou can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
