55 Entrepreneuralintentions

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn
Executive Summary
Fostering entrepreneurship has become an important topic for current policy makers of the
EU. In order to reach the Lisbon employment rate target in 2010, the EU needs to create some
22 million jobs. With a net employment growth of 0.6 million in 2002, this seems like a
difficult task. Entrepreneurship education is thought to be the solution for this urgent need for
new jobs. Since the number of European students interested in becoming entrepreneurs is
significantly lower than their US counterparts, entrepreneurship education should be further
stimulated across Europe. However, to increase the effectiveness of entrepreneurship
education, more research is needed to identify the antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions
among students. It is important to know what drives a students’ decision towards self-
employment. In order to contribute to an improvement of entrepreneurship education in the
Netherlands, this thesis explores the influence of students’ personality and participation in
entrepreneurship education on their entrepreneurial intentions. The data were collected with a
questionnaire among 125 students of the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration
of Universiteit Maastricht. The regression results give further evidence for the usefulness of
the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) in explaining entrepreneurial intentions. The
results confirm the importance of a student’s personality, as measured with proactive
personality and willingness to take risks, in the entrepreneurial intentions framework. An
even stronger relationship has been recognized for participation in entrepreneurship
education. Although it cannot be stated that entrepreneurship education influences a student’s
personality, it does attract students with a certain personality. Since an ‘entrepreneurial
personality’ increases the ultimate entrepreneurial intentions, entrepreneurship education
would be more effective for a certain group of ‘promising’ students. Universiteit Maastricht
should attract these students to participate in entrepreneurship education. To achieve this, a
thorough expansion of entrepreneurship courses and activities is needed. The image of
entrepreneurship as an interesting career alternative should improve and the Universiteit
Maastricht should emphasize an ‘entrepreneurial atmosphere’. Furthermore, teachers with an
extensive knowledge and experience in entrepreneurship should reveal the ‘right’ students
and encourage them to participate in entrepreneurship courses, business plan competitions,
etc. Still, further research is needed to fully understand to true influence of entrepreneurship
education on personality traits. Can education really influence a student’s personality?
-0-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION__________________________________________________________3
2. ENTREPRENEURSHIP___________________________________________________7
2.1 DEFINITION___________________________________________________________________7
2.2 THE IMPORTANCE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP__________________________________________8
3. ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS_______________________________________11
3.1 PREVIOUS RESEARCH__________________________________________________________11

3.1.1 THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOUR___________________________________________________12
3.1.2 MODEL OF ENTREPRENEURIAL EVENT_______________________________________________14
3.2 LATEST MODEL OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION__________________________________15
4. ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION______________________________________18
4.1 THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION_____________________________18

4.1.1 CURRENT ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION DEFINED___________________________________19
4.1.2 DUTCH INITIATIVES______________________________________________________________21
4.2. EFFECTIVENESS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION: THE ONGOING DEBATE___________22
5. RESEARCH METHODS__________________________________________________25
5.1 RESEARCH MODEL____________________________________________________________25

5.2 SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE______________________________________________________26
5.3 HYPOTHESES_________________________________________________________________27
5.3.1 DEPENDENT VARIABLES___________________________________________________________28
5.3.2 INDEPENDENT VARIABLES_________________________________________________________29
5.4 INSTRUMENT_________________________________________________________________29
5.5 ANALYSIS____________________________________________________________________30
6. RESULTS_______________________________________________________________31
6.1 RESPONSE AND MISSING VALUES_________________________________________________31
-1-
6.2 OMITTED VARIABLES__________________________________________________________31

6.3 DESCRIPTIVES, RELIABILITY, AND EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS__________________________32
6.3.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS__________________________________________________________32
6.3.2 CRONBACH’S ALPHA’S____________________________________________________________33
6.3.3 CORRELATIONS AND CROSS-TABULATION_____________________________________________35
6.4 REGRESSION AND HYPOTHESES TESTING__________________________________________36
6.4.1 HYPOTHESES 1 TO 4______________________________________________________________36
6.4.2 HYPOTHESES 5 AND 6_____________________________________________________________40
6.4.3 HYPOTHESES 7 AND 8_____________________________________________________________42
6.4.4 PARTICIPANTS VS. NON-PARTICIPANTS_______________________________________________43
6.4.5 ESTIMATED REGRESSION MODEL___________________________________________________45
6.5 LIMITATIONS_________________________________________________________________48
7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS________________________________________50
REFERENCES____________________________________________________________53
APPENDIX A: GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP MONITOR INDEXES__________60
APPENDIX B: ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE__________62
APPENDIX C: QUESTIONS OVERVIEW_____________________________________66
Appendix D: Statistics output__________________________________________________70
Deze scriptie is afkomstig van:

http://www.studiosus.nl
Online Scripties & Verslagen
-2-
1. Introduction
European students do not consider entrepreneurship as a priority in life. Only 10% of the
European students are interested in becoming entrepreneurs within three years after
graduation (Twaalfhoven, 2003). Dutch academic students score even lower (9%) than their
European counterparts (Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2002). This thesis explores the
entrepreneurial intentions among Universiteit Maastricht students in more detail.
In January 2003 the European Commission (2003a) presented the ‘Green paper on
entrepreneurship in Europe’. According to this paper, the European Union (hereafter EU)
should become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world.
To create this, Europe needs to foster entrepreneurial drives more effectively. Especially with
the enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe in May 2004, it needs to stimulate
entrepreneurship in order to reap the benefits of the larger European market. With an average
unemployment rate of 8.1% among the ‘former’ fifteen member states, and around 15%
among the acceding countries, there is an urgent need for new jobs (European Commission,
2003a). The unemployment rate among the younger age groups is even worse. In particular
for the Netherlands, the unemployment rate for the ‘fifteen to twenty-four’ age group is 10%
higher compared to the level of the mid 1990s (European Commission, 2003b). 1
Entrepreneurship is an important tool to create new jobs, and can therefore benefit Europe’s
unemployment rate. However, the survey of the European Commission (2003a) states that
37% of the Europeans are considering or have considered becoming entrepreneurs, yet only
15% turns these aspirations into reality. Obviously, these figures need to change in order to
create the new jobs that the EU needs.
University professors and other interest groups became involved in the so-called public
debate following the ‘Green paper on Entrepreneurship in Europe’ (European Commission,
2003a). GrowthPlus2 (2004) explains the phenomenon described in this paper as the
1
This is confirmed by recent unemployment figures for the Netherlands. According to ‘Centraal Bureau voor de
Statistiek’ (Statistics Netherlands), the average Dutch unemployment rate between July and Sept 2004 is 6.0%.
The youngest age group (15-24) has the highest rate 13.1% (http://www.cbs.nl/en/figures/keyfigures/index.htm).
2
The GrowthPlus association aims to promote entrepreneurship throughout Europe and advises policy makers
on how to improve the environment for growth companies.
-3-
‘entrepreneurship deficit’, caused due to a lack of entrepreneurship and a lack of fast-growth

companies in Europe. Research from GrowthPlus (2004) shows that the number of adults
who participated in business start-ups is 2.4% in the EU compared to 8.5% in the United
States of America (hereafter US). GrowthPlus (2004) mentions a number of factors, which
influences this ‘entrepreneurship deficit’. Important factors are the availability of venture
capital and the business environment created by regulations and tax measures from the
governments. Though, GrowthPlus (2004) mentions the ‘skills deficit’ of European
entrepreneurs as the main cause for this situation. Universities can play a significant role in
improving the skills of upcoming entrepreneurs. Other reactions confirm the important role of
universities in solving the ‘entrepreneurship deficit’.
In November 2003, Twaalfhoven (2003) held a presentation on entrepreneurship in Europe.

Twaalfhoven (2003), a successful entrepreneur himself, also directed the cause of the urgent
need for entrepreneurs to the technical and business universities in Europe. According to
Twaalfhoven (2003), European universities lack a critical mass of people with adequate
experience and knowledge in entrepreneurship. Furthermore, his research shows that in
comparison with the US, the number of European students interested in becoming
entrepreneurs is significantly lower. Therefore, improving entrepreneurship education can be
a tool to stimulate this interest of students.
While there has been significant previous research on the causes and effects of
entrepreneurship, only a limited number of studies focused on entrepreneurial intent among
students (Lüthje & Franke, 2003). Some models on entrepreneurial intent have been
developed, though it is still widely unknown whether personality traits or contextual founding
conditions drive the students’ career decision towards self-employment (Lüthje & Franke,
2003). The former mentioned personality traits have a strong impact on the attitudes towards
self-employment. These entrepreneurial attitudes show a direct effect on intentions. Thus, the
students’ personality is considered to have an indirect effect (through attitudes) on his or her
intentions to start a new venture (Lüthje & Franke, 2003). The latter mentioned contextual
founding conditions consist of for instance: legal conditions, financial support, infrastructure,
economic environment, education, etc. These contextual founding conditions have a direct
effect on intentions to start a new venture.
-4-
Current research is still not totally clear about whether personality traits or rather academic
entrepreneurship education have the strongest impact on students’ entrepreneurial intentions.
University courses and activities would be less likely to stimulate start-ups, if the underlying
intentions were more personality than education focused. Since, personality traits are often
thought to be rather constant over time, it will be difficult to stimulate university spin-off
companies when students do not have the personality needed to become successful
entrepreneurs. For this reason it is important to know the exact relationship between
personality traits, entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. In order to
contribute to an improvement of entrepreneurship education in the Netherlands, this thesis
explores the influence of personality traits and the participation in entrepreneurship courses
on entrepreneurial intentions among Universiteit Maastricht students.
The research in this thesis studies two effects. On the one hand, the effects of personality
traits and participation in entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intentions of
students. On the other hand, the moderating effects of personality traits on the attitude
towards entrepreneurship and the participation in entrepreneurship education are investigated.
Students who participated in entrepreneurship courses might have certain common
personality characteristics. On the contrary, entrepreneurship education could positively
influence certain entrepreneurial characteristics of students.
The above presented research attempts to answer the following question:
Is the students’ entrepreneurial intent determined by his or her personality, or can

academic entrepreneurship education influence this decision?
To collect data for this explorative study, 125 students of the Faculty of Economics and
Business Administration of Universiteit Maastricht filled out a questionnaire about their
entrepreneurial intentions. The questionnaire was developed with the use of previous research
(e.g. Autio, Keeley, Klofsten, & Ulfstedt, 1997; Lüthje & Franke, 2003).
In order to support the problem statement three sub-questions will be discussed:
 What is the concept and importance entrepreneurship?

 How can intentions explain the decision toward self-employment?
-5-
 How does entrepreneurship education stimulate entrepreneurship?
The thesis starts with an opening chapter 2 on the importance of entrepreneurship, which
answers the first sub-question. Chapter 3 continues with the second sub-question on the
intention towards self-employment. A recent model on entrepreneurial intentions is discussed
in this chapter. Chapter 4 explains the importance of entrepreneurship education in more
detail. It discusses current literature in entrepreneurship education and will have a closer look
at entrepreneurship education in the Netherlands. Chapter 5 focuses on the research
methodology. This chapter explains the research plan and discusses the development of the
questionnaire. Chapter 6 contains the analyses and results of the collected data. The
limitations attached to this research are stated at the end of this chapter. Chapter 7 finishes
with a discussion, conclusions, and recommendations for further research.
-6-
2. Entrepreneurship
To provide an understanding of the term entrepreneurship this chapter explains the definition
in more detail. A further clarification of the importance of entrepreneurship for the EU is
given as well. This chapter answers the following sub-question: What is the concept and
importance of entrepreneurship?
2.1 Definition
The word entrepreneur is French and, literally translated, means “between-taker” or “go-
between.” The definition of entrepreneurship has evolved over time as the world’s economy
has changed as well. In 1934, Schumpeter defined the entrepreneur as “an innovator who
develops untried technologies”. More than 50 years later Gartner (1988) defined
entrepreneurship as “the creation of new organizations”.3 Although researchers have been
inconsistent with their definitions of entrepreneurship, they often contain similar elements,
such opportunity recognition, newness, organizing, creating and risk taking. Developing a
worldwide accepted definition turns out to be difficult; however the following definition by
Hisrich and Peters (2002, p.10) contains the most important elements:
“Entrepreneurship is the process of creating something new with value by devoting the
necessary time and effort, assuming the accompanying financial, psychic, and social risks,
and receiving the resulting rewards of monetary and personal satisfaction and
independence”.
This definition stresses four aspects of being an entrepreneur. First of all, entrepreneurship
involves the creation of something new with value to the entrepreneur and to the audience.
This audience can be any individual that is concerned with the new product or service.
Second, entrepreneurship requires the devotion of the necessary time and effort. Making a
new idea operational and bringing it to market is a process with which most entrepreneurs
have many difficulties. The third aspect of entrepreneurship is the assumption of the
necessary risks. The risks involved in an entrepreneurial process could take many forms;
often they have a financial, psychological or social nature. Finally, the entrepreneur receives
the rewards for his efforts. Monetary rewards are frequently identified as the indicator for
3
Definitions obtained from http://www.westaction.org/definitions/def_entrepreneurship_1.html.
-7-
success of the entrepreneur. Nevertheless, most entrepreneurs indicate independence and

personal satisfaction as the most important personal rewards.
2.2 The importance of entrepreneurship

Many researchers recognize entrepreneurship as being of fundamental importance for our
economy. For both start-up companies and existing firms, entrepreneurship spurs business
expansion, technological progress and wealth creation (Lumpkin & Dress, 1996). History
shows numerous examples of the importance of entrepreneurship.
For the Netherlands an excellent example of early entrepreneurship can be found in the
history of the United East India Company (hereafter VOC), which developed into the largest
commercial enterprise in the world during the 17th and 18th century. When the Portuguese
excluded Dutch merchants from lucrative trade with Asia, several Amsterdam merchants
decided to break this monopoly. After the ‘first shipment’ in 1595 other merchants soon
followed this lucrative voyage. Johan van Oldebarnevelt launched the revolutionary idea of
merging all local trade companies, or so-called chambers, into the VOC. The ‘seventeen
gentlemen’, who represented the directors of the participating chambers, directed the VOC.
The trading network of the VOC set new standards in the organization and management of
overseas trade between Europe and Asia. For two centuries with almost 4800 voyages to Asia
this enormous enterprise survived and brought wealth and prosperity to the Netherlands.4
At present, the importance of entrepreneurship goes much further. Fostering entrepreneurship

has become an important topic for current policy makers of the EU. It turns out that policy
can contribute to boosting the level of entrepreneurship. While the internal market of the EU
expanded from 380 million people to 450 million after the enlargement, a lot of opportunities
for entrepreneurial initiatives have been created. In order to reach the Lisbon employment
rate target in 2010, the enlarged EU has to create some 22 million jobs. This seems to be a
difficult task, taking into account the EU employment growth of 0.4% in 2002, which is
equivalent to a net EU job creation of 0.6 million (European Commission, 2003a).
Nevertheless, promoting entrepreneurship is thought to be the method to create the jobs that
the EU needs. The new policies of the EU focus on the development of a friendly
environment for starting businesses. This means that administrative procedures and
regulations should not hinder the entrepreneurs to turn their ambitions into successful new
4
Information obtained from http://www.duyfken.com/voyagie/thevoyagie/voc-history.html.
-8-
ventures. Supportive frameworks will be developed as well. Business start-ups have

difficulties in getting the seed and early-stage finance they need, therefore risk sharing
between public and private sectors can help increase the availability of finance (European
Commission, 2003a).
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (Reynolds, Bygrave, & Autio, 2004) (hereafter GEM)
also reports on the current importance of entrepreneurship. The GEM is an annual survey on
the level of entrepreneurial activity among 40 countries. According to GEM, entrepreneurship
boosts investments, jobs, and growth through knowledge, innovation and business dynamics.
The GEM developed two important indexes: the Total Entrepreneurial Activity index and the
Firm Entrepreneurial Activity index. The former provides a measure of those active in
starting new businesses; the latter describes the firms that expect to have an innovative
impact on the market and growth. Appendix A (1 & 2) gives a graphical representation of
both indexes. The Netherlands is considered to belong to the group of the least
entrepreneurial countries (Reynolds et al., 2004).
Apart from the European Commission and the GEM (Reynolds et al., 2004), various authors
discussed the value of entrepreneurship to our society. When reviewing the literature on the
importance of entrepreneurship for countries, four consequences of entrepreneurial activity
should be highlighted:
 Entrepreneurial activity represents a major provider of new jobs. New firms appear to
provide 2% to 15% of the current jobs in the GEM countries (Reynolds et al., 2004).
This job creation is highly correlated with the level of entrepreneurial activity. A
thorough assessment of Appendix A (3 & 4) reveals that large differences exist
between the 40 countries. The indicators for entrepreneurial activity confirm these
differences (Reynolds et al., 2004). Fölster (1999) also confirms that increased self-
employment has a positive effect on overall employment.
 Entrepreneurial activity represents one of the major engines of economic growth.

Wennekers and Thurik (1999) investigated previous research in order to link
entrepreneurship with economic growth. The newness through start-ups and
innovations as well as the competition are the most relevant factors that link
-9-
entrepreneurship with economic growth. Carree, Van Stel, Thurik, and Wennekers
(2001) conclude that a long-term equilibrium relation exist between economic growth
and self-employment. The fact that entrepreneurial activity in the Netherlands is
mostly opportunity-based rather than necessity-based strengthens this relationship as
well. Opportunity-based entrepreneurship is a consequence of economic growth
development, since the main opportunity is an unmet demand for goods and services
(Bosma & Wennekers, 2002).
 Entrepreneurship is crucial to competitiveness. The European Commission (2003a)

states that entrepreneurial activities boost productivity, which increases the
competitive pressure. Therefore other firms are forced to react with innovations or
higher efficiency. Improving competitiveness of firms enhances the competitive
strengths of an economy as a whole. Thus, the competitiveness effect of
entrepreneurship is linked with economy growth.
 Entrepreneurship unlocks personal potential. Independence and self-realization are

often recognized to be important rewards for an entrepreneurial success. The
European Commission (2003a) states that self-fulfilment is an important consequence
of entrepreneurship. Becoming an entrepreneur stems not only from economic
necessity, some people just cannot find the satisfaction they need, in a regular job. The
job-satisfaction among entrepreneurs is even higher than among employees. In a
survey from the European Commission (2003a), 45% of the self-employed with
employees reported being satisfied with their job, compared to 27% among the
employed.
What is the concept and importance of entrepreneurship? Although entrepreneurship is still

considered a rather vague concept, fostering entrepreneurship is a topic with increasing
relevance to the European Union. Entrepreneurship is seen as an important tool to create the
new jobs that the European Union needs for the Lisbon employment rate target in 2010.
Moreover it increases economic growth, competitiveness, and unlocks personal potential.
Albeit the absence of a clear definition, it is the outcome that makes entrepreneurship
important.
-10-
3. Entrepreneurial intentions
For a better understanding of entrepreneurial behaviour this chapter provides some highlights
of previous research on entrepreneurial intentions, and will explain a recent model of
entrepreneurial intention in more detail. This chapter answers the following sub-question:
How can intentions explain the decision toward self-employment?
3.1 Previous research

Intention stems from intentionality, which is a state of mind directing a person’s attention
toward a specific goal in order to achieve something. The entrepreneurial process is a way of
thinking: a way of thinking that emphasizes opportunities over threats. Identifying
opportunities is clearly an intentional process, and, therefore, entrepreneurial intentions are
important for the explanation of entrepreneurship (Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000).
A variety of intention models have been developed in previous research. As indicated by

Peterman and Kennedy (2003) most models of entrepreneurial intention focus on the pre-
entrepreneurial event and make use of attitude and behaviour theory (Ajzen, 1991; see also
section 3.1.1), and self-efficacy and social learning theory (Bandura, 1997). More and more
theorists explain entrepreneurial intentions as a variable within larger psychological models:
e.g. Davidsson (1995) developed a so-called economic-psychological model of factors
influencing individuals’ intentions to start a new business. Autio et al. (1997) tested this
model with a group of university students. Intentional elements, such as expectations,
attention, and belief, appear to have a strong impact on our behaviour.
Various other models of entrepreneurial intent have been developed as well. Shapero (1975;
see also section 3.1.2) developed a model, tested by Krueger (1993), on the influence of
desirability and feasibility to a business start-up. Bird (1988) suggested a model of intentional
action, and more recently Lüthje and Franke (2003; see also section 3.2) proposed a structural
model of entrepreneurial intent. Though already in 1988, Bird (1988) developed a model of
‘Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas’ (Bird, p.444), in which she observed that most
intention-based models contain at least one of the following two dimensions:
-11-
 First of all, entrepreneurial intention models frequently contain elements of

rationality versus intuition (Bird, 1988). On the one hand entrepreneurs base their
decisions with rational, analytic, and cause-and-effect-oriented processes. The
development of a business plan, resource acquisition, and goal directed behaviour,
are examples of rational intentions. On the other hand, intuitive, holistic, and
contextual thinking influences entrepreneurs’ intentions and consecutive actions.
Entrepreneurs have a vision about their venture, a feeling that their venture will
succeed. The entrepreneurs’ vision is often based on this intuitive thinking.
 Second, intention models include a dimension of location. The internal locus is the
entrepreneurs’ intention and the external locus can be the market environment,
governmental regulations, etc. Bird and Jelinek (1988) also mention the difference
between the individuals with certain characteristics, abilities and perceptions, and the
context in which they find themselves. They stress that successful entrepreneurs
distinguish themselves from less successful ones by the interaction of their internal
and external locus.
While, Bird’s (1988) model of implementing entrepreneurial ideas has to be validated

empirically (Shook, Priem, & McGee, 2003), the next part explains two widely recognized
well-tested intention-based models (3.1.1 and 3.1.2), which are useful for the understanding
of entrepreneurial intention.
3.1.1 Theory of planned behaviour

Entrepreneurial intentions have a psychological nature. “Psychologists have proven that
intentions are the best predictors of any planned behaviour, particularly when the behaviour
is rare, hard to observe, or involves unpredictable time lags” (Krueger et al., 2000, p.411).
Since new business ventures are not developed in a day, entrepreneurship could be seen as a
type of planned behaviour. In order to understand the behaviour of people, Ajzen (1991)
developed the ‘Theory of Planned Behaviour’ (hereafter TPB). The TPB of Ajzen (1991, see
figure 1) helps to understand how we can change the behaviour of people. The central factor
in Ajzen’s (1991) TPB is the individuals’ intentions to perform a specific behaviour.
Intentions are assumed to be the motivation to certain behaviour. Thus, the stronger the
intention to perform certain behaviour, the more likely it will be performed.
-12-
Figure 1: Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour.
Ajzen (1991) explains three factors, which are crucial in changing the intention and the actual
behaviour. First of all, the belief and attitude somebody has toward the behaviour. A student
could for instance have a positive attitude toward entrepreneurship because one of the parents
is an entrepreneur. Other factors influencing the attitude in the entrepreneurial situation are
e.g. willingness to take risks, locus of control, need for independence, etc. (Krueger et al.,
2000). The second factor is a social factor termed subjective norm. This factor refers to the
social pressure from the environment on the individual to perform or not to perform the
behaviour; e.g. parents who encountered negative experiences with entrepreneurship, could
pressure their children not to start their own business. The third factor influencing intention is
the perceived behavioural control. This factor distinguishes the model from previous
behavioural models. The idea is that the actual behaviour does not only dependent on the
motivation or intention to perform certain behaviour, but also on the perception of the
difficulty of performing the behaviour. This perception can be developed through for instance
experience. Further research of the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) identifies antecedents of each of these
factors, which have been included in figure 1 as well (Krueger et al., 2000).
The TPB (Ajzen, 1991) has been tested on a wide range of human behaviour, not per se
entrepreneurial intentions. Autio, Keeley, Klofsten, Parker, and Hay (2001) mention how
Ajzen’s TPB helped to explain how advertising campaigns should be structured. Only
providing information does not change the behaviour of the receiver, the aim should be at
-13-
changing the attitudes and perception toward a product. Moreover the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) has
been used to explain e.g. voting decisions, problem drinking, and losing weight (Krueger et
al., 2000). Autio et al. (1997, p.3), go even further with stating that, “previous research
successfully tested the theory of planned behaviour.” It is stated that attitudes explain
approximately 50% of the variance in intentions, and intentions explain approximately 30%
of the variance in behaviour. Autio et al. (1997, p.3) suggest: “the greater the degree to which
behaviour can be controlled, the greater is the influence of intentions on the eventual
behaviour.” Thus, the importance of intentions in explaining entrepreneurial behaviour is
intensifying.
In the field of entrepreneurship the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) has been applied to various studies in
the last decades. Students were often chosen as a sample for the research on entrepreneurial
intentions (e.g. Crant, 1996; Autio et al., 2001; Lüthje & Franke, 2003). The TPB turned out
to be a starting-point for other models of entrepreneurial intention. Various variables related
to entrepreneurship, intention or behaviour, have been included in the model of TPB (Ajzen,
1991). Such as Davidson (1995): who added ‘entrepreneurial conviction’ to Ajzen’s (1991)
model. Entrepreneurial conviction proved to be a main determinant of entrepreneurial
intention as well.
3.1.2 Model of entrepreneurial event

The model above explains that entrepreneurial behaviour clearly is a consequence of
entrepreneurial intent. Other authors have recognized this as well. A model worthwhile
mentioning is Shapero’s (1975) model of ‘Entrepreneurial Event’. Shapero (1975) explains
how the intention to start a business, depends both on the ‘credibility’ of alternative
behaviours and the propensity to act upon opportunities. This ‘credibility’ requires that the
behaviour is both desirable and feasible. Shapero (1975) shows the importance of perceptions
in predicting the intention to act in a certain way. Furthermore Shapero (1975) stresses how
potential entrepreneurs are often discovered when a displacement in their environment
occurs.
Krueger (1993) tested Shapero’s (1975) thoughts and developed the model in figure 2.
Krueger (1993) concluded that the three variables: desirability, feasibility, and propensity to
act, explain approximately half of the variance in intentions toward entrepreneurship. The
perceived feasibility variable turned out to be the best predictor.
-14-
Specific Perceived
Desirabilities Desirability
Propensity
Intentions
to Act
Perceived Perceived
Self-Efficacy Feasibility
Figure 2: The Shapero-Krueger model from Krueger et al. (2000, p.418).
Krueger et al. (2000) stress the importance of understanding the theory of self-efficacy in the
entrepreneurial behaviour context. Self-efficacy theory explains what peoples’ beliefs about
their capabilities to produce effects are. A strong sense of self-efficacy strengthens human
accomplishments and personal well being in many ways (Bandura, 1997). Although Krueger
et al. (2000) state that entrepreneurship researchers often ignore the concept of self-efficacy;
it has proven to be an important predictor of behaviour. Both models of Shapero (1975) and
Ajzen (1991) confirm this relationship.
Before continuing with recent model of entrepreneurial intention, the efforts of Reitan (1996)
are worthwhile mentioning. Reitan (1996) also recognized that both the models of Shapero
(1975) and Ajzen (1991) are important for the understanding of how intentions influence self-
employment. Therefore a combination was tested on a group of Norwegians. Reitan (1996)
concludes that situational variables are more important for the short-term intentions than for
the long-term intentions. Thus, the university environment should have a direct impact on
students’ intentions towards self-employment. Situational factors were also used in the model
explained in the next section.
3.2 Latest model of entrepreneurial intention

Fostering entrepreneurship among university students has become an important topic among
entrepreneurship researchers. The university is an institution, which students pass on toward
working life. Right after graduation, students decide where their career will start. Autio et al.
-15-
(1997, p.4) state the following: “It is our impression that career preferences of university
students can be influenced, and that university students tend to gravitate toward fashionable
career options.” Therefore, the university should be part of the entrepreneurial intention
model. In the last decade other researchers (e.g. Crant, 1996; Lüthje & Franke, 2003) have
recognized the significant role of universities in the entrepreneurial intentions model as well.
Lüthje and Franke (2003, p. 136) go even further with stating that “some universities
successfully stimulate entrepreneurial activities”, and therefore they included the university
in their structural model of entrepreneurial intent. In figure 3, the university would fall under
the ‘perceived support’ factors, which are part of the contextual factors.
Perceived Perceived
barriers support
Contextual factors
Risk
taking
propensity
Attitude towards Entrepreneurial

entrepreneurship Intent
Internal Endogenous variables
locus
of control
Personality traits
Figure 3: The structural model of entrepreneurial intent from Lüthje and Franke (2003, p.138).
Figure 3 explains how entrepreneurial intent is a direct result of the attitude towards
entrepreneurship and the environmental or contextual barriers and support factors. The direct
attitudes-intentions link is widely recognized and often displayed in other intention-based
models (e.g. Ajzen, 1991). Since the personality traits variable was not the most important
focus of their study, and because personality traits have been researched extensively, Lüthje
and Franke (2003) decided to only integrate risk taking and internal locus of control into the
model. According to Lüthje and Franke (2003) these two personality traits have the largest
influence on intentions; other personality traits are ignored in their research.
Other researchers (e.g. Autio et al., 1997) also recognize the second direct relationship with
entrepreneurial intent, the contextual founding conditions. Lüthje and Franke (2003, p.138)
-16-
state that: “a student might be willing to found a company, regardless of his or her
comparatively bad attitude towards entrepreneurship, because he perceives the founding
conditions as very favourable.” This consequence is called the trigger-effect and can be
achieved through for instance a business incubator programs, entrepreneurship education and
research, or other academic entrepreneurship activities. Lüthje and Franke (2003) recommend
in their model the important role of universities in the future. University programs should
remove the perceived and the objective factors, which are adverse to starting a company.
Furthermore, universities and the government should positively influence the image of
entrepreneurship among students. Albeit, Lüthje and Franke (2003) also highlight that the
contextual founding conditions stimulate entrepreneurial intentions most among the students
with a high propensity to risk taking and high internal locus of control. Identifying these
students and exposing them to entrepreneurship programs seems the best way to stimulate the
entrepreneurial intentions at universities.
How can intentions explain the decision toward self-employment? Intentions are the best
predictors of entrepreneurship, though it is difficult to fully understand the reasons behind an
entrepreneurial intention. In the last couple of years various models of entrepreneurial
behaviour have been developed. The models discussed in this chapter explain: the influence
of attitude according to the theory of planned behaviour; the importance of self-efficacy in
predicting our behaviour; and the significant role of personality traits and contextual factors
as explained in a recent model of entrepreneurial intent. Intentions are the single best
predictor of any planned behaviour. Knowing all the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention,
and their role in predicting the entrepreneurial behaviour is hard and still needs further
research. At least the current researchers agree that intentions help to explain and model why
many entrepreneurs choose for self-employment.
-17-
4. Entrepreneurship education
This chapter highlights the development of entrepreneurship education and describes the
current level of entrepreneurship education in the Netherlands. Moreover the effectiveness of
teaching entrepreneurship is discussed. The chapter answers the following sub-question: How
does entrepreneurship education stimulate entrepreneurship?
4.1 The development of entrepreneurship education

Especially in the US, education in entrepreneurship has flourished in the last decade.
Nowadays, entrepreneurship courses are becoming a standard part of the curriculum of many
technical and business universities in the US. Until 1970, only a few universities offered
entrepreneurship courses.
The Harvard Business School offered the first entrepreneurship-related course, Management
of New Enterprises, in 1945. According to the grapevine, this course was taught to boost the
economy after World War II. Although the course grew in popularity, entrepreneurship
education did not further expand in the 1950s. The growth of large corporations and the
decline in small businesses hindered this development (McIntyre & Roche, 1999).
Though after 1958, when Prof. Baumann of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
introduced what may be the first ‘real’ course in entrepreneurship in the US, further
entrepreneurship education started to spread around the world (Winslow, Solomon &
Tarabishy, 1999). Following the increase in entrepreneurship and small business management
courses in these years, researchers recognized the rapid growth of business ventures in the
areas surrounding the universities. McIntyre and Roche (1999) report that in the late 1960s,
the number of corporations per capita (a measure of entrepreneurial activity) stopped falling
and began to rise again. This fact proofed the importance of entrepreneurship education and
resulted in an even larger growth in course offerings (Vesper & McMullan, 1988).
In the 1970s, entrepreneurship education got another boost because economist had proven the
positive impact of small business development on job creation (McIntyre & Roche, 1999).
This was followed by the invention of microcomputers in the 1980s, which helped both
entrepreneurs and the education system. On the one hand, information technology reduces
-18-
economies of scale, and consequently enables small firms to compete against larger ones.
While at the same time entrepreneurs developed companies related to the computer industry,
such as software companies. On the other hand, computers were of great use to the education
system. Entrepreneurship courses could for instance use business simulation software, which
confronted students with business start-up dilemmas.
In 1970, only sixteen colleges and/or universities offered entrepreneurship courses in the US. 5
Today, entrepreneurship is taught at over 1500 colleges and universities in the US. 6 The
European figure is lower, despite the fact that it is improving rapidly (Reynolds et al., 2004).
Entrepreneurship education even starts to spread to non-business educational disciplines,
such as engineering and life sciences. The next part explains more about how to describe
current entrepreneurship education.
4.1.1 Current entrepreneurship education defined

The following statement from McIntyre and Roche (1999, p.7) is a good example of the
difficulty of teaching entrepreneurship to students.
“Entrepreneurship education is at the crossroads of two worlds and two sets of forces: How
can universities, inherently hierarchical knowledge systems, produce real entrepreneurs,
susceptible of pulling an economy with their innovation, their dynamism and their
flexibility?”
The above states that educational systems and entrepreneurship have aspects, which are
confronting; combining both is therefore a difficult task. Present entrepreneurship education
aims to prepare students to become entrepreneurs. The Dutch government has developed a
number of strategies to achieve this (Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2000):
 Training students to develop an independent attitude.

 Allowing them to become acquainted with the skills and know-how relevant for
becoming a successful entrepreneur.
5
Information obtained from http://eweb.slu.edu/chronology.htm.
6
Data retrieved from The Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership; the largest US-based organisation
focused solely on developing, supporting and encouraging entrepreneurship education and research
http://www.emkf.org/pages/188.cfm.
-19-
 Familiarizing students with entrepreneurship and erasing the relatively poor image of
entrepreneurship as a profession in its own right.
 Promoting an entrepreneurial culture at educational institutions.
The first goal, developing a students’ independent attitude, is probably the most difficult and
important goal. The focus is on the talents, capacities or characteristics of students, among
which showing initiative, creativity, perseverance, independence, goal setting, opportunity
recognition, and risk taking are vital. Whether all these characteristics can be learned through
education is still a debatable subject (see also section 4.2), nevertheless educational
institutions can promote the characteristics associated with successful entrepreneurship.
Second, getting acquainted with the skills and knowledge needed to start your own company
is at the moment the most recognized form of entrepreneurship education. Students are for
instance taught about financial administration, market analyses, marketing, networking and
how to write their own (fictional) business plan.
The third strategy needs some clarification. In the Netherlands, entrepreneurship is still not
accepted as a logical career choice after graduation. Bosma and Wennekers (2002) report that
although 75% of the Dutch adult population indicates that the fear of failure would not
prevent them from setting up a business, respect from society for those involved in new firm
start-ups is significantly lower in the Netherlands, compared to other the other EU countries
and the US (Bosma & Wennekers, 2002). The Dutch population is rather non-supportive
when it comes to giving a failed entrepreneur a second chance, which is part of the negative
image entrepreneurship still has. Although, the appreciation and recognition of entrepreneurs
in the Netherlands has greatly improved compared to the 1970s (Bosma & Wennekers, 2002),
further development is still needed.
Finally, educational institutions are trying to develop an entrepreneurial culture, an

atmosphere promoting entrepreneurial attitudes and skills, which stimulates innovation and
creativeness. This strategy is strongly dependent on the successful implementation of the first
three strategies and the willingness and ability of the teaching staff (Ministry of Economic
Affairs, 2000).
-20-
Just like the strategies, entrepreneurship education in practice can take many forms.
Previously, this chapter only mentioned small business management and general
entrepreneurship courses as a form of entrepreneurship education. The small business
management courses focus on how to successfully manage a business when expecting normal
sales, profits, and growth. Entrepreneurship courses go further, and explain how to gain rapid
growth, immediate and high profits, and a possible quick sell-out with a large capital gain
(Winslow et al., 1999). Yet, current entrepreneurship education is even more extensive. Apart
from other business disciplines that have been integrated in entrepreneurship programs (e.g.
marketing, finance), entrepreneurship has been implemented in non-business majors, such as
engineering and life sciences. Furthermore basic entrepreneurship courses have been
combined with an endless list of activities varying from: business plan competitions or
presentations for a group of venture capitalist; entrepreneurship centers to inform and advise
business start-ups; incubators for the stimulation of entrepreneurship with an extended
external network; possible business start-up locations; discussions with and presentations
from entrepreneurs; to chairs for entrepreneurship. All these initiatives are regarded as a
driving force for producing future entrepreneurs. The next part will discuss some best
practices of entrepreneurship education in the Netherlands.
4.1.2 Dutch initiatives

According to a recent study from Bosma, Stigter, and Wennekers (2001), Dutch education
does not provide an adequate preparation for entrepreneurs, although Dutch colleges and
universities offer more entrepreneurial possibilities than primary and secondary schools. The
study reveals that 50% of the public opinion, which consisted of experts in the field of
education, did not agree with the following statement: Dutch colleges and universities have
enough courses and programs on entrepreneurship (Bosma et al., 2001). This lack of
entrepreneurship education in the Netherlands is still considered to be a major weakness of
the Dutch entrepreneurial environment (Bosma & Wennekers, 2002).
From the 16 universities in the Netherlands, 13 universities participate in some kind of

entrepreneurship education. Most of these universities have introduced courses to transfer
entrepreneurial skills, knowledge and the importance of entrepreneurship to students; 6
universities have also developed a so-called chair for entrepreneurship, a professor who
stimulates entrepreneurship throughout the university. In addition, the Dutch government has
initiated financial support programs, for the improvement of entrepreneurship education in
-21-
the Netherlands. Various colleges and universities received funds for their entrepreneurial
projects or programs.7 A number of these projects are so-called best practices; the next part
will mention two of these projects.
 The University of Twente is considered to be the most entrepreneurial university in

the Netherlands. They developed the Temporary Entrepreneurial Position (hereafter
TOP) program, which offers students and recent graduates the opportunity to develop
their ideas. TOP offers a variety of facilities to potential entrepreneurs without charge
(Bosma et al., 2001). The idea is to keep the start-up and operating costs as low as
possible to survive the first crucial year. The potential entrepreneurs can for instance
access an interest-free loan of 15000 Euros, which has to be paid back within 5 years.
Furthermore, the program offers extensive advice and support during the first start-up
year.
 The Erasmus University of Rotterdam and the Technical University of Delft have
developed similar programs, Area 010 and Area 015, respectively. The two business
incubator programs (named after their phone codes) focus solely on the development
of start-up companies. Apart from offering physical facilities, such as fully furnished
offices, the program focuses on knowledge sharing and networking. 8 After 100 days
there should be a complete business plan and a solid base for starting up the company.
4.2. Effectiveness of entrepreneurship education: The ongoing debate

There are numerous of fascinating stories about successful entrepreneurs who received
insufficient grades during their academic careers or even dropped out of school to start their
own business.
“Yale University undergraduate Frederick W. Smith wrote a term paper about an air-cargo
company in the 1960s. Smith viewed the passenger route systems used by most airfreight
shippers as economically insufficient. Smith’s air-cargo company would be specifically
designed for shipping time-sensitive shipments such as medicines or electronics. Whether it
was the novelty of the idea, the fact that is was against the professor’s theories, or the fact
7
Http://www.lerenondernemen.nl shows that Dutch educational institutions have received almost 5 million
Euros in funds for the development of entrepreneurship education.
8
Information retrieved from http://www.area010.nl.
-22-
that it was written in one night and was turned in late, the first public display of Smith’s
grand idea earned him a C. Today, his idea has grown into the largest express transportation
company in the world: Federal Express (Hisrich & Peters, 2002, p.165).”
The above anecdote is a real-life example about an entrepreneur who was not the best student
in class. It supports the opponents of the controversial debate on the validity of
entrepreneurship education. The debate questions how entrepreneurship should be taught, and
whether it can be taught at all.
The opponents argue that entrepreneurship education is unimportant, since entrepreneurs are
born and not made (McIntyre & Roche, 1999). It is possible to teach students various
business subjects, but teaching entrepreneurship is different; successful business ventures
start with a good idea, motivation, and of course hard work. Moreover the opponents argue
that entrepreneurs have a ‘fire in the belly that cannot be taught’ (McIntyre & Roche, 1999).
This fire is part of the personality of the entrepreneur; the personality, as mentioned in
chapter 3, has a vital influence on the intention towards self-employment.
Although personality traits are difficult to influence, the vast majority of knowledge required
by entrepreneurs can be taught. The impact of entrepreneurship education on the
successfulness of new ventures can therefore not be ignored (Solomon, Duffy, & Tarabishy,
2002). Entrepreneurship programs have flourished in the last couple of decades, and the
effectiveness has been proven with the increasing amount of business start-ups and the
positive effects on economic growth and development. In addition Gorman, Hanlon, and
King (1997, p.63) concluded after ten years of literature review that: “most of the empirical
studies surveyed indicated that entrepreneurship can be taught, or can at least be encouraged
by entrepreneurship education.”
Still, public opinion sometimes disagrees with the statement that entrepreneurship can be
taught. A recent research by ‘Eurobarometer’ among the member states of the EU revealed
that 67% of Europeans do not believe that education systems develop a state of mind that
encourages them to set up a business (European Commission, 2004).9 It might be possible to
teach students the knowledge needed for a new business venture, though entrepreneurship
9
Twice a year Eurobarometer surveys the public opinion of all member states of the EU on behalf of the
European Commission. Information retrieved from http://www.gesis.org/en/data_service/eurobarometer/.
-23-
education should go beyond the material taught. Peterman and Kennedy (2003) agree that at
this moment the impact of entrepreneurship education, as distinct from general education, on
attitudes and intentions of entrepreneurship are still not clear enough.
This current debate on the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education is important for

answering the sub-question: How does entrepreneurship education stimulate entrepre-
neurship? Entrepreneurship courses and activities, how effective they may be, do stimulate
entrepreneurship (Gorman, Hanlon, & King, 1997). Present entrepreneurship education is
comprehensive and has spread to other non-business disciplines. Whether every aspect of
entrepreneurship can be taught is not clear yet, further research should clarify this. Still, the
Ministry of Economic Affairs (2000) states that in recent years the number of new Dutch
firms started by highly educated entrepreneurs have increased significantly. This fact could be
seen as an encouragement to further develop entrepreneurship education in the Netherlands.
-24-
5. Research methods
This chapter gives an overview of the research methodology. The first section starts with the
research model. Followed by, the sample and procedure, and the hypotheses with the
dependent and independent variables explanation. The questionnaire development and
analysis concludes this chapter.
5.1 Research model

The framework presented in figure 4 brings Theory of Planned Behaviour, participation in
entrepreneurship education, and two personality traits together in one model. The eight
relationships identified in this model will be formulated into hypotheses (see section 5.3).
Figure 4: Research model.
The major part of the research model is build up with the Theory of Planned Behaviour
(Ajzen, 1991). As explained in chapter three, past research identifies the TPB as an important
model to explain the intentions and behaviour of people. Furthermore, the TPB model
integrated the concept of attitude. Attitude constructs have proven to explain an important
part of the variance in widely varied behaviour and have been included in most recent
entrepreneurial intentions frameworks (Autio et al., 2001; Lüthje & Franke, 2003). Another
-25-
direct relationship with entrepreneurial intentions has been included in the model as well. The
fact whether students participated in entrepreneurship education will reveal some clear
differences among the other constructs.
The preceding chapters explained the extensive past research on the factors influencing
students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Most of these factors can be divided into internal and
external factors. The discussion of internal factors that might influence students’ career
choices mainly focus on identifying stable personality traits (Lüthje & Franke, 2004). Only
students’ proactive personality and risk taking propensity are used in this research model.
The external factors are often thought to explain why certain personality traits and
background characteristics do or do not lead to an entrepreneurial career (Lüthje & Franke,
2004). In this study the main focus lies on the influence of the students’ environment
measured by the subjective norm and the university environment measured by the
participation in entrepreneurship education.
Please note that two constructs researched with the questionnaire, are not displayed in this
research model. The self-employed parents and the attitude towards entrepreneurship
education construct showed insignificant relations. See also the results section 6.2 for a
further explanation for this omission.
5.2 Sample and procedure

The study explores the entrepreneurial intentions of Universiteit Maastricht (hereafter UM)
students. The sample will only contain students from the Faculty of Economics and Business
Administration (hereafter FDEWB). The FDEWB is the only faculty of the UM that offers
education in entrepreneurship; consequently only these students are included in the sample.
Entrepreneurship education in this research is defined as any course from the FDEWB or
from Hoogstarters Maastricht10, which has an entrepreneurial focus. At this moment the
curriculum contains only one entrepreneurship course; Advanced Business Innovation aims to
study the innovative behaviour in entrepreneurial firms. Previous curricula also contained the
course Small Business Management and Accounting; the Organisation & Strategy and the
Finance department offered this course together on the development of skills needed in the
10
Hoogstarters is an institution directly linked to the University of Maastricht, which supports entrepreneurs
during the start-up phase of their innovative or high-value technological companies.
-26-
small business environment. The Masterclass Entrepreneurship & Businessplanning from

Hoogstarters Maastricht is also considered as an entrepreneurship course from the FDEWB.
Although the two FDEWB courses are so-called ‘Master’ courses; all UM (Bachelor and
Master) students are allowed to participate in the entrepreneurship course from Hoogstarters
Maastricht. Therefore all FDEWB students were allowed to participate in this research.
With the use of an online questionnaire, differences in entrepreneurial intentions among

students are discovered (questionnaire development is further discussed in section 5.4). In
order to develop a comparative research, this study focuses on two research groups:
 FDEWB Students who participated in UM entrepreneurship education

 FDEWB Students who did not participate in UM entrepreneurship education
Since entrepreneurship education at the UM is still rather limited, the second research group
will be larger than the first.
5.3 Hypotheses
The study presented above is based on other entrepreneurial intentions models from previous
research (Autio et al., 2001; Crant, 1996; Lüthje & Franke, 2003). The ultimate dependent
variable will be the entrepreneurial intentions of students. Lüthje and Franke (2003) show,
that it is more interesting to measure the antecedents of entrepreneurship (intentions), than the
actual number of graduate start-up companies (behaviour). More information can be retrieved
from current students who consider an entrepreneurial career, than from graduates who
already have their company up and running. Since the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) regards the actual
behaviour as a direct consequence from the intentions toward the behaviour, the following
hypotheses are formulated:
 H1: Attitude towards entrepreneurship as a career option is positively related to

entrepreneurial intentions. (Autio et al., 2001)
 H2: Subjective norm is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions. (Autio et al.,
2001)
 H3: Perceived behavioural control exercises the strongest influence on entrepreneurial
intentions. (Autio et al., 2001)
-27-
 H4: Student participation in entrepreneurship education is positively related to

entrepreneurial intentions. (Own thoughts)
The TPB hypotheses have been obtained from Autio et al. (2001). Hypothesis 4 has been
added to the TPB and states a direct relationship between participation in entrepreneurship
education and entrepreneurial intentions. In order to include the personality characteristics,
the following hypotheses are formulated:
 H5: Students with a proactive personality are more likely to have a positive attitude
towards entrepreneurship. (Crant, 1996)
 H6: Students with a high risk taking propensity are more likely to have a positive
attitude towards entrepreneurship. (Autio et al., 2001)
 H7: Students with a proactive personality are more likely to participate in
entrepreneurship education. (Own thoughts)
 H8: Students with a high risk taking propensity are more likely to participate in
entrepreneurship education. (Own thoughts)
5.3.1 Dependent variables

The research model contains three dependent variables. Entrepreneurial Intentions is de
ultimate dependent variable, and the main construct of the TPB (Ajzen, 1991). Apart from the
three TPB constructs, one extra direct relationship with entrepreneurial intentions has been
added in this research.
The attitude towards entrepreneurship variable is important for the ultimate dependable
variable, entrepreneurial intentions. The attitudes are “the expectations and beliefs about
personal impacts of outcomes resulting from certain behaviour” (Autio et al., 1997, p.416-
417), in this case, the start-up of a company. The research will explore whether personality
traits have an impact on these attitudes.
The last dependent variable is the participation in entrepreneurship education. Both the
entrepreneurship courses from the FDEWB and Hoogstarters-Maastricht are regarded as UM
entrepreneurship education. For validity reasons it is checked whether students have
participated in entrepreneurship education from universities other than the UM. This could
-28-
influence their attitudes towards entrepreneurship, if they did not participate in UM

entrepreneurship education. The research will explore whether personality traits influence the
participation decision.
5.3.2 Independent variables

The research model integrates two personality traits: proactive personality and risk taking
propensity. Students who possess proactive personalities are according to Kickul and Gundry
(2002, p.87): “able to take action to influence environmental change.” Which means that
these personalities can: scan for opportunities, show initiative, take action, and reach their
goals by bringing about changes. The proactive personality questions were obtained from
Kickul and Gundry (2002) and were already successfully tested by Crant (1996).
The most common personality traits associated with entrepreneurial intentions is the risk
taking propensity or willingness to take risks. Especially for the Netherlands this is an
interesting personality trait. Bosma et al. (2001) state that although the Netherlands has a
positive attitude towards entrepreneurship; it still holds a high risk aversion and high fear of
failure compared to other European countries.
The final two independent variables in this research are perceived behavioural control and
subjective norm. Perceived behavioural control from the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) is regarded as the
most important single influence on intentions. Subjective norm, the perceived social pressure
from the study environment of the student, completes the TPB (Ajzen, 1991).
5.4 Instrument
The questionnaire was carefully designed with previous entrepreneurial intentions
questionnaires. Appendix B displays the complete questionnaire. Appendix C provides an
overview of the questions per variable, and if applicable mentions their source. Since various
questions were already tested by previous authors (Lüthje & Franke, 2003; Krueger et al.,
2000; Carayannis, Evans, & Hanson, 2003; Autio et al. 2001; Francis et al., 2004; Kickul &
Gundry, 2002; Hisrich & Peters, 2002; Hartog, Ferrer-i-Carbonell, & Jonker, 2000), their
research could be seen as pre-test information. For instance Lüthje and Franke (2003) use an
extensive validation process (e.g. preliminary study, validity and reliability criterion) for each
construct of their questionnaire. Lüthje and Franke (2003) conclude after their validation
-29-
process that a five-point scale for question 32 (Do you plan to be self-employed in the
foreseeable future after you graduate from the UM?) would result in a skewed distribution. It
turned out that most students choose the middle scale-point, which leaves the ‘quite probable’
and the ‘very probable’ ignored. The four-point-scale question resulted in a higher validity
measurement of entrepreneurial intentions. Besides the extensive amount of pre-test/post-test
information from previous research, two fellow students filled out the questionnaire as a pre-
test. This resulted in some changes in question order; and question 33 and 34 (Estimate the
probability (0-100%) you will start your own business in the next year / 5 years?) changed to
a 0-100% open-ended question instead of five-point-scale question with already pre-set
percentage groups. This enables students to have a more careful thought about this
probability. The questionnaire was hosted on a student research website; 11 the link was
distributed via email and ELEUM. Personal study friends filled out the questionnaire and
were asked to forward the questionnaire to other FDEWB students. Furthermore participants
of the Hoogstarters course as well as students from my supervisor’s course (Organizational
Assessment / Business Research Design) were approached via email and ELEUM.
5.5 Analysis
Since Entrepreneurial Intentions is de ultimate dependent variable, the measurement should
be done carefully. Past research has measured entrepreneurial intentions in different ways.
Krueger (1993) used a yes/no statement: ‘Do you think you will ever start a business?’ Since
this is not really exact, this research combines two measures of entrepreneurial intent. Apart
from the above discussed four-point-scale question (32) from Lüthje and Franke (2003), two
percentage-scale questions (33 and 34) were adapted from Krueger et al (2000): ‘Estimate the
probability (0-100%) you will start your own business in the next year / 5 years?’ The results
of this question were divided into 4 percentage groups in order to be combined with the other
entrepreneurial intentions question. Appendix C contains a excel table with a measurement
overview of the other constructs.
11
http://www.studentenonderzoek.com
-30-
6. Results
The research results are discussed in this chapter. The analyses of the hypotheses are
explained in various sections. The chapter ends with the discussion of the limitations attached
to this research.
6.1 Response and missing values

A total of 125 respondents filled out the online questionnaire form, of which six could be
deleted right away due to too many missing values. Another six respondents answered ‘no’ at
question 40; they are not studying at the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
These respondents were excluded from the research as well. Furthermore, 4 respondents were
removed because they participated in entrepreneurship education from a university other than
the UM. All other 109 questionnaires were filled out correctly, no further missing or incorrect
values were discovered.
6.2 Omitted variables

Based on the descriptive statistics and correlation matrix in Appendix (D, 1), the attitude
towards entrepreneurship education and self-employed parents constructs were removed from
the research design. For these two constructs the descriptive statistics showed almost no
differences among the participants and non-participants in entrepreneurship education. The
correlations matrix shows only one significant (p<0.05) correlation for both the constructs.
The attitude towards entrepreneurship education construct questions probable did not focus
enough on entrepreneurship education as distinct from general education. They are more
focussed on the university environment, which both participants and non-participants in
entrepreneurship education perceive similar. Although the self-employed parents construct is
correlated with entrepreneurial intentions, the construct does not have any significant
relationship with attitude towards entrepreneurship and the participation in entrepreneurship
education constructs. In the regressions, both attitude towards entrepreneurship education and
self-employed parents showed only insignificant relations, and were therefore removed from
the final research model as displayed in section 5.1.
-31-
6.3 Descriptives, reliability, and exploratory analysis

With the use of the Statistics program SPSS 12.01 for windows the results are analysed. Prior
to testing the hypotheses, this section reveals more information on the collected data.
6.3.1 Descriptive statistics

Figure 5 shows the descriptive statistics divided between participants and non-participants of
UM entrepreneurship education. The total descriptive statistics are shown as well.
95% Confidence Interval for

Mean
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
age No participation entre. edu. 62 3,00 ,789 ,100 2,80 3,20
Participation entre. edu. 47 3,28 ,949 ,138 3,00 3,56
Total 109 3,12 ,868 ,083 2,95 3,28
gender No participation entre. edu. 62 ,56 ,500 ,063 ,44 ,69
Participation entre. edu. 47 ,74 ,441 ,064 ,62 ,87
Total 109 ,64 ,482 ,046 ,55 ,73
entreint No participation entre. edu. 62 1,6129 ,39206 ,04979 1,5133 1,7125
Total 109 1,9572 ,76322 ,07310 1,8123 2,1021
attentre No participation entre. edu. 62 4,7151 ,89136 ,11320 4,4887 4,9414
Total 109 4,9618 ,91079 ,08724 4,7889 5,1347
proper No participation entre. edu. 62 4,8710 ,80823 ,10265 4,6657 5,0762
Total 109 5,0661 ,79024 ,07569 4,9160 5,2161
risk No participation entre. edu. 62 3,8656 ,74281 ,09434 3,6770 4,0542
Total 109 4,0306 ,69469 ,06654 3,8987 4,1625
pbc No participation entre. edu. 62 4,0403 ,98990 ,12572 3,7889 4,2917
Participation entre. edu. 47 4,8936 1,00508 ,14661 4,5985 5,1887
Total 109 4,4083 1,07887 ,10334 4,2034 4,6131
subnorm No participation entre. edu. 62 5,5242 ,92960 ,11806 5,2881 5,7603
Total 109 5,6606 ,89204 ,08544 5,4912 5,8299
Figure 5: Descriptive statistics based on participation in entrepreneurship education.
The descriptive statistics show already some clear differences between the two groups. For
instance for the participants group, the entrepreneurial intentions variable has a mean of 2,4
compared to a mean of 1,6 for the non-participants in entrepreneurship education. A clear
difference can also be recognized in the perceived behavioural control variable. As indicated
in section 3.1.1, perceived behavioural control is the most important indicator for
entrepreneurial intentions. Participants in entrepreneurship education show a higher perceived
behavioural control, than their non-participants counterparts. Figure 6 shows that FDEWB
students seldom undertake entrepreneurial efforts in the course of their study, since only 4,6%
of the students (5 in total) indicated to be currently self-employed. This finding may be
-32-
explained due to the difficulty of attracting start-up capital in the Netherlands without a
degree. It is interesting to note that these 5 students all participated in entrepreneurship
education from the FDEWB, as well as the entrepreneurship course from Hoogstarters
Maastricht.
Figure 6: Current and future self-employment graphs.
More significant than the entrepreneurial activities during the study, is the intention to start a
company after graduation. More than half of the respondents indicate that they will ‘quite
probably’ (44,04%) or ‘very probably’ (11,93%) start their own company after their
graduation. These figures are more promising than the current number of self-employed
students.
6.3.2 Cronbach’s alpha’s

The Descriptives from section 6.3.1 are calculated after the reliability check. The consistency
of the variables is checked with the Cronbach’s alpha statistics. Cronbach’s alpha is an index
of reliability associated with the variation accounted for by the true score of the “underlying
construct” (Nunnaly, 1978). Cronbach’s Alpha’s can only be measured for variables which
have more than one measurement question. For the participation in entrepreneurship
education (dummy) variable, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability test is therefore not applicable.
The other variables needed a reliability statistics check since they contained several
measurement questions. Appendix D (2) displays the Cronbach’s alpha statistics for the
ultimate dependent variable, entrepreneurial intentions. The two percentage questions
(question 2 and 3) have been divided into 4 groups (0-25; 26-50; 51-75; 76-100), in order to
be combined with the other entrepreneurial intentions questions. The three questions
combined, resulted in the highest Cronbach’s alpha (0.848).
-33-
Figure 7 displays the Cronbach’s alpha’s before and after adjustments. For scales which are
used as research tools to compare groups, Cronbach’s alpha may be less than in the clinical
situation, when the value of the scale for an individual is of interest. The Cronbach’s alpha’s
in the initial situation vary from 0.402 to 0.848, of which 4 are 0.7 or higher. McKinley,
Manku-Scott, Hastings, French, and Baker (1997) state that for comparing groups,
Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.7 to 0.8 are regarded as satisfactory, though lower thresholds
are sometimes used in literature. Nunnaly (1978) has stated that 0.5 is a sufficient value,
while 0.7 is a more reasonable Cronbach’s alpha.
Original Adjusted
Construct Cronbach's Alpha N items Cronbach's Alpha N items

Entrepreneurial Intentions 0.848 3
Attitude towards entrepreneurship 0.722 6
Perceived behavioral control 0.764 4
Subjective norm 0.635 3 0.763 2
Risk taking propensity 0.402 5 0.542 3
Proactive personality 0.776 5
Figure 7: Cronbach’s alpha before and after adjustment.
The adjusted Cronbach’s alpha’s used in this research are also shown in Figure 7. Two
variables constructs were changed. The first question of the ‘subjective norm’ construct,
question 14 (My family and friends support me to start my own business) from the
questionnaire, was deleted. The Cronbach’s alpha increased from 0.635α to 0.763α.
Subjective norm is therefore measured solely with the two questions from Autio et al. (2001).
The ‘risk taking propensity’ construct had the lowest Cronbach’s alpha (0.402). When
looking at their individual correlations (Appendix D, 3), question 2, 3, and 4 turned out the
have the highest internal correlations. Deleting question 1 and 5 (I can take risks with my
money, such as investing in stocks; Among 10 people, 100 Euros are disposed of by a lottery.
What is the most that you would be willing to pay for a ticket in this lottery?), resulted in a
0.542α. Although this Cronbach’s alpha does not reach the acceptability level of 0.7, it does
satisfy the lower threshold often used in literature (Nunnaly, 1978). In the final regressions,
the adjusted risk taking construct showed higher significance levels than the original risk
taking construct.
-34-
6.3.3 Correlations and cross-tabulation

In order to identify relationships among the data, a correlation analysis is performed. The
Pearson correlation test is the most widely used bivariate test. The correlation test results are
shown in figure 8.
age gender entreint attentre part proper risk pbc subnorm

age Pearson Correlation 1 ,214* ,292** ,062 ,158 ,053 ,158 ,130 ,172
Sig. (2-tailed) ,026 ,002 ,519 ,100 ,583 ,102 ,177 ,073
gender Pearson Correlation ,214* 1 ,185 ,324** ,186 ,287** ,079 ,319** ,124
Sig. (2-tailed) ,026 ,055 ,001 ,053 ,003 ,413 ,001 ,198
entreint Pearson Correlation ,292** ,185 1 ,578** ,520** ,505** ,301** ,609** ,357**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,002 ,055 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000
attentre Pearson Correlation ,062 ,324** ,578** 1 ,313** ,645** ,249** ,641** ,414**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,519 ,001 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,009 ,000 ,000
part Pearson Correlation ,158 ,186 ,520** ,313** 1 ,285** ,274** ,394** ,176
Sig. (2-tailed) ,100 ,053 ,000 ,001 ,003 ,004 ,000 ,067
proper Pearson Correlation ,053 ,287** ,505** ,645** ,285** 1 ,352** ,678** ,430**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,583 ,003 ,000 ,000 ,003 ,000 ,000 ,000
risk Pearson Correlation ,158 ,079 ,301** ,249** ,274** ,352** 1 ,264** ,298**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,102 ,413 ,001 ,009 ,004 ,000 ,005 ,002
pbc Pearson Correlation ,130 ,319** ,609** ,641** ,394** ,678** ,264** 1 ,261**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,177 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,005 ,006
subnorm Pearson Correlation ,172 ,124 ,357** ,414** ,176 ,430** ,298** ,261** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) ,073 ,198 ,000 ,000 ,067 ,000 ,002 ,006
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Figure 8: Pearson correlation statistics.
At a 0.01 significance level a number of strong relationships can be identified. First of all,
‘attitude towards entrepreneurship’ (0.578), ‘perceived behavioural control’ (0.609), and
‘subjective norm’ (0.357) have a significant correlation with ‘entrepreneurial intentions.’
These four constructs of the theory of planned behaviour also seem to be applicable to this
research. Though, also their internal correlations are recognized as strong. A particular strong
correlation is recognized between ‘attitude towards entrepreneurship’ and ‘perceived
behavioural control (0.641). The students’ entrepreneurial intentions study of Autio et al.
(2001) report on such a strong relationship as well. The high correlation (0.641) might predict
a certain degree of multicollinearity. Section 6.4.1 reveals more information about this
possibility.
It is interesting to note that the two strongest relationships both contain the ‘proactive
personality’ construct. With ‘attitude towards entrepreneurship’ (0.645) and ‘perceived
behavioural control’ (0.678) a strong positive correlation is identified. Crant (1996) has once
revealed a strong correlation with entrepreneurial intentions (0.48), though the high
correlations revealed in this study cannot be discovered in previous literature.
-35-
Female Male Total

No participation in Count 27 35 62
entrepreneurship education % within gender 69,2% 50,0% 56,9%
Participation in Count 12 35 47
entrepreneurship education % within gender
30,8% 50,0% 43,1%
Total Count 39 70 109

% within gender 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Figure 9: Participation * Gender cross-tabulation.
Apart from the correlations statistics, figure 9 displays a cross tabulation table. This cross-
tabulation describes a clear difference between male and female students. Only 30,8% of the
female students participated in entrepreneurship education, compared to an even distribution
among the male students. The male/female difference can also be recognized among the
entrepreneurial intentions of students, again the female (1,7) students show lower
entrepreneurial intentions mean than their male (2,1) counterparts.
6.4 Regression and hypotheses testing

For the final analysis of the proposed research model, a Moderated Structural Equation
Modelling (hereafter MSEM) tool would be most appropriate. Using MSEM, all relationships
in a complex research model can be determined at the same time. However, the number of
questionnaires received inhibited its use. A MSEM sample should have at least 200
respondents, and preferably more than a 1000 respondents (Cortina, Chen and Dunlap, 2001).
Therefore multiple regressions were used for the statistical analysis. The base model from
section 5.1 was divided in three sub-models to test all the hypotheses.
6.4.1 Hypotheses 1 to 4
The first model explains the antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions and incorporates the
TPB (Ajzen, 1991). Figure 10 displays the model and the accompanying regression statistics.
-36-
Model Summary
Adjusted Std. Error of

Model R R Square R Square the Estimate
1 ,725a ,525 ,507 ,53590
a. Predictors: (Constant), part, subnorm, pbc, attentre
ANOVAb
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 33,044 4 8,261 28,765 ,000a
Residual 29,868 104 ,287
Total 62,911 108
a. Predictors: (Constant), part, subnorm, pbc, attentre
b. Dependent Variable: entreint
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) -,784 ,377 -2,080 ,040
attentre ,196 ,078 ,234 2,498 ,014
subnorm ,108 ,064 ,127 1,703 ,092
pbc ,217 ,065 ,306 3,351 ,001
part ,467 ,113 ,305 4,123 ,000
a. Dependent Variable: entreint
Figure 10: Model one with entrepreneurial intentions as dependent variable.
The regression output in figure 10, generally support hypotheses 1 and 4. Attitude towards
entrepreneurship education (β=0.234) and participation in entrepreneurship education
(β=0.305) both positively influence entrepreneurial intentions. Hypotheses 1 can be accepted
at a p<0.05 significance level, and hypothesis 4 can be accepted at a p<0.01 significance
-37-
level. The regression table shows only a weak positive relationship of subjective norm
(β=0.127), providing therefore a weak support for hypothesis 2. At a p<0.05 significance
level, hypothesis 2 is rejected. Autio et al. (2001) also recognized this weak relationship of
subjective norm in their research.
 H1: Attitude towards entrepreneurship as a career option is positively related to

entrepreneurial intentions. Accepted
 H2: Subjective norm is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions. Rejected
 H4: Student participation in entrepreneurship education is positively related to
entrepreneurial intentions. Accepted
Figure 11: Regression models based on entrepreneurial intentions.
Hypothesis 3 needs some more attention. According to figure 11, perceived behavioural
control (β=0.306) has the largest influence on entrepreneurial intentions; though the
difference with the attitude towards entrepreneurship construct is small (the participation in
entrepreneurship dummy is ignored). Since section 6.3.3 also reported a high correlation
between these two constructs, another test is needed to determine whether perceived
behavioural control has the ‘strongest’ influence as stated by hypothesis 3. Therefore the F-
test checks whether to two constructs have similar effects:
H3a: β3=β1 vs. HA: β3≠β1
To test β3=β1, β1 is substituted for β3. In order to perform the F-test, a reduced model is
computed with a new variable Z=X3+X1. The test statistics for the reduced model are shown
in Appendix D (4). To compute the F-statistics the following formula is used:
Fc=SSER-SSEc / (SSEc / (n-k-1)) Reject if Fc>Fα
-38-
For the Z model, the F-statistics is 0.024. Since the critical value for an F-distribution with 1
numerator-df and 104 denominator-df is F0.10=2.75; the data provide not enough evidence for
rejecting the hypothesis β3=β1 at a 10% significance level. Although the β-coefficients of
perceived behavioural control and attitude towards entrepreneurship are not quite identical,
statistically this may well be due to random chance. It can therefore not be stated that
perceived behavioural control exercises the strongest influence on entrepreneurial intentions.
It could be plausible that attitude toward entrepreneurship and perceived behavioural control
contribute redundant information, which predicts a certain degree of multicollinearity.
Perceived behavioural control does have a significant positive relationship with
entrepreneurial intentions, nonetheless it can not be confirmed whether it has the strongest
positive relationship; therefore hypothesis 3 is rejected.
 H3: Perceived behavioural control exercises the strongest influence on entrepreneurial

intentions. Rejected
The two ‘personality’ constructs added in figure 11, show only insignificant relationships.
Even the strong relationship of proactive personality and entrepreneurial intentions identified
by (Crant, 1997) cannot be recognized. The attitude towards entrepreneurship and perceived
behavioural control β-coefficients probably incorporate part of the proactive personality
effect due to their strong correlations as stated in section 6.3.3.
The power of the model is measured with the adjusted R square (see figure 11). Unlike the R
square, the adjusted R square can decline in value if the contribution to the explained
deviation by the additional variable is less than the impact of the degrees of freedom
(McClave, Benson, and Sincich, 1998). It is therefore carefully checked whether additional
variables improve the model. The first model shows an adjusted R square of 0.507 and 0.432
for the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) model, which is relatively high compared to other studies. Other
combinations of the model and other constructs added to the model do not add any significant
power, which strengthens the model as displayed in figure 10. If UM wants to increase the
number of student start-up companies, students should be stimulated to participate in
entrepreneurship education. Furthermore, the UM should offer more entrepreneurship courses
and activities during the year. The Hoogstarters-Maastricht ‘Masterclass Entrepreneurship &
Businessplanning’ is offered twice a year, which is already a good initiative. Students would
be further stimulated to participate if they could obtain credits for this course. An
-39-
improvement of students’ perception of entrepreneurship as a career option is apparently

effective as well. The UM should create a positive atmosphere towards entrepreneurship.
Bosma & Wennekers (2002) stated that the appreciation and recognition of entrepreneurs in
the Netherlands should improve. This perception can also be developed through experience or
education. Apart from personal experiences, guest speakers/entrepreneurs can share their
experiences during e.g. lectures or informal meetings.
6.4.2 Hypotheses 5 and 6

The second model (figure 12) shows the antecedents of attitude towards entrepreneurship.
Model Summary

1 ,645a ,416 ,405 ,70249
a. Predictors: (Constant), risk, proper
ANOVAb
Sum of
1 Regression 37,280 2 18,640 37,771 ,000a
Residual 52,311 106 ,493
Total 89,591 108
b. Dependent Variable: attentre
Coefficientsa
1 (Constant) 1,115 ,508 2,196 ,030
proper ,733 ,091 ,636 8,018 ,000
risk ,033 ,104 ,026 ,322 ,748
a. Dependent Variable: attentre
Figure 12: Model two with attitude towards entrepreneurship as dependent variable.
-40-
From hypotheses 5 and 6, only hypothesis 5 can be accepted at a significance level of p<0.01.
Students with a proactive personality (β=0.636) show a positive attitude towards
entrepreneurship as a career option. As can be seen from figure 12, there is not a strong
support for hypotheses 6. Risk taking propensity ((β=0.026) does not have a strong positive
relationship with attitude towards entrepreneurship, which is therefore rejected at p<0.05
significance level.
 H5: Students with a proactive personality are more likely to have a positive attitude
towards entrepreneurship. Accepted
 H6: Students with a high risk taking propensity are more likely to have a positive
attitude towards entrepreneurship. Rejected
Figure 13: Regression models based on attitude towards entrepreneurship.
Figure 13 shows a number of possible combinations with attitude towards entrepreneurship.

It is interesting to note the internal relationships in the TPB model (Ajzen, 1991); perceived
behavioural control turns out to have a strong relationship with attitude towards
entrepreneurship (p<0.01). Subjective norm shows a positive relationship as well, though less
significant (p<0.05) (both are included in figure 12 as well). When adding other variables to
the model, the proactive personality construct stays significant (p<0.01), nevertheless
perceived behavioural control takes away some of the explanatory power of proactive
personality, probable due to their high correlation (see section 6.3.3).
Again, the adjusted R-square (0.405) is relatively high, though for the most part, this can be
contributed to the proactive personality construct. The other two measure of the TPB (Ajzen,
1991) positively affect the adjusted R-square (0.502) as well. Remarkably, the participation in
entrepreneurship education construct does not affect the attitude towards entrepreneurship,
-41-
although it does affect the entrepreneurial intentions significantly (p<0.01). Apparently,

whether students participated in entrepreneurship education, does not affect their attitude
towards entrepreneurship. This attitude could already have been pre-decided based on certain
personality traits.
6.4.3 Hypotheses 7 and 8

The third model (figure 14) shows the antecedents of participation in entrepreneurship
education.
Model Summary

1 ,340a ,116 ,099 ,472
ANOVAb
Sum of
1 Regression 3,092 2 1,546 6,930 ,001a
Residual 23,642 106 ,223
Total 26,734 108
b. Dependent Variable: part
Coefficientsa
1 (Constant) -,828 ,341 -2,424 ,017
proper ,135 ,061 ,215 2,204 ,030
risk ,142 ,070 ,198 2,034 ,044
a. Dependent Variable: part
Figure 14: Model three with participation in entrepreneurship education as dependent variable.
-42-
Figure 15 shows the standardized β-coefficients of various constructs. Proactive personality

and risk taking propensity show a positive relationship with participation in entrepreneurship
education. At a p<0.05 significance level, hypotheses 7 and 8 can therefore be accepted.
 H7: Students with a proactive personality are more likely to participate in

entrepreneurship education. Accepted
 H8: Students with a high risk taking propensity are more likely to participate in
entrepreneurship education. Accepted
Figure 15: Regression models based on participation in entrepreneurship education.
Participants in entrepreneurship education show a certain personality: they are more willing
to take risks and they tend to take action when they spot a good opportunity. Again, perceived
behavioural control has a positive relationship with the dependent construct, though the
adjusted R square stays at a relatively low level. Apart from perceived behavioural control,
various omitted variables would influence the participation decision as well, looking at the
relatively low adjusted R square (0.099) of the model.
6.4.4 Participants vs. non-participants

Model two shows that it is not easy to change students’ attitude towards entrepreneurship. An
important part of this attitude is based on a students’ personality. Model three on the other
hand shows two clear relationships with personality traits as well. The question remains
whether the students already possessed these personality traits or whether entrepreneurship
education shaped their personality. Although this question cannot be answered with this
research, it is possible to stress some more differences in personality traits among participants
and non-participants. The descriptive statistics in section 6.3.1 already showed the higher
means for the participants in entrepreneurship education. Participants have a more proactive
-43-
personality and are more willing to take risks. Figure 16 shows test statistics, which stress the
significance of these differences. The Mann-Whitney U test is the most widely used
significance test for comparing two populations of independent samples. Samples are
independent if the response of the “nth” person in the second sample is not a function of the
response of the “nth” person in the first sample (McClave, Benson, and Sincich, 1998).
part N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

proper No participation entre. edu. 62 47,05 2917,00
Participation entre. edu. 47 65,49 3078,00
Total 109
risk No participation entre. edu. 62 47,84 2966,00
Total 109
entreint No participation entre. edu. 62 41,44 2569,00
Total 109
attentre No participation entre. edu. 62 46,99 2913,50
Total 109
subnorm No participation entre. edu. 62 50,92 3157,00
Total 109
pbc No participation entre. edu. 62 44,50 2759,00
Total 109
Test Statisticsa
proper risk entreint attentre subnorm pbc

Mann-Whitney U 964,000 1013,000 616,000 960,500 1204,000 806,000
Wilcoxon W 2917,000 2966,000 2569,000 2913,500 3157,000 2759,000
Z -3,029 -2,750 -5,250 -3,043 -1,602 -3,994
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,002 ,006 ,000 ,002 ,109 ,000
a. Grouping Variable: part
Figure 16: Mann-Whitney U statistics based on participation in entrepreneurship education
Both proactive personality and risk taking propensity show a significant (p<0.01) difference
between the two groups. Apart from subjective norm, the other constructs of the TPB show
significant differences also. Appendix D (5) contains the same test for participants in
entrepreneurship education from the FDEWB (UM participants) and from Hoogstarters-
Maastricht (Hoogstarters participants). Again, significant differences are revealed. The more
specific Hoogstarters course seems to attract students with an even more entrepreneurial
personality. Although it is also possible to argue that the entrepreneurship course itself
influences their personality traits, which offers support for the problem statement.
-44-
To see whether these differences also appear in regressions, the sample has been divided in
participants and non-participants in entrepreneurship education. Figure 17 shows the β-
coefficients of model two divided between participants and non-participants in
entrepreneurship education. The complete statistics of this regression are reported in
Appendix D (6 & 7).
Coefficientsa,b
1 (Constant) ,466 ,922 ,505 ,616
proper ,692 ,145 ,572 4,765 ,000
risk ,268 ,179 ,180 1,499 ,141
b. Selecting only cases for which part = Participation entre. edu.
Coefficientsa,b
1 (Constant) 1,774 ,649 2,735 ,008
proper ,699 ,119 ,634 5,859 ,000
risk -,120 ,130 -,100 -,925 ,359
b. Selecting only cases for which part = No participation entre. edu.
Figure 17: Model two divided between participants and non-participants in entrepreneurship education.
Although the Mann-Whitney U test shows clear differences among the two groups, in the
above regressions this is less evident. Proactive personality has a similar relationship, even
stronger for the non-participants. The risk taking propensity construct does show a clear
difference; through a negative relationship with attitude towards entrepreneurship for the non-
participants. Participants in entrepreneurship education do seem to have a more positive
attitude towards entrepreneurship due to their willingness to take risks.
6.4.5 Estimated regression model

To make a prediction how the model would look in one regression, estimates have been
calculated for attitude towards entrepreneurship and participation in entrepreneurship
education with the use of their unstandardized β-coefficients:
ATTENTREest= β0 + (βproper*proper) + (βrisk*risk) = 1,115 + (0,733*proper) + (0,033*risk)
-45-
PARTest= β0 + (βproper*proper) + (βrisk*risk) = -0,828 + (0,135*proper) + (0,142*risk)
Model Summary

1 ,651a ,424 ,402 ,59019
a. Predictors: (Constant), PARTest, subnorm, pbc,
ATTENTREest
ANOVAb
Sum of
1 Regression 26,686 4 6,672 19,153 ,000a
Residual 36,225 104 ,348
Total 62,911 108
a. Predictors: (Constant), PARTest, subnorm, pbc, ATTENTREest
Coefficientsa
1 (Constant) -,445 ,760 -,586 ,559
ATTENTREest -,064 ,209 -,049 -,307 ,760
subnorm ,148 ,072 ,173 2,059 ,042
pbc ,352 ,072 ,498 4,912 ,000
PARTest ,768 ,660 ,170 1,164 ,247
Figure 18: Estimated regression model
The regression output of the estimated model is printed in figure 18. The relationship of the
participation in entrepreneurship education estimate with entrepreneurial intentions is larger
than the attitude towards entrepreneurship estimate. Whether participation in
entrepreneurship education or personality traits causes this larger influence, cannot be stated
with certainty. Still, compared to model one in figure 10, a couple of interesting differences
can be noted. The attitude towards entrepreneurship construct changed to a negative β-
coefficient (β=-0.049), which can be seen as remarkable. Although, the two estimated
constructs do not seem to be really significant; the two other constructs of the TPB (Ajzen,
1991) got a more positive and significant relationship with entrepreneurial intentions. This
-46-
regression model shows that perceived behavioural control does have the strongest influence
on entrepreneurial intentions.
*p<0.05 **p<0.01
Figure 19: Final regression model.
The final regression model with β-coefficients can be found in figure 19. Overall, proactive
personality has moderating influence on the attitude-intention relationship and both proactive
personality and risk taking propensity have a moderating influence on the participation-
intention relationship. The above findings make it possible to answer the research question of
this thesis:

The entrepreneurial intentions of students are influenced directly by the students’

participation in entrepreneurship education and indirectly by its personality. Participation in
entrepreneurship education has almost the highest direct relationship with entrepreneurial
intentions (β=0.305 in model one). This alone provides enough information that academic
entrepreneurship education influences the students’ decision to become a new business
founder. The personality relationship should however not be neglected. The personality traits
have a significant indirect effect of (0.636) * 0.234= 0.149 via the attitude towards
entrepreneurship construct, and a significant indirect effect of (0.215 + 0.198) * 0.305= 0.126
-47-
via the participation in entrepreneurship education construct. The total indirect personality
effect on entrepreneurial intentions comes to 0.149 + 0.126= 0.275, which is smaller than the
direct participation effect.
Other tests tend to stress the differences among participants and non-participants in
entrepreneurship education. The Mann-Whitney U statistics stress the significance of these
differences. Although, when the model is divided between participants and non-participants,
the regressions show only small differences. The estimated model in figure 18 still has a
positive, although less significant, effect for participation in entrepreneurship education,
which gives even more support for the problem statement. It can be concluded that
personality traits do not pre-determine a students’ entrepreneurial intent, entrepreneurship
education influences this decision. Though, whether entrepreneurship education can influence
students’ ‘entrepreneurial personality’, cannot be explained with this research.
6.5 Limitations
The present study provides evidence that both personality traits and participation in
entrepreneurship education significantly influence a student’s intention to start a new
business. However a number of limitations are attached to the presented research.
First of all, the omitted correlated variables. Personality traits are only measured with two
constructs, which do not cover a student’s personality. Since other personality traits are
ignored in this research, the dependent variables lose a potential explanatory power. The same
can be stated for the external factors influencing a student’s intention decision. Only
entrepreneurship education participation and subjective norm are included in the research,
which leaves a great number of contextual factors untouched.
Second, the measurements used for the various constructs are sometimes debatable. The two-
item measurement of subjective norm and the three-item measurement of risk taking
propensity could be seen as a potential weakness. More secure measurements of subjective
norm and risk-taking propensity are needed.
Third, multicollinearity between attitude towards entrepreneurship and perceived behavioural

control might have influenced their true contribution to the final model. Their strong
-48-
correlation (section 6.3.3) already predicted this, and the F-test in section 6.4.1 further
confirms the possible multicollinearity. Future models should develop a more distinct
measurement.
Fourth, the distribution method and sample size need improvement. The questionnaire was
distributed via personal contacts, Hoogstarters-Maastricht, and via my supervisor. This
distribution method does not result in a random sample. However, it did result in a fair
participant / non-participant distribution, which was important for the research. With a larger
sample size (n>200) the MSEM tool can be used to test all the relationship in the research
model within one regression.
Finally, the model discussed in this research predicts the intentions of FDEWB students’ to
start a new venture. However, it remains to be seen whether intending to start a company is as
well predicted by intentions as other behaviours are by intentions. A long-term study of the
same sample would reveal the answer to this question. Unfortunately the presented research
does not offer this possibility.
-49-
7. Discussion and conclusions
The objective of this thesis was to contribute to an improvement of entrepreneurship

education in the Netherlands. To achieve this, the thesis explored the entrepreneurial
intentions among FDEWB students. The analysis confirms many previous findings in
literature on students’ entrepreneurial intentions. For instance, the research has given further
evidence for the usefulness of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) in explaining
these entrepreneurial intentions. Students’ attitude towards entrepreneurship and students’
perceived behavioural control positively influence the ultimate entrepreneurial intentions.
Although the research recognized only a weak relationship for the subjective norm construct,
the power of the TPB as measured with the adjusted R square (0.432) was relatively high
compared to previous research. This thesis included participation in entrepreneurship
education as a direct influence on entrepreneurial intentions; the results support this direct
relationship, and indicate and even higher robustness (0.507) of the model.
Next, the research explores a positive relationship of personality traits on attitude towards
entrepreneurship and participation in entrepreneurship education. More precise, students with
a proactive personality have a more positive attitude towards entrepreneurship and have more
often participated in entrepreneurship education. Students with a high willingness to take
risks also tend participate in entrepreneurship education. The decision to start a new venture
seems to some extend influenced by personality traits. The results show that the combined
indirect effects of personality on entrepreneurial intentions are almost as high as the direct
effect of participation in entrepreneurship education on these intentions. These results make it
possible to answer the research question:

In spite of the limitations as mentioned in section 6.5, entrepreneurship education, as distinct

from general education, has a clear influence on the students’ intentions to start a new
business. Personality characteristics do not pre-determine students’ entrepreneurial intentions;
academic entrepreneurship education influences this decision. The participants in
entrepreneurship education do show more entrepreneurial personality characteristics than
their non-participant counterparts. A student’s intention to start a new business is therefore
-50-
not pre-determined by personality, academic entrepreneurship education significantly

influences these intentions.
Since it can not be stated whether entrepreneurship education influences the entrepreneurial
characteristics of students, this research recommends the UM to focus their attention on the
students with the ‘entrepreneurial’ personalities. Since a selection process for these students
does not seem as a reasonable option, students should not be selected, but attracted towards
entrepreneurship education. It is more promising to train the students with the ‘correct’
profile to become a successful entrepreneur. Thus, the university would be well advised to
expand the number graduate entrepreneurship courses. Furthermore, improving the image of
entrepreneurship as a plausible career alternative, could affect students’ attitude towards
entrepreneurship. During entrepreneurship courses and activities, skilled teachers should be
able to identify students with the most entrepreneurial characteristics. Encouraging these
students to attend more entrepreneurship programs would be most effective. Furthermore,
teachers should not only have the necessary knowledge in entrepreneurship, personal
experiences inspire the students as well.
Hill, Cinneide, and Kiesner (2003) raise an important issue also applicable to the Dutch
education system. Hill et al. (2003) report on the drop of entrepreneurial activity by education
level. Since the higher students’ educational attainment, the more these students will make in
the marketplace, entrepreneurial intentions of students may be a function of opportunity
costs. Therefore, considering an entrepreneurial career does not only start with a good idea, it
is also a difficult financial dilemma. Students should therefore be carefully taught on the risks
and rewards of an entrepreneurial career.
Albeit, if the European Union wants to foster entrepreneurship in Europe and if the
Netherlands wants to increase the employment figures among the younger age groups,
entrepreneurship education should be stimulated at all levels. Though, entrepreneurship
education should attract and focus on the ‘right’ students, particularly those with a proactive
personality and a willingness to take risks. Further research should focus on more antecedents
of students’ entrepreneurial intentions and should further explore the personality traits of an
‘entrepreneurial student’. Moreover, the true influence of entrepreneurship education on the
personality characteristics of students needs more attention. Even more interesting will be the
results of a long-term study, which reveals the ultimate behaviour; the start-up of a new
-51-
business. This knowledge will be of great value for designing future entrepreneurship
education.
Copyright Information: Copyright van dit document ligt bij Wouter Duijn. Toestemming is verleend aan Student&Onderzoek om dit
document op haar webpagina’s te publiceren.
Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden verveelvoudigd, opgeslagen in een geautomatiseerd gegevensbestand, of openbaar gemaakt, in enige
vorm of op enige wijze, hetzij elektronisch, mechanisch, door fotokopieen, opnamen, of enige andere manier, zonder voorafgaande
schriftelijke toestemming van de uitgever.
-52-
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). Theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human

Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: conceptual and methodological

considerations. Retrieved August 1, 2004, from World Wide Web:
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/%7Eaizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioural control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory
of planned behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665-683.
Autio, E., Keeley, R.H., Klofsten, M., Parker, G.G.C., & Hay, M. (2001). Entrepreneurial
intent among students in Scandinavia and in the USA. Enterprise & Innovation
Management Studies, 2, (2), 145-161.
Autio, E., Keeley, R.H., Klofsten, M., & Ulfstedt, T. (1997). Entrepreneurial intent among
students: testing an intent model in Asia, Scandinavia, and USA. Paper presented at
the Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Retrieved June 20, 2004, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.babson.edu/entrep/fer/papers97/autio/aut1.htm
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention. Academy of
Management Review 13, (3), 442-453.
Bird, B., & Jelinek, M. (1988). The operation of entrepreneurial intentions.

Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 13, (2), 21-30.
-53-
Bosma, N., Stigter, H., & Wennekers, S. (2001). The long road to the entrepreneurial society:
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2001: the Netherlands. EIM: Business & Policy
Research. Retrieved March 16, 2004, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.gemconsortium.org/download/1092661114937/The%20Long%20Rd
%20to%20Entre%20Society.pdf
Bosma, N., & Wennekers, S. (2002). Entrepreneurship under pressure: Global

Entrepreneurship Monitor 2002: the Netherlands. EIM: Business & Policy Research.
Retrieved March 16, 2004, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.gemconsortium.org/download/1092304773890/Netherlands2002.pdf
Carayannis, E.G., Evans, D., & Hanson, M. (2003). A cross-cultural learning strategy for
entrepreneurship education: outline of key concepts and lessons learned from a
comparative study of entrepreneurship students in France and the US. Technovation,
23, 757-771.
Carree, M., Stel, A., van, Thurik, R., & Wennekers, S. (2001). Economic development and
business ownership: an analysis using data of 23 OECD countries in the period 1976-
1996. Small Business Economics, 19, (3), 271-290.
Charney, A., & Libecap, G.D. (2000). Insights: a Kauffman research series: impact of
entrepreneurship education. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.
Retrieved August 2, 2004, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.entreworld.org/Bookstore/PDFs/RE-024.pdf
Cortina, J.M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W.P. (2001). Testing interaction effects in LISREL:
Examination and illustration of available procedures. Organizational research
methods, 4, (4), 324-360.
Council of the European Union (2004). Joint employment report 2003/2004. Retrieved June
15, 2004, from the World Wide Web:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/employment_strategy/report_2003/jer2
0034_en.pdf
-54-
Crant, J.M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial

intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34, (2), 42-49.
Davidsson, P. (1995). Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions. Paper presented at the

RENT IX Workshop in Entrepreneurship Research, November 23-24, Piacenza, Italy.
Dennis, D. (2001). Fostering Entrepreneurship in Europe. Published in: Lundström, A., &
Stevenson, L. Entrepreneurship Policy for the Future: Volume 1 of the
Entrepreneurship for the Future Series, 107-130. Swedish Foundation of Small
Business Research.
Drucker, P.F. (1994). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. United Kingdom: Butterworth &
Heinemann.
European Commission (2003a). Green paper: entrepreneurship in Europe. Enterprise

publications. Retrieved January 23, 2004, from the World Wide Web:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/entrepreneurship/green_paper/
European Commission (2003b). Short-term trends of EU employment growth. Retrieved April

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/employment_analysis/short_term_tren
ds_eu_empl_growth.pdf
European Commission (2004). Flash Eurobarometer: Entrepreneurship. Retrieved August

http://www.gesis.org/en/data_service/eurobarometer/
Fölster, S. (1999). Do entrepreneurs create jobs? Small Business Economics, 14, (2), 137-148.
Francis, J.J., Eccles, M.P., Johnston, M., Walker, A., Grimshaw, J., Foy, R., Kaner, E.F.S.,
Smith, L., & Bonetti, D. (2004). Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of
planned behaviour: a manual for health services researchers. Rebeqi: Research into
Practice. Retrieved September 20, 2004, from World Wide Web:
http://www.rebeqi.org/ViewFile.aspx?itemID=212
-55-
Gelderen, M.W. van, Brand, M., Praag, M. van, & Bodewes, W. (2004). Some advances in
the explanation of entrepreneurial intentions. Published in: Dowling, M., Schmude, J.,
& von Knyphaussen-Aufsess (Eds.). Advances in Interdisciplinary European
Entrepreneurship Research, 27-45. Munster: Litverlag.
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. (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.
GrowthPlus (2004). Whitepaper: the GrowthPlus response to the conclusions of the Lisbon
and Feira European Councils. Retrieved February 24, 2004, from the World Wide
Web: http://www.growthplus.org/images/Whitepaper%20.pdf
Hartog, J., Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Jonker, N. (2000). On a simple measure of individual
risk aversion. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper. Retrieved September 27, 2004,
from the World Wide Web: http://www.tinbergen.nl/discussionpapers/00074.pdf
Hill, S., Cinneide, B.O., & Kiesner, F. (2003). Graduate entrepreneurship education: an
international “consumer” study. Nonprinting Media: Research Papers. Retrieved June
http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/Research/2003/ICSB/papers/5.doc
Hisrich, R.D., & Peters, M.P. (2002). Entrepreneurship (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ibrahim, A.B., & Goodwin, J.R. (1986). Perceived causes of success in small business.
American Journal of Small Business, 11, (2), 41-51.
Kickul, J., & Gundry L.K. (2002). Prospecting for strategic advantage: the proactive
entrepreneurial personality and small firm innovation. Journal of Small Business
Management, 40, (2), 85-97.
Krueger, N.F. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new
venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 5, 5-21.
-56-
Krueger, N.F. Jr., Reilly, M.D., & Carsrud, A.L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 411-432.
Lumpkin, G.T., & Dress, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct
and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, (1), 135-172.
Lüthje, C., & Franke, N. (2003). The “making” of an entrepreneur: testing a model of
entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT. R&D Management, 33, (2),
135-147.
Lüthje, C., & Franke, N. (2004). Entrepreneurial intentions of business students: a

benchmarking study. International Journal of Innovation & Technology Management.
Appears September 2004.
McClave, J.T., Benso, P.G., & Sincich, T. (1998). Statistics for Business and Economics (7th
ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
McIntyre, J.R., & Roche, M. (1999). University education for entrepreneurs in the United
States: a critical and retrospective analysis of trends in the 1990s. Atlanta, USA:
Georgia Institute of Technology. Retrieved August 11, 2004, from the World Wide
Web: http://www.ciber.gatech.edu/workingpaper/1999/99_00-21.pdf
McKinley, R.K., Manku-Scott, T., Hastings, A.M., French, D.P., & Baker, R. (1997).
Reliability and validity of a new measure of patients satisfaction with out of hours
primary medical care in the United Kingdom: development of a patients
questionnaire. British Medical Journal 314, 193-198.
Ministry of Economic Affairs (2000). Entrepreneurship in the Netherlands: opportunities

and threats to nascent entrepreneurship. Retrieved August 3, 2004, from the World
Wide Web: http://www.exist.de/kooperation/dateien/9_nl11r29.pdf
Ministry of Economic Affairs (2002). Ondernemerschapsmonitor voorjaar 2002:

themaspecial over ondernemerschap & onderwijs. Den Haag. Retrieved August 3,
2004, from the World Wide Web: http://apps.ez.nl/publicaties/pdfs/02O06.pdf
-57-
Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oppenheim, A.N. (2001). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement: new
edition. New York: Continuum.
Peterman, N.E., & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: influencing students’

perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 28, (2), 129-
145.
Reitan, B. (1997). Where do we learn that entrepreneurship is feasible, desirable and/or

profitable? A look at the processes leading to entrepreneurial potential. Retrieved
August 1, 2004, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.usasbe.org/knowledge/proceedings/1997/P009Reitan.PDF
Reynolds, P.D., Bygrave, W.D., & Autio, E. (2004). Global entrepreneurship monitor 2003:
executive report. Babson College. Retrieved April 20, 2004, from the World Wide
Web: http://www.gemconsortium.org/document.asp?id=327
Shapero, A. (1975). The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur. Psychology Today, 9, 83-88.
Solomon, G.T., Duffy, S., & Tarabishy, A. (2002). The state of entrepreneurship education in
the United States: a nationwide survey and analysis. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship education, 1, (1), 1-22.
Twaalfhoven, B.W.M. (2003). Red paper on entrepreneurship. Paper presented at the 4th
European Symposium, November 18-19, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. Retrieved
January 23, 2004, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.4x4entreprendre.org/files/presentation/2.8%20Government%20incentives
%20-%20Bert%20Twaalfhoven.pdf
Vesper, K.H., & McMullan, W.E. (1988). Entrepreneurship: today courses, tomorrow
degrees? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13, (1), 7-13.
-58-
Wennekers, S., & Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small
Business Economics, 13, (1), 27-56.
Winslow, E.K., Solomon, G.T., & Tarabishy, A. (1999). Empirical investigation into
entrepreneurship education in the United States: some results of the 1997 national
survey of entrepreneurial education. Paper presented at the USASBE/SBIDA Annual
National Conference Sailing the Entrepreneurial Wave Into the 21st Century, January
14-17, San Diego, USA. Retrieved June 26, 2004, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.usasbe.org/knowledge/proceedings/1999/winslow.pdf
Websites:
http://eweb.slu.edu/chronology.htm
http://www.area010.nl
http://www.cbs.nl/en/figures/keyfigures/index.htm
http://www.duyfken.com/voyagie/thevoyagie/voc-history.html
http://www.emkf.org/pages/188.cfm.
http://www.entreworld.org
http://www.kauffman.org/
http://www.lerenondernemen.nl
http://www.westaction.org/definitions/def_entrepreneurship_1.html
-59-
Appendix A: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Indexes
1. Total Entrepreneurial Activity Index (TEA) by country: 2003
Source: Reynolds, P.D., Bygrave, W.D., & Autio E. (2004). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2003: Executive Report. Babson College.
2. Firm Entrepreneurial Activity Index (FEA) for 40 GEM countries: 2002-2003
-60-
3. Start-ups expected job creation in five years: 2000-2003
4. Annual jobs provided by new firms: 2003
-61-
Appendix B: Entrepreneurial Intentions Questionnaire
Questionnaire location: http://www.studentenonderzoek.com/webform/index.php?formID=55
Dear respondent,
By filling out this questionnaire you participate in a study for my final thesis at Universiteit
Maastricht. I am researching the intentions and attitudes of Universiteit Maastricht students
towards entrepreneurship. Filling out this questionnaire will take less than 5 minutes of your
time. If you participate in the research you will have a chance of winning a 50 Euro VVV
Voucher. (Please fill out your email address at the end of the questionnaire)
From this place I would like to express my utmost gratitude for your participation!
Kind regards,
Wouter Duijn
Please find the questionnaire on the next page!
-62-
moderately disagree
moderately agree
strongly disagree
slightly disagree
strongly agree
slightly agree
neutral
1 Starting my own business sounds attractive to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 I can spot a good opportunity long before others can 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3 To start my own company would probably be the best way for me to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
take advantage of my education
4 I excel at identifying opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 I am confident that I would succeed if I started my own business 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 I personally consider entrepreneurship to be a highly desirable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
career alternative for people with my education
7 It would be easy for me to start my own business 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 Nothing is more exiting than seeing my ideas turn into reality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 I would rather found a new company than be the manager of an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
existing one
10 It is more beneficial to society to have large enterprises than small 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
firms
moderately disagree
moderately agree
strongly disagree
slightly disagree
strongly agree
slightly agree
neutral
11 In my university, people are actively encouraged to pursue their own 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ideas
12 In my university, you get to meet lots of people with good ideas for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a new business
13 I enjoy facing and overcoming obstacles to my ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14 My family and friends support me to start my own business 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15 I have the skills and capabilities required to succeed as an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
entrepreneur
16 Entrepreneurship courses at my university prepare people well for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
an entrepreneurial career
17 In business, it is preferable to be an entrepreneur, rather than a large 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
firm employee
18 Entrepreneurship cannot be taught 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19 I love to challenge the status quo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20 In my university, there is a well functioning support infrastructure to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
support the start-up of new firms
21 I know many people in my university who have successfully started 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
up their own business
Continue
-63-
22 If I became an entrepreneur, my family Bad -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Good

would consider it to be
23 If I became an entrepreneur, my close Bad -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Good
friends would consider it to be
24 Overall I consider an entrepreneurship Bad -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Good
career as
25 I can take risks with my money, such as Very unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 Very likely
investing in stocks
26 When I travel I like to take new routes Very unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 Very likely
27 I like to try new foods, new places and Very unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 Very likely
totally new experiences
28 I will take a serious risk within the next 6 Very unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 Very likely
months
29 Have you ever participated in any form of entrepreneurship education?  Yes  No

30 Have you ever participated in entrepreneurship education at the UM? (e.g.  Yes  No
Advanced Business Innovation, Small Business Management and Accounting)
31 Have you ever participated in entrepreneurship courses from Hoogstarters  Yes  No
Maastricht? (e.g. Masterclass Entrepreneurship & Businessplanning)
32 Do you plan to be self-employed in the  Very  Quite  Quite  Very
foreseeable future after you graduate probable probable improbable improbable
from the UM?
33 Estimate the probability (0-100%) you will start your own business in the next year? …. %
34 Estimate the probability (0-100%) you will start your own business in the next 5 years? …. %
-64-
Just a couple more questions to go…
35 What is your age?  <20  20-21  22-23  24-25  >25

36 Please indicate your gender  Male  Female
37 Are you currently self-employed?  Yes  No
38 Are your parents currently self-employed?  Yes  No
39 Have your parents ever been self-employed?  Yes  No
40 Are you student from the UM Faculty of Economics and Business  Yes  No
Administration?
41 Among 10 people, 100 Euros are disposed of by a lottery. What is the most that you would €
be willing to pay for a ticket in this lottery?
42 Fill out your email address to participate in the 50 Euro VVV voucher lottery
You have completed the questionnaire! If you would like to receive the results of my study, or
if you have any doubts or would like more information, do not hesitate to contact me directly
at w.duijn@student.unimaas.nl.
Thanks again for your cooperation!
Wouter Duijn
-65-
Appendix C: Questions overview
General
G1= What is your gender? (Own thoughts)
G2= What is your age? (Own thoughts)
G3= Are you a student from the UM Faculty of Economics and Business Administration?
(Own thoughts)
G4= Fill out your email address to participate in the 50 Euro VVV Voucher lottery. (Own
thoughts)
Entrepreneurial intentions
EI1= Are you currently self-employed? (Lüthje & Franke, 2003)
EI2= Do you plan to be self-employed in the foreseeable future after you graduate from the
UM? (Lüthje & Franke, 2003)
EI3= Estimate the probability (0-100%) you will start your own business in the next year?
(Own thoughts)
EI4= Estimate the probability (0-100%) you will start your own business in the next 5 years?
(Krueger et al., 2000)
Attitude towards entrepreneurship

AE1= In business, it is preferable to be an entrepreneur, rather than a large firm employee.
(Carayannis, Evans, & Hanson, 2003)
AE2= It is more beneficial to society to have large enterprises than small firms. (Carayannis,
Evans, & Hanson, 2003)
AE3= I would rather found a new company than be the manager of an existing one. (Lüthje &
Franke, 2003)
AE4= Starting my own business sounds attractive to me. (Krueger et al., 2000)
AE5= I personally consider entrepreneurship to be a highly desirable career alternative for
people with my professional and education background. (Autio et al., 2001)
-66-
AE6= Overall, I consider an entrepreneurship career as. (Francis, Eccles, Johnston, Walker,
Grimshaw, Foy, Kaner, Smith, & Bonetti, 2004)
Participation in entrepreneurship education

U1= Have you ever participated in any form of entrepreneurship education? (Own thoughts)
U2= Have you ever participated in entrepreneurship education at the UM? (e.g. Advanced
Business Innovation, Small Business Management and Accounting) (Own thoughts)
U3= Have you ever participated in entrepreneurship courses from Hoogstarters Maastricht?
(e.g. Masterclass Entrepreneurship & Businessplanning) (Own thoughts)
Proactive personality
P1= I enjoy facing and overcoming obstacles to my ideas. (Kickul & Gundry, 2002)
P2= Nothing is more exiting than seeing my ideas turn into reality. (Kickul & Gundry, 2002)
P3= I excel at identifying opportunities. (Kickul & Gundry, 2002)
P4= I love to challenge the status quo. (Kickul & Gundry, 2002)
P5= I can spot a good opportunity long before others can. (Kickul & Gundry, 2002)
Risk taking propensity

R1= I can take risks with my money, such as investing in stocks. (Hisrich & Peters, 2002)
R2= When I travel I tend to take new routes. (Hisrich & Peters, 2002)
R3= I like to try new foods, new places, and totally new experiences. (Hisrich & Peters,
2002)
R4= I will take a serious risk within the next six months. (Own thoughts)
R5= Among 10 people, 100 Euros are disposed of by a lottery. What is the most that you
would be willing to pay for a ticket in this lottery? (Hartog, Ferrer-i-Carbonell, & Jonker,
2000)
Self-employed parents
SE1= Are your parents currently self-employed? (Own thoughts)
SE2= Have your parents ever been self-employed? (Own thoughts)
Attitude towards entrepreneurship education /university environment
-67-
AEE1= I know many people in my university who have successfully started up their own
business. (Autio et al., 2001)
AEE2= In my university, people are actively encouraged to pursue their own ideas. (Autio et
al., 2001)
AEE3= In my university, you get to meet lots of people with good ideas for a new business.
(Autio et al., 2001)
AEE4= Entrepreneurship courses at my university prepare people well for an entrepreneurial
career. (Autio et al., 1997)
AEE5= In my university there is a well functioning support infrastructure to support the start-
up of new firms. (Autio et al., 2001)
AEE6= Entrepreneurship cannot be taught. (Autio et al., 2001)
Subjective norm
SN1=My family and friends support me to start my own business. (Krueger et al., 2000)
SN2=If I became an entrepreneur, my family would consider it to be. (Autio et al., 2001)
SN3=If I became an entrepreneur, my close friends would consider it to be. (Autio et al.,
2001)
Perceived behavioural control

PBC1=I am confident that I would succeed if I started my own business. (Autio et al., 2001)
PBC2=It would be easy for me to start my own business. (Autio et al., 2001)
PBC3=To start my own firm would probably be the best way for me to take advantage of my
education. (Autio et al., 2001)
PBC4=I have the skills and capabilities required to succeed as an entrepreneur. (Autio et al.,
2001)
-68-
Excel table questions overview
-69-
-70-
Appendix D: Statistics output
1. Omitted variables statistics
Descriptives
95% Confidence Interval for

Mean
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
age No participation entre. edu. 62 3,00 ,789 ,100 2,80 3,20
Total 109 3,12 ,868 ,083 2,95 3,28
gender No participation entre. edu. 62 ,56 ,500 ,063 ,44 ,69
Total 109 ,64 ,482 ,046 ,55 ,73
entreint No participation entre. edu. 62 1,6129 ,39206 ,04979 1,5133 1,7125
Total 109 1,9572 ,76322 ,07310 1,8123 2,1021
attentre No participation entre. edu. 62 4,7151 ,89136 ,11320 4,4887 4,9414
Total 109 4,9618 ,91079 ,08724 4,7889 5,1347
attedu No participation entre. edu. 62 3,3968 ,99342 ,12616 3,1445 3,6491
Total 109 3,4404 1,06867 ,10236 3,2375 3,6433
selfpar No participation entre. edu. 62 ,35 ,482 ,061 ,23 ,48
Total 109 ,41 ,495 ,047 ,32 ,51
proper No participation entre. edu. 62 4,8710 ,80823 ,10265 4,6657 5,0762
Total 109 5,0661 ,79024 ,07569 4,9160 5,2161
risk No participation entre. edu. 62 3,8656 ,74281 ,09434 3,6770 4,0542
Total 109 4,0306 ,69469 ,06654 3,8987 4,1625
pbc No participation entre. edu. 62 4,0403 ,98990 ,12572 3,7889 4,2917
Total 109 4,4083 1,07887 ,10334 4,2034 4,6131
subnorm No participation entre. edu. 62 5,5242 ,92960 ,11806 5,2881 5,7603
Total 109 5,6606 ,89204 ,08544 5,4912 5,8299
Correlations
age gender entreint attentre attedu part selfpar proper risk pbc subnorm
age Pearson Correlation 1 ,214* ,292** ,062 -,049 ,158 -,029 ,053 ,158 ,130 ,172
Sig. (2-tailed) ,026 ,002 ,519 ,612 ,100 ,761 ,583 ,102 ,177 ,073
gender Pearson Correlation ,214* 1 ,185 ,324** -,036 ,186 -,113 ,287** ,079 ,319** ,124
Sig. (2-tailed) ,026 ,055 ,001 ,707 ,053 ,243 ,003 ,413 ,001 ,198
entreint Pearson Correlation ,292** ,185 1 ,578** ,152 ,520** ,235* ,505** ,301** ,609** ,357**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,002 ,055 ,000 ,115 ,000 ,014 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000
attentre Pearson Correlation ,062 ,324** ,578** 1 ,205* ,313** ,076 ,645** ,249** ,641** ,414**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,519 ,001 ,000 ,032 ,001 ,429 ,000 ,009 ,000 ,000
attedu Pearson Correlation -,049 -,036 ,152 ,205* 1 ,047 ,035 ,179 ,106 ,173 ,175
Sig. (2-tailed) ,612 ,707 ,115 ,032 ,627 ,720 ,062 ,275 ,072 ,069
part Pearson Correlation ,158 ,186 ,520** ,313** ,047 1 ,135 ,285** ,274** ,394** ,176
Sig. (2-tailed) ,100 ,053 ,000 ,001 ,627 ,161 ,003 ,004 ,000 ,067
selfpar Pearson Correlation -,029 -,113 ,235* ,076 ,035 ,135 1 ,148 ,017 ,132 ,184
Sig. (2-tailed) ,761 ,243 ,014 ,429 ,720 ,161 ,126 ,862 ,170 ,055
proper Pearson Correlation ,053 ,287** ,505** ,645** ,179 ,285** ,148 1 ,352** ,678** ,430**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,583 ,003 ,000 ,000 ,062 ,003 ,126 ,000 ,000 ,000
risk Pearson Correlation ,158 ,079 ,301** ,249** ,106 ,274** ,017 ,352** 1 ,264** ,298**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,102 ,413 ,001 ,009 ,275 ,004 ,862 ,000 ,005 ,002
pbc Pearson Correlation ,130 ,319** ,609** ,641** ,173 ,394** ,132 ,678** ,264** 1 ,261**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,177 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,072 ,000 ,170 ,000 ,005 ,006
subnorm Pearson Correlation ,172 ,124 ,357** ,414** ,175 ,176 ,184 ,430** ,298** ,261** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) ,073 ,198 ,000 ,000 ,069 ,067 ,055 ,000 ,002 ,006
-71-
2. Entrepreneurial intentions Cronbach’s alpha statistics
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Error
N Mean Std. Deviation Mean
Entrepreneurial Intentions 1 109 2,6239 ,76726 ,07349
Entrepreneurial Intentions 2 109 1,3303 ,79413 ,07606
Entrepreneurial Intentions 3 109 1,9174 1,02856 ,09852
Entrepreneurial Intentions Average 109 1,9572 ,76322 ,07310
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 2.5

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
Entrepreneurial Intentions 1 1,685 108 ,095 ,12385 -,0218 ,2695
Entrepreneurial Intentions 2 -15,378 108 ,000 -1,16972 -1,3205 -1,0190
Entrepreneurial Intentions 3 -5,913 108 ,000 -,58257 -,7778 -,3873
Entrepreneurial Intentions Average -7,425 108 ,000 -,54281 -,6877 -,3979
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
,848 3
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Corrected Cronbach's

Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
Entrepreneurial Intentions 1 3,2477 2,892 ,675 ,832
-72-
3. Risk taking propensity question correlations

Correlations
Risk-taking Risk-taking Risk-taking Risk-taking Risk-taking

propensity 1 propensity 2 propensity 3 propensity 4 propensity 5
Risk-taking propensity 1 Pearson Correlation 1 -,024 -,013 ,230* ,064
Sig. (2-tailed) ,808 ,897 ,016 ,508
Risk-taking propensity 2 Pearson Correlation -,024 1 ,464** ,221* ,135
Sig. (2-tailed) ,808 ,000 ,021 ,161
Risk-taking propensity 3 Pearson Correlation -,013 ,464** 1 ,251** -,102
Sig. (2-tailed) ,897 ,000 ,008 ,292
Risk-taking propensity 4 Pearson Correlation ,230* ,221* ,251** 1 ,139
Sig. (2-tailed) ,016 ,021 ,008 ,150
Risk-taking propensity 5 Pearson Correlation ,064 ,135 -,102 ,139 1
Sig. (2-tailed) ,508 ,161 ,292 ,150
-73-
4. Reduced model Z
Model Summary

1 ,725a ,525 ,512 ,53341
a. Predictors: (Constant), Z, subnorm, part
ANOVAb
Sum of
1 Regression 33,036 3 11,012 38,703 ,000a
Residual 29,875 105 ,285
Total 62,911 108
a. Predictors: (Constant), Z, subnorm, part
Coefficientsa
1 (Constant) -,790 ,374 -2,115 ,037
subnorm ,106 ,062 ,124 1,716 ,089
part ,469 ,112 ,306 4,178 ,000
Z ,207 ,033 ,490 6,337 ,000
Z= Perceived behavioural control + attitude towards entrepreneurship
-74-
5. Mann-Whitney U test
Ranks
edudummy N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

proper UM participant 34 20,60 700,50
Hoogstarters participant 13 32,88 427,50
Total 47
risk UM participant 34 22,34 759,50
Total 47
entreint UM participant 34 19,43 660,50
Total 47
attentre UM participant 34 21,57 733,50
Total 47
subnorm UM participant 34 21,38 727,00
Total 47
pbc UM participant 34 20,29 690,00
Total 47
Test Statisticsa
proper risk entreint attentre subnorm pbc

Mann-Whitney U 105,500 164,500 65,500 138,500 132,000 95,000
Wilcoxon W 700,500 759,500 660,500 733,500 727,000 690,000
Z -2,762 -1,367 -3,744 -1,967 -2,185 -3,005
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,006 ,172 ,000 ,049 ,029 ,003
a. Grouping Variable: edudummy
-75-
6. Model two with participants in entrepreneurship education
Model Summary
R
part =
Participation
entre. edu. Adjusted Std. Error of
Model (Selected) R Square R Square the Estimate
1 ,646a ,418 ,391 ,65458
ANOVAb,c
Sum of
1 Regression 13,520 2 6,760 15,777 ,000a
Residual 18,853 44 ,428
Total 32,372 46
c. Selecting only cases for which part = Participation entre. edu.
Coefficientsa,b
1 (Constant) ,466 ,922 ,505 ,616
proper ,692 ,145 ,572 4,765 ,000
risk ,268 ,179 ,180 1,499 ,141
b. Selecting only cases for which part = Participation entre. edu.
-76-
7. Model two with non-participants in entrepreneurship education
Model Summary
R
part = No
participation
entre. edu. Adjusted Std. Error of
Model (Selected) R Square R Square the Estimate
1 ,611a ,373 ,352 ,71752
ANOVAb,c
Sum of
1 Regression 18,091 2 9,045 17,570 ,000a
Residual 30,375 59 ,515
Total 48,466 61
c. Selecting only cases for which part = No participation entre. edu.
Coefficientsa,b
1 (Constant) 1,774 ,649 2,735 ,008
proper ,699 ,119 ,634 5,859 ,000
risk -,120 ,130 -,100 -,925 ,359
b. Selecting only cases for which part = No participation entre. edu.
-77-

55 Entrepreneuralintentions

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

55 Entrepreneuralintentions

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Entrepreneurial Intentions among FDEWB Students Wouter Duijn

3.1 PREVIOUS RESEARCH__________________________________________________________11

4.1 THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION_____________________________18

5.1 RESEARCH MODEL____________________________________________________________25

6.1 RESPONSE AND MISSING VALUES_________________________________________________31

6.2 OMITTED VARIABLES__________________________________________________________31

7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS________________________________________50

APPENDIX A: GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP MONITOR INDEXES__________60

APPENDIX B: ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE__________62

APPENDIX C: QUESTIONS OVERVIEW_____________________________________66

Appendix D: Statistics output__________________________________________________70

Deze scriptie is afkomstig van:

‘entrepreneurship deficit’, caused due to a lack of entrepreneurship and a lack of fast-growth

In November 2003, Twaalfhoven (2003) held a presentation on entrepreneurship in Europe.

The above presented research attempts to answer the following question:

Is the students’ entrepreneurial intent determined by his or her personality, or can

In order to support the problem statement three sub-questions will be discussed:

 What is the concept and importance entrepreneurship?

 How does entrepreneurship education stimulate entrepreneurship?

success of the entrepreneur. Nevertheless, most entrepreneurs indicate independence and

2.2 The importance of entrepreneurship

At present, the importance of entrepreneurship goes much further. Fostering entrepreneurship

ventures. Supportive frameworks will be developed as well. Business start-ups have

 Entrepreneurial activity represents one of the major engines of economic growth.

 Entrepreneurship is crucial to competitiveness. The European Commission (2003a)

 Entrepreneurship unlocks personal potential. Independence and self-realization are

What is the concept and importance of entrepreneurship? Although entrepreneurship is still

3.1 Previous research

A variety of intention models have been developed in previous research. As indicated by

 First of all, entrepreneurial intention models frequently contain elements of

While, Bird’s (1988) model of implementing entrepreneurial ideas has to be validated

3.1.1 Theory of planned behaviour

Figure 1: Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour.

3.1.2 Model of entrepreneurial event

Figure 2: The Shapero-Krueger model from Krueger et al. (2000, p.418).

3.2 Latest model of entrepreneurial intention

Attitude towards Entrepreneurial

4.1 The development of entrepreneurship education

4.1.1 Current entrepreneurship education defined

 Training students to develop an independent attitude.

Finally, educational institutions are trying to develop an entrepreneurial culture, an

4.1.2 Dutch initiatives

From the 16 universities in the Netherlands, 13 universities participate in some kind of

 The University of Twente is considered to be the most entrepreneurial university in

4.2. Effectiveness of entrepreneurship education: The ongoing debate

This current debate on the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education is important for

5.1 Research model

Figure 4: Research model.

5.2 Sample and procedure

small business environment. The Masterclass Entrepreneurship & Businessplanning from

With the use of an online questionnaire, differences in entrepreneurial intentions among

 FDEWB Students who participated in UM entrepreneurship education

 H1: Attitude towards entrepreneurship as a career option is positively related to

 H4: Student participation in entrepreneurship education is positively related to

5.3.1 Dependent variables

influence their attitudes towards entrepreneurship, if they did not participate in UM

5.3.2 Independent variables

6.1 Response and missing values

6.2 Omitted variables

6.3 Descriptives, reliability, and exploratory analysis

6.3.1 Descriptive statistics

95% Confidence Interval for

Figure 5: Descriptive statistics based on participation in entrepreneurship education.

ATTENTREest= β0 + (βproperproper) + (βriskrisk) = 1,115 + (0,733proper) + (0,033risk)

PARTest= β0 + (βproperproper) + (βriskrisk) = -0,828 + (0,135proper) + (0,142risk)