Assessing Entrepreneurial Intentions Amongst Students: A Comparative Study

Abstract

While most US universities offer entrepreneurship courses today, little is known about the relationship between the likelihood of students taking courses in entrepreneurship and their intentions of becoming entrepreneurs. This paper explores and evaluates entrepreneurial intentions and their antecedents among 123 students at San Jose State University by building on Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) model. In doing so, it contributes to our understanding of whether, and if so how, education can affect students’ attitudes toward entrepreneurship and their entrepreneurial self-efficacy. It also examines the role of family exposure to business, personal entrepreneurial experience, and ethnic background in affecting attitudes, subjective norms, and intentions by comparing students from diverse ethnic and family backgrounds. Findings highlight the impact of education and practical exposure to entrepreneurship on entrepreneurial intentions. Introduction It is well known that a career in entrepreneurship offers significant opportunities for individuals to achieve financial independence and benefit the economy by contributing to job creation, innovation, and economic growth. Today’s students are tomorrow’s potential entrepreneurs, which may explain why a growing number of US universities offer courses and programs in entrepreneurship. However, there is little understanding of the factors that affect students’ intentions of becoming entrepreneurs and the relationship between entrepreneurship education and students’ entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions (Souitaris et al 2007). Similarly, little is known about differences in entrepreneurial intentions and attitudes among students belonging to different cultures and ethnicities (Wilson et al 2004). This paper seeks to contribute toward redressing this gap in our knowledge by empirically testing a model that draws on the theory of planned behavior to examine the antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions among students. The purpose of the study is to investigate whether prior exposure to entrepreneurship education affects students’ attitudes, subjective norms about entrepreneurship, and perceived behavioral control and whether these, in turn, affect their entrepreneurial intentions. In doing so, it enhances our understanding of whether, and if so, how, education can affect students’ attitudes toward entrepreneurship and their entrepreneurial self-efficacy. It also examines the role of family background and ethnicity in affecting attitudes, norms, and intentions, by comparing students from diverse socio-cultural backgrounds. Literature Review and Hypotheses The theory of planned behavior, grounded in social psychology, is based on the premise that much human behavior is planned and is therefore preceded by intention toward that behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). It asserts that intention is an accurate predictor of planned behavior, especially in cases where the behavior is difficult to observe, rare, or involves unpredictable time lags. Entrepreneurial behavior displays these characteristics, which explains why several empirical studies of entrepreneurship have applied the theory of planned behavior to the study of entrepreneurship from a psychological perspective (see for example, Kolvereid and Isaksen 2006; Rotefoss and Kolveried 2005; Krueger, Reilly, and Carsrud 2000; Souitaris et al 2007). According to Kreuger et al (2000), entrepreneurial activity can be predicted more accurately by studying intention rather than personality traits, demographic characteristics, or situational factors. The theory of planned behavior contends that intentions are a function of three sets of factors: attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (PBC). Attitudes are defined as beliefs and perceptions

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 184 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.