The Impact of an Entrepreneurship Education ...

Journal of Small Business Management 2013 51(3), pp. 447–465 doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12025

The Impact of an Entrepreneurship Education Program on Entrepreneurial Competencies and Intention* by José C. Sánchez

This study seeks to highlight the key role played by an entrepreneurship education (EE) program on entrepreneurial competencies and intention of secondary students in order to confirm (or disconfirm) conventional wisdom that entrepreneurial education increases the intention to start a business. We used a pretest–posttest quasi-experimental design. The results confirm our hypotheses; the students in the “experimental” group increased their competencies and intention toward self-employment, whereas students in the “control” group did not. The findings contribute to the theories of planned behavior, and to the literature of EE itself, by revealing the effect of specific benefits for the students derived from the EE program.

Introduction Policymakers and economists generally think that the higher the level of entrepreneurship in a country, the greater its levels of economic growth and innovation. Academic research has also shown strong relations between entrepreneurial activity and economic performance (Van Praag and Versloot 2007) and the need to establish a global business climate whereby entrepreneurship assumes a prominent role (Lado and Vozikis 1996). It is further thought that high levels of entrepreneurship can be reached through education (European Commission 2006), especially education in entrepreneurship. The fact that the European Union’s competitors such as the United States and China have also taken actions reflects the shared belief that entrepreneurship

plays a crucial role in competitiveness and wellbeing (Smelstor 2007; Wang 2007). Perhaps for this reason we have been witnessing in recent decades a strong revival of entrepreneurship education (EE) all around the globe. In the United States, entrepreneurship and EE are widely recognized to have made tremendous progress (Finkle, Kuratko, and Goldsby 2006; Solomon 2007; Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy 2002). For instance, Solomon and Fernald (1991) show that the number of new degree programs in entrepreneurship grew from 25 in 1979 to 107 in 1986, an increase of 428 percent. An even larger increase has been noted in the last few years (Busenitz et al. 2003). In Europe, a recent survey of 164 important business schools revealed that 42 percent of them had established specific centers for entrepreneurship (Wilson 2004) in order to bring together

*This research has been supported by The Education Office, Government of Castilla y Leon (REF.SA146A11-1), and the Chair of Entrepreneurship, under the sponsorship of Banco Santander. We would like to acknowledge the help of our editors and three anonymous reviewers. José C. Sánchez is a professor at the University of Salamanca. Address correspondence to: José C. Sánchez, Faculty of Psychology, University of Salamanca, Avenida De La Merced, 109, Salamanca 37005, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]

SÁNCHEZ

447

what has come to be called “the move from the manager economy to the entrepreneurial economy” (Thurik and Wennekers 2004). An important assumption underlying these entrepreneurship programs is that “entrepreneurs can be made,” that it is possible to learn how to be an entrepreneur through different specific educational policies and programs (Erikson 2003). Thus, EE has emerged as a critical tool in the development of the necessary competencies for creating businesses, and some governments have been promoting the creation of programs for teaching entrepreneurship. A series of influential reports by the OECD (Ball 1987) and the European Commission (2006) argue that EE must be at the core of any nation’s education policy. This interest is especially justifiable in this time of crisis, when new challenges are arising in relation to economic development. As Rae (2010) argues, the financial and economic crisis of 2008 has produced a new economic era with important implications for business and EE. Of course, the assumption underlying EE programs is that entrepreneurial skills can be taught and are not a matter of innate personality characteristics. We cannot make a person another Branson, but the skills and creativity needed for being a successful entrepreneur could nevertheless be enhanced by EE. It has been demonstrated that even the effect of general education on entrepreneurial performance is positive (van der Sluis, van Praag, and van Witteloostuijn 2006) and that entrepreneurial training is effective in persons who are starting their own business (Dickson, Solomon, and Weaver 2008; Karlan and Valdivia 2006). All of these programs in entrepreneurial education, or at least the great majority of them, are aimed at teaching students to put theory into practice and to understand what entrepreneurship is (Meyer 2011). In this way, students are expected to gain self-confidence and motivation, become proactive, creative, and learn how to work on a team. Nonetheless, despite the importance of these educational programs and their widespread use in many schools and universities (Weaver et al. 2010), very little is actually known about their impact on students’ entrepreneurial competencies and intentions. Until now the usefulness of these programs has only been assessed by means of the opinions of the parties involved; however, the impact these programs have on

448

the students taking them as opposed to students who have not has not yet to be evaluated. Another criticism of these programs, as pointed out by Neck and Greene (2011), is that they are highly focused on exploiting opportunities, in the assumption that the opportunity has already been identified. Thus, very little attention is paid to developing skills and ideagenerating processes. Jusoh et al. (2011), in their analysis of entrepreneurial education programs, found that they offered scant training in entrepreneurial skills. This is especially true in secondary education. And although studies exist regarding the effects of entrepreneurial education in higher education (Rodrigues et al. 2010; Sánchez 2010; Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy 2002; Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007), little attention has been paid to the role of secondary schools. This is somewhat of a paradox as secondary schools are highlighted as an important force that influences systems of innovation and entrepreneurship (Fagerberg and Shrolec 2009). Martin, MacNally, and Kay (2012) conducted a meta-analysis of EE outcomes. Of the 79 studies considered, only 42 met the criteria established by these authors. We have reviewed these 42 studies considering three criteria related to the study presented here: (1) pre– posttreatment differences between control and treatment group; (2) sample of secondary school students; and (3) in Spain. Only one study (Peterman and Kennedy 2003) met the first two criteria. Of these 42 studies, three were conducted in a Spanish context, but none of them considered secondary school students. Therefore, we undertake the first study existing in the literature in the context of secondary school Spanish students. Another point to consider is that recent reviews of EE have concluded that the relation between EE and entrepreneurial intentions and the creation of new ventures is “underresearched” (Goduscheit 2011; Pittaway and Cope 2007), and lacking in high-quality quantitative studies (Johansen and Schanke 2011). In the case of Spain, this lack of research is even more pronounced. Although many of these programs are being implemented both in schools and universities, no scientific study has yet evaluated their impact on changes in attitudes or on the development of entrepreneurial competencies. In this study, we seek to contribute to EE in several ways. First, we contribute by filling in

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

some of these gaps in the context of secondary education. Second, we contribute by examining the effects of an EE program using a rigorous and strong quasi-experimental control-group design. Third, we also contribute by providing evidence of the effects of an EE program on entrepreneurial competencies and intention, and offer a number of implications for future research. With these goals in mind, the paper is structured as follows: initially we present the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and develop two hypotheses to confirm its basic predictions about the relationships between competencies and intention. Subsequently, we present the methodology and the results. Finally, in the discussion section, we link the findings with the wider entrepreneurship literature regarding both the theoretical contributions and the practical implications of our study.

Theoretical Development Research into entrepreneurship has examined the impact that one’s personal history and social context have on the decision to choose a certain kind of job, in this case, selfemployment (Katz 1992). Previous studies have shown that the TPB can be used to predict intentions of choice of occupation (Kolvereid 1996). These intentions were defined by Katz (1992) as “the vocational decision process in terms of the individual’s decision to enter an occupation as a salaried individual or as selfemployed.” In this sense, intention is “a conscious state of mind that directs attention (and therefore experience and action) toward a specific object (goal) or pathway to achieve it” (Bird 1989 p. 8). Therefore, we consider that one of the effects of EE will be to improve or increase students’ intention to become self-employed. Following the reasoned action model by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), researchers normally argue that entrepreneurial intentions are influenced by three general factors (Krueger 2003). First of all, intentions are determined by an individual’s attitude toward a certain kind of behavior. This is viewed as the weighted sum of the perceived consequences and the probability of different results from that behavior, including intrinsic rewards. The second factor is perceived social norms. This means that the beliefs of relevant groups and actors, such as family and friends, will affect one’s intentions to become an entrepreneur. The third factor is self-efficacy. Different studies (Barbosa,

Gerhardt, and Kickul 2007; Zhao, Seibert, and Hills 2005) have shown the importance it has in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Self-efficacy is particularly useful as it incorporates personality as well as environmental factors, and is thought to be a strong predictor of entrepreneurial intentions and ultimately action (Bird 1988). But the intention to undertake an enterprise can also be affected by the fostering of certain entrepreneurial characteristics (traits, skills, and knowledge) that are closely related to the development of entrepreneurship (Lau, Chan, and Man 2000)—human capital theory. For some authors, these entrepreneurial characteristics can be organized into key competency domains (Man and Chan 2002) made up of different personal attributes, knowledge, and skills. Other authors (Mitton 1989) focus on behaviors that reflect these competencies. Interest in entrepreneurial competencies derives from the supposed relation between competencies and the birth, survival, and growth of a business venture. Nonetheless, despite the supposed importance of entrepreneurial competencies, the literature on this aspect is still in its initial stages (Brinckmann 2008), partly because the term competency has been defined from different approaches and as a consequence has different meanings. Among the different approaches taken to analyze competencies (Bird 1995; Hayton and Kelly 2006; Mukhtar and Redman 2004), the present study has adopted the outputs approach. This approach is more oriented toward application and is particularly well known in the literature on training and development. It focuses on identifying the competencies that should be included in EE and training or when assessing the effectiveness of an entrepreneurship training program (Gorman, Hanlon, and King 1997). It is an approach that clarifies the importance not only of the skills and knowledge necessary for entrepreneurial success, but also the psychological traits that are appropriate for that purpose. Different authors argue that psychological traits are good predictors of an entrepreneurial orientation (Baron 2000). In general, there is a certain consensus that the psychological characteristics associated with entrepreneurship are, among others: locus of control, propensity to take risk, self-efficacy, need for achievement, tolerance for ambiguity, and innovativeness (Rauch and Frese 2007). For

SÁNCHEZ

449

instance, Bygrave (1989) presented a model that includes need for achievement, internal locus of control, tolerance for ambiguity, and risk-taking propensity as determinants of entrepreneurial intention. Moreover, Robinson et al. (1991) found in their research that achievement, innovativeness, locus of control, and self-confidence could be predicting entrepreneurial attitudes. Ho and Koh (1992) state that self-efficacy is an entrepreneurial characteristic and that it is related to other psychological characteristics, such as locus of control, propensity to take risk, and tolerance of ambiguity. According to Koh (1996), this evidence should be expected, given the understanding of psychological traits that are unique to entrepreneurs. Thus, one of the challenges is to understand whether EE can have repercussions both on the level of cognitive development and on the level of young people’s psychological development (Groves, Vance, and Choi 2011; Sánchez 2012). Our study focuses on the specific personality traits and their relation to the intention to become self-employed. Among the specific personality traits most linked to the entrepreneurial phenomenon are the following: self-efficacy, proactiveness, and inclination toward risk taking. There is certain evidence of a positive relation between these dimensions and the intention of self-employment.

Self-Efficacy Self-efficacy refers to individuals’ belief in their personal capability to accomplish a job or a specific set of tasks (Bandura 1977). Selfefficacy is a useful concept for explaining human behavior as research reveals that it plays an influential role in determining an individual’s choice, level of effort, and perseverance (Chen, Gully, and Eden 2004). Individuals with high self-efficacy for a certain task are more likely to pursue and then persist in that task than those individuals who possess low self-efficacy (Bandura 1997). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) is the degree to which people perceive themselves as having the ability to successfully perform the various roles and tasks of entrepreneurship (De Noble, Jung, and Ehrlich 1999). Without minimal levels of ESE, it is unlikely that potential entrepreneurs would be sufficiently motivated to engage in the new venture creation process (Markman, Balkin, and Baron 2002; Zhao, Seibert, and Hills 2005).

450

The relationship between ESE and entrepreneurship has been justified based on several different reasons: (1) Because people avoid careers and contexts that they believe exceed their capabilities and undertake vocations in which they judge themselves as capable (Krueger and Dickson 1994). (2) Because entrepreneurial initiative entails important risks and difficulties, it seems clear that entrepreneurs need high levels of self-efficacy. (3) Given that self-efficacy predicts choice of career, occupational interests, perseverance in the face of difficulties, and personal effectiveness (Bandura 1986; Krueger and Dickson 1994; Waung 1995), it must also be related to entrepreneurial activity. (4) As the incentive for acting is greater when entrepreneurs believe that their actions will have achievable outcomes, selfefficacy is an important determinant of successful entrepreneurial behavior. ESE is particularly useful because it incorporates personality as well as environmental factors, and is thought to be a strong predictor of entrepreneurial intentions and ultimately action (Bird 1988). Research carried out in recent years has successfully demonstrated the predictive power of perceptions of self-efficacy in the forming of entrepreneurial intentions, both because of their direct influence on them and their association with other variables of interest in the explanation of intentions of selfemployment (Sánchez, Lanero, and Yurrebaso 2005; Zhao, Seibert, and Hills 2005). Moreover, recent research suggests that an individual’s ESE may be elevated through training and education, thus potentially improving the rate of entrepreneurial activities (Florin, Karri, and Rossiter 2007; Zhao, Seibert, and Hills 2005). In short, ESE has been found to greatly influence entrepreneurial behavior (Krueger, Reilly, and Carsrud 2000), and strengthening entrepreneurship students’ self-efficacy is therefore seen as a key tool in EE to enhance students’ entrepreneurial intentions (Fayolle 2005).

Proactiveness Proactive personality refers to the tendency to initiate and maintain actions that directly alter the surrounding context (Bateman and


Crant 1993). Proactive individuals identify opportunities and act on them, show initiative, take direct action, and persevere until they have made a significant change. Proactiveness emphasizes anticipating and preventing problems before they occur and an orientation to action that includes a creative interpretation of norms and a high level of persistence and patience for bringing about change. Different studies have confirmed the relation between proactive personality and entrepreneurial behavior, both in already created enterprises and in the general population (Becherer and Mauer 1999). There is also evidence within the context of entrepreneurship orientation of a relation between proactiveness and entrepreneurial development, on the one hand (Brown 1996; Junehed and Davidsson 1998), and a successful career, on the other hand (Seibert, Kraimer, and Crant 2001). Shapero (1982) has suggested that this personal propensity to act on opportunities is one of the factors that can influence the intention–behavior relation by precipitating or facilitating the performing of intentions. In the specific context of entrepreneurship, Crant (1996) found that entrepreneurial intentions were positively associated with having a proactive personality. This type of personality orientation has also been mentioned in the literature (Shapero and Sokol 1982) as an important precursor of entrepreneurial intentions and potential.

Risk Taking This is a personality trait that determines the tendency and willingness of an individual to take on risk. This trait has been related to entrepreneurship because entrepreneurial activity by definition involves assuming some type of risk. According to Covin and Slevin (1989), risk propensity is one of the three dimensions of the so-called entrepreneurial orientation, together with proactiveness and innovation. In this framework, risk propensity refers to a subject’s willingness to commit to sources of opportunity when there is possibility of failure. Entrepreneurial behavior has generally been related to moderate levels of risk propensity in an individual (Sexton and Bowman 1983). However, empirical findings have been rather contradictory when it comes to confirming this personality dimension as a distinctive trait of an entrepreneurial subject. In this sense, some studies have found that persons who create a

new enterprise and fight to make it successful may perceive and react to risk in a different way (Busenitz 1999). In the same vein, some studies confirm the presence of a greater risk propensity in individuals who founded their own companies than in persons running already existing businesses (Begley and Boyd 1987). From this perspective, risk propensity becomes a predictor for career choice. Kolvereid (1996), for example, found that the argument “to avoid risk taking” is mentioned frequently as a motivating factor in choosing to work in already existing organizations. In contrast to these findings, other studies indicate that entrepreneurs do not have a greater risk propensity than managers or the population in general (Low and McMillan 1988) even when they objectively accept higher levels of risk in their career choices and business decisions. From this point of view, it is argued that the difference between entrepreneurs and nonentrepreneurs may be a question of risk tolerance, and of how they process information regarding the potential success of a new business opportunity. In this vein, different research studies have found that entrepreneurs tend to categorize business situations as less risky than nonentrepreneurs (Busenitz 1999; Palich and Bagby 1995). In other words, entrepreneurs may not classify themselves as more risk prone than nonentrepreneurs, but they are more predisposed to categorize risky situations as positive (Palich and Bagby 1995). Focusing now on our topic, some recent studies have found that tolerance and positive attitudes toward risk predict the forming of entrepreneurial intentions (Segal, Borgia, and Schoenfeld 2005). It has likewise been found that risk propensity is positively associated with intentions of self-employment through its influence on certain predictors such as selfefficacy (Zhao, Seibert, and Hills 2005) and a positive attitude toward entrepreneurial behavior (Lüthje and Franke 2003). To summarize, we propose that: H1: The higher the self-efficacy, proactiveness, and risk taking with respect to selfemployment, the stronger the students’ intention to become self-employed. Certain recent reviews of the literature on entrepreneurial education (Mojab, Zaefarian, and Azizi 2011; Pittaway and Cope 2007; Weaver, Dickson, and Solomon 2006) have

SÁNCHEZ

451

pointed out important relationships between entrepreneurial education and a variety of entrepreneurial results. For instance, it has been shown that individuals who have taken entrepreneurship courses have greater intentions to start a business venture (Galloway and Brown 2002) than those who have not taken these courses; that specialized courses in entrepreneurship or training in how to create a business can provide some people with the confidence necessary to start their own business; that attitudes are open to change and can be modified by educators and technicians (Robinson et al. 1991); that entrepreneurial education should improve the perceived feasibility of entrepreneurship by increasing students’ knowledge, giving them confidence and increasing their self-efficacy, and it should also improve the perceived desirability of entrepreneurship by demonstrating to students that this activity is socially acceptable and can be personally rewarding, or that they may also be more successful in opportunity identification tasks than those who have not received EE or training (DeTienne and Chandler 2004). Thus, according to Rae (2010), education is vital in developing entrepreneurial capabilities. To Bakotic and Kruzic (2010), entrepreneurial educational programs should focus on additional development of students’ competencies and the required skills needed later in the market context. Nonetheless, there are also studies that show that entrepreneurial education can on some occasions be negatively related to the results just mentioned. The literature reviewed by Gorman, Hanlon, and King (1997) and Martin, MacNally, and Kay (2012) confirms this. Oosterbeek, Van Praag, and Ijsselstein (2010) found that students had fewer intentions of starting a business after completing a course in entrepreneurship. Similarly, Mentoor and Friedrich (2007) found negative correlations with a number of entrepreneurship-related human capital assets. It has also been shown that the training of entrepreneurs in business planning, frequently a key aspect of EE and training programs, can be negatively related to entrepreneurial performance (Honig and Karlsson 2004; Honig and Samulsson 2012). A possible explanation for these contradictory results may come from human capital theory (Becker 1964; Mincer 1958). Human capital theory predicts that individuals or groups with greater levels of knowledge, skills,

452

and other competencies (capital assets) will achieve better results than those who have lower levels of skills (Ployhart and Moliterno 2011). In this sense, we consider that what entrepreneurial education does is improve or augment these competencies and will thus lead individuals to have a greater intention to start a business or become self-employed (Peterman and Kennedy 2003). Therefore, given that human capital theory predicts that education will be positively related to human capital assets, we propose the following hypothesis: H2: At the end of an entrepreneurship program, students will have higher selfefficacy, proactiveness, risk-taking propensity, and intention to become self-employed than at the beginning of the program.

Methods Participants A total of 729 students participated in the study; 357 belonged to the experimental group and 372 to the control group. After an analysis of their responses, we eliminated any questionnaires with missing values or that repeatedly had identical responses (on at least 20 consecutive items), yielding a final sample of 710 secondary school students, 302 men (42.54 percent) and 408 women (57.46 percent), aged between 14 and 16, with a mean age of 15.7. Of these 710, 347 were assigned to the experimental group and 363 were assigned to the control group. As regards family occupation background, 8 percent of the subjects’ fathers did not work, 24 percent were self-employed, 43 percent worked for a private business or organization, and 25 percent worked in public employment. Most of these jobs were within the service sector. In the case of the students’ mothers, 46 percent did not work, 7 percent were self-employed, 19 percent worked in the private sector, and finally, 28 percent worked in public employment (Table 1). Procedure Taking into consideration different entrepreneurship programs on the national and international levels (Gartner and Vesper 1994), our entrepreneurship program (E Vitamin) offered activities grouped into four components: (1) basic teachings of accounting, finance, marketing, and management, adapted to the age of our students; (2) teaching and practice in competencies such as self-efficacy, proactiveness,


Table 1 Demographic Characteristics Total (N = 710)

Sex Men Women Age (mean) Family Occupation/Father: Unemployed Self-Employed Private Business Public Employment Family Occupation/Mother Unemployed Self-Employed Private Business Public Employment

Experimental (N = 347)

Control (N = 363) )

No

Percent

No

Percent

No

Percent

302 408 15.7

42.54 57.46

145 202 15.3

41.78 58.22

154 209 15.9

42.42 57.58

58 170 305 177

8.17 23.94 42.96 24.93

28 83 149 87

8.07 23.92 42.94 25.07

30 87 156 90

9.06 23.96 42.97 24.01

327 50 135 198

46.06 7.04 19.01 27.89

160 24 66 97

46.11 6.92 19.02 27.95

167 26 69 101

46.00 7.16 19.00 27.84

and risk taking; (3) business plan; and (4) an “interaction with practice” component, which includes talks from practitioners and networking events. The teaching methodology consisted of presentations, discussion of readings, practical exercises, computer simulations, group dynamics and games, etc. This entrepreneurship program was offered over eight months (October to May) in different schools as a free elective subject, meaning that students were free to choose this course if they wished. The students who took the program formed the experimental or program group, and the students who did not take it formed the control group. It was explained to both groups that the questionnaires they were to fill in were for research purposes and that their responses would not affect their grades. Completion of the questionnaires was voluntary. In order to analyze the impact of the program on entrepreneurial competencies and intentions, we set up a pretest–posttest design (Cohen and Manion 1989). Competencies and intention of self-employment were measured both in the pretest (time 1—t1—before starting the program) and the posttest (time 2—t2— when the program was over). Questionnaires were received (at t1 and at t2) from 357 students in the experimental

group and 372 students in the control group. A t-test indicated nonsignificant differences between respondents and “incomplete” nonrespondents (students who filled in the t1-questionnaire but failed to respond at t2), in terms of t1 self-efficacy (t = 0.60 p = .29), proactiveness (t = 0.52, p = .34), risk-taking (t = 0.74, p = .20), and intentions (t = 1.02 p = .16). Therefore, nonresponse bias was not evident. Different methodological approaches have been used to examine differences between treatment and control groups in terms of pretreatment variables (e.g. Mueller 2011; Oosterbeek, Van Praag, and Ijsselstein 2008, 2010). However, we use the methodological approach proposed by Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham (2007) because it meets a high standard of methodological rigor (Martin, MacNally, and Kay, 2012) and it is more suited to our interests. Thus, to check our hypotheses we used: (1) Correlation (Table 3) and regression (Table 4) to examine the relationship between competencies and intention at t1 and t2. (2) To test the effect of the program on the changes in competencies and intentions, we used one-way ANOVA on the differ-

SÁNCHEZ

453

ence scores (total sample) with group membership (experimental versus control) as the independent variable (Table 5). The “difference scores” method is preferable to split-plot repeated measures ANOVA for pretest–posttest designs with “treatment” and control groups; it gives equivalent results in a simpler and less confusing way (Girden 1992). (3) To test the relationship between control variables and changes in competencies and intentions in the program sample, we used correlation for ratio and dummy variables (Table 6) and General Linear Model (GLM) repeated measures ANOVA for categorical ones. For the program (treatment or experimental) sample analysis, the GLM repeated measures procedure was the preferred ANOVA method, as it reduces the unsystematic variability in the design and thus provides great power to detect effects (Field 2000).

Measures To collect the data, the students were administered the scales of the Questionnaire on Entrepreneurial Orientation (Sánchez 2010) referring to the following aspects. Self-Efficacy. This scale is composed of 20 items (based on scale proposed by De Noble, Jung, and Ehrlich 1999) and the respondents are asked whether they feel capable or not of doing what is indicated in the item. Scores range from 1 (completely incapable) to 10 (perfectly capable). An overall score was obtained for the scale by averaging the answers given to the items. Our data confirm the reliability of the scale (a = 0.75 at t1 and a = 0.72 at t2). Proactiveness. The 10 items on this scale measure the participant’s tendency to proactive behavior. With these items (based on the studies by Seibert, Kraimer, and Crant 2001), the participants assess (on a zero to five-point Likert-type scale) to what extent they undertake significant actions to influence their surroundings. An overall score was obtained for this scale. The reliability obtained was acceptable (a = 0.81 at t1 and a = 0.79 at t2). Risk Taking. We adopted the scale proposed by Rohrmann (1997, unpublished data). This scale evaluates the general trend of the participants to take risks based on a series of items

454

regarding one’s inclination toward and avoidance of risky situations. The participants answered a total of eight items referring to confronting risk and attitudes toward decisions involving risk. The participants’ answers were categorized on a zero to five-point Likert-type scale according to their degree of agreement with the propositions presented. The reliability obtained was acceptable (a = 0.72 at t1 and a = 0.74 at t2). Intention of Self-Employment. We adopted a three-item measure of career intention, proposed by Kolvereid (1996), which captures the intention of an individual to start a business as opposed to pursuing a career employed by organizations (“If you were to choose between running your own business and being employed by someone, what would you prefer?,” 0 = Would prefer to be employed by someone to 5 = Would prefer to be selfemployed; “How likely is it that you will pursue a career as self-employed?,” 0 = unlikely to 5 = likely; “How likely is it that you will pursue a career as an employee in an organization?,” 0 = unlikely to 5 = likely [item was reversed]). An index of intention to become self-employed was created by averaging the three item-scores. Our data confirmed the reliability of the scale (a = 0.79 at t1 and a = 0.75 at t2). Control Variables. The following control (dummy) variables were considered: (1) family background, whether the parents were selfemployed, worked for someone else, or were government employees; (2) their school of origin; and (3) the value at t1 of competencies and intentions, given that the students with higher initial values would have less margin for improvement. These variables were selected as control variables because of the support for them found in the literature (Sánchez 2011; Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007).

Results No significant violations of the assumptions for t-test, repeated measures ANOVA, or regression were identified. The common problem of multicollinearity was not evident, as correlations between independent variables were moderate and the tolerance values were all higher than 0.77. Pre–Posttreatment differences between control and treatment group are listed in Table 2. There were no significant differences between the control and the treatment


Table 2 Pre–Post Treatment Differences between Control and Treatment Group Pretreatment

Self-Efficacy Proactiveness Risk Intention Toward Self-Employment

Posttreatment

Control

Treatment

Control

Treatment

4.80 3.11 2.62 1.86

4.72 3.35 2.70 1.98

4.79 3.12 2.61 1.85

6.05 3.94 3.25 3.23

The first two columns report mean values for the sample that is used in the analysis at baseline (pretreatment). The last two columns show mean values for the posttreatment. If both numbers are underlined they are significantly different (p < .000).

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlations-Competencies and Intentions for Total Sample (N = 710) Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Mean

S.D.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

4.76 3.23 2.66 1.92 5.42 3.52 2.93 2.54

1.20 0.49 0.65 1.47 1.35 1.41 1.44 1.35

0.32* 0.34* 0.47* 0.61* 0.25* 0.28* 0.33*

0.25* 0.43* 0.27* 0.54* 0.22* 0.30*

0.30* 0.28* 0.26* 0.59* 0.28*

0.46* 0.41* 0.28* 0.74*

0.36* 0.40* 0.55*

0.48* 0.45*

0.42*

Self-Efficacy (t1) Proactiveness (t1) Risk (t1) Intention (t1) Self-Efficacy (t2) Proactiveness (t2) Risk (t2) Intention (t2)

S.D., standard deviation. *p < .000 group in the pretreatment. In the posttreatment, the treatment group was significantly higher than the control group. The correlations and descriptive statistics are listed in Table 3. Table 4 displays the results of the regression analysis. Table 5 displays one-way ANOVA on the difference scores (total sample), with group membership (program versus control) as the independent variable. Finally, in Table 6 descriptive statistics and correlations for program sample are displayed.

Control Variables As expected, for each of the four “before and after” variables (Table 6), the t1 values had a

significant negative correlation with the difference values, pre- and postprogram (for selfefficacy r = -0.37, p < .001; for proactiveness r = -0.43, p < .001; for risk taking r = -0.40, p < .001; and for intention r = -0.48, p < .001). These results confirmed the expected role of the initial values of competencies and intentions as control variables. In contrast, family background and school of origin did not show a significant correlation with the “difference” values for the any of the competencies or intention variables (Table 6). The GLM procedure showed that there were no significant differences in competencies and intentions when the control variables (school, background) were

SÁNCHEZ

455

Table 4 Regression Models of Competencies Upon Intentions at Time 1 and Time 2 (N = 710) Predictor Variables

Intention (Model at Time 1) Standardized Coefficients

Intention (Model at Time 2) Standardized Coefficients

0.38* 0.32* 0.29* 0.35*

0.46* 0.35* 0.31* 0.44*

Self-Efficacy Proactiveness Risk Adjusted R2 *p < .000

Table 5 Do Mean Difference Values Differ between the Program and Control Group? Difference in: Self-Efficacy (t2–t1) Proactiveness (t2–t1) Risk (t2–t1) Intention Toward Self-Employment (t2–t1)

F

Significance

25.70 47.12 31.47 57.25

.000 .000 .000 .000

One-way ANOVA (N = 710).

considered; therefore, these were dropped from the control variable list.

H1 Both at t1 and t2 the intention for selfemployment was positively and significantly related to self-efficacy (t1: r = 0.47, p < .000; t2: r = 0.55, p < .000), proactiveness (t1: r = 0.43, p < .000; t2: r = 0.45, p < .000), and risk taking (t1: r = 0.30, p < .000; t2: r = 0.42, p < .000) (Table 3). The regression models afforded significant adjusted regression coefficients (t1: R2 = 0.35, p < .000; t2: R2 = 0.44, p < .000) and significant standardized coefficients for the three predic-

456

tors (t1: self-efficacy, b = 0.38; proactiveness, b = 0.32; and risk taking, b = 0.29, all with p < .000; t2: self-efficacy, b = 0.46; proactiveness, b = 0.35; and risk taking, b = 0.31, all with p < .000) (Table 4). Therefore, H1 was accepted.

H2 For the program sample, the t-test (p < .05) showed that we could reject the null hypothesis that the students had equal means pre- and posttest for self-efficacy (t = 5.39, p < .000), proactiveness (t = 6.23, p < .000), risk taking (t = 4.96, p < .000), and intentions (t = 7.38, p < .000). The GLM procedure (simple time effects) confirmed the significant differences between the pre- and postprogram values for self-efficacy (F = 31.69, p < .000), proactiveness (F = 57.11, p < .000), risk taking (F = 41.46, p < .000), and intention (F = 73.24, p < .000). In contrast, for the control sample, the t-test showed no differences in the pre- and postvalues for these variables. ANOVA for the entire sample (Table 5) showed a significant relationship between groups (program versus control) and differences in the pre–post scores in selfefficacy (F = 25.70, p < .000), proactiveness (F = 47.12, p < .000), risk taking (F = 31.47, p < .000), and intention (F = 57.25, p < .000). We therefore find support for H2.

Discussion The aim of this study was to try to answer the following question: Do entrepreneurial training programs improve students’ competencies and intentions for undertaking a business venture? An examination of the literature on EE revealed certain gaps, in particular with respect to secondary education: there are few studies in general and very few high-quality quantitative studies in particular. The present study has attempted to fill in these gaps by examining EE at the secondary school level, using a pretest– posttest design with hypotheses rooted in the TPB and providing quantitative data in order to examine whether EE affects the intentions and competencies that are required of an entrepreneur. Thus, this study has contributed to a less researched field in the literature on EE. The results show that the mean values of the program sample in the posttest for self-efficacy, proactiveness, risk taking, and intention of selfemployment are significantly higher in relation to the pretest. In contrast to other EE programs, such as the Junior Achievement Young Enter-


SÁNCHEZ

457

S.D., standard deviation. *p < .01, **p < .000

1.10 0.50 0.70 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.98 1.20 1.54 1.78 0.98 1.34

4.72 3.35 2.70 1.98 6.05 3.94 3.25 3.23 1.33 0.59 0.55 1.25

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Self-Efficacy (t1) Proactiveness (t1) Risk (t1) Intention (t1) Self-Efficacy (t2) Proactiveness (t2) Risk (t2) Intention (t2) Self-Efficacy (t2–t1) Proactiveness (t2–t1) Risk (t2–t1) Intention (t2–t1) Family background School of origin

Mean S.D.

Variable 1 0.33* 0.35* 0.45* 0.63* 0.27* 0.29* 0.32* -0.57** -0.25** -0.24** -0.29** 0.08 0.02

1

1 0.26* 0.42* 0.29* 0.57* 0.24* 0.32* -0.23** -0.50** -0.20* -0.27** 0.10 0.05

2

1 0.31* 0.29* 0.28* 0.61* 0.30* -0.20* -0.21* -0.52** -0.25** 0.06 0.09

3

1 0.47* 0.43* 0.29* 0.76* -0.37** -0.30** -0.21* -0.36** 0.08 0.02

4

1 0.37* 0.42* 0.57* 0.53** 0.21* 0.19* 0.22* 0.10 0.05

5

1 0.49* 0.47* 0.19* 0.46** 0.20* 0.24* 0.09 0.02

6

1 0.44* 0.17* 0.18* 0.36** 0.21* 0.07 0.06

7

1 0.35** 0.22** 0.16* 0.56** 0.07 0.01

8

1 0.25** 0.21* 0.30** 0.03 0.02

9

1 0.26** 0.32** 0.04 0.08

10

12

13

1 0.27** 1 0.06 0.04 1 0.03 0.05 0.12

11

Table 6 Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlations Competencies and Intentions for Program Sample (N = 347)

prise student mini-company program (Oosterbeek, Van Praag, and Ijsselstein 2008), or the European Young Enterprise program (Gouveia et al. 2012), for which no clear positive impact was found on students’ entrepreneurship intentions, and other studies finding evidence that the effects are negative (Fayolle and Gailly 2009; Oosterbeek, Van Praag, and Ijsselstein 2010; Von Graevenitz, Harhoff, and Weber 2010), our EE program (E Vitamin) clearly shows a major improvement in entrepreneurial competencies and intentions and thus a positive attitude toward entrepreneurial behavior. In this sense we must point out other aspects deriving from our program that are in line with what Rae (2010) has called the main role of EE: sharing ideas of what it means to be an entrepreneur and creating critical awareness. This aspect was also pointed out by Bakotic and Kruzic (2010), who argue that EE programs help to augment perception of the important aspects of entrepreneurship as well as provide a realistic view of the problems it can involve.

Contributions We consider that our study contributes to theoretical development at various levels of analysis. It contributes to expand the TPB, to consider other influential variables (competencies) in entrepreneurial intention, by confirming the competencies–intention relationship, and by examining the effect of an “exogenous influence” (education) on competencies and intentions toward a behavior (self-employment). Our study also considers the human capital theory, which predicts that individuals who possess greater levels of competencies will achieve greater performance outcomes (in our case, entrepreneurial intention). The results have been generally supportive of the theory. However, there are gaps in the literature. First, recent work in the field points to a need to investigate the links between entrepreneurshipspecific education, competencies, and entrepreneurial outcomes (entrepreneurial intention). Our study fills this gap by considering these relations in the specific context of secondary education. Second, most of the relationships between competencies and its outcomes have been “under-researched.” We also contribute by providing a rigorous and strong quasiexperimental control-group design. The study contributes to research on entrepreneurial education by revealing the effect of

458

the specific benefits the students derived from the program on entrepreneurship. Although programs on entrepreneur education are growing rapidly around the world, extant qualitative reviews have been equivocal about their impact on entrepreneurship-related competencies and intention (Martin, MacNally, and Kay, 2012; Weaver, Dickson, and Solomon 2006). This is due in part to the fact that, although most studies report positive relationships, a number of important studies have shown negative results. Thus, it is not clear what impact EE and training might be having on its students. At the same time, recent entrepreneurship literature has highlighted the need to better understand the dynamic nature of competencies in the entrepreneurship field (Unger et al. 2011). Our study addresses these gaps in the entrepreneurship literature in an important way. We have provided a quantitative assessment showing that EE has positive, significant relationships with a number of entrepreneurshiprelated competencies and intention. This builds on previous work, such as that of Oosterbeek, Van Praag, and Ijsselstein (2010), Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham (2007), and Unger et al. (2011), to show the specific impact of EE and training on competencies development and entrepreneurship development. Our results have two important practical implications. First, the positive relationships between EE and both entrepreneurial competencies and intention should represent good news for governments, universities and colleges (secondary school), and private organizations that have invested heavily in the development of EE programs over the past several decades. Thus, public policy and education decision-makers can have more confidence when making future funding decisions related to entrepreneurship-related education and training. Second, our findings suggest that competencies training-focused programs may help in the implementation challenges faced at a later stage, once the student decides to proceed to opportunity search, evaluation, and exploitation. The opportunity exploitation decision depends on (1) nonpsychological factors such as experience, age, social position, and opportunity cost, and (2) psychological factors grouped under personality and cognitive characteristics (Shane 2003). On a broader theoretical level this study introduces an element that until now has not been largely taken into consideration: the pos-


sibility that certain aspects considered personality characteristics or cognitive characteristics (self-efficacy, proactiveness, and risk taking) can be taught and strengthened. For example, proactiveness is a personality characteristic that has implications for motivation and action. It is a belief in the rich potential of changes that can be made to improve oneself and one’s environment. This includes various aspects, such as resourcefulness, responsibility, values, and vision. The proactive student takes responsibility for his or her own growth and the teacher can teach and transmit these aspects. Why do some teachers succeed in continuously enhancing students’ achievements, in setting high goals for themselves, and pursuing these goals persistently, whereas other teachers cannot meet the expectations imposed on them and tend to collapse under the burden of daily stress? There are many reasons, one of which pertains to a teacher’s perceived selfefficacy and proactiveness as a job-specific personality trait. Thus, self-efficacious teachers, self-efficacious students. Proactive teachers, proactive students. However, the results discussed here do not argue that competencies will inevitably cause individuals to pursue new venture formation. The results suggest that—ceteris paribus—the stronger the competencies, the higher the likelihood that, if and when such persons pursue entrepreneurship, they will attain some advantage relative to those who lack such competencies. It should also be noted that as in most competencies models, these traits are in no way exclusive. Additional dimensions of individual differences, including knowledge, skills, and abilities, may also play a role (Oosterbeek, Van Praag, and Ijsselstein 2008). For instance, the knowledge competency may include access to unique information and experience (Marsili 2002). The skill competency may entail technical skills (e.g., organizational, management, product/service, and industry skills) and human skills. The ability competency could consist of the capability to cope with and overcome adversity and the cognitive ability to discover opportunities. We argue that these characteristics are obviously valid, but not always sufficient. Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham (2007) point out that the emotional preference of individuals for an entrepreneurial lifestyle and the emotional “chemistry” between individuals and the particular opportunities that affect their decision to

exploit entrepreneurial opportunities are characteristics that should be considered and bolstered with ad hoc training programs. The main practical implication for those developing entrepreneurial training programs is the importance of training in the competencies considered key to undertaking a business venture and not only training in the knowledge and resources needed for starting a business, as traditionally considered. Training in entrepreneurial competencies implicitly entails an inspirational component. Inspiration is what gives rise to attitude and intention, and increases the students’ interest in trying out an entrepreneurial career. We suggest that the instructors (academics, lecturers, and trainers) should receive training not only in how to teach entrepreneurship but also in how to change “hearts and minds” (Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007). The instructor plays a leadership role within the group of students, but it has to be the role of a charismatic leader, characterized, among other things, by emotional skills; that is, the ability to recognize the meaning of emotions and to reason based on them (Middleton 2005). It has been shown that charismatic leaders have a strong influence on their followers by means of “emotional contagion” (Cherulnik et al. 2001). We therefore suggest that instructors who can communicate their enthusiasm for entrepreneurship through nonverbal expressiveness will turn out students with higher entrepreneurial intention. We also advocate lifelong education, like Bakotic and Kruzic (2010), in the sense of including EE in all educational levels—primary, secondary, upper secondary, and university— where students can develop the competencies and required skills, abilities, and knowledge they will need later in the market context (Henry, Hill, and Leitch 2005), and also develop an entrepreneurial attitude, particularly in relation to risk.

Limitations and Future Directions Our study also has some limitations that suggest further research. Our findings should lead to longitudinal and cross-cultural studies (Sánchez 2009) to examine the impact of education on entrepreneurial competencies and on the intention of starting a business venture in the medium and long term. Furthermore, in our study we considered certain competencies, specific personality traits and their influence on

SÁNCHEZ

459

intentions of self-employment after an entrepreneurship training program, but other competencies were also developed in this program, such as entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, and abilities. It would thus be desirable to analyze the impact that these competencies have on the intention to become self-employed. Despite these limitations, we are confident of the reliability of our findings. Pretest–posttest designs with a control group provide a good level of internal validity (better than the typical crosssectional designs) and sampling from different studies adds external validity to our findings. We suggest, in relation to EE, that future research also examine topics such as the existence of other potential benefits to be had from an entrepreneurship course apart from the ones discussed here. For instance, what changes students’ intentions during a training program may not be what they learn about entrepreneurship, but rather what they learn about themselves and what they would like to become (self-fulfillment). That is, do learning resources and incubation help some students in a later stage of life when they take a step in the intention to action (undertaking)? This study poses certain questions that future research should address as well. For example, researchers could pose what types of emotions students undergo during an entrepreneurial training program, how these emotions relate to the “entrepreneurial passion” construct, and how emotional stimulation affects cognitive rationality, as Cardon et al. (2005, 2009) suggested that intense emotions may impede cognitive reality. Another question to pose would be how the competencies studied here strengthen the decision to start a business, and so forth. That is, it is not enough just to teach competencies, but rather, the “entrepreneurial drive” must be developed and fostered in students (Florin, Karri, and Rossiter 2007). These authors define “entrepreneurial drive” as an individual’s perception of the desirability and feasibility to proactively pursue opportunities and creatively respond to challenges, tasks, needs, and obstacles in an innovative way. In this sense, this aspect should be further developed and researched in the context of EE, in order to understand new antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions to create new businesses and to provide a favorable climate in which entrepreneurship can flourish. Finally, we also encourage EE programs to include components that assist aspiring entrepreneurs with assess-

460

ing and developing versatility in their thinking style (Groves, Vance, and Choi 2011).

Concluding Remarks We have provided what we believe to be the first examination of the relationship between EE and both competencies and entrepreneurial intention in Spain to secondary students. Our results were supportive of the notion that entrepreneurship-specific competencies can be influenced by entrepreneurship-specific education. This is important, given the heretofore equivocation of the narrative literature reviews on the subject, particularly in light of the immense growth and investment in EE on a global scale. We have also provided recommendations for improving the literature to enhance the value of future EE research results.

References Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bakotic, D., and D. Kruzic (2010). “Students’ Perceptions and Intentions Towards Entrepreneurship: The Empirical Findings from Croatia,” The Business Review 14(2), 209– 215. Ball, S. (1987). The Micropolitics of the School: Towards A Theory of School Organization. London: Methuen. Bandura, A. (1977). “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change,” Psychological Review 84, 191–215. ——— (1986). The Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ——— (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman. Barbosa, S., M. Gerhardt, and J. Kickul (2007). “The Role of Cognitive Style and Risk Preference on Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 13(4), 86–104. Baron, R. A. (2000). “Psychological Perspectives on Entrepreneurship: Cognitive and Social Factors in Entrepreneurs Success,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 9(1), 15–18. Bateman, T. S., and J. M. Crant (1993). “The Proactive Component of Organizational Behavior,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 14, 103–118.


Becherer, R. C., and J. G. Mauer (1999). “The Proactive Personality Disposition and Entrepreneurial Behavior among Small Business Presidents,” Journal of Small Business Management 37(1), 28–36. Becker, G. (1964). Human Capital. New York: Columbia University Press. Begley, T. M., and D. P. Boyd (1987). “Psychological Characteristics Associated with Performance in Entrepreneurial Firms and Smaller Businesses,” Journal of Business Venturing 2(1), 79–93. Bird, B. (1988). “Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas: The Case of Intentions,” Academy of Management Review 13(3), 442–454. ——— (1989). Entrepreneurial Behaviour. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. ——— (1995). “Towards A Theory of Entrepreneurial Competency. Advances in Entrepreneurship,” Firm Emergence and Growth 2, 51–72. Brinckmann, J. (2008). Competence of Top Management Teams and the Success of New Tecnology Based Firms. A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis Concerning Competencies of Entrepreneneurial Teams and the Development of Their Ventures. Wiesbaden: Gabler Publishing. Brown, P. J. (1996). “The Stick-E Document: A Framework for Creating Context-Aware Applications,” Electronic Publishing 96, 259–272. Busenitz, L. W. (1999). “Entrepreneurial Risk and Strategic Decision Making: It’s a Matter of Perspective,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 35(3), 325–340. Busenitz, L. W., D. West, T. Shepherd, G. Nelson, G. Chandler, and A. Zacharakis (2003). “Entrepreneurship Research in Emergence: Past Trends and Future Directions,” Journal of Management 29(3), 285– 308. Bygrave, W. D. (1989). “The Entrepreneurship Paradigm (I): A Philosophical Look at Its Research Methodologies,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 14, 7–26. Cardon, M., J. Wincent, J. Singh, and M. Drnovsek (2005). “Entrepreneurial Passion: The Nature of Emotions in Entrepreneurship,” Proceedings of the Sixty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (CD). Honolulu: Ed. K. M. Weaver. ——— (2009). “The Nature and Experience of Entrepreneurial Passion,” Academy of Management Review 34(3), 511–532.

Chen, G., S. M. Gully, and D. Eden (2004). “General Self-Efficacy and Self-Esteem: Toward Theoretical and Empirical Distinction between Correlated Self-Evaluations,” Journal Organizational Behavior 25, 375– 395. Cherulnik, P. D., K. A. Donley, T. S. R. Wiewel, and S. R. Miller (2001). “Charisma Is Contagious: The Effect of Leaders Charisma on Observers Affect,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31, 2149– 2159. Cohen, L., and L. Manion (1989). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge. Covin, J. G., and D. P. Slevin (1989). “Strategic Management of Small Firms in Hostile and Benign Environments,” Strategic Management Journal 10(1), 75–87. Crant, J. M. (1996). “The Proactive Personality Scale as a Predictor of Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Journal of Small Business Management 34(3), 42–49. De Noble, A., D. Jung, and S. Ehrlich (1999). “Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy: The Development of a Measure and Its Relationship to Entrepreneurial Actions,” in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Eds. R. D. Reynolds, W. D. Bygrave, S. Manigar, C. M. Mason, G. D. Meyer, H. J. Sapienza and K. G. Shaver. Waltham: P.R. Publication, 73–87. DeTienne, D., and G. Chandler (2004). “Opportunity Identification and Its Role in the Entrepreneurial Classroom: A Pedagogical Approach and Empirical Test,” Academy of Management Learning and Education 3, 242–257. Dickson, P. H., G. T. Solomon, and K. M. Weaver (2008). “Entrepreneurial Selection and Success: Does Education Matter?,” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 15(2), 239–258. Erikson, T. (2003). “Towards a Taxonomy of Entrepreneurial Learning Experiences among Potential Entrepreneurs,” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 10(1), 106–112. European Commission (2006). “Entrepreneurship Education in Europe: Fostering Entrepreneurial Mindsets through Education and Learning,” Final Proceedings of the Conference on Entrepreneurship Education in Oslo. Fagerberg, J., and M. Shrolec (2009). “Knowledge, Capabilities and the Poverty Trap: The Complex Interplay between Technological, Social, and Geographical Factors,” paper

SÁNCHEZ

461

provided by Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo. Fayolle, A. (2005). “Evaluation of Entrepreneurship Education: Behaviour Performing Or Intention Increasing,” International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 2(1), 89–98. Fayolle, A., and B. Gailly (2009). “Assessing the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education: A Methodology and Three Experiments from French Engineering Schools,” in Handbook of University-Wide Entrepreneurship Education. Eds. West, G. P. E. J. Gatewood, K. G. Shaver. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 203–214. Field, A. P. (2000). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows: Advanced Techniques for the Beginner. London: Sage. Finkle, T. A., D. F. Kuratko, and M. G. Goldsby (2006). “An Examination of Entrepreneurship Centers in the United States: A National Survey,” Journal of Small Business Management 44(2), 184–206. Florin, J., R. Karri, and N. Rossiter (2007). “Fostering Entrepreneurial Drive in Business Education: An Attitudinal Approach,” Journal of Management Education 31, 17–42. Galloway, L., and W. Brown (2002). “Entrepreneurship Education at University: A Driver in the Creation of High Growth Firms?,” Education and Training 44(8/9), 398–405. Gartner, W. B., and K. H. Vesper (1994). “Experiments in Entrepreneurship Education: Successes and Failures,” Journal of Business Venturing 9(3), 179–187. Girden, E. R. (1992). ANOVA: Repeated Measures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Goduscheit, R. C. (2011). “An Examination of a Reciprocal Relationship between Network Governance and Network Structure,” International Journal of Strategic Business Alliances 2, 171–188. Gorman, G., D. Hanlon, and W. King (1997). “Some Research Perspectives on Entrepreneurship Education, Enterprise Education and Education for Small Business Management: A Ten Year Literature Review,” International Small Business Journal 15(3), 56–77. Gouveia, R., A. Dinis, A. do Paço, J. Ferreira, and M. Raposo (2012). “The Effect of an Entrepreneurial Training Programme on Entrepreneurial Traits and Intention of Secondary Students,” in Entrepreneurship-

462

Born, Made and Educated. Ed. T. BurgerHelmchen. Rjeka: InTech, 77–92. Groves, K., C. Vance, and D. Choi (2011). “Examining Entrepreneurial Cognition: An Occupational Analysis of Balanced Linear and Nonlinear Thinking and Entrepreneurship Success,” Journal of Small Business Management 49, 438–466. Hayton, J. C., and D. J. Kelly (2006). “A Competency-Based Framework for Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship,” Human Resource Management 35(3), 407–427. Henry, C., F. Hill, and C. Leitch (2005). “Entrepreneurship Education and Training: Can Entrepreneurship Be Taught? Part 1,” Education and Training 47(2/3), 98–111. Ho, T. S., and H. C. Koh (1992). “Differences in Psychological Characteristics between Entrepreneurially Inclined and NonEntrepreneurially Inclined Accounting Graduates in Singapore,” Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Change: An International Journal 1, 243–254. Honig, B., and T. Karlsson (2004). “Institutional Forces and the Written Business Plan,” Journal of Management 30, 29–48. Honig, B., and M. Samulsson (2012). “Planning and the Entrepreneur: A Longitudinal Examination of Nascent Entrepreneurs in Sweden,” Journal of Small Business Management 50(3), 365–388. Johansen, V., and T. Schanke (2011). “Entrepreneurship Education in Primary and Secondary Education and Training: Status 010,” Eastern Norway Research Institute, Lillehammer, Norway. Junehed, J., and P. Davidsson (1998). “Small Firms and Export Success: Development and Empirical Test of an Integrated Model,” paper presented at the 10th Nordic Conference on Small Business Research, Växjö, Sweden. Jusoh, R., B. Ziyae, S. Asimiran, and S. Kadir (2011). “Entrepreneur Training Needs Analysis: Implications on the Entrepreneurial Skills Needed For Successful Entrepreneurs,” International Business and Economics Research Journal 10(1), 143–148. Karlan, D., and M. Valdivia (2006). “Teaching Entrepreneurship: Impact of Business Training on Microfinance Clients and Institutions,” The Review of Economics and Statistics 93(2), 510–527. Katz, J. (1992). “A Psychological Cognitive Model of Employment Status Choice,”


Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Fall, 29–37. Koh, H. C. (1996). “Testing Hypotheses of Entrepreneurial Characteristics: A Study of Hong Kong MBA Students,” Journal of Managerial Psychology 11(3), 12–25. Kolvereid, L. (1996). “Prediction of Employment Status Choice Intentions,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 21(1), 47– 57. Krueger, N. F. (2003). “The Cognitive Psychology of Entrepreneurship,” in Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. An Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction. Eds. Z. J. Acs and D. B. Audretsch. London: Springer, 105– 140. Krueger, N. F., and P. Dickson (1994). “How Believing in Ourselves Increases Risk Taking: Self-Efficacy and Perceptions of Opportunity and Threat,” Decision Sciences 25, 385–400. Krueger, N. F., M. Reilly, and A. L. Carsrud (2000). “Competing Models of Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Journal of Business Venturing 15(5/6), 411–532. Lado, A. A., and G. S. Vozikis (1996). “Transfer of Technology to Promote Entrepreneurship in Developing Countries: An Integration and Proposed Framework,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 21(2), 55–72. Lau, T., K. F. Chan, and T. W. Y. Man (2000). “The Entrepreneurial and Managerial Competencies of Small Business Owner/ Managers in Hong Kong: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations,” in Research in Competence-Based Management. Eds. R. Sanchez and A. Heene. Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 187–216. Low, M., and I. C. McMillan (1988). “Entrepreneurship: Past Research and Future Challenges,” Journal of Management 14, 139– 161. Lüthje, C., and N. Franke (2003). “The ‘Making’ of an Entrepreneur: Testing a Model of Entrepreneurial Intent among Engineering Students,” MIT, R&D Management 33(2), 135–147. Man, T., and T. Chan (2002). “The Competitiveness of Small and Medium Enterprises: A Conceptualization with Focus on Entrepreneurial Competencies,” Journal of Business Venturing 17, 123–142. Markman, G. D., D. B. Balkin, and R. A. Baron (2002). “Inventors and New Venture Formation: The Effects of General Self-Efficacy and

Regretful Thinking,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 27, 149–165. Marsili, O. (2002). “Technological Regimes and Sources of Entrepreneurship,” Small Business Economics 19(3), 217–231. Martin, B. C., J. J. MacNally, and M. J. Kay (2012). “Examining the Formation of Human Capital in Entrepreneurship: A Meta-Analysis of Entrepreneurship Education Outcomes,” Journal of Business Venturing 28, 211–224. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.002 Mentoor, E. R., and C. Friedrich (2007). “Is Entrepreneurial Education at South African Universities Successful? An Empirical Example,” Industry and Higher Education 21(3), 221–232. Meyer, G. D. (2011). “The Reinvention of Academic Entrepreneurship,” Journal of Small Business Management 49(1), 1–8. Middleton, K. L. (2005). “The Service-Learning Project as a Supportive Context for Charismatic Leadership Emergence in Nascent Leaders,” Academy of Management Learning and Education 4, 295–308. Mincer, J. (1958). “Investment in Human Capital and Personal Income Distribution,” Journal of Political Economy 66, 281–302. Mitton, D. G. (1989). “The Complete Entrepreneur,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 3(3), 9–19. Mojab, F., R. Zaefarian, and A. H. Azizi (2011). “Applying Competency Based Approach for Entrepreneurship Education,” Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 12, 436– 447. Mueller, S. (2011). “Increasing Entrepreneurial Intention: Effective Entrepreneurship Course Characteristics,” International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 13(1), 55–74. Mukhtar, S. M., and J. Redman (2004). “Developments in EU/UK Entrepreneurship/ Enterprise Education Policy Current Debate and Implications,” paper presented at Institute for Small Business Affairs 27th National Conference, November. Neck, H. M., and P. G. Greene (2011). “Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers,” Journal of Small Business Management 49, 55–70. Oosterbeek, H., M. Van Praag, and A. Ijsselstein (2008). “The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurship Competencies and Intentions: An Evaluation of the Junior Achievement Student Mini-Company

SÁNCHEZ

463

Program,” paper presented Iza Discussion Paper No. 3641. ——— (2010). “The Impact Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurship Skills and Motivation,” European Economic Review 54, 442–454. Palich, L., and D. R. Bagby (1995). “Using Cognitive Theory to Explain Entrepreneurial Risk-Taking: Challenging Conventional Wisdom,” Journal of Business Venturing 10(6), 425–438. Peterman, N. E., and J. Kennedy (2003). “Enterprise Education: Influencing Students’ Perceptions of Entrepreneurship,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28(2), 129– 144. Pittaway, L., and J. Cope (2007). “Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Review of the Evidence,” International Small Business Journal 25(5), 479–510. Ployhart, R. E., and T. Moliterno (2011). “Emergence of the Human Capital Resource: A Multilevel Model,” Academy of Management Review 36(1), 127–150. Rae, D. (2010). “Universities and Enterprise Education: Responding to the Challenges of the New Era,” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 17(4), 591– 606. Rauch, A., and M. Frese (2007). “Let’s Put the Person Back into Entrepreneurship Research: A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Business Owners’ Personality Characteristics and Business Creation and Success,” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 16(4), 353– 385. Robinson, P. B., D. V. Stimpson, J. C. Huefner, and H. K. Hunt (1991). “An Attitude Approach to the Prediction of Entrepreneurship,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15(4), 13–31. Rodrigues, R., M. Raposo, J. Ferreira, and A. Paço (2010). “Entrepreneurship Education and the Propensity for Business Creation: Testing A Structural Model,” International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 9(1), 58–73. Sánchez, J. C. (2009). “Social Learning and Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Comparative Study between Mexico, Spain and Portugal,” Revista Latinoamericana De Psicología 41(1), 107–117. ——— (2010). “Evaluation of Entrepreneurial Personality: Factorial Validity of Entrepre-

464

neurial Orientation Questionnaire (COE),” Revista Latinoamericana De Psicología 42(1), 75–90. ——— (2011). “Entrepreneurship as a Legitimate Field of Knowledge,” Psicothema 23(3), 427–432. ——— (2012). “Entrepreneurial Intentions: The Role of the Cognitive Variables,” in Entrepreneurship-Born, Made and Educated. Ed. T. Burger-Helmchen. Rjeka: InTech, 27–50. Sánchez, J. C., A. Lanero, and A. Yurrebaso (2005). “Determinant Variables of the Entrepreneurial Intention in the University Context,” Revista De Psicología Social Aplicada 15(1–2), 37–60. Segal, G., D. Borgia, and J. Schoenfeld (2005). “Self-Efficacy and Goal Setting As Predictors of Performance: An Empirical Study of Founder-Managed Natural Food Stores,” Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship 17(1), 71–83. Seibert, S. E., M. L. Kraimer, and J. M. Crant (2001). “What Do Proactive People Do? A Longitudinal Model Linking Proactive Personality and Career Success,” Personnel Psychology 54(4), 845–874. Sexton, D. L., and N. Bowman (1983). “Determining Entrepreneurial Potential of Students,” Academy of Management Proceedings 42, 408–412. Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship. The Individual-Opportunity Nexus. Cheltneham, UK: Edward Elgar. Shapero, A. (1982). “Some Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship,” in The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Eds. C. Kent, D. L. Sexton and K. H. Vesper. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 72–90. Shapero, A., and L. Sokol (1982). “The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship,” in The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Eds. C. Kent, D. L. Sexton and K. H. Vesper. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 72– 90. Smelstor, M. (2007). “The Changing Policy Environment: Challenges and Opportunities from the US,” paper presented at the International Entrepreneurship Educators Conference, University of Cambridge, England. Solomon, G. T. (2007). “An Examination of Entrepreneurship Education in the United States,” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 14(2), 168–182.


Solomon, G. T., and L. W. Fernald (1991). “Trends in Small Business Management and Entrepreneurship Education in the United States,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15(3), 25–39. Solomon, G. T., S. Duffy, and A. Tarabishy (2002). “The State of Entrepreneurship Education in the United States: A Nationwide Survey and Analysis,” International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 1(1), 65–86. Souitaris, V., S. Zerbinati, and A. Al-Laham (2007). “Do Entrepreneurship Programmes Raise Entrepreneurial Intention of Science and Engineering Students? The Effect of Learning, Inspiration and Resources,” Journal of Business Venturing 22(4), 566– 591. Thurik, A. R., and S. Wennekers (2004). “Entrepreneurship, Small Business and Economic Growth,” Journal of Small Business and Enterpreneurial Development 11(1), 140– 149. Unger, J. M., A. Rauch, M. Frese, and N. Rosenbusch (2011). “Human Capital and Entrepreneurial Success: A Meta-Analytical Review,” Journal of Business Venturing 26(3), 341– 358. Van der Sluis, J., M. van Praag, and A. van Witteloostuijn (2006). “Why Are the Returns to Education Higher for Entrepreneurs than for Employees?” Working Paper, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Van Praag, C. M., and P. H. Versloot (2007). “What Is the Value of Entrepreneurship? A Review of Recent Research,” Small Business Economics 29(4), 351–382.

Von Graevenitz, G., D. Harhoff, and R. Weber (2010). “The Effects of Entrepreneurship Education,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 76(1), 90–112. Wang, X. (2007). “Entrepreneurship Education in Chinese Universities. The Challenges and Opportunities,” paper presented at the International Entrepreneurship Educators Conference, University of Cambridge. Waung, M. (1995). “The Effects of SelfRegulatory Coping Orientation on Newcomer Adjustment and Job Survival,” Personnel Psychology 48, 633–650. Weaver, K. M., P. H. Dickson, and G. Solomon (2006). “Entrepreneurship and Education: What Is Known and What Is Not Known about the Links between Education and Entrepreneurial Activity,” in The Small Business Economy: A Report to the President. Ed. T. C. Moutray. Washington: SBA Office of Advocacy, 113–156. Weaver, K. M., A. J. Marchese, G. S. Vozikis, and P. Dickson (2010). “Promoting Entrepreneurship Across the University: The Experiences of Three Diverse Academic Institutions,” Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 23, 797–806. Wilson, F. (2004). “Our Entrepreneurial Future: Examining the Diverse Attitudes and Motivations of Teens across Gender and Ethnic Identity,” Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 9(3), 177–198. Zhao, H., S. Seibert, and G. E. Hills (2005). “The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Journal of Applied Psychology 90, 1265– 1272.

SÁNCHEZ

465

Copyright of Journal of Small Business Management is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.