0
Explaining
Self-Perceived
Development of
Entrepreneurial
Intention
through a Minor
Entrepreneurship
The Influence of the Big Five
Evelien Hellenthal
10791469 (UvA)
July 1, 2015
Master Entrepreneurship
S.F.W. Meddens
1
Table of Contents
Summary ... 2
1. Introduction ... 3
1.1 Description of the topic ... 3
1.1.1 Entrepreneurial Intention ... 4 1.1.2 Entrepreneurship Education ... 5 1.1.3 Personality ... 6 1.2 Research question ... 8 1.3 Hypotheses ... 9 2. Methodology ... 11 2.1 Sample description ... 11 2.2 Measures ... 12 2.2.1 Background information ... 12 2.2.2 Dependent variable ... 13 2.2.3 Independent variable ... 13 2.2.4 Control variables ... 15 2.3 Statistical analyses ... 16 3. Results ... 16 3.1 Descriptive Statistics ... 17
3.2 Correlation and Regression ... 19
4. Discussion and Conclusion ... 20
4.1 Summary of results ... 22
4.2 Interpretation of results ... 22
4.3 Theoretical and Practical Implications ... 25
4.4 Limitations and Future Research ... 26
4.5 Conclusion ... 28
References ... 29
Appendix A: Questionnaire ... 32
2
Summary
Entrepreneurship is a hot topic nowadays: as it is believed to have multiple positive effects on the economy, it is a phenomenon worth stimulating. However, in order to stimulate entrepreneurship, it is important to understand it and to get insight into who is attracted to it. This paper evaluated whether the Big Five personality traits – emotional stability, extraversion, openness to
experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness – have an influence on the development of entrepreneurial intention amongst students who participated in a Dutch minor Entrepreneurship. It is hypothesized that every personality trait has a positive influence on the development of entrepreneurial intention trough the minor. A sample of 74 minor entrepreneurship students was used to answer the research question via multiple regression analysis. The results, unfortunately, cannot support the hypotheses as none of the five personality traits have a significant relationship with entrepreneurial intention due to the minor. The grade given by the students to the quality of the minor does have a highly significant and positive effect on the development of
entrepreneurial intention through the minor.
This research adds to the literature of the effect of personality on entrepreneurial intention via entrepreneurship education. Although only one significant result was found, although for none of the five personality traits, it does show that the quality of the minor is an important predictor of the development of entrepreneurial intention and adopts a new way of addressing the subject of entrepreneurial intention by examining the relation between personality and intention due to a minor entrepreneurship. Moreover, the results of this research give valuable information to universities and colleges, as well as to policymakers and governments as it shows that
entrepreneurship education can contribute to the development of entrepreneurial intention . Despite the limitations of this research – which are a small sample size, possible retrospect and response bias, self-justification, a low Cronbach alpha for some of the variables that measure the five personality traits and limited external validity - this research adds
knowledge about entrepreneurship education, personality and entrepreneurial intention, as shown in the above subsection and opens the floor for more research on the combination of these topics in order to keep improving our knowledge and give insight in how to stimulate entrepreneurship through entrepreneurship education.
3
1. Introduction
1.1 Description of the topic
Entrepreneurship is a hot topic nowadays. As it is thought to have a lot of positive effects, it is a phenomenon stimulated by governments and policy makers (Oosterbeek, Van Praag & Ijselstein, 2010). Among these positive effects are economic growth, innovation and the creation of new jobs (Luca & Cazan, 2011; Sanchez, 2013). Furthermore, entrepreneurship education is expected to increase the level of entrepreneurship, via entrepreneurial intention. Therefore,
entrepreneurship education is on the rise in Europe, as a means to stimulate this much desired economic development (Johansen, 2012; Luca & Cazan, 2011).
However, in order to be in a position to stimulate entrepreneurship, it is important to understand what the characteristics of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs really are. Research is needed for that. This research evaluates whether the Big Five personality traits have an influence on the development of entrepreneurial intention amongst entrepreneurship students in the
Netherlands – students who participated in a minor Entrepreneurship. This is relevant for
universities offering entrepreneurship education, or planning to do so in the future, as it can help them in structuring their programme in the most optimal way. If it appears that a certain
personality traits for instance hinders the development of entrepreneurial intention, universities can offer extra training to help students with that personality trait to get the most out of the programme. On the other hand, when it appears that certain personalities are attracted to the entrepreneurship minor program, the universities can act on this by structuring their program in such a way it suits these personalities. It is, however, very difficult for universities to know the personality of their students. But, some personality traits can be deducted from the behaviour of students. For example extraversion: as most universities let their students work in teams during the minor, it is possible to deduct whether the student is sociable, energetic, leading and
optimistic or more shy and passive. Another example is conscientiousness, which is associated with ambition and perseverance. By looking at how their students handle the workload and possible setbacks, the degree of conscientiousness can be deducted. Overall, it would be
interesting to see whether the believed effects of entrepreneurship education are true in practice. A lot of research already has been done and thus there already exists an extensive body of literature about entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurship education and personality which will be described in the following paragraphs.
4
1.1.1 Entrepreneurial Intention
Entrepreneurial intention is defined, using Krueger (1993, p.7) as “the commitment to start a new business.” Entrepreneurship is thus seen here as starting a new business. This research defines entrepreneurial intention in a somewhat narrow view, namely as the commitment to start a new business due to participating in a minor Entrepreneurship. This will be further explained when describing the questionnaire in chapter 2.
Research has shown that entrepreneurial intention is a primary predictor and antecedent of future
entrepreneurial behaviour (Do Paço et al., 2011; Zhang, Duysters & Cloodt, 2014 ). A limitation of intention however, is that there can be a substantial amount of time before intentions are put into actions. Events that occur during this time lag, can change the intention or diminish them altogether
(Ajzen, 2011). This could make intention an unreliable predictor of behaviour. But
according to Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud (2000), who studied a sample of 97 senior business university students, intention explains thirty percent of the variance in behaviour.
Two theories often cited in research about entrepreneurial intention are Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and Shapero’s entrepreneurial event model (Zhang et al, 2014). The TPB explains the indirect effect of external factors via attitude changes on intentions. The diagram in figure 1 depicts the TPB. Intention is seen in this theory as an indication of how willing people are to try, and the amount of effort they are willing to put in. The stronger this intention, the more likely the behaviour is actually carried out. According to the TPB, intention is predicted by three factors: attitude towards the behaviour, subjective norms and perceived
behavioural control, also called self-efficacy (Ajzen, 1991; Do Paço et al., 2011). Perceived behavioural control is defined as “people’s perception of the ease or difficulty of performing the behavior of interest.” (Ajzen, 1991, p.183). As can be seen from figure 1, perceived behavioural control has, together with intention, a direct link to behaviour. As Ajzen (1991) explains in his
5 article; if intention is held constant, it is more likely that an individual that is confident about his or her ability acts on his or her intention than the individual that is less confident. There is also an indirect effect of perceived behavioural control towards behaviour, via intention. The greater the perceived behavioural control, the stronger the intention. For the other two determinants of intention it holds that the more positive, the stronger the intention. Attitude towards the behaviour is defined as “the degree to which a person has a favourable or unfavourable evaluation or appraisal of the behaviour in question.”, and subjective norm refers to “the perceived social pressure to perform or not perform the behaviour.” (Ajzen, 1991, p.188).
The other theory that is often used is the entrepreneurial event model (EEM). This theory states that the intent to start a new venture comes from perceived feasibility, perceived
desirability and the propensity to act on opportunities. Feasibility and desirability in turn are influenced by both the cultural and social context: they are influenced by the breadth (quantity) as well as the positiveness (quality) of prior exposure to entrepreneurial activity. (Krueger, 1993; Zhang et al, 2014). According to Krueger (1993), Shapero conceptualized perceived desirability as the attitude of an individual itself towards entrepreneurship, while perceived feasibility refers to the degree to which an individual believes he or she has the capacity to start a new business. Lastly, propensity to act refers to “the disposition to act upon one’s decisions.” (Krueger, 1993, p.9).
Both theories of EEM and TPB overlap to a certain degree. The attitude towards the behaviour from Ajzen’s TPB is equivalent to the perceived desirability from Shapero’s EEM, and self-efficacy is similar to perceived feasibility. However, the model of Shapero is found to be slightly more suitable in assessing entrepreneurial intention (Zhang et al, 2014).
1.1.2 Entrepreneurship Education
The second key concept, entrepreneurship education, is more complex to define as it is a very broad concept. There are multiple definitions given in the literature. Zhang et al. (2014) define entrepreneurship education as “the process of providing individuals with the concepts and skills to recognize opportunities that others have overlooked and to have the insight and self-esteem to act where others have hesitated.” (p. 624). Küttim et al. (2014) also give a definition, in a more narrow sense as well as more broader one. They list multiple different definitions given by other researchers, for instance of Bechard and Toulouse (1998, as cited in Jones & English, 2004) who define entrepreneurship education, in a narrow sense, as “a collection of formalised teachings
6 that informs, trains, and educates anyone interested in business creation, or small business development.” (as cited in Küttim et al., 2014, p.659). In the more broader definition, it is defined as preparing someone not only as a self-employed individual, but also as an employee that
exhibits entrepreneurial and innovative behaviour, also known as intrapreneurship (Küttim et al., 2014). Important to consider is that different entrepreneurship programs can have different goals, as Salhi and Boujelbene (2012) mention in their article. It can be aimed at education (a more theoretical program) or at training (more practical). It is possible that the effect on entrepreneurial intention is different for programs with different goals. In this paper, entrepreneurship education will be looked at from the perspective of Bechard and Toulouse (as cited in Jones & English, 2004) because this definition encompasses both goals of education and training and is therefore a more comprehensive definition. Furthermore, multiple minors Entrepreneurship are addressed in the questionnaire of which some are more theoretical, while others are more practical. Most minors are more practical in nature as it is stimulated or required to set up an actual business (in teams) during the minor. Chapter 2.1 describes this in more detail.
Entrepreneurship education is assumed to increase general and specific entrepreneurial activities, as well as academic performance (Johansen, 2012), and with that the intention and competencies among students to start a business (Sanchez, 2013). This is not only an assumption: a meta-analysis of Rizza and Varum (2011, as cited in Johansen, 2012) shows that there is
substantial evidence that entrepreneurship education has an effect on, amongst others,
entrepreneurial intention. Most studies focus on university students, although some studies have addressed this relationship with regard to secondary students. The focus on universities is quite logical, as university education influences personal career choice (Zhang et al., 2014; Turker & Selcuk, 2009 ). The implicit assumption underlying these educational programmes is that entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial skills associated with success can be taught (Oosterbeek et al, 2010; Do Paço et al., 2011)
1.1.3 Personality
The personality of entrepreneurs, and more specifically the search for personality traits that are unique for entrepreneurs, has been a popular subject in entrepreneurship research. However, because of its limited results, it came into disrepute. In the 1990s, it turned popular again. This was, in part, due to the acceptance of the five-factor model (FFM, also known as the Big Five) which has shown to be a valid and reliable measure of personality. Such a measure was lacking
7 before and was – at least in part – causing the inconsistent results (Brandstätter, 2011; Ciavarella, Buchholtz, Riordan, Gatewood & Stokes, 2004). The Big Five are overarching personality traits that include abilities, general intelligence, attitudes and characteristics of nature (Brandstätter, 2011). The five personality traits are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism or emotional stability. The Big Five is found to be relevant in predicting entrepreneurial intention, and in his article, Brandstätter (2011) explains that this makes sense as the basic characteristics of entrepreneurship really link to the Big Five; the establishment of a social network for example is linked to extraversion.
First, definitions of the five personality traits will be described, after which several studies about this topic will be discussed. Openness to experience refers to being open to new
experiences and ideas, innovative and able to think outside the box (Ciavarella et al., 2004). Zhao, Seibert and Lumpkin (2010) describe conscientiousness as a personality trait that refers to the degree of discipline, planning, motivation to work and level of achievement. According to Ciavarella et al. (2004), individuals that score high on this trait are hard-working and ambitious and have a great deal of perseverance. The third trait, extraversion, refers to the number and intensity of relationships. Individuals that score high on this trait are characterized by being socially-minded, having high levels of energy and by being positive and optimistic (Ciavarella et al., 2004). Agreeableness is described as a trait that refers to being cooperative and trustworthy in relation to others. Individuals that score high on this trait are characterized by being forgiving, polite and flexible. The last one, emotional stability, refers to the level of sensibility to anxiety, irritability and stress. Individuals low in emotional stability tend to be anxious, easily irritated and experience a lot of stress. They are also susceptible to depressions (Ciavarella et al., 2004).
As already mentioned, lots of research is already been done about personality and
entrepreneurship. Ciavarella et al. (2004) describe in their article that the majority of research on personality traits focusses on what traits have an effect on the chance of becoming an
entrepreneur and succeeding as one, or on the difference between managers and entrepreneurs. This research however, explores what the effect of personality on entrepreneurial intention for students that followed entrepreneurship education is, assuming that there is one. Addressing this effect of personality on entrepreneurial intention through a minor entrepreneurship has not been done before.
8 potential and some specific personality traits in their research. They test the hypothesis that students with a high potential of opening a business have a higher level of certain personality traits such as entrepreneurial and social skills. They found that certain personality traits such as creativity and internal locus of control indeed have a relationship with potential. This research however, looks at personality traits that will predict the success of an entrepreneur, while this research looks at intention to become an entrepreneur. As intentions precede behaviours, the research of Luca and Cazan (2011) provides insights that could be used in this research.
Especially because creativity falls under openness to experience according to Zhao, Seibert and Lumpkin (2010), which indicates that individuals with high levels of creativity, and thus
openness to experience, have a higher entrepreneurial potential and maybe also a higher entrepreneurial intention.
A research that looks at both intention and success of an entrepreneur in relationship with personality is that of Zhao et al. (2010). The difference between intention and success is that intention has to do with becoming an entrepreneur, while success is concerned with continuing as an entrepreneur. Zhao et al. (2010) performed a meta-analysis by collecting literature from several electronic databases. Only studies with samples that only include individuals that did not start a business yet, such as students, were included. In total, they analysed 60 studies, with a total sample size of over 15.000 individuals. They found that personality has an effect on the intention as well as success of entrepreneurs, and more specific that all traits have a positive effect on entrepreneurial intention and performance of which openness to experience and
conscientiousness have the greatest influence. The only exception is agreeableness, for which no significant effect was found for intention nor performance. They also found that extraversion and risk propensity did not have a great effect on entrepreneurial success, although this is often believed.
1.2 Research question
As the previous paragraphs have shown, a lot of research has already been done. However, the combination of topics this paper addresses, personality, entrepreneurial intention and
entrepreneurship education, has not been addressed before. Furthermore this study includes several control variables that are not controlled for in previous research. These will be described in chapter 2.3.1. The research question becomes the following:
9 To what extent do the Big Five personality traits influence the self-perceived development of the entrepreneurial intention of students that have followed a minor Entrepreneurship in the
Netherlands?
Important here is the word ‘self-perceived’, as this research uses a questionnaire which is filled in by the students themselves and measures effect of personality on the development of
entrepreneurial intention due to the minor from the perspective of the student, after he or she has completed the minor. According to Do Paço et al. (2011) self-assessment is an accepted method in the entrepreneurship research field.
1.3 Hypotheses
There are several characteristics and elements that are associated with entrepreneurship that can fit with a specific personality trait or not. As both the TPB and the EEM state; thinking you are able to become an entrepreneur and having a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship positively influences your intention to become an entrepreneur. According to Krueger et al. (2000),
personality influences attitudes and general motivation to act on a intention. Therefore, if a personality matches with an entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial characteristic or trait it will likely have a positive influence on the entrepreneurial intention.
There are several tasks, characteristics and traits that are widespread attributed to
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs. Traits that are associated with entrepreneurs as well as with extraversion are for instance assertiveness, optimism and energy. Being an entrepreneur also appeals more to extravert individuals, compared with traditional business occupations, due to its stimulating character. Furthermore, building relationships and having a network is seen as an important facilitator when setting up a new venture (Zhao et al., 2010). Being sociable and assertive, thus being extravert, facilitates this. Therefore:
Hypothesis 1a: Extraversion has a positive effect on the self-perceived entrepreneurial intention among entrepreneurship students in the Netherlands.
Besides being able to enter relationships and build a network, it is also important that the quality of these relationships is, and stays, good. Agreeableness focuses on this quality. Therefore, according to Ciavarella et al. (2004), a certain level of this trait is needed in order to attain support for the new business. However, they did not find a significant effect. Moreover, being
10 kind and trusting is not always seen as positive. Entrepreneurs sometimes have to make hard decisions that are not always beneficial to everyone. In this view, agreeableness hinders
entrepreneurs (Zhao et al., 2010). The literature is not clear on this matter, but in this research the perspective of Ciavarella et al. (2004) is chosen. They state that agreeableness is needed to attain support, which relates more to intention than the perspective of Zhao et al. (2010), as this links more to being successful as an entrepreneur. In the beginning it is most important to find support and have a network, and trust and building relationships is key there. Therefore:
Hypothesis 1b: agreeableness has a positive effect on the self-perceived entrepreneurial intention among entrepreneurship students in the Netherlands.
Another characteristic of entrepreneurship is that it is risky and stressful and not every individual can cope with these conditions. According to Ciavarella et al. (2004), individuals that are high in emotional stability are able to handle such situations. On the contrary, emotional instability and risk averseness hinders entrepreneurs as those individuals weigh too much on worries and the risks inherent to entrepreneurship. Therefore it is expected that:
Hypothesis 1c: emotional stability has a positive effect on the self-perceived entrepreneurial intention among entrepreneurship students in the Netherlands.
Zhao et al. (2010) describe that besides perseverance, two other traits that are important when starting a new business are intelligence and creativity which fall under openness to experience. This links to an important role of entrepreneurs: the entrepreneur as innovator. As they state in their article (p.385): “Self-employment is a non-traditional mode of employment that is itself more likely to appeal to individuals who are willing to experiment with a new or unconventional lifestyle.”. Therefore the expectation is that:
Hypothesis 1d: openness to experience has a positive effect on the self-perceived entrepreneurial intention among entrepreneurship students in the Netherlands.
The final personality trait, conscientiousness, is associated with perseverance and ambition. These are important traits in order to keep going when success is not immediately achieved, which is often the case with new ventures. Furthermore, individuals that score high on
11 conscientiousness are attracted to situations that involve risk, which is also characteristic for entrepreneurship (Zhao et al., 2010)
Hypothesis 1e: conscientiousness has a positive effect on the self-perceived entrepreneurial intention among entrepreneurship students in the Netherlands.
The remainder of paper will describe the methodology, analysis and results. The methodology of the research is described in chapter two, the third chapter covers the analysis and the fourth chapter will describe the conclusions and discussion resulting from the analysis.
2. Methodology
2.1 Sample description
To address the research question, an online questionnaire was sent out to students from several universities in the Netherlands who followed a minor Entrepreneurship. The universities and colleges that participated in this research are the University of Amsterdam, the Free University of Amsterdam, the Erasmus University of Rotterdam, Leiden University, the ‘Hogeschool van Amsterdam’ and the ‘Haagse Hogeschool’, although students from other universities were also allowed to fill in the questionnaire. Because some minors also take on international students, the questionnaire was developed in English.
The minor Entrepreneurship & Innovation at the Haagsche Hogeschool is relatively theoretical, as students are not required to set up an actual business (Haagse Hogeschool, n.d.). This also holds for the minor Entrepreneurship at the Free University of Amsterdam (VU, n.d.), although this is not explicitly stated on their website, while the minors Entrepreneurship given at the Erasmus University of Rotterdam, the University of Amsterdam, the Hogeschool van
Amsterdam and Leiden University are more practical in nature. Besides learning the theory, students have to set up, or are strongly stimulated to set up, an actual business in teams and make it successful (Erasmus University Rotterdam, n.d.; ACE, 2014, HvA, n.d.; Leiden University, n.d.).
The students were approached with the help of the universities via the online social media Facebook and, where possible, via e-mail. Via Facebook, public pages and groups of minors Entrepreneurship were addressed. The questionnaire was promoted at the ‘Minor Ondernemen’
12 page of the Haagse Hogeschool (66 followers), the ‘Minor Ondernemerschap’ page of the
Hogeschool van Amsterdam (238 followers), the ‘NHL Minor Ondernemen’ page of the NHL (Noordelijke Hogeschool Leeuwarden; 125 followers), the ‘Minor Entrepreneurship for Society’ page of the Leiden University (29 followers) and the Facebook pages of the minor
entrepreneurship of the University of Amsterdam of the year 2014 (68 followers) and 2015 (20 followers). Furthermore, one university provided the names of minor students for 2012 till 2014, these were also approached via social media. In total, approximately 900students were reached and 74 of them completed the questionnaire, while 90 started but never finished. This means the response rate was 10%, and the dropout rate was 17.8%. In chapter 3 ‘Results’, the sample is described in more detail.
2.2 Measures
The questionnaire encompassed 29 items, including a few questions about the respondents background (such as age, gender, nationality etc.). Most items were 5-item Likert scales, while some others where yes/no statements or open questions. In the introduction as well as at the end of the questionnaire it was highlighted that participation is completely anonymous and data will be handled confidentially. Moreover, participants were informed that they could withdraw from the research at any time they wanted, even if they already completed the questionnaire. None of the participants withdrew their response. The entire questionnaire can be found in the appendix section; appendix A.
2.2.1 Background information
The questionnaire contained several questions about the background of the respondent, such as age, gender, nationality, etc., but also about the minor that the respondent participated in. Respondents were asked whether they were stimulated or required to set up a business in a team and if so, if that business is still operable and how it is performing. The composition of the team was also addressed, as well as the grade the respondents would give the quality of the minor. Furthermore the ambitions of the respondents when they finish their study was addressed, and whether they finished their bachelor and master already. Those questions give insight into the context of each respondent and could help to interpret the findings of the analysis. This will be discussed in detail in chapter 4. The variables that are included in the analysis as control variable are discussed in more detail in paragraph 2.2.4 ‘Control variables’.
13 2.2.2 Dependent variable
The dependent variable is entrepreneurial intention which was defined as the commitment to start a new business due to participating in a minor entrepreneurship. To measure entrepreneurial intention, questions are used that are based on existing and validated questionnaires for as much as possible, although they were somewhat adjusted to fit this research better. For instance ‘My professional goals is becoming an entrepreneur’ from the questionnaire of Liñan, Rodríguez-Cohard and Rueda-Cantuche (2011) was adjusted to ‘Because of the minor, my professional goal is to become an entrepreneur’. This adjustments are made because the research is specifically aimed at the effect of a minor entrepreneurship on entrepreneurial intention, and not on
entrepreneurial intention on itself. Furthermore, most questions from Liñan et al. (2011) are on a 7-point Likert scale, while for consistency with other questions and to make it as easy as possible for the respondents, a 5-points Likert scale was chosen. Besides the questionnaire of Liñan et al. (2011), items from the research of Muizer and Haring (2013)were also used. In total, five questions were used to measure entrepreneurial intention, all ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) till 5 (strongly agree), and all positive; no reversed questions were used.
A variable for entrepreneurial intention was computed by using the mean scores of these questions to form an entrepreneurial intention scale ranging from the value 1 till 5. The higher the score, the higher the degree of entrepreneurial intention due to the minor. The Cronbach’s alpha was computed to test whether the scale is reliable and measures one underlying construct (Field, 2009). For entrepreneurial intention the value is .9, which is well above the widespread accepted minimum of .6, and indicates that this scale is reliable.
2.2.3 Independent variable
The independent variables are the five personality traits: openness to experience,
conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and emotional stability. To measure personality, the Big Five as a well-known and valid as well as reliable measure was used (Ciavarella et al., 2004). All personality questions were on a 5-point Likert scale. Questions were asked such as ‘I have a vivid imagination’ (which relates to openness to experience) or ‘I like order’
(conscientiousness). Each question belonged to a certain personality trait. To keep the
questionnaire focused, the amount of items was limited to four questions per personality trait. Of the 20 items, 11 were positively asked and 9 questions were reversed.
14 As the original Big Five questionnaire encompasses over a 100 questions, the scale used in this research is a so-called short measurement scale. Short measurement scales can be
convenient, or even necessary, when for instance an already large-scale survey is used. It reduces repetition and thus lowers boredom and frustration of respondents (Gosling, Rentfrow & Swann, 2003; Herzberg & Brähler, 2006). However, it should be noted that single-item or short multiple-item scales are inferior with regard to validity and reliability in comparison with more
comprehensive multiple-item scales. Still, single- or two-item scales, for instance the Five Item Personality Inventory (FIPI) and the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) are adequate in terms of, among other things, convergence with widely accepted measurement scales of the Big Five and test-retest reliability (Gosling et al., 2003). The FIPI measures each personality trait with only one item, while the TIPI measures each with two items. Because more items might reduce the inferiority to large multiple-item scales even more, a twenty item scale is used in this research. A new variable was made per personality trait, in which the mean scores of the
questions measuring that trait were computed, leading to five personality scales ranging from the value 1 (strongly disagree) till 5 (strongly agree). The higher the score, the more of that
personality trait the individual has.
Again, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated. Table 1 shows the exact alpha values. The contribution per item was also checked again, and what would happen to Cronbach’s alpha if the item was deleted. This resulted in the deletion of the item ’I make people feel at ease’, which belongs to the personality trait agreeableness, as deleting it would slightly increase the alpha value. The same holds for the
item ‘I have no intention of talking in large crowds’ of the personality trait extraversion. For two of the five personality traits, the Cronbach’s alpha has an acceptable value of respectively .64 (for agreeableness) and .7 (for
emotional stability). This is similar to other studies, where emotional stability also has the highest internal reliability (Herzberg & Brähler, 2006). However, for extraversion, openness to
Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha per personality trait
Variable Cronbach’s alpha N of items
Emotional stability .70 4
Agreeableness .64 3
Openness to experience .58 4
Conscientiousness .56 4
15 experience and conscientiousness, the Cronbach’s alpha is below the acceptable level of .6. These scales are still used in the regression analysis, as these values are not extremely low, but this low Cronbach’s alpha has to be considered when interpreting the results.
2.2.4 Control variables
Several control variables were added to the analysis: age, gender, nationality, faculty, university, whether students finished their propaedeutic in one year, year finished and grade given to the minor. The first control variable is age as, according to Küttim et al. (2014), older students are likely to have stronger entrepreneurial intentions. Respondents had to state in which age category they belong. The categories were ‘below 18’, ‘18-20’, ‘21-22’, ‘23-25’ and ‘above 25’. We asked about categories deliberately, to ensure anonymity of the respondent. The second control variable is gender. The same idea for a new venture is perceived less profitable if the founder is a female than if the founder is a male according to Rolvink Couzy (2015). Therefore, female entrepreneurs need to prove themselves more in the entrepreneurial world, which makes them more hesitant to start a business. In their study with a sample of 494 students from ten Chinese universities, Zhang et al. (2014) also found that females have lower entrepreneurial intention than males. To control for this effect, adummy variable for gender was included, where females were appointed the value 0 and males the value 1. The third variable is nationality. The respondents were required to fill in whether they have a Dutch nationality, another EU nationality or a non-EU nationality (multiple answers where possible). Again, these categories are intentionally quite broad in order to ensure anonymity. A dummy variable was made to include nationality into the analysis, with the values Dutch (1) and non-Dutch (0). The fourth control variable is faculty as the minors were accessible for every student. It would be logical that business or economic students develop or have a higher entrepreneurial intention than for instance a medicine or law student, thus controlling for that is desirable. Dummies were included for the faculties of social sciences, science and humanities, making business and economics the baseline category. Besides faculty, university is also a control variable as it is possible that the minor differs per university which can have an effect on the developed entrepreneurial intention. University was recoded into University of Amsterdam (1) and other universities (0) as the other universities had a low response. Whether the respondent finished his or her propaedeutic in one year yes (1) or no (0) was also included as control variable. Another control variable is year finished. The questionnaire is accessible for every student that participated in a minor entrepreneurship, some respondents may have
16 completed the minor a short time ago, some maybe years ago. It is important to control for this, as an individual who finished a long time ago may not remember everything as well as someone who finished recently. Dummies that were included for this variable are ‘before 2010’, ‘2010-2011’, ‘2012-2013’ and ‘2014-2015’. This last one, was considered the base line category as most respondents fell into that category, and was therefore excluded from the analysis. The last control variable is the grade given to the quality of the minor, ranging from 1 till 10. It is quite possible that the quality of the different minors differs per university or per year, which might influence entrepreneurial intention.
2.3 Statistical analyses
Frequencies, as well as correlations and linear regression via SPSS 20.0 were used for the analysis of the data. Based on the literature, several hypotheses have come up, which were described in chapter 1.3 ‘Hypotheses’ and were tested with a linear regression. A two-sided 5% alpha is chosen. Although a certain direction is expected, it is too uncertain what the outcome will be, as this research addresses new relationships.
Before the analyses could be performed, the dataset was prepared by deleting respondents that did not fill in the questions about personality and intention, combing variables into new variables, for instance for entrepreneurial intention and personality, and defining their properties by assigning labels and giving the right scale (nominal, ordinal or scale) to each variable. In total, 16 of the 90 respondents were deleted, leaving a sample of 74 respondents. The variables were put into the model all at once. Before running the regression analysis, a Pearson correlation matrix was computed with all relevant variables. This table can also be found in chapter 3 and gives an insight into the possible effects of one variable on another. The next chapter will describe the results.
3. Results
This chapter shows the results of the correlation and the regression analysis. The outcomes will be presented here, while the interpretation and discussion of these results will be done in chapter 4 ‘Discussion and Conclusion’.
17 3.1 Descriptive Statistics
The sample consisted of 74 respondents (35.1% female and 64.9% male) of which most are 21 or 22 years old and have a Dutch nationality. When taken a look at the most important variables, which are entrepreneurial intention and the five personality trait, it can be noted that average entrepreneurial intention due to the minor is 2.98on a scale of 1-5, which means it is on average almost neutral but slightly on the negative side. The means of the personality traits show that respondents are high on openness to experience and agreeableness, while relatively low on emotional stability. The average grade given to the quality of the minor is quite high (mean of 7.47, mode of 8). Most respondents finished their minor in 2015 and come from a business and economics faculty. The University of Amsterdam is most represented in the sample, most students have finished their propaedeutic (63%)in one year, and slightly more than half
completed their bachelor (57.5%). Of those respondents that completed their bachelor, 38 percent also already completed a master and only 19 percent state they did not enrol for a master. The respondents that did not enrol for a master consider themselves slightly more entrepreneurial and also see entrepreneurship very much part of their ideal career (mean score of 4.88 on a scale of 1
till 5). Their entrepreneurial intention due to the minor is also slightly higher and on average slightly positive instead of negative.
Interesting to see is that half of the respondents that do not want to do a master after their bachelor, state – amongst other things – they do want to continue studying after their study.
As mentioned before, entrepreneurship education can be more theoretical or Table 2a. Descriptive statistics (Scale variables)
Variable N Mean Std. Dev.
Entrepreneurial Intention (scale 1-5)
74 2.98 .90
Big Five (scale 1-5)
Openness to experience 74 4.05 .57
Agreeableness 74 3.99 .61
Conscientiousness 74 3.59 .62
Extraversion 74 3.54 .60
Emotional stability 74 3.31 .68 Grade quality minor
(scale 1-10)
74 7.47 1.56
Extent to which respondent sees him- or herself as entrepreneurial person (scale 1-5)
74 3.96 1.11
Extent to which
entrepreneurship is part of the ideal career (scale 1-5)
18 practical. Therefore, the respondents were asked to state whether they were stimulated, or
required, to set up a business in a team – which is the standard in the minors entrepreneurship in the Netherlands – and whether it was still operable. Almost everyone set up a business during the minor (90.5%), of which about a quarter is still operable. Of the entire sample, almost 75 percent considers him- or herself as an entrepreneurial person (‘a bit’ or ‘very much’), and 81 percent states entrepreneurship is part of his or her ideal career (‘a bit’ or ‘very much’). The ambitions of respondents after their study is quite diverse: 50 percent state they want to continue studying as well as become an employee and become an entrepreneur. Table 2a and 2b show the descriptive statistics of the most relevant variables in more detail.
Table 2b. Descriptive statistics (categorical variables)
Variable N Percentage Valid percentage
Gender 74 100 100 Male 48 64.9 64.9 Female 26 35.1 35.1 Age 74 100 100 Below 18 0 0 0 18 – 20 4 5.4 5.4 21 – 22 28 37.8 37.8 23 – 25 22 29.7 29.7 Above 25 20 27.0 27.0 Nationality 74 100 100 Dutch 59 79.7 79.7 Non-Dutch 11 14.9 14.9 Combination 4 5.4 5.4 Faculty 74 100 100 Social sciences 53 71.6 74.6 Science 13 17.6 18.3 Humanities 5 6.8 7.0 Missing 3 4.1 University 74 100 100 UvA 49 66.2 66.2 EUR 11 14.9 14.9 Leiden University 6 8.1 8.1 HvA 4 5.4 5.4 VU Amsterdam 3 4.1 4.1 Haagse Hogeschool 1 1.4 1.4
19 Continuation Table 2b. Descriptive statistics (categorical variables)
Variable N Percentage Valid percentage
Propaedeutic in one year 74 100 100
Yes 74 63.5 63.5 No 27 36.5 36.5 Finishing year 74 100 100 2015 24 32.4 33.3 2014 15 20.3 20.8 2013 15 20.3 20.8 2012 8 10.8 11.1 2011 4 5.4 5.6 2010 4 5.4 5.6 2009 1 1.4 1.4 2007 1 1.4 1.4 Missing 2 2.7
Set up business during minor in a team?
74 100 100
Yes 67 90.5 90.5
No 7 9.5 9.5
Set up business ever before minor?
74 100 100
No 55 74.3 74.3
Yes, one business 17 23.0 32.4
Yes, multiple 2 2.7 2.7
3.2 Correlation and Regression
The correlations between all relevant variables, dependent as well as independent and control variables, are shown in table 3. Most relevant and interesting for this research are the correlations between entrepreneurial intention and personality. As the table shows, two of the five personality traits have a significant correlation with entrepreneurial intention: agreeableness and
extraversion. Both have a positive and medium size correlation and indicate that there is an effect between these traits and entrepreneurial intention. Another variable that correlates strongly and positively with entrepreneurial intention is the grade given by the students to the quality of the minor. This indicates that the higher the grade, the more the minor contributes to the development of entrepreneurial intention.
20 When looking at the other significant correlations, there are indications that there exists an effect between age and several other variables such as openness to experience, year finished with the minor and studying at the UvA. These are all positive correlations, except for students that finished the minor in 2012 or 2013 which have a negative correlation with age. Furthermore, it seems that students coming from a science faculty might value the minor less as there is a significant, medium-sized, negative correlation between those variables. The correlation results also seem to indicate that the UvA has less non-Dutch students than other universities and that students from the social sciences are more likely to finish their propaedeutic in one year. Also interesting is that students from the social sciences faculty score higher on emotional stability than students from a business and economics faculty and that students from the science faculty score lower on agreeableness than business and economics students.
Besides a correlation matrix, a multiple regression analysis was performed, of which the results are shown in table 4. To check for collinearity, the VIF and tolerance scores were computed. As no tolerance is below 0.2 and the average VIF is about 1.5, collinearity is not a problem in this study (Field, 2009). The results of the linear regression analysis are shown in table 4. As can be seen, only the effect of the grade given to the quality of the minor is significant, highly significant even, while the rest is non-significant. Thus, although there is a significant correlation between some variables, this does not show in the regression analysis. Also interesting is that all personality traits, although not significant, seem to have a positive effect on intention as hypothesized, except for conscientiousness. However, this negative effect of conscientiousness on intention is really small. Other interesting, but insignificant, findings are that being non-Dutch or having both a Dutch and non-Dutch nationality seems to result in a higher entrepreneurial intention through the minor than having only a Dutch nationality; the older, the less the minor contributed to entrepreneurial intention; and having a business and economics background, does not lead to more intention through the minor except compared with the science faculty. Possible explanations and interpretation of these findings are discussed in chapter 4.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
This chapter will describe and discuss the results that are found. Furthermore, limitations of the research will be presented, as well as directions for future research.
21
Table 3. Pearsons correlation matrix (N=74). *significant at .05 / ** significant at .01
Variables 1 2 3a 3b 4a 4b 4c 5 6 7 8a 8b 8c 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 Gender 1 2 Age .137 1 3a Nationality Non- Dutch .148 -.152 1 3b Nationality Combination .051 -.141 -.100 1 4a Faculty Social Science -.034 .166 -.127 -.166 1 4b Faculty Science .066 -.075 -.202 .190 -.335** 1 4c Faculty Humanities -.027 -.174 .190 -.064 -.187 -.130 1 5 University -.107 .240* -.264* -.208 .068 -.093 -.149 1 6 Propaedeutic -.087 -.150 .159 -.067 .285* .079 -.020 -.126 1 7 Grade minor .042 .217 .191 -.034 .012 -.236* -.082 .107 -.203 1 8a Year finished: before 2010 -.052 .224 -.070 -.040 .063 -.081 -.045 .119 .126 .057 1 8b Year finished: 2010-2011 -.108 .276* -.145 -.083 .119 -.057 -.094 .249* -.007 .090 -.058 1 8c Year finished: 2012-2013 .005 -.322** -.116 .098 .014 -.101 -.064 .048 -.219 .040 -.112 -.234* 1 9 Emotional Stability .010 -.103 -.078 .046 .203* -.092 -.162 -.108 -.164 -.019 .202 -.126 -.219 1 10 Agreeableness -.183 .046 .111 -.063 .184 -.336** .004 .100 .004 .207 .095 .101 .042 .137 1 11 Conscien-tiousness -.136 -.045 -.198 .087 -.044 .141 .093 -.061 .097 -.096 .112 .180 -.297* .020 -.219 1 12 Extraversion -.061 .175 -.060 -.016 .168 .006 -.003 .185 -.161 .050 .129 -.048 .159 .340** .282* -.136 1 13 Openness to experience .075 .233* -.001 .113 .092 .082 -.116 .086 .001 -.033 -.088 .164 .008 .133 .168 -.068 .433** 1 14 Intention .101 .104 .191 .087 .058 -.227 -.005 .090 -.179 .543** .023 .049 .058 .162 .259* -.162 .265* .182 1
22 4.1 Summary of results
The research question that was stated in the beginning; ‘To what extent do the Big Five personality traits influence the self-perceived development of the entrepreneurial intention of students that have followed a minor Entrepreneurship in the Netherlands?’, has to be answered with ‘there is no evidence of an effect at all’. None of the stated hypotheses are supported by the data, which will also be addressed in the limitations section. This indicates that there is no difference in effectiveness of the minor on entrepreneurial intention for different personalities. However, an insignificant effect does not have to mean that there is no effect, it only means that “the effect is not big enough to be anything other than a chance finding.”, as Field (2009, p.53) notes. Another possibility is that the sample is quite homogeneous and there really are no differences, which will also be discussed in limitations paragraph, but we cannot conclude this from the insignificant findings of this research. Although not significant, the personality traits did have, as expected, a positive effect on entrepreneurial intention due to the minor, with
conscientiousness as exception, which has a negative influence. Summarizing, it is not possible, based on this data, to reject the null hypothesis (that there is no effect), which is not the same as accepting the null hypothesis.
4.2 Interpretation of results
The regression results indicate that the higher the grade given to the quality of the minor, the higher the entrepreneurial intention due to the minor. This seems logical as high quality probably links to how relevant the minor is and how much can be learnt from it.
As for the other findings: although they are not significant, this does not mean they are not true, as was explained in the beginning of this chapter. Therefore an explanation will be given for the found coefficients. An explanation for instance for the indication that other faculties than the business and economics faculty lead to a higher intention, is that students with a business background already know a lot. Therefore it is possible that the minor contributes less to the development of their intention than students that do not know a lot about management and businesses already. A possible explanation for why the science faculty has a negative influence on intention could be that those respondents participated in the minor from the Haagse
23
*** Significant at .001
theoretical in nature (Haagse Hogeschool, n.d.). It seems logical that a practical minor increases entrepreneurial intention due to a minor more than a theoretical minor.
The reason conscientiousness has an unexpected negative influence on intention could be because of the small sample size. The data shows for instance that those that score low on conscientiousness (value 1 – 2.75) account for only 10% of the entire sample. Another
explanation is that respondents high on conscientiousness – which is associated with ambition and perseverance – already have a high intention to become entrepreneur and the minor does not contribute to this intention. The data shows that this could be a reasonable explanation as , on Table 4. Regression
Independent variable: entrepreneurial intention
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta Sig.
Constant -1.131 1.378 .415
Gender .176 .207 .095 .399
Age -.131 .141 -.134 .354
Nationality Non Dutch .290 .317 .116 .364
Nationality Combination .467 .446 .119 .300
Faculty Social Sciences .150 .251 .092 .554
Faculty Science -.080 .298 -.035 .790
Faculty Humanities .312 .410 .088 .449
University .162 .227 .086 .478
Propaedeutic -.073 .240 -.040 .762
Grade quality minor .291 .066 .508 .000***
Year Finished Before 2010 .080 .646 .015 .123
Year Finished 2010-2011 .233 .374 .081 .535 Year Finished 2012-2013 .176 .285 .092 .540 Extraversion .158 .207 .106 .448 Agreeableness .061 .177 .042 .730 Conscientiousness -.061 .169 -.043 .718 Openness to experience .194 .200 .123 .337 Emotional stability .206 .181 .157 .258
24 average, respondents consider themselves entrepreneurial and entrepreneurship is part of their ideal career. Furthermore, about 45 percent of the people high on conscientiousness state they have the ambition to start a company of their own after their studies. The coefficients for the other personality traits are, as already mentioned, positive, which was also hypothesized. The results also indicate that students that have a non-Dutch or a combination of a Dutch and non-Dutch nationality, have a higher entrepreneurial intention due to the minor than Dutch students. This could be because they are more creative as they are familiar with another culture and thus may have new ideas or ways of working. Another reason is that the Dutch students could have already a higher entrepreneurial intention and the minor thus contributes less to this intention. Furthermore the results also indicate that studying at the UvA leads to more intention due to the minor. This could be, however, due to the small sample size of the other universities.
Students that finish their propaedeutic in one year seem to develop a lower entrepreneurial intention due to the minor. This could be because individuals that finish their propaedeutic in one year focus more on their study instead of ideas they have and setting up a business. It has to be noted however, that the effect size of this relationship is very small.
An explanation for the older the individual, the less the degree of entrepreneurial intention could be the principle of self-justification. The older, the more likely that the study is already completed (90% of the respondents completed a bachelor and 50% a master). This means that what they do after their study, is no intention anymore but reality. When they did not end up to be an entrepreneur it is possible they state that the minor did not improved their intention, because they want to justify their decisions. However, this does not fit with the finding that respondents that finished their minor some years ago – and are thus older at the time of filling in the
questionnaire - show a higher intention than respondents that finished their minor in the last two years (2014 and 2015). This could be due to the fact that the question about age refers to the age at this moment. The inconsistent finding could of course also be because the results are not significant, which means it is possible that the results that are obtained are due to chance. Yet another explanation could be that the minor changed during the years, or that students become more critical on the quality of their education. Besides this, there are more inconsistent findings. One of them related to this is that 19 percent of the respondents that did not enrol for a master state that they do want to continue studying. It could be that they do not want to start with a master right after their bachelor, but for instance travel first.
25 Another interesting and seemingly contradictory finding is that the correlation results are different from the regression results. Some relationships are significant in the correlation, but not in the regression analysis. There are two possible explanations for this. It could be that the grade given to the quality of the minor, agreeableness and extraversion can be used to predict
entrepreneurial intention but not all add up to collectively better predict entrepreneurial intention. Only the grade given to the quality of the minor adds independent information about
entrepreneurial intention. Another reason is that this result is due to the fact that the performed correlation is a bivariate one, while the regression is a multivariate analysis.
Overall, although there are a lot of possible explanations for the findings, it could also be true that there really is no effect, and that it does not matter whether you are younger or older, or whether you are more extravert or not. It could also mean that the minor does not increase the entrepreneurial intention of students, but other factors are responsible for it. It would be interesting to find out whether this is the case, and what explains this. Anyway, all of these possible explanations have to be researched further before any solid conclusion can be drawn. More about this will be discussed in the paragraph about future research – chapter 4.4. 4.3 Theoretical and Practical Implications
When the findings of this study are compared to previous findings in literature, some overlap can be found. Both Ciavarella et al. (2004) and Brandstätter (2011) also failed to find a significant effect for agreeableness. However, their research is not entirely the same to this one, as
Ciavarella et al. (2004) addressed long-term venture survival and Brandstätter (2011) performed a meta-analysis and none of them examined entrepreneurial intention due to entrepreneurship education. Still it is interesting that no significant result – or only very small ones – can be found in multiple studies which might indicate that agreeableness actually does not have an, or only a very limited, effect on entrepreneurial intention. Furthermore, the fact that agreeableness, although in this study not significant, has a positive link with entrepreneurial intention
corresponds to the view of Ciavarella et al. (2004), which was adopted in this research, instead of that of Zhao et al. (2006). It has to be noted however, that the effect is very small, and close to zero. This research furthermore adds to the literature by the unique combination of
entrepreneurship education, personality and entrepreneurial intention. It shows that the quality of the minor is an important predictor of the development of entrepreneurial intention and adopts a new way of addressing the subject of entrepreneurial intention by examining the relation between
26 personality and intention due to a minor entrepreneurship.
The finding that the quality of the minor is an important predictor of the development of entrepreneurial intention also has value on the practical level. The research shows that the higher the grade, the higher entrepreneurial intention due to the minor, suggesting thus that the higher the quality, the more entrepreneurial intention is developed through the minor. Having a minor entrepreneurship of great quality is thus important when stimulating entrepreneurship is the goal of the minor. It is important for universities and colleges to know what students value and what they look for in a minor entrepreneurship. Universities and colleges in the Netherlands for
instance stimulate or even require setting up a business for real. This is done in teams most of the times. However, some respondents stated they had great difficulties with their team which
negatively affected their evaluation of the minor and the degree to which they could learn from it. It could be valuable and more effective to work without teams, or think of another structure. The results from this research are also valuable for policymakers and governments, as it proves that entrepreneurial intention can be improved via entrepreneurship education. It is thus valuable to invest in entrepreneurship education.
4.4 Limitations and Future Research
This research also has several limitations, which will be described in this paragraph. First of all, the sample size was small as many respondents did not complete the survey, or did not start at all. This reduces the power and makes it difficult to find small effects, which possibly led to the lack of significant results and support for the stated hypotheses. However, this does not mean that they are untrue. More research is needed, with a bigger sample, to see whether the hypotheses can be supported. A way to continuously receive data about (the effect of) a minor entrepreneurship would be to let students participating fill in a short survey before and after the minor.
A low response rate also increases the chance of response bias as certain people might be attracted to fill in the survey, and others are not. It could be for example that students that very much liked or disliked the minor are inclined to fill in the survey. This reduces the external validity of this study.
Furthermore, as already mentioned, this study is not longitudinal as the questionnaire is filled in after the students completed the minor which could lead to a retrospect bias. As two respondents finished the minor entrepreneurship in 2007 and 2009, it is highly likely this research suffers from retrospect bias. It would be very interesting to let students fill in the questionnaire
27 every year and perform a longitudinal study. Another limitation is that it is also possible that respondents want to justify their choice for a minor entrepreneurship by stating they have the intention to start a business someday, and/or the minor enhanced that intention, while this actually may not be the case. However, as intention is difficult to measure objectively and self-assessment is an accepted method (Do Paço et al., 2011), it is something we have to take for granted, although it should be kept in mind when interpreting results.
Another limitation is the Cronbach’s alpha, which was relatively low for extraversion, openness to experience and conscientiousness. This means that it is possible that these four items do not measure the same underlying construct; the personality trait. However, these items were taken from an existing and validated questionnaire that measures the Big Five traits. Still, when this study is replicated, sending out a pilot before the questionnaire is sent out, is highly
recommendable to discover in advance what the best measure is. A final limitation is the
generalizability of this research. As it is performed in the Netherlands, and education can be very culture- and country-specific, the results may not be generalizable to other countries. Further research should replicate this study in other countries to see whether the results hold or differ. Most limitations arise because of the short timeframe in which this study had to be carried out. While no real hard conclusions can be drawn, this research does however show some
interesting findings that are worth exploring further in other studies. It would for instance, be very interesting to see whether there are differences between the more theoretical and practical minors on entrepreneurial intention. This was unfortunately not possible in this study, as very few students in this sample participated in a more theoretical minor. A future research could focus on this by examining the interaction effects of a more theoretical or more practical programme. A lot of important and relevant information – especially for policymakers and universities offering entrepreneurship education – can be attained in performing such studies and can provide the necessary insight to make entrepreneurship education the most effective.
Despite the above limitations, this research adds knowledge about entrepreneurship education, personality and entrepreneurial intention and opens the floor for more research on the combination of these topics in order to keep improving our knowledge and give insight in how to stimulate entrepreneurship through entrepreneurship education.
28 4.5 Conclusion
This study explored the effect of Big Five on the development of entrepreneurial intention due to a minor Entrepreneurship in the Netherlands. The results showed that the grade given to the quality of the minor by the students themselves, is an important predictor of the development of entrepreneurial intention through the minor. The higher the quality, the more the minor
contributes to this development. No significant results, however, were found for the five
personality traits. The research shows interesting directions for future research , for instance the effect of a more theoretical versus more practical minor on the development of entrepreneurial intention. Furthermore, a replication of this study as a longitudinal research, using a bigger sample, is desirable.
29
References
ACE - Amsterdam Centre for Entrepreneurship. (2014). Minor Entrepreneurship
Retrieved at May 26, 2015 from http://ace.uva.nl/onderwijs/minor-entrepreneurship/minor-entrepreneurship.html
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Orgnizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, p179–211.
Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 51(3), p222–230.
Ciavarella, M. A., Buchholtz, A. K., Riordan, C. M., Gatewood, R. D., & Stokes, G. S. (2004). The Big Five and venture survival: Is there a linkage? Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 19(4), p465–483.
Do Paço, A. M. F., Ferreira, J. M., Raposo, M., Rodrigues, R. G., & Dinis, A. (2011). Behaviours and entrepreneurial intention: E mpirical findings about secondary students. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9(1), p20–38.
Erasmus University Rotterdam (n.d.). Entrepreneurship. Retrieved at May 26, 2015 from
http://www.eur.nl/english/minor/minors/alphabetical/entrepreneurship/ Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (Third edition). London: Sage.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 37(6), p504–528.
Haagse Hogeschool (n.d.). Major – minor. Retrieved at June 26, 2015 from:
http://www.dehaagsehogeschool.nl/bachelorstudies/aanbodopleidingen/industrial-design-engineering/studie/major-minor
30 Herzberg, P. Y., & Brähler, E. (2006). Assessing the Big-Five personality domains via short
forms a cautionary note and a proposal. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 22(3), p139–148.
HvA – Hogeschool van Amsterdam. (n.d.). 19e Minor Ondernemerschap. Learning entrepreneurship by doing. Retrieved at June 26, 2015 from:
http://www.minorondernemerschap.nl/
Johansen, V. (2014). Entrepreneurship Education and Academic Performance. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 48(3), p300-314.
Jones, C., & English, J. (2004). A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, Vol. 46(8/9), p416–423.
Krueger, N. (1993). The Impact of Prior Entrepreneurial Exposure on Perceptions of New Venture Eeasibility and Desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, p5–21. Krueger, N., Reilly, M.D., & Carsrud, A.L. (2000). Competing models for entrepreneurial
intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.15(5-6), p411-432.
Küttim, M., Kallaste, M., Venesaar, U., & Kiis, A. (2014). Entrepreneurship Education at
University Level and Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 110, p658–668.
Leiden University (n.d.). Minor Entrepreneurship for Society. Retrieved at June 26, 2015 from: http://www.campusdenhaag.leiden.edu/education/minors/entrepreneurship-for-society.html Liñan, F., Rodríguez-Cohard, J. C., & Rueda-Cantuche, J. M. (2011). Factors affecting
entrepreneurial intention levels: A role for education. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 7(2), p195-218.
Luca, M. R., & Cazan, A.-M. (2011). Involvement in Entrepreneurial Training and Personality. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 30, p1251–1256.
31 Luca, M. R., Cazan, A.-M., & Tomulescu, D. (2012). To be or not to be an entrepreneur...
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 33, p173–177.
Muizer, A. & Haring, M. (2013). Nulmeting studentbedrijven. Retrieved at May, 15 from http://www.ondernemerschap.nl/pdf-ez/A201357.pdf
Oosterbeek, H., van Praag, M., & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European Economic Review, Vol. 54(3), p442-454.
Rolvink Couzy, F. (2015, March 30). Waarom het bijna altijd mannen zijn die een start-up leiden. Het Financieele Dagblad, p.7.
Salhi, B., & Boujelbene, Y. (2012). Students and Entrepreneurship: Effect of the Training. Journal of Research in Educational Sciences, Vol. 3(5).
Sánchez, J. C. (2013). The impact of an entrepreneurship education program on entrepreneurial competencies and intention. Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 51(3), p447–465. Turker, D., & Selcuk, S. S. (2009). Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university
students? Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 33(2), p.142–159. UtrechtCE (n.d.). Entrepreneurship in your bachelor.
Retrieved at May, 26, 2015 from http://utrechtce.nl/academic/bachelor-uu/
VU – Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (n.d.). Minor Ondernemerschap. Retrieved at June 26, 2015 from:
http://www.feweb.vu.nl/nl/studenten/studiegids/bsc-bedrijfskunde/minor-ondernemerschap/index.asp
Zhang, Y., Duysters, G., & Cloodt, M. (2014). The role of entrepreneurship education as a predictor of university students’ entrepreneurial intention. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, p623-641.
