Set an
example!
The effect of entrepreneurial role models on
entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch
students
Master Thesis
Academic year 2016/2017
Name:
Dimitri Krabbenborg
Student number VU:
2518184
Student number UvA:
11388706
Submission date:
16-08-2017
Program:
MsC Enterpreneurship
Number of pages:
37
Supervisor:
Tsvi Vinig
Second reader:
Nazlihan Ugur
Tabel of content
Abstract ... 3
Acknowledgements ... 4
Statement of originality ... 5
1. Introduction ... 6
2. Research question and relevance ... 8
3. Theoretical framework and conceptual framework ... 10
Entrepreneurship ... 10 Entrepreneurial intentions ... 11 Role models ... 13 Culture ... 15 Conceptual model ... 16 4. Methodology ... 17 Research design ... 17
Target group and communication ... 18
Data collection ... 18
Data analysis ... 19
5. Results ... 21
Respondent characteristics ... 21
Most significant role model ... 21
Normality and homogeneity ... 22
Role model influence ... 22
6. Conclusion and discussion ... 25
Conclusion ... 25
Discussion ... 26
Suggestions for further research ... 28
Limitiations ... 28 Concluding remarks ... 28 References ... 30 Appendices ... 34 Appendix 1: ... 34 Appendix 2: ... 35 Appendix 3: ... 36 Appendix 4: ... 37
Abstract
A person is learning to behave in a certain role throughout his or her life. This role is an observed pattern of behaviour that are characteristics of an individual in a certain context (Biddle, 1979). A role model is important in this as people try to imitate their role model in order to get the same social position (Bosma et al., 2012, Kagan, 1958).
A lot of research has been done on role models over the past decade. However, in many cases, this research does not focus on entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial intentions. Now that more and more people are becoming an entrepreneur in the Netherlands (Kamer van Koophandel, 2017), it is important to see how role models effect the intentions to become an entrepreneur so that this effect can be taken into consideration when designing education programs that educate people to become an entrepreneur.
This research focusses on one aspect of the role model and the effect it has on entrepreneurial intentions: entrepreneurship. In other words, in this thesis, an effort is done to find out if entrepreneurial role models effect entrepreneurial intentions more than non-entrepreneurial role models.
Van Auken et al (2006b), did research on entrepreneurial intentions amongst students in the United States of America and amongst students in Mexico. They found that entrepreneurial intentions amongst US students are significantly influenced by entrepreneurial role models as compared to non-entrepreneurial role models. However, this was not the case for the Mexican students. In this thesis, the same question is answered for Dutch students. The hypothesis that is tested in this research is “Role models that are an entrepreneur have a greater influence on
entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students than role models who are not an entrepreneur”.
Using an online survey, 84 valid responses were elicited from Dutch students. The data was analysed in the statistical software SPSS. Using a Mann-Whitney U test, the hypothesis that was tested in this research is rejected: it was found that entrepreneurial role models do not have a significantly larger effect on entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students than non-entrepreneurial role models.
Acknowledgements
I feel it is important to acknowledge a few people who have directly or indirectly contributed to my thesis in its current form.
First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Tsvi Vinig, for his guidance through the thesis process. By discussing my thesis with him, I gained insights I would have never come to myself. Besides that, he gave me feedback and tips even after he was required to as I missed my first deadline due to the fact that I put my priorities at work instead of at my study. Secondly, I would like to thank my parents, my girlfriend and my girlfriend’s parents for motivating me, giving me space to work on my thesis in a tight schedule, and for being there to discuss my concerns about my thesis.
Finally, I want to thank everyone who responded to the survey that I used for this thesis. It positively surprised me how many people helped me out – not only by responding to the survey, but also by sending it to other students - and at what pace this was done.
Statement of originality
This document is written by student Dimitri Krabbenborg, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the content.
The copyright of this document rests with the student Dimitri Krabbenborg. Dimitri Krabbenborg is solely responsible for the content of the thesis, including mistakes.
1. Introduction
Over the past years, several scholars did research on entrepreneurship and all topics that are related to entrepreneurship. When analysing these results, one could conclude that becoming an entrepreneur has enough negative sides not to engage in entrepreneurship. For example, Hall and Woodward (2010), found that the average payoff of a venture-backed entrepreneur is a below market salary. In addition, the payoff is very dispersed; almost 75% of entrepreneurs receive nothing at all. In addition to a lower expected return, entrepreneurs also work more hours than non-entrepreneurs (Åstebro & Chen, 2014).
Even though this might not sound attractive, the number of start-ups in the Netherlands grew last year. This growth even led to a record as the number of start-ups in the Netherlands was at a height it had never reached before (Kamer van Koophandel, 2017). The fact that people decide to become an entrepreneur despite the low expected return implies that there are other reasons for becoming an entrepreneur. According to Hurst & Pugsley (2011), non-pecuniary benefits such as being one’s own boss or having flexible hours play a more important role in the decision to become entrepreneur.
Besides the aforementioned rational reasons to become an entrepreneur or not, there is also a social factor that influences people to become an entrepreneur or not. For instance, Nanda & SØrensen (2010) found that individuals are more likely to become an entrepreneur when they work or have worked with people who have been an entrepreneur. Furthermore, Lindquist et al (2015) found that nurture by entrepreneurial parents accounts for a large part to an individual becoming an entrepreneur.
People are influenced by other people they encounter during their life. This already starts at a child’s birth; the role of a parent in the early stages of a child’s life is important. Several scholars did research on the influence parental behaviour has on a child. The parental behaviour influences amongst others a child’s eating behaviour (Benton, 2004; Scaglioni et al., 2008), sport participation (Greendorfer & Lewko, 1978; Moore et al., 1991), and consumer socialization (Moschis, 1985). Besides those aspects, parental behaviour also influences how a child views entrepreneurship. Lindquist et al. (2015) found that children of entrepreneurial parents are 60% more likely to become entrepreneur themselves as well. However, they also found that “post birth factors account for twice as much as pre-birth factors in the intergenerational association in entrepreneurship”. In other words, nurture is more important in
influencing someone to become an entrepreneur than nature. In their research, Lindquist et al (2015) present suggestive evidence of role modelling as the reason for this.
Role models are assumed to have an important impact on career development (van Auken et al, 2006a). Role models can directly affect entrepreneurial intentions as long as they affect an individual’s attitudes (Krueger 1993; Scherer et al., 1989). In the light of entrepreneurial education, it is interesting to see what the exact influence is of certain characteristics role models have, on a group of students’ entrepreneurial intentions.
Van Auken et al. (2006b) compared the influence of role models on entrepreneurial intentions amongst American and Mexican students and found ten variables of role model influence that were significantly different between the students from both countries. This would mean that if entrepreneurship programs are being developed for i.e. Dutch students, the kind of role models that are presented should be bespoke for a certain country or culture.
Previous literature pointed out that role models influence entrepreneurial intentions (Auken et al., 2006b; Krueger, 1993; Krueger et al., 2000; Scherer et al., 1989). It is interesting to see which characteristics of these role models influence entrepreneurial intentions the most. The idea of this thesis is to focus on one characteristic specifically: whether the role model is an entrepreneur himself. Following the social learning theory – which will be explained later – a certain role is learned by observing someone they can learn something from. The question is if the role of an entrepreneur is more easily learned when observing a role model who is an entrepreneur himself. The goal of this thesis is therefore to find out the influence a role model who is an entrepreneur himself has on entrepreneurial intentions, and to see if this influence is bigger than for role models that are not entrepreneurs.
2. Research question and relevance
Even though there has been quite a lot of research on role modelling, there is only very limited, if any, research on entrepreneurial role modelling specifically targeted at Dutch students. Hence, this thesis investigates role models amongst Dutch students and the influence role models with different characteristics have on the Dutch students’ entrepreneurial intentions. The following research question is at the heart of this thesis:
“Do entrepreneurial role models have a larger influence on entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students than non-entrepreneurial role models?”
The research objectives that are derived from this research question are as follows:
1. To identify the influence of entrepreneurship amongst role models on entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students.
2. To identify the difference in influence entrepreneurial role models have on entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch student compared to non-entrepreneurial role models.
3. To identify the entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students.
The answers to the research question of this thesis as well as the research objectives formulated above may be relevant for universities and other educational institutes that educate their students on entrepreneurship. Furthermore, the results could be relevant in educational courses in which entrepreneurship in different countries is debated. Finally, the answers to the research question and research objectives can be relevant for Dutch family businesses in which continuation of the company by family members is desiderate.
Besides the practical relevance of this thesis, this thesis is also academically relevant. By doing the research that is required to answer the research question stated above, insight will be gained in types of role models Dutch students have and the influence these role models have on the Dutch students. This can be the basis for further research on role models in the Netherlands as the currently available research on this topic is limited.
This thesis will continue in the following order: first, based on previous literature, the concepts of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial intentions, role models, and culture will be discussed. Based on the literature study, hypotheses will be formed. The hypotheses will then be presented in a conceptual model. Subsequently, the method for the research will be presented. After which, the results of the research will be presented. To finalize this thesis, the results will be
discussed, the limitations will be shown, suggestions for further research will be given, and a final conclusion will be drawn.
3. Theoretical framework and conceptual framework
In this part of this thesis, elaboration will be given on the concepts employed in this thesis. In addition, the hypothesis that will be tested in this research will be elucidated.
In the first part of this section, the concept of entrepreneurship will be discussed. Then, entrepreneurial intentions will be touched upon. The concept of role models and the difference between entrepreneurial role models and non-entrepreneurial role models will be looked at. Finally, the concept of culture will be discussed and a comparison between the Netherlands, Mexico and the United States of America will be made.
After elaborating on the concepts employed in this thesis, an overview will be given of the concepts and the relationships they have. The hypothesized relationships will be shown in a conceptual model.
Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship is booming in the Netherlands – more companies got started in the past few years (Kamer van Koophandel, 2017; Span et al., 2014) and the survival rates of new enterprises is relatively high in the Netherlands (Span et al., 2014). According to Lazear (2005, p.649), “the entrepreneur is the single most important player in a modern economy”. But, what exactly is an entrepreneur and why do people engage in entrepreneurial activities?
There has been a serious amount of research on entrepreneurship and all adjacent topics. However, there remains discussion on the exact meaning of entrepreneurship. Perhaps the most well-known definition comes from Schumpeter (1934), who describes entrepreneurship as creating innovation or as he calls ‘creative destruction’. In his view, an entrepreneur is not necessarily a business owner.
For the sake of simplicity in this study, we will employ another definition of entrepreneurship: an entrepreneur is someone who starts his or her own business. Hence, entrepreneurship is merely being the founder of a business.
The expected return on entrepreneurship tends to be low on average. However, there is a high variance amongst entrepreneurs as most fail and only a very small group is exceptionally successful (Åstebro et al., 2014). According to Hall & Woodward (2010), people with average risk aversion should not engage in entrepreneurship as chances of zero exit value are too large. Nonetheless, people are still engaging in entrepreneurial activities. Not only do they engage in entrepreneurial activities, they also persist in running their business for long(er) periods of time,
despite the low returns (Åstebro, 2003; Hamilton, 2000; Moskowitz & Vissing-JØrgensen, 2002).
Even though there is a good amount of research on the relation between risk taking and entrepreneurship (Ahn, 2010; Cramer et al., 2002; Holt & Laury; 2002; Hvide & Panos, 2014; Khilstrom & Laffont, 1979), chances are that there are other reasons for becoming an entrepreneur. Following the line of thought of Åstebro et al. (2014), there is evidence of two other reasons: overconfidence in oneself and non-pecuniary benefits.
The first reason, overconfidence “implies that individuals enter into entrepreneurship because they subjectively perceive the return distribution too favourable when evaluating their own entrepreneurial project. Overconfidence can be split up in three forms: overestimation – overestimating one’s ability to perform, overplacement - placing one’s skills too high above other, and overprecision – the excessive certainty in one’s beliefs (Moore & Healy, 2008). Keeping this in mind, it does make sense to engage in entrepreneurial activities when you think you are better than the rest, as the results can be very high if you are successful.
The second reason for engaging in entrepreneurial activities despite its low returns are benefits from a non-pecuniary type. These include independence and autonomy (Frey et al., 2004). These non-pecuniary benefits (and the importance attached to them) differ from person to person, but it can be stated that they are important: non-pecuniary benefits can be as large as 143% of ones total annual income (Moskowitz & Jorgensen, 2002).
Besides the reasons mentioned above, there is also a social factor that has an influence on people becoming entrepreneur. Higher amounts of entrepreneurs are found amongst people who were in touch with (ex-)entrepreneurs (Nanda & SØrensen, 2010; Krueger, 1993). This implies that (ex-)entrepreneurs function as some kind of role model to people who become an entrepreneur in the future.
Entrepreneurial intentions
According to Krueger et al. (2000), entrepreneurial activity is intentionally, planned behaviour. This means that becoming an entrepreneur is not something that just happens to someone; entrepreneurs become an entrepreneur because they have planned to do so. In fact, intentions and not attitudes, beliefs, or personality, are the best predictor of planned behaviour – in this case entrepreneurship (Bagozzi et al., 1989). This means that if a student has the intention to become an entrepreneur, it is a good prediction that the student will become an entrepreneur.
According to Ajzen (1985), intentions are built up from three components. First of all, there are behavioural beliefs. These beliefs produce a certain attitude towards a behaviour. Secondly, there are normative beliefs which result in perceived pressure by someone’s social network. Finally, there are control beliefs: beliefs about things that can influence the performance of a certain behaviour. Hence, someone will be more likely to intend to become an entrepreneur if he or she has a positive attitude towards being an entrepreneur, if he or she thinks they can control the variables that contribute to success and if someone perceives pressure from their social network.
All these components that lead to intentions can be influenced by exogenous variables. Behavioural beliefs and control beliefs are perception based. This means that they are learned (Krueger et al., 2000). Normative beliefs are obviously influenced by the social network someone has.
All three components can be influenced by a role model. Beliefs that are learned can be learned by observing a role model or by socialization. If the role model is also in someone’s social network he or she can also influence normative beliefs. Hence, role models can influence someone’s intentions if they affect attitudes (Krueger 1993; Scherer et al., 1989).
Krueger et al. (2000) tested several intentions models and found that the Shapero-Krueger model (figure 1) was statistically supported. In this model, specific desirability’s and perceived self-efficacy result in perceived desirability and perceived feasibility. Together with the propensity to act, they form intentions.
This means that if someone perceives that he or she can perform the skills required to be an entrepreneur he or she will have a higher perceived feasibility of entrepreneurship. Combining this with specific characteristics that are perceived as desirabilities and the propensity to act, one will have high entrepreneurial intentions.
Role models
According to Basow & Howe (1980), a role model serves as someone whose life and activities contribute to learning a role behaviour. A person is learning to behave in a certain role throughout his or her life. After all, a role is an observed pattern of behaviours that are characteristics of an individual in a certain context (Biddle, 1979). Hence, a role is learned through socialization (Thomas & Biddle, 1966). A role model can influence someone both directly as well as indirectly. Someone’s role is directly influenced when a role model affects an individual’s attitude(s) (Krueger, 1993; Scherer et al., 1989). At the same time, a behaviour can indirectly be affected by a role model when there is an observational learning experience (Lent, Brown & Hackett,1994). This means that a role model can be someone an individual knows on a personal level – which is likely when the role model affects someone’s attitudes. A role model can also be someone an individual does not know on a personal level (i.e. a television personality, famous entrepreneur etc.) as personal contact is not necessary for an observational learning experience.
There are two streams of literature concerning role models: role identification theory and social learning theory.
Role identification theory argues that role behaviour is learned through socialization (Thomas & Biddle, 1966). Socialization is the learning of behaviour at various stages of an individual’s lifecycle (Van Auken et al, 2006b). Role identification is a cognitive response to someone’s belief that the characteristics of his or her role model are close to his or her own motives and that the role model has a desirable social position (Bosma et al., 2012, Kagan, 1958). This means that one forms or adapts his or preferences (Witt, 1991) or behaviour if it is expected to be rewarding (i.e. one can get closer to the social position the role model has). Role models can motivate and inspire someone and they can also define one’s self concept (Akerlof and Kronton, 2000) and enhance one’s self-efficacy to engage in a certain occupation (Gibson, 2004; Lockwood and Kunda, 1997).
The second theory on role models is the social learning theory. This theory says that individuals are attracted to role models who can help them to further develop themselves by learning new tasks and skills (Gibson, 2004). People learn by observing others with whom they can identify (e.g. family and friends). In this theory, role models can also help someone with practical support and/or mentoring (Nauta and Kokaly, 2001).
According to Krumboltz et al. (1976), role models have a profound influence on career decisions. Hence, a role model can also increase one’s entrepreneurial intentions (Van Auken et al., 2006a; 2006b; Bosma et al, 2012) and as a result role models can increase entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial activity (Krueger et al., 2000).
In order to indicate the importance of role models on entrepreneurial intentions, we follow the line of thought of Bosma et al. (2012, p. 2); “there are three strands of literature that may provide indications that role models are of importance in the decision to actually become an entrepreneur”.
First of all, numerous studies have shown that children with entrepreneurial parents are more likely to become entrepreneur themselves (Chlosta et al. 2010; Dunn and Holtz-Eakin, 2000; Falck et al. 2010; Fairlie and Robb, 2007; Lindquist et al., 2015).
Secondly, researched showed that peer groups such as colleagues (Falck et al. 2010; Gianetti and Simonov, 2009; Nanda and Sorensen, 2010; Stuart and Ding, 2006) and networks (Butler & Hansen, 1991; Kim and Aldrich, 2005; Klyver et al. 2007) influences entrepreneurial intentions.
Finally, research showed that entrepreneurial activity is not spread evenly over the world. There are area’s with a higher entrepreneurial density than others (Reynolds et al., 1994). This could be due to the (lack of) presence of entrepreneurial role models in a certain area (Fornahl, 2003; Lafuente et al. 2007; Sternberg, 2009).
As is mentioned before, role models can influence someone’s self-efficacy (Gibson, 2004; Lockwood and Kunda, 1997). Also, role identification theory suggest that people try to ‘copy’ their role model in order to reach the same level of status and the advantages that come along with that (Bosma et al., 2012, Kagan, 1958). Taking this into account when looking at the Shapero-Krueger model (figure 1), it can be concluded that intentions can be affected and influenced by a role model. Looking at intentions to become an entrepreneur, it is likely that role models that are an entrepreneur themselves will influence entrepreneurial intentions more than role models who are not an entrepreneur. After all, if someone desires to have the characteristics a role model has it will try to copy those characteristics. Hence, the hypothesis that will be tested in this thesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 1: Role models that are an entrepreneur have a greater influence on entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students than role models who are not an entrepreneur.
Culture
Entrepreneurship is an important source of innovation (Schumpeter, 1934) and economic growth (Birley, 1987). Just as economic growth and levels of innovation differ from country to country, so does entrepreneurial activity. Research argue that culture has influence on the level of entrepreneurial activity in a country (Hayton et al., 2006).
Even though there is no consensus of an exact definition of the concept ‘culture’ one can define culture as a set of shared values, expected behaviours, and beliefs (Hofstede, 1980). Those values and beliefs are the basis of how a society considers entrepreneurial behaviour to be desirable (Hayton, George, Zahra, 2006). In cultures where entrepreneurial behaviour is stimulated, more entrepreneurial activity can be seen than in cultures where entrepreneurial behaviour is not stimulated (Herbig & Miller, 1992; Hofstede, 1980). Hence it is important to understand a culture in order to understand the values and beliefs concerning entrepreneurship and vice versa.
Hofstede (2013) conducted research on culture and how it influences values in the workplace. His definition of culture is ‘the collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members from one group or category from others’. His research resulted in six dimensions on which national culture is scored in relation to other cultures. This can be used to understand a culture and thus the values and beliefs about entrepreneurship.
Van Auken et al. (2006b) conducted research on the effect of role models on entrepreneurial intentions amongst students in Mexico and the USA. The culture of those countries contrasts on the six dimensions by Hofstede (2010). In this study, van Auken et al. (2006b) found that different characteristics have a smaller or larger influence on entrepreneurial intentions depending on the country of origin and thus the culture of a group of students. Hence, it can be argued that culture has a moderating effect on entrepreneurial intentions when it comes to certain characteristics. After all, culture makes the influence of a certain characteristic on entrepreneurial intentions stronger or weaker.
This is exemplified when looking at the results of the influence of role models’ business ownership on entrepreneurial intentions amongst the group of students in Mexico and compare them to the entrepreneurial intentions amongst the group of students in the USA from the study by van Auken et al. (2006b). For both groups, a role model owning a business has a larger influence on career thinking. However, this positive influence was significantly greater amongst the US students.
Conceptual model
When summarizing the above, it can be concluded that there are advantages and disadvantages to becoming an entrepreneur. People engage in entrepreneurial activities mainly because they are overconfident or they value non-pecuniary benefits more than pecuniary benefits. Besides that, there is a social factor that can influence people to become more entrepreneurial. The best predictor of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial activities is the intention to become an entrepreneur. An intention is built up from several components that can be effected by exogenous variables. One of those exogenous variables are role models. Role models influence one’s intentions through being around someone so that they can be observed or used as mentor, or by showing desirabilities that person wants to have. Finally, culture plays a role in how role models can influence the components that make up for entrepreneurial intentions.
When visualising the relations mentioned above we come to the following conceptual model:
Based on previous research (van Auken et al., 2006b; Krueger et al. 2000), a positive effect of entrepreneurship amongst role models on entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students can be expected. In addition, based on previous research by van Auken et al. (2006b), it can be expected that culture has a moderating effect on the relationship between entrepreneurship amongst role models and entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students. In a culture that comes close to the culture in America, it will be likely that entrepreneurship amongst role models has a significant impact on entrepreneurial intentions. As the culture in the
Netherlands has similar scores to the culture in the United States on four dimensions, it is likely that the relationship between entrepreneurial role models and entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students is significantly positive.
4. Methodology
In this part of this thesis, the research methodology employed to obtain the data necessary to answer the research question will be described. In the first section, the research design will be explained and motivated. In the second section, the way of collecting data needed to answer the research and sub question(s) will be explained. The final section will shed light on how the acquired data will be analysed. This is done to identify the relationship between entrepreneurship of a role model and the entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students, and the effect culture has on this relationship.
Research design
This research is one with a formalized rather than exploratory character as the goal of this thesis is to discover associations among different variables. However, in this thesis possible explanations of the associations we find will also be given. Therefore, this research is not entirely formalized. The purpose of this study is causal; the goal is to explain the relationship of entrepreneurship amongst role models and its effect on entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students.
The unit of analysis of this research is the Dutch student currently studying at a university or at a university of applied sciences. The goal of the research is to find out how role models affect their intentions. The research will be performed in actual environmental conditions to see how Dutch students are affected by role models in their day-to-day life. The students will participate in this research at a single moment in time. This means that this thesis employs a cross-sectional study.
Based on the research question as stated in chapter 2, a quantitative method of doing research will be employed. To gather the data needed to answer the research question and its sub-questions, an online survey will be conducted. Survey-based research has found use in many research fields and is considered to provide generalizable results. Besides that, an online survey has the advantage of gaining a large amount of data in an economical way (Saunders and Lewis, 2012). The survey will be available online to get higher response rates and to minimize costs. Before sending the actual survey out to the target group, a pilot survey will be sent out to a select group of Dutch students whom could also fit in the target group. The results and feedback from the pilot study will be used to fine tune the actual survey in order to get the instructions and questions as clear as possible.
Target group and communication
The target group for the online survey consists of students studying at a university or at a university of applied sciences located in the Netherlands. The students also need to have the Dutch nationality to fit in the target group.
The survey will be send to a sample of the total population to increase speed and to lower costs. The target group of this research will be reached via a way of snowball sampling. An initial group of students will be asked to participate in the survey. After completing the survey, they were asked to send the survey over to students they knew using group chats in the mobile application ‘Whatsapp’.
Using this approach, the survey was sent out to about 250 students that fell into the target group. The downside of this approach is that the survey also ended up at some individuals who did not meet the criteria of the target group. This resulted in a relatively high percentage of respondents that had to be excluded from this study.
Data collection
To test the relationship between entrepreneurial role models and entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students, and the moderating effect culture might have on this relationship, data is required. The data for this research will be obtained via an online survey.
The surveys will be send out to Dutch students currently studying at a Dutch university or at a Dutch university of applied science. All the questions in the survey will be explained so that the respondents understand all the questions. Before the survey was sent out to the respondents, a pilot survey was conducted to make sure the instructions were clear and the questions were sound.
The survey used for this research consists of three parts. The first part consists of questions about demographics. Respondents need to fill in their gender, age, nationality (to make sure only Dutch students participate), and the level of education they currently follow (only students studying at a university or university of applied science participate).
In the second part of the questionnaire, questions about the respondent’s role model will be asked. Respondents need to indicate their relationship with their role model (i.e. family member, acquaintance, etc.). Besides that, respondents will clarify if their role model is entrepreneurial or not (in other words, if he or she has or has had his or her own company).
Finally, in the third part, the questionnaire goes into career thinking and entrepreneurial intentions to find out how much those are influenced by the role model. The respondents will be asked how much their most significant role model has influenced their career thinking and their entrepreneurial intentions. Also, the respondents will be asked to what extend they want to start a business within 10 years after their graduation.
The respondents answer the questions in the third part by responding to a 1-7 Likert scale. This makes it easy to analyse the results of the survey. Besides that, obtaining answers from the respondents in this manner is the same as van Auken et al. (2006b) did in their research. Therefore, it will be easy to compare the results of this research with the results of the research by van Auken et al. (2006b). By doing this, one can see what the influence of culture is on the relationship between role models that are an entrepreneur and the entrepreneurial intentions of students.
Data analysis
To analyse the data acquired with the online survey discussed in the section above, IBM’s SPSS will be used. First, the data will be prepared. The respondents who did not meet all the criteria to participate in this research will be repudiated. The answers of the remaining respondents who did meet the criteria set to participate in the research will be entered into SPSS.
Before doing any tests, the data will be tested on normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality. Besides that, the data will be tested on homogeneity using Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances. These tests are necessary in order to get valid results. To compare the means of the answers to the questions ‘to what extent has your most
significant role model increased your entrepreneurial intentions?’ and ‘to what extent do you want to start a business within 10 years after graduation?’ of the two different groups – students with an entrepreneurial role model and students with a non-entrepreneurial role model – the Mann-Whitney U test will be performed. This test is chosen as it is a rank based non-parametic test that can be used to determine if there are differences between two groups on a continuous or ordinal dependent variable. As the difference in entrepreneurial intentions between two groups (students with entrepreneurial role model and students with
non-entrepreneurial role model) is tested and the dependent variable is measured on an ordinal scale, the Mann-Whitney U test is appropriate. The results of these tests will show if there is a larger influence of entrepreneurial role models on entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch
students compared to non-entrepreneurial role models. The results of the tests will also show if the difference is significant. In addition to the aforementioned reasons, this test will also be used as the data acquired through the online survey is non-normally distributed and normality of data is required for the independent sample t-test (as will be shown in chapter 5).
5. Results
In this section of the thesis, the results from the analysed data gathered from the online survey will be presented. In the first part, the descriptive statistics of the respondents will be
presented. After this, the normality and homogeneity test results will be presented. Finally, the results of the independent sample t-test will be presented.
Respondent characteristics
As mentioned before, the survey was sent to about 250 students. There were 98 of these students who participated in the survey. Of these, 14 had to be left out as they did not meet all criteria (they were not currently studying at a university or university of applied sciences). Hence, by carrying out this survey, 84 valid responses were obtained.
The percentage of female respondents was higher than the percentage of male respondents: 59,5% of the respondents is female while 40,5% of the respondents is male. The majority of respondents are aged between 21-25, making up for 69% of the respondents. Hence, due to their age, it is likely that the majority of survey respondents are in the later phases of their study. The age groups 18-20 (early phase students), 26-30 (long-term students), and other are represented with respectively 22,6%, 3,6%, and 4,8% of the respondents. Finally, the group of respondents studying at a university is slightly higher (52,4%) than the group of respondents studying at a university of applied sciences (47,6%).
Most significant role model
Table 1 shows the most significant role model in influencing career decisions amongst Dutch students. The largest group of respondents indicated that their father is their most significant role model in influencing career decisions. The group of respondents who chose their sibling or another family member as their most significant role model in influencing career decisions is the smallest.
The largest part of respondents has a non-entrepreneurial role model (58,3%). The group of respondents with an entrepreneurial role model consists out of 41,7% of respondents. Normality and homogeneity
When testing the data acquired from the survey, especially the answers to the last three questions ‘To what extent has your most significant role model influenced your career thinking?’, ‘To what extent has your most significant role model increased your
entrepreneurial intentions?’ and ‘To what extent do you want to start a business within 10 years after graduation?’ are important to test.
Normality was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk’s test. For all three questions, data was not normally distributed (p<.05) (see appendix 1). The results from the group of students with entrepreneurial role models has approximately the same distribution on the question on career thinking as the results from the group of students with non-entrepreneurial role models (see appendix 2). However, the results from the group of students with entrepreneurial role models has a different distribution for the questions on increase in entrepreneurial intentions by the role model and on entrepreneurial intentions than the group of students with
non-entrepreneurial role models (see appendix 3 and 4).
Homogeneity was assessed using Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances. There was homogeneity of variances for entrepreneurial intentions (p= .496), career influence (p= .721), and starting a business in 10 years after graduation (p= .885) scores for the group with
entrepreneurial role models and the group with non-entrepreneurial role models Role model influence
In the last section of the survey, questions were asked about the influence role models have on the respondents. First of all, the respondents noted the influence their most significant role model has on their career thinking. The results are shown in table 2. These results indicate that entrepreneurial role models have a slightly higher influence (mean = 4,53) on career thinking than non-entrepreneurial role models (mean = 4,38).
Career N Mean
Combined 84 4,44
Entrepreneurial role model 34 4,53
Non-entrepreneurial role model 50 4,38
Table 2: role model influence on career thinking
The respondents then indicated to what extent their most significant role model increased their entrepreneurial intentions. The results can be found in table 3. In the group of students
with an entrepreneurial role model, the role model also has a higher influence on
entrepreneurial intentions (mean = 3,79) compared to the influence non-entrepreneurial role models have (mean = 3,28).
Increase of entrepreneurial intentions by role model
N Mean
Combined 84 3,49
Entrepreneurial role model 34 3,79
Non-entrepreneurial rol model 50 3,28
Table 3: entrepreneurial intentions increase because of role model
Finally, the respondents were asked to indicate their actual entrepreneurial intentions: to what extent do they want to start their own business within 10 years after graduation? The group of students with an entrepreneurial role model seem to have higher entrepreneurial intentions (mean = 4,21) than the group of students with non-entrepreneurial role models (mean = 3,42).
Actual entrepreneurial intentions N Mean
Combined 84 3,74
Entrepreneurial role model 34 4,21
Non-entrepreneurial rol model 50 3,42
Table 4: entrepreneurial intentions of Dutch students
To find out if the differences reported above are significant, a Mann-Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in influence on career thinking, increase in
entrepreneurial intentions by the role model, and actual entrepreneurial intentions of the students.
Distributions of the influence on career thinking by role model scores for the group of students with entrepreneurial role models and the group of students with non-entrepreneurial role models were similar, as assessed by visual inspection (see appendix 2). Scores for
influence on career thinking by role model between the group of students with entrepreneurial role models (Mdn = 5,0) and the group of students with non-entrepreneurial role models (Mdn = 5,0) were not statistically significantly different, U=893, z=0,404, p=.686 (see appendix 2). Distributions of the increase of entrepreneurial intentions by role model scores for the group of students with entrepreneurial role models and the group of students with
non-entrepreneurial role models were not similar, as assessed by visual inspection (see appendix 3). Scores for increase of entrepreneurial intentions by role model between the group of students with entrepreneurial role models (mean = 3,79) and the group of students with non-entrepreneurial role models (mean = 3,28) were not statistically significantly different, U=984, z=1,238, p=.216 (see appendix 3).
Distributions of the entrepreneurial intentions scores for the group of students with
entrepreneurial role models and the group of students with non-entrepreneurial role models were not similar, as assessed by visual inspection (see appendix 4). Scores for entrepreneurial intentions between the group of students with entrepreneurial role models (mean = 4,21) and the group of students with non-entrepreneurial role models (mean = 3,42) were not
statistically significantly different, U = 1035,5, z = 1,710, p = .087 (see appendix 4).
Taking all the results reported above into account, it can be concluded that there are no significant differences in the influence entrepreneurial role models have on either career thinking or entrepreneurial intentions compared to the influence non-entrepreneurial role models have. Hence, the hypothesis tested in this thesis ‘Role models that are an entrepreneur
have a greater influence on entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students than role models who are not an entrepreneur’ is rejected.
6. Conclusion and discussion
In this chapter, a conclusion is drawn based on the results reported in chapter 5. Following on that, the results and the conclusion will be discussed. A comparison will be made between the expected results as described in chapter 3 and the actual results described in chapter 5.
Besides that, a connection will be made between the results presented in the results section and the theoretical framework in the literature review section. Finally, the limitations of this research will be presented and the recommendations for possible future research will be made. Conclusion
In this research, an answer was sought on the research question “Do entrepreneurial role
models have a larger influence on entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students than non-entrepreneurial role models?”. A quantitative research was performed. Using an online survey,
84 valid responses from Dutch students were acquired.
The results of this survey showed that for most respondents, their father or mother is their most significant role model. The results also indicated that entrepreneurial role models have a larger influence on career thinking and entrepreneurial intentions than non-entrepreneurial role models. Besides that, the group of students with entrepreneurial role models have higher entrepreneurial intentions than the group of students with non-entrepreneurial role models. However, neither the larger influence on career thinking and entrepreneurial intentions by role models nor the higher entrepreneurial intention of students with an entrepreneurial role model are significant. Hence, the hypothesis “Role models that are an entrepreneur have a greater
influence on entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students than role models who are not an entrepreneur” is rejected.
Taking the results of the quantitative research performed into account, the research question can be answered: entrepreneurial role models do not have a significantly larger influence on entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students than non-entrepreneurial role models. With these results, the first two research objectives of this thesis are reached. Entrepreneurship amongst role models positively influences entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students. However, this influence is not significant. Also, entrepreneurial role models seem to have a slightly larger influence on entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students compared to non-entrepreneurial role models. However, this difference is not significant. The last research objective of this research is to identify the entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students. Taking the scores of this question from both the group of students with entrepreneurial role
models and the group of students with non-entrepreneurial role models together, entrepreneurial intention scores of 3.74 on a scale of 1 to 7 are found.
Discussion
In this research, a survey was conducted that tested the influence that entrepreneurial role models have on the entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students. Some of the questions in the survey were comparable to the questions used in the survey done by van Auken et al (2006b). As mentioned in prior sections, there was no significantly larger influence on entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students by entrepreneurial role models compared to non-entrepreneurial role models. This outcome is contrary to the expectations as mentioned in chapter 3. These expectations were partly based on research done by van Auken et al (2006b). Their findings (partly) contradict with the findings of this study as Van Auken et al. (2006b) found that the influence on entrepreneurial intentions amongst American students by entrepreneurial role models is significantly larger than for non-entrepreneurial role models while in this research this difference is not significant.
Concurrently, this research does support the idea by van Auken et al. (2006b) that culture has a moderating effect on the relation between entrepreneurship amongst role models and
entrepreneurial intentions amongst students. Taking the results of this study on Dutch students and the results of the study by van Auken et al. (2006b) in the United States and Mexico together, it can be concluded that the effect of entrepreneurial role models is different in all three countries. This is not in line with the expectations of this study as described in chapter 3 – because of the comparable scores on the six dimensions by Hofstede (2010), comparable results in the Netherlands and the United States were expected.
However, the fact that entrepreneurial role models have a different effect on entrepreneurial intentions in all three countries is in line with the expectations of this study as all three countries have a different culture. This would mean that culture indeed has a moderating effect on the relationship between entrepreneurial role models and entrepreneurial intentions amongst students.
As discussed in chapter 3, Hofstede (2013) found six dimensions on which culture can be measured. When comparing the culture of the Netherlands with the culture of the United States of America, one can see that the culture in both countries is in the same range of scores on 4 of the 6 dimensions. This can be seen in figure 3 which depicts the scores on those six dimensions for the United States, the Netherlands and Mexico. On the other two dimensions –
masculinity and long-term orientation, the cultures lack resemblance. It might be the case that those dimensions – and specifically the masculinity dimension - influences the relationship between entrepreneurship amongst role models and entrepreneurial intentions amongst students.
Figure 3: six dimensions of culture in the Netherlands compared to the culture in the USA and Mexico (Hofstede et al., 2010)
Hofstede et al (2010) describe a masculine society as a society that is ‘driven by competition, achievement and success, with success being defined by the winner/best in field – a value system that starts in school and continues throughout organisational life’. The long-term orientation dimension is described by Hofstede et al (2010) as ‘how every society has to maintain some links with its own past while dealing with the challenges of the present and future’. The dimensions on which the cultures of the Netherlands and the USA show contrast could explain the difference in influence of entrepreneurial role models on entrepreneurial intentions amongst students. Being an entrepreneur usually means that one is the CEO of a company which could make a big impression if this position is perceived as the best position within a company. Due to the masculine culture in the United States, the position of the CEO might make a bigger impression in the USA than in the Netherlands.
Even though the difference in scores on the masculinity and long-term orientation dimensions might seem like a plausible explanation of the difference in influence of entrepreneurial role models on entrepreneurial intentions amongst students, it does not explain this difference when comparing the culture in the Netherlands to the culture in Mexico. These two countries
have different scores on all dimensions, including masculinity and long-term orientation. Hence, one cannot say that the influence of entrepreneurship on the relation between role models and entrepreneurial intentions amongst students is influenced by the scores on the masculinity and long-term orientation dimensions of Hofstede (2010).
Suggestions for further research
This research leaves room for further research. It is found that entrepreneurship amongst role models does not have a significantly larger influence on entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students than non-entrepreneurial role models. This is different amongst students in the USA (van Auken et al., 2006b). It would be interesting to find out why this is not the case. In order to do this, other studies can be done in countries that have a culture that is comparable to the culture in the Netherlands and in the United States but that is different on one
component. This way, one can find out which component influences the effect entrepreneurial role models have on entrepreneurial intentions.
Besides further research on the exact influence of culture on the relationship between role models and entrepreneurial intentions amongst students, there are more aspects that could be interesting for future research. First of all, it would be interesting to find out if the influence of role models is different on students than on non-students. Also, it is interesting to test the influence role models have on different groups of students (i.e. Dutch students that are a member of a sorority/fraternity and Dutch students who are not).
Limitiations
The research performed in this thesis has its limitations. Due to time constraints, only 84 valid responses have been received on the questionnaire. In addition, it is also likely that the
majority of respondents studies in the western part of the Netherlands as research was carried out from Amsterdam. Hence, the students from other parts of the Netherlands might not have been represented well enough. It could be that the effect of entrepreneurial role models is much larger or smaller in the southern, northern or eastern part of the country. As the number of respondents is on the low end and the location the respondents follow their study is too centralized, the respondents do not represent the total population of Dutch students. This means that the actual influence entrepreneurial role models have on entrepreneurial intentions amongst Dutch students is different from the results reported in this thesis.
Concluding remarks
Taking all the results into consideration, it can be concluded that educational institutions who want to increase the level of entrepreneurship amongst their students need to incorporate role
models into their education as this research has shown that role models have a positive
influence on entrepreneurial intentions. However, according to this study, it does not matter if these role models own a business or not. For family businesses who desire continuation of the company by family members, it is good to know that based on this research, the chances of being a role models are quite high. For 50% of the respondents the most significant role model was their father or mother. Hence, parents can influence their children to become an entrepreneur.
In terms of academic relevance, one question remains unanswered. What exactly is the role of culture on the relationship between entrepreneurship amongst role models and entrepreneurial intentions amongst students? Even though this study has not been able to answer this
question, this research can serve as a proper basis for further research on the effect of entrepreneurship amongst role models on entrepreneurial intentions as well as the effect of role models on entrepreneurial intentions in the Netherlands.
References
Ahn, T. (2010). Attitudes toward risk and self-employment of young workers. Labour
Economics, 17(2), 434-442. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2009.06.005
Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and Identity. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 115(3), 715-753. doi:10.1162/003355300554881
Åstebro, T., & Chen, J. (2014). The entrepreneurial earnings puzzle: Mismeasurement or real? Journal
of Business Venturing, 29(1), 88-105. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.04.003
Åstebro, T. B., Herz, H., Nanda, R., & Weber, R. A. (2014). Seeking the Roots of Entrepreneurship: Insights from Behavioral Economics. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2635874
Ajzen, I. (1985). From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. Action Control, 11-39. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2
Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, J., & Yi, Y. (1989). An investigation into the role of intentions as mediators of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(1), 35-62. doi:10.1016/0167-4870(89)90056-1
Basow, S. A., & Howe, K. G. (1980). Role-Model Influence: Effects of Sex and Sex-Role Attitude in College Students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4(4), 558-572.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1980.tb00726.x
Benton, D. (2004). Role of parents in the determination of the food preferences of children and the development of obesity. International Journal of Obesity, 28(7), 858-869. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0802532 Birley, S. (1987). New ventures and employment growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(2), 155-165. doi:10.1016/0883-9026(87)90005-x
Blalock, H. M., Blau, P. M., Duncan, O. D., & Tyree, A. (1968). The American Occupational Structure. American Sociological Review, 33(2), 296. doi:10.2307/2092399
Blumberg, B., Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2012). Business research methods (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, England: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Bosma, N., Hessels, J., Schutjens, V., Praag, M. V., & Verheul, I. (2012). Entrepreneurship and role models. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(2), 410-424. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2011.03.004
Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role Theory: Expectations, Identities, and Behaviors. Burlington: Elsevier Science. Butler, J. E., & Hansen, G. S. (1991). Network evolution, entrepreneurial success, and regional development. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 3(1), 1-16.
doi:10.1080/08985629100000001
Chlosta, S., Patzelt, H., Klein, S. B., & Dormann, C. (2010). Parental role models and the decision to become self-employed: The moderating effect of personality. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 121-138. doi:10.1007/s11187-010-9270-y
Cramer, J., Hartog, J., Jonker, N., & Van Praag, C. (2002). Low risk aversion encourages the choice for entrepreneurship: an empirical test of a truism. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 48(1), 29-36. doi:10.1016/s0167-2681(01)00222-0
Dunn, T., & Holtz-Eakin, D. (2000). Financial Capital, Human Capital, and the Transition to Self‐ Employment: Evidence from Intergenerational Links. Journal of Labor Economics, 18(2), 282-305. doi:10.1086/209959
Fairlie, R. W., & Robb, A. (2007). Families, Human Capital, and Small Business: Evidence from the Characteristics of Business Owners Survey. ILR Review, 60(2), 225-245.
doi:10.1177/001979390706000204
Falck, O., Heblich, S., & Luedemann, E. (2010). Identity and entrepreneurship: do school peers shape entrepreneurial intentions? Small Business Economics, 39(1), 39-59. doi:10.1007/s11187-010-9292-5 Fornahl, D. (2003), Entrepreneurial activities in a regional context. In: Fornahl, D. and Brenner, T. (eds.), Cooperation, Networks and Institutions in Regional Innovation Systems. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 38-57.
Giannetti, M., & Simonov, A. (2009). Social Interactions and Entrepreneurial Activity. Journal of
Economics & Management Strategy, 18(3), 665-709. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9134.2009.00226.x
Gibson, D. E. (2004). Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 134-156. doi:10.1016/s0001-8791(03)00051-4 Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute. (2017). Netherlands - Global Entrepreneurship Development Institute. Retrieved July 18, 2017, from http://thegedi.org/countries/netherlands Greendorfer, S. L., & Lewko, J. H. (1978). Role of Family Members in Sport Socialization of Children. American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 49(2).
Hall, R., & Woodward, S. (2010). The Burden of the nondiversifiable Risk of Entrepreneurship.The
American Economic Review, 100(3). Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27871243.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A3165382dfbfb65eef87b3a861 16e34e0
Hayton, J., George, G., & Zahra, S. (2002). National Culture and Entrepreneurship: A Review of Behavioral Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 33-52. Retrieved from
http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/4642/
Herbig, P. A., & Miller, J. C. (1993). Culture and Technology: does the traffic move in both directions? Journal of Global Marketing, 6(3), 75-104. doi:10.1300/j042v06n03_05
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2013). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, Calif. u.a.: Sage.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind.
Revised and Expanded (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill USA.
Holt, Charles A., and Susan K. Laury. (2002). "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects." American Economic Review 92 (5): 1
Hurst, E., & Pugsley, B. W. (2011). What Do Small Businesses Do? doi:10.3386/w17041 Hvide, H. K., & Panos, G. A. (2014). Risk tolerance and entrepreneurship. Journal of Financial
Kagan, J. (1958). The concept of identification. Psychological Review, 65(5), 296-305. doi:10.1037/h0041313
Kamer van Koophandel. (2017, January 16). Bedrijvendynamiek 2016. Retrieved from
https://www.kvk.nl/over-de-kvk/nieuws-en-persberichten/16-kvk-bedrijvendynamiek-2016/
Kihlstrom, R. E., & Laffont, J. (1979). A General Equilibrium Entrepreneurial Theory of Firm Formation Based on Risk Aversion. Journal of Political Economy, 87(4), 719-748. doi:10.1086/260790
Kim and Howard E. Aldrich, P. H. (2005). Social Capital and Entrepreneurship. Foundations and
Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 55-104. doi:10.1561/0300000002
Klyver, K., Hindle, K. and Schøtt, T. (2007). Who will be an entrepreneur? How cultural mechanisms and social network structure together influence entrepreneurial participation, Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research 27(7), 305-320.
Krueger, N. 1993. Impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18(1):5–21.
Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 411-432. doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(98)00033-0 Krumboltz, J. D., Mitchell, A. M., & Jones, G. B. (1976). A Social Learning Theory of Career
Selection. The Counseling Psychologist, 6(1), 71-81. doi:10.1177/001100007600600117
Lafuente, E., Vaillant, Y., & Rialp, J. (2007). Regional Differences in the Influence of Role Models: Comparing the Entrepreneurial Process of Rural Catalonia. Regional Studies, 41(6), 779-796. doi:10.1080/00343400601120247
Lazear, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship. Journal of Labor Economics, 23(4), 649-680. doi:10.1086/491605 Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice and performance. Journal of vocational behaviour, 45(1) 79-122. Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 91-103. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.73.1.91 Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review, 115(2), 502-517. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.115.2.502
Moore, L. L., Lombardi, D. A., White, M. J., Campbell, J. L., Oliveria, S. A., & Ellison, R. C. (1991). Influence of parents' physical activity levels on activity levels of young children. The Journal of
Pediatrics, 118(2), 215-219. doi:10.1016/s0022-3476(05)80485-8
Moschis, G. P. (1985). The Role of Family Communication in Consumer Socialization of Children and Adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 898. doi:10.1086/209025
Nanda, R., & Sørensen, J. B. (2010). Workplace Peers and Entrepreneurship. Management
Science, 56(7), 1116-1126. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1100.1179
Nauta, M. M., & Kokaly, M. L. (2001). Assessing Role Model Influences on Students' Academic and Vocational Decisions. Journal of Career Assessment, 9(1), 81-99. doi:10.1177/106907270100900106 Reynolds, P., Storey, D. J., & Westhead, P. (1994). Cross-national Comparisons of the Variation in New Firm Formation Rates. Regional Studies, 28(4), 443-456. doi:10.1080/00343409412331348386
Saunders, M., & Lewis, P. (2012). Doing research in business and management. An Essential Guide to
Planning Your Project. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Scaglioni, S., Salvioni, M., & Galimberti, C. (2008). Influence of parental attitudes in the development of children eating behaviour. British Journal of Nutrition, 99(S1). doi:10.1017/s0007114508892471 Scherer, R., Adams, J., Carley, S., and Wiebe, F. 1989. Role model performance effects on
development of entrepreneurial career preference. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 13:53–81. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development.
Span, T., Van Stel, A., & Van den Berg, R. (2014). Global entrepeneurship monitor: The Netherlands
2013 : national report. Zoetermeer: Panteia.
Sternberg, R. (2009). Regional Dimensions of Entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends® in
Entrepreneurship, 5(4), 211-340. doi:10.1561/0300000024
Stuart, T., & Ding, W. (2006). When Do Scientists Become Entrepreneurs? The Social Structural Antecedents of Commercial Activity in the Academic Life Sciences. American Journal of
Sociology, 112(1), 97-144. doi:10.1086/502691
Thomas, E. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1966). Learning and socialization. In B. J. Biddle, & E. J. Thomas (Eds.), Role theory: Concepts and research (pp. 345–346). New York: Wiley.
Van Auken, H., Fry, F. L., & Stephens, P. (2006a). The influence of role models on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 11(02), 157-167.
doi:10.1142/s1084946706000349
Van Auken, H., Stephens, P., Fry, F. L., & Silva, J. (2006b). Role model influences on entrepreneurial intentions: A comparison between USA and Mexico. The International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 2(3), 325-336. doi:10.1007/s11365-006-0004-1
Witt, U. (1991). Economics, sociobiology and behavioral psychology on preferences. Journal of
Appendices
Appendix 1:
Test of normality for the scores on influence of role model on career thinking, increase in entrepreneurial intentions by role model, and entrepreneurial intentions
Appendix 2:
Mann-Whitney U test results for the scores to the question ‘To what extent has your most significant role model influenced your career thinking?’.
Appendix 3:
Mann-Whitney U test results for the scores to the question ‘To what extent has your most significant role model influenced your entrepreneurial intentions?’
Appendix 4:
Mann-Whitney U test results for the scores to the question ‘To what extent do you want to start your own business within 10 years after graduation?’.
