Master Thesis Entrepreneurship & Innovation
The moderating role of the Fear of Missing Out
between availability of resources and
entrepreneurial intentions.
Name Student: Frans Grutters Student number: 11754540
22-06-2018 - Final Version MSc. Business Administration Track: Innovation & Entrepreneurship
Amsterdam Business School – University of Amsterdam Supervisor: Dr. A. Tomaselli
Abstract
This thesis sets out to investigate the role of environmental- and family resources on the development of entrepreneurial intentions. During the theory building, the psychological construct ‘Fear of Missing Out’ emerged as a potential explanation for the behavioral part of intention development. Entrepreneurial intentions are build-up of both situational context factors such as finances, networks and support structures. The second component influencing the development of entrepreneurial intentions are the behavioral characteristics of individuals. This thesis sets out investigating 134 responses of business students in order to test the five hypotheses. The results do provide supporting evidence that the situational context is of importance when explaining the development of entrepreneurial intentions. However, evidence was not found confirming the influence of FoMO on the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Although the direct effect of FoMO and the expected moderating role of this construct could not be proven statistically, the results hint towards it. The results of this thesis indicate that there is a need for future research into the topic.
Statement of originality
This document is written by Frans Grutters (11754540), who declares to take full responsibility for the content 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 contents.
Table of content
1. Introduction... 4
2. Theoretical Background... 6
2.1 Entrepreneurial intentions... 6
2.2 Situational Context….………... 7
2.2.1 Introduction of environmental resources... 8
2.2.2 Introduction of family resources... 10
2.3 Theory of Planned Behavior... 12
2.3.1 Introduction Fear of Missing Out... 12
3. Hypotheses Building... 14
3.1 The direct effect of environmental resources... 14
3.2 The direct effect of family resources... 15
3.3 The direct effect from Fear of Missing Out... 16
3.4 The moderating effects from Fear of Missing Out... 16
4. Data and methodology... 18
4.1 Research Setting... 18
4.2 Data collection and sample determination... 19
4.3 Measures... 19
4.4 Methodology... 21
5. Results... 22
5.1 Descriptive statistics... 22
5.2 Correlations... 23
5.3 Testing of the hypotheses... 25
5.4 Exploratory analysis of the results... 28
6. Discussion... 33
6.1 Hypotheses and exploratory analysis... 33
6.2 Theoretical contributions to literature... 35
6.3 Managerial implications of the results... 36
6.4 Limitations and Future Research... 38
7. Conclusion... 40
8. References... 42
1. Introduction
Finding a comprehensive explanation for the development of entrepreneurial intentions has spiked the interest of scholars lately. The availability of resources is considered to have a potentially positive effect on the development of entrepreneurial intentions (Campopiano, Minola, & Sainaghi, 2016; Sieger & Minola, 2015). Furthermore, speculations have been made that behavioral factors are the missing piece in developing a theory that can explain the development of entrepreneurial intentions entirely (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1974; Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000). A construct that recently appeared in the behavioral & psychological literature and could provide an explanation for the development of entrepreneurial intentions is the Fear of Missing Out, or FoMO for short (Elhai, Levine, Dvorak, & Hall, 2016; Oberst, Wegmann, Stodt, Brand, & Chamarro, 2017; Przybylski, Murayama, De haan, & Gladwell, 2013). However, very little is still known on how FoMO and specific kinds of resources such as environmental – or family resources affect the development of entrepreneurial intentions. It is necessary to examine the development of entrepreneurial intentions in order to use the right ways of stimulating individuals into becoming entrepreneurs. Conclusive quantitative research is still scarce concerning the Fear of Missing Out and these studies are only conducted in the psychological context (Alt, 2015; Elhai et al., 2016). Current literature concerning the development of entrepreneurial intentions does specify that in order for an individual to develop entrepreneurial intentions they should have resources available, mainly financial and support (Campopiano et al., 2016; Kessler & Frank, 2009; Sieger & Minola, 2015; Souitaris, Zerbinati, & Al-Laham, 2007). However, there is still debate on which kind of resources is most influential in developing entrepreneurial intentions. In addition, literature states that the individual behavioral characteristics and therefore underlying psychological factors are also of importance when regarding the development of intentions. Factors like risk-taking propensity, self-efficacy and openness to new experiences (Barbosa, Gerhardt, & Kickul, 2007; Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Sniehotta, Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005; Zhao, Hills, & Seibert, 2005). The combination of different kinds of resources and the psychological construct of FoMO in order to explain the development of entrepreneurial intentions has never been performed.
There are several theories floating about on how entrepreneurial intentions are developed. Yet, no one has the complete understanding of how entrepreneurial intentions are developed exactly. The scholar that came closest was Kirzner. Kirzner (1973, p. 47) explained entrepreneurship as follows: “Entrepreneurship does not consist of grasping a free ten-dollar bill which one has already discovered to be resting in one’s hand; it consists of realizing that
it is in one’s hand and that it is available for the grasping”. What Kirzner (1973) described in his explanation was that entrepreneurship does not simply happen. The thinking processes of individuals need to be transformed in two ways. The first being that one needs to develop the ability to perceive opportunities (realizing that the 10-dollar bill is resting in ones hand). And secondly the ability to act upon this realized opportunity (the ability to close ones hand). These two consecutive stages set out a chain reaction through the academic literature, scholars trying to explain either one of the two stages. The most commonly known research stream explaining the ability to perceive opportunity is the Theory of Situational Context (Shapiro, 1992). In his theory Shapiro explained that in order for individuals to transform their normal thinking into the ability to perceive opportunities is that they needed resources. Resources in the form of: finances, education, support, networks and many more. But perceiving an opportunity was only the first step into transforming individual thinking. The second step, to act upon a perceived opportunity, has been examined by Ajzen & Fishbein (1974). Explaining that in order for an individual to act upon a perceived opportunity they need to have the right psychological composition and willingness to act.
Considering the fast research base on entrepreneurship, only a small group of scholars have examined the effects of environmental – and family resources on the development of entrepreneurial intentions (Campopiano et al., 2016; Sieger & Minola, 2015). They suggest that more insights and evidence is required in order to confirm the relation between these kinds of resources and the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Where a small group of scholars have examined the influences of resources, none have examined the potential effect of the Fear of Missing Out on the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Ajzen & Fishbein (1974) state that a psychological factor is necessary in order to explain the intentions that set out to become entrepreneurial behavior. This thesis considers the Fear of Missing Out to be that psychological factor. The expectation is that individuals develop more entrepreneurial intentions when they experience high levels of FoMO. And when availability of resources lead to enhanced entrepreneurial intentions, FoMO will take up a moderating role and enhance this relation even further. Current research in the psychological literature hints to this effect, but no quantitative data has been gathered to prove this speculation (Johnson, LaVoie, & Mahoney, 2001; Koszycki, Raab, Aldosary, & Bradwejn, 2010; Oberst et al., 2017; Przybylski et al., 2013). The proposed model will be examined using survey responses of 134 students. By the examining these, financial investors, governments, family members and universities get more insights in how entrepreneurial intentions are developed and how these intentions can be stimulated.
This thesis will present the following sections. Using the stated two step transformational process of entrepreneurial thinking the next section will elaborate on environmental- and family resources and provide an in-depth explanation of the Fear of Missing Out. Based on theory, five hypotheses and a model will be presented. Three hypotheses present direct relations between the presented factors and entrepreneurial intentions and two hypotheses concern the moderating model. These two hypotheses will have to comply with three theoretical assumptions on which the moderating model is based. Thereafter the methodology chapter will present how the survey has been constructed and what the different components of the survey will examine. Based on the responses of the survey, the result chapter will perform some exploratory analyses and is followed by the discussion. Which will present several managerial implications, limitations and options for future research. The final chapter presents the conclusion of this thesis.
2. Theoretical Background
Entrepreneurship can be defined as the process of creating economic and social value (Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, 2006). This phenomenon called entrepreneurship is both interesting and frustrating. There are many theories floating about but no one has the understanding of what entrepreneurship exactly is. The explanation of Kirzner (1973) seems to come closest to the truth and imply that everyone could be an entrepreneur, however it solely depends upon two variables: the ability to perceive an opportunity and the ability to act upon the perceived opportunity. Identifying an opportunity and then acting upon the perceived opportunities requires entrepreneurial thinking. Entrepreneurial thinking is different from conventional thinking in the sense that entrepreneurs identify signals as opportunities opposed to seeing obstacles (Mitchell et al., 2007).
2.1 Entrepreneurial intentions
Entrepreneurial intentions are defined as intentions to start a new venture that is self-owned (Krueger et al., 2000; Liñán, 2008). Entrepreneurs often perceive intentions to pursue new opportunities, create new products and enter new markets. Entrepreneurial action therefore is intentional, meaning an entrepreneur has thought about taking action and has planned this action (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994). However intentions are complex and hard to understand due to the fact that there are multiple factors influencing them (Hall, Daneke, & Lenox, 2010; Krueger et al., 2000; Kundu & Rani, 2008; Linan, Urbano, & Guerrero, 2011; Sieger & Minola, 2015). Yet, Kirzner (1973) was able to describe the essence of the development of
entrepreneurial intentions in just a few sentences. The ability to perceive an opportunity depends on numerous factors; a combination of facilitating factors and individual attributes building up towards transforming an individual into an entrepreneur (Kirzner, 1973). Shapiro (1992) elaborates on Kirzners’ theory with his theory of situational context, examining the influence of environmental facilitating factors on the ability to perceive opportunities. The second part of Kirzners’ theory (1973) describes the ability to act upon a perceived opportunity. This statement evolved into the theory of planned behavior as presented by Ajzen (1991) and Ajzen & Fishbein (1974). Alarming is that when scholars try to explain entrepreneurial intentions they often chose to either follow the theory of situational context or theory of planned behavior (Krueger et al., 2000; Liñán, 2008; Pfeifer, Šarlija, & Zekić Sušac, 2016; Souitaris et al., 2007). Lately, more experts acknowledge that both streams of literature speak to the truth (Godin, Conner, & Sheeran, 2005; Ishfad et al., 2010; Nabi & Liñán, 2011; Shane et al., 2003; Wilson, Kickul, & Marlino, 2007). Therefore this study combines elements from both the situational context theory as well as the theory of planned behavior to examine and explain the development of entrepreneurial intentions.
2.2 Situational Context
Shapiro (1992) makes the case that intentions are the result of situational context factors and that these factors influence individuals in making the decision to start a business. An individual looking to start a venture, will be preparing to go over the hurdle by scanning the environment, gathering resources, networking or obtaining training/education and become self-employed (Katz, 1990). The theory of situational context tested Katz’s definition and found several similar influencing factors: education of the individual, societal characteristics, access to finances, the direct environment (role models) and opportunity recognition (Baron & Ensley, 2006; Linan et al., 2011). Based on the statement that intentions are the result of situational context factors, scholars set out to find facilitators that enable individuals to perceive opportunities. According to these scholars, the ability to perceive entrepreneurial opportunities comes down to: life- and working experience, the level of education and the availability of resources (Franke & Lüthje, 2004; Grundstén, 2004; Kessler & Frank, 2009; Krueger et al., 2000). When examining the importance of these three facilitators of opportunity recognition, it turns out that individuals’ life- and work experience is often somewhat similar to that of its ‘colleagues’ (Katz, 1990; Rotefoss & Kolvereid, 2005). The same conclusion can be drawn for the level of education (Franke & Lüthje, 2004; Kirby, 2004; Rotefoss & Kolvereid, 2005). The third facilitator however differs between individuals.
All individuals have different opportunity costs, financial capital, social ties and business networks (Katz, 1990; Rotefoss & Kolvereid, 2005; Scott Shane et al., 2003). Theoretically this difference in resources should not matter since entrepreneurs are known for their ability to make the most of every euro, this is called bootstrapping (Cassar, 2007; Grundstén, 2004). However, in order to start an entrepreneurial venture some resources are required. Without finances, availability of skills, required knowledge or a business idea (the perceived opportunity), the chances of getting a venture started are slim (Hindle, Klyver, & Jennings, 2009). Let alone the successful survival of this venture. This could be interpreted that in order for entrepreneurial intentions to be developed, the necessary amount of resources needs to be available for individuals. In this study, the author makes the distinction between two kinds of resources, namely the environmental resources and family resources. The following paragraphs will present both kinds of resources.
2.2.1 Introduction of Environmental Resources
The term environment is rather frequently connected to entrepreneurship and venture creation. Nevertheless the term is more commonly known as “Entrepreneurial Environment Resource” (Rotefoss & Kolvereid, 2005). Entrepreneurial Environment resources are defined as facilitators for entrepreneurship, such as university programs, business tools, networking - and finance opportunities (Rotefoss & Kolvereid, 2005; Santos, Roomi, & Liñán, 2016; Schenkel & Brazeal, 2013). Entrepreneurial environmental resources, hereafter called environmental resources, thus represent an aggregation of various resources that are available in the environment and can be used towards creating businesses (Specht, 1993). Although the collective of the environmental resources displays several propensities, each propensity has different characteristics and arguably different contributions to the development of entrepreneurial intentions (Grundstén, 2004; Santos, Roomi, & Liñán, 2016). For the purpose of this study, and to simplify this construct, environmental resources have been divided into two categories. The first category being financial resources and the second being supportive resources.
Financial resources: starting an entrepreneurial venture is expensive. In the initial
phases of a start-up everything needs money to be thrown at it (Rotefoss & Kolvereid, 2005). The expenses to register a new business, building a website, marketing costs, brand reputation, developing the product, testing the product, producing the final product, eventually salaries need to be paid and growth capital needs to be reserved (Chen, 2003; Rotefoss & Kolvereid, 2005; Teschler, 2009). The money to pay for all these expenses need
to come from somewhere, often the entrepreneur takes out a second mortgage on his house, obtains a (bank) loan or sells part of his ventures’ equity to an investor (Bygrave, Hay, Ng, & Reynolds, 2003; Forlani & Mullins, 2000). Hindle et al. (2009) stated that it is crucial for entrepreneurs to have access to financial resources. Often the only thing individuals know about starting a venture will be that it is expensive (Bygrave et al., 2003; Rotefoss & Kolvereid, 2005). The relation between availability of money and the increase in numbers of new ventures has been proven in the past (Rotefoss & Kolvereid, 2005; Shane, 1996). Access to finances is thus important to consider starting a venture. Fortunately there are multiple financial opportunities for entrepreneurs. There is the possibility of taking out a bank loan, however this often only works when the bank understands the business plan and the plan is considered to be a safe business proposition (Acharya, Hasan, Saunders, The, & May, 2016; Graham, Li, & Qiu, 2008). An individual could have difficulty taking out a bank loan due to lack of collateral, reputation, track record (Forlani & Mullins, 2000; Grundstén, 2004). The next best option would be to come into contact with a private investor or business angel, a venture capitalist or another kind of investor (Brüntje & Gajda, 2016; Coleman, & Robb, 2011). A route more often taken nowadays is Crowdsourcing, finding several many small investors to gather a large investment. Due to the increased connectivity and social media presence this form of financing is rapidly growing (Palacios et al., 2016; Roth et al., 2013). Lastly, there is the option of applying for a governmental loan of subsidy. The government has identified the problem of the lack of resources for entrepreneurial individuals and designed several subsidy and grant programs to stimulate entrepreneurship with finances (Stephan, Uhlaner, & Stride, 2015). However, together with this financial impulse, governments often help with structuring, guiding and setting up the business plan (Michael & Pearce, 2009; Stephan et al., 2015). However that guidance is considered to be part of the second category of environmental resources. The availability of financial resources potentially could leads to more new venture creation and thus indirectly more entrepreneurial intentions.
Supporting resources: the birth of an entrepreneurial venture or any other kind of
business goes hand in hand with the appropriate amount of autonomy. An individual needs to have the opportunity and to freely make the decision to start a business (Grundstén, 2004). Besides autonomy to act on a perceived opportunity, the government and political environment play a major role by stimulating entrepreneurs with legislations, business registration possibilities, guidance, regulations, licenses and taxes advantages (Grundstén, 2004; Rotefoss & Kolvereid, 2005). Garofoli (1994) and Reynolds et al. (1994) state that the
more complex governmental involvement and the higher the tax rates (profit-tax) are, the lower are the rates of business formation. Where government and policy makers often are regarded as obstacles, they also provide benefits for individuals looking to start a venture. Governments today that have a strong focus on stimulating entrepreneurship (Carland & Carland, 2004; Michael & Pearce, 2009; Stephan et al., 2015). Entrepreneurial ventures create wealth and job opportunities, both are often in line with promises made in election campaigns. Governments therefore are more likely to offer strong protection mechanisms (patents, copyrights, etc.) (Baron & Ensley, 2006), combined with favorable governmental financial structures (lower tax rates, cash subsidies, etc.) creating an environment where individuals have access to the necessary structure and resources in order to start a venture (Baron & Ensley, 2006; Boyd & Vozikis, 1994).
The effects from these financial possibilities, supporting structures, autonomy of action, business registration options, protection mechanisms and governmental involvement on entrepreneurial activity could be the source that leads to the development of entrepreneurial intentions of individuals (Liñán, 2008).
2.2.2 Introduction of Family Resources
Besides the resources that lie within the environment of an individual, family resources are a second kind of resources that also could be an influencer of entrepreneurial intentions. Family resources are defined as the financial -, the social - and the human resources that are available for individual use (Danes, Stafford, Haynes, & Amarapurkar, 2009). This study reduces these three elements of family resources to two, combining social - and human resources. The first category of family resources will be the social- and human resources, grouped together as network resources (Sieger & Minola, 2015). The second category of family resources will be the family capital.
Network resources: Seeing family members succeed in business can be a powerful
motivator to take the leap to start a new venture of your own. As presented in the paper of Shapiro (1992) environment plays an important role, particular the direct environment of an individual: its family. Having a family member with entrepreneurial experience who is willing to teach and guide an individual can be a huge motivator (Dohse & Walter, 2012; Linan et al., 2011). Such an experienced family member will not only function as a mentor but can also become a role-model (Schoon & Duckworth, 2012). The access to guidance and role models can be regarded as human resources; additionally the social resources of the family support these human resources. Family social networks provide individuals with the
ability to find experienced individuals who can provide guidance, and become role models (Astrachan et al., 2003; Schoon & Duckworth, 2012; Sieger & Minola, 2015). Family networks often extent into several industries with various levels of experience. Due to this diversity in the network an individual can come in contact with individuals who could play a key role in their future business, distributors for example (Sieger & Minola, 2015). In correlation with the width of the network stands the access to capital. Most entrepreneurial startups are financed by family and friends (Rotefoss & Kolvereid, 2005). However, access to a bigger family networks provide better chances for an individual with entrepreneurial aspirations to find investors.
Family capital resources: besides using the social network of your family to reach
potential investors, family is often the first investor. Family members are assumed to be major contributors of financial resources to get an individual started (Astrachan et al., 2003; Bygrave et al., 2003; Coleman, S., & Robb, 2011; Sieger & Minola, 2015; Steier, 2003). Having access to family financial support allows an individual to get their venture of the ground. Family investments have several advantages over conventional investments. The first being that family investments are often early stage investments, family will invest even when an individual can not provide any collateral or track record. This initial investment often is purely based on love and reputation (Astrachan et al., 2003; Sieger & Minola, 2015; Steier, 2003). Secondly, family loans or investments come with favorable and flexible conditions concerning the interest rates and payback periods. Especially in the first years of business, not having to worry about paying back your investors is a huge benefit (Brüntje & Gajda, 2016; Sieger & Minola, 2015). Finally, this form of loan does not show up on the credit score of an individual, therefore the option is still available to take on even more debt from banks (Graham et al., 2008). Due to the family money the entrepreneur now has collateral to offer to the bank, enabling the entrepreneur to secure a loan. For those three reasons, it is important for individual to know that family will support their entrepreneurial aspirations. Knowing that family is willing to provide initial capital will probably influence the development of entrepreneurial aspirations.
2.3 Theory of Planned Behavior
Kirzner (1973) stated that entrepreneurs differ from individuals in their ability to perceive opportunities and their ability to act upon those perceived opportunities. The literature stream of the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) complies with the second part of that statement. This theory states that entrepreneurial behavior differentiates upon three factors: attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control. Of those the perceived behavioral control is considered being the most important differentiator and most important influencer of entrepreneurial intentions (Campopiano et al., 2016; Douglas & Shepherd, 2002; Franke & Lüthje, 2004; Liñán, 2008). Entrepreneurs think differently; seeing opportunities where others only see obstacles (Krueger et al., 2000; Van Der Zwan, Verheul, Thurik, & Grilo, 2013). Furthermore entrepreneurs experience uncertainty differently than non-entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs feel like they have control over the situation and are confident that they have what it takes to succeed (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1974; Hisrich, Peters, & Shepherd, 2013). An important factor in developing this entrepreneurial behavior is a role model. There are many forms of role models and all have a different type of relations with the entrepreneur: parents, family, friends, interesting individuals and famous entrepreneurs (Dohse & Walter, 2012). Individuals often mirror the behaviors of their role models; therefore role models can be seen as catalysts for the development of entrepreneurial intentions (Dohse & Walter, 2012; Schoon & Duckworth, 2012). In many ways, role models provide important signals for aspiring individuals to take the plunge - “It seems so simple as he explains it, I could also do that” (UvA Business student, 2018). The same kinds of signals also seem to surface from an individuals’ social environment. Recently, a concept appeared from the psychology literature: the Fear of Missing Out. This recently discovered concept describes that the social environment influences individuals’ behavior. An individual with high levels of the Fear of Missing Out could, in theory, could find a role model in whomever is present in their social environment, either offline or online. In the current society all attention and technology is focused on connectivity, being able to be in touch with everyone everywhere.
2.3.1 Introduction of the concept Fear of Missing Out
The Fear Of Missing Out can be defined as: “the pervasive apprehension that others might be having rewarding experiences from which one is absent, FoMO is characterized by the desire to stay continually connected with what others are doing” (Przybylski et al., 2013, pp 1841). Individuals develop FoMO whenever they are talking and spending time with their family, friends and other individuals (Elhai et al., 2016; Oberst et al., 2017; Przybylski et al., 2013).
Hearing about experiences from which one was absent triggers an increase in the desire to never miss out again (Oberst et al., 2017; Przybylski et al., 2013). In the light of entrepreneurship this could mean that seeing others becoming (successful) entrepreneurs, would trigger the desire to become an entrepreneur oneself. The ability to stay in touch through social media has accelerated the appearance of this phenomenon (Oberst et al., 2017; Przybylski et al., 2013). Social media has enables individuals to have a communication channel with friends, relatives, social-influencers and basically everyone else connected to social media (Burke, Marlow, & Lento, 2010). Social media provides individuals with easy access to real-time information concerning everything that is going on with friends and the rest of the world (Przybylski et al., 2013). With a push of a button content (news, status updates etc.) can be shared and access can be obtained to unlimited information (Ellison, Vitak, Gray, & Lampe, 2014). Past studies have proven that there are clear benefits (socially and personal) through the appearance of social media, like staying connected with friends even though an increase in geographical distance and the access to emotional support (Przybylski et al., 2013; Putnam, 2016). However, Chou & Edge (2012) conclude that there are also downsides to being connected and high involvement in social media. Chou & Edge (2012) did research on a group of students, asking them about their perceptions of their friends’ lives. Their conclusion was that when students were active online for longer periods of time, they are more likely to agree the statement that their friends have a better and happier life (Chou & Edge, 2012). This feeling is what Przybylski et al. (2013) called the Fear Of Missing Out. The Fear of Missing out is thus triggered by spending longer periods of time online, resulting in changing levels of three psychological factors: self-efficacy, autonomy and relevance (Alt, 2015; Chou & Edge, 2012; Przybylski et al., 2013). Changing of the psychological structure of individuals will alter their feelings towards certain behavior. The increase or decrease in self-efficacy and autonomy are the result of seeing others perform certain behavior, when an individual believes to be superior to the individual portraying the desired behavior their self-efficacy will increase (Alt, 2015; Przybylski et al., 2013). The opposite is true for the feeling of relevance, seeing others portrait the desired behavior will result in a decrease of this psychological construct. Stimulating an individual to take action and become relevant again (Alt, 2015; Przybylski et al., 2013). Thus, when an individual experiences high levels of FoMO, their desire to be like their peers could be the explanation for the development of entrepreneurial intentions. This study sets out to investigate the relationship of this recently discovered phenomenon with one of the most important topics in entrepreneurial literature, the development of entrepreneurial intentions.
3. Hypotheses Building
The chapter of hypotheses building will propose the moderation effect between the Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) and entrepreneurial intentions of individuals. To arrive at this moderation effect, firstly two pre-examined hypotheses (BH1 & BH2) will be examined. These are the potential direct relations between the two kinds of resources and the entrepreneurial intentions individuals. It might be clear from the theory that a direct relation between the environmental- as well as the family resources and entrepreneurial intentions has been proven. Nevertheless, this thesis will firstly re-examine both relationships. The reason for this is that in order to conclude a moderating effect the two direct relations have to be proven to exist statistically. This study will extend these baseline hypotheses by proposing a new concept as factor: the Fear of Missing Out. Introducing FoMO as a factor will lead to the presentation of three novel hypotheses.
3.1 The direct effect of environmental resources
Environmental resources are the first of the two kinds of resources, as described in the theoretical framework. When examining the influences of environmental resources two assumptions can be made. The first is that having access to finances is stated as an enabling requirement for firm creation (Barney, 2001; Sieger & Minola, 2015; Westhead & Wright, 2000). Although finances are an enabling requirement, the lack of financial resources in the environment does not have to mean that individuals will not create entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurs are experts of making the most of every euro (Cassar, 2007; Grundstén, 2004). However, having access to financial resources, bank loans, investors and such can be a huge benefit. With the lack of finances but access to other kinds of resources, entrepreneurs are able to make the finances work (Cassar, 2007; Grundstén, 2004). Secondly, it is important that the environment is stimulating entrepreneurship and new venture creation (Grundstén, 2004; Mccarthy, 2016). There should be governmental & policy support for the creation of businesses and new products. Consequently, there should be sufficient governmental and business protection possibilities and governmental financing opportunities. Individuals need to understand that the environment is open to new venture creation and government will provide assistance if necessary. The realization that governments are supportive of entrepreneurship will increase the motivation to become an entrepreneur (Carland & Carland, 2004; Michael & Pearce, 2009; Stephan et al., 2015). This supportive feeling is especially true for individuals with entrepreneurial aspirations; they seldom possess the financial resources to start a venture. Additionally, they often do not have any experience in business; therefore the
assistance of the government would be a motivator to become an entrepreneur. Consequently, the following baseline hypothesis has been drawn up:
BH1: There is a positive relationship between the level of environmental resources and the entrepreneurial intentions of an individual.
3.2 The direct effect of family resources
When examining family resources a split needs to be made, splitting family resources two categories: family network and family capital. A family network can be regarded as the entire family tree as well as all the individuals the family tree has access to (Johnson et al., 2001; Sieger & Minola, 2015). The function of the family network is threefold: ability to connect with entrepreneurs in the family, connect with role-models in your families network and the ability to get in contact with possible business partners and investors (Rotefoss & Kolvereid, 2005; Schoon & Duckworth, 2012; Sieger & Minola, 2015). The second category concerns family capital. The family capital concerns the available monetary assets within a family (Sieger & Minola, 2015).
Concerning family resources, three assumptions can be made. The first assumption states that family networks provide individuals with the ability to find experienced individuals who can provide guidance and may become role models (Astrachan et al., 2003; Schoon & Duckworth, 2012; Sieger & Minola, 2015). This will lead to increased willingness to start ones own venture. Secondly, the assumption is made that there is a correlation between the width of the family network and the access to capital. Most entrepreneurial startups are financed by family or friends (Rotefoss & Kolvereid, 2005). Consequently, the bigger the family network, the bigger the chance to get in contact with someone who is willing to invest in your venture. The final assumption that needs to be made is that the bigger the family fortune, the better are the chances your family will invest in your venture. Having access to family financial support allows an individual to get their venture of the ground. Consequently, the following baseline hypothesis has been drawn up:
BH2: There is a positive relationship between the level of family resources and the entrepreneurial intentions of an individual.
3.3 The direct effect of the Fear of Missing Out (FoMO)
The concept of fear is of interest since behavioral research has focused on characteristics of entrepreneurs (Welpe, Spörrle, Grichnik, Michl, & Audretsch, 2012). Study results in this field have revealed that the presence of fear leads to lower levels of entrepreneurial intentions. Fear leads to aversion towards starting a venture: it leads to only seeing obstacles and no chances (Welpe et al., 2012). However, the assumption can be made that Fear of Missing Out has other properties than traditional fear (Przybylski et al., 2013). General fear has the effect on individuals to be adverse towards a particular subject or activity. Fear triggers a commonly known flight or fight response (Allison et al., 2012; Diest et al., 2001). Both responses result in negative feelings towards that subject. The FoMO could trigger a third option in addition to the flight or fight response, which could be a desire-response (Allison et al., 2012; Diest et al., 2001). Allison et al. (2012) call this third response the “Fall” response, or the thrill-seeking response. Seeing others succeed will trigger the fear of not being appreciated or accepted by others (Oberst et al., 2017; Przybylski et al., 2013). It develops a desire to become like another, triggering the third option of fear. Due to technology advancements individuals have become more and more connected through social media. This connectedness through social media will result in seeing other starting their own business. When experiencing the Fear of Missing out, this will result in the desire to start a venture of your own. The thought of missing out could be a strong stimulator to start a business of your own. Hence, the author expects that FoMO will result in an increase in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Therefore the following hypotheses will be tested:
H3: There is a positive relationship between the level of Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) and the entrepreneurial intentions of an individual.
3.4 The moderating effect of the Fear of Missing Out (FoMO)
On top of the direct relation between FoMO and entrepreneurial intentions, FoMO may also have a moderating effect. A moderating effect is a variable that affects the direct relation between independent variables and the dependent variable statistically. The moderating effect of FoMO is based on four reasons.
First, having the means or access to the means necessary to start a venture is likely to result in entrepreneurial intentions. However, FoMO can be the factor that makes an individual create the desire to start a venture. Already having access to resources and then
experiencing FoMO will enhance the development of entrepreneurial intentions (Alt, 2015; Elhai et al., 2016; Oberst et al., 2017).
Secondly, FoMO has become of increasing importance as the result of higher connectedness through social media. As stated before, higher involvement in social media will result in higher levels of FoMO (Alt, 2015; Ellison et al., 2014; Przybylski et al., 2013). As stated in paragraph 2.3.1 (page 12), having access to specific knowledge allows individuals to identify opportunities others do not recognize. It allows individuals to spot trends and identify opportunities less active social media users do not identify (Przybylski et al., 2013). FoMO therefore will lead to higher opportunity recognition due to more extensive background information. In combination with access to the necessary resources this will lead to higher levels of entrepreneurial intentions.
An additional reason concerns family resources in specific. Technology and social media offer the opportunity to stay in contact with family more easily (Ellison et al., 2014). On one hand this connectedness strengthens the family network and allows for access to family resources, which will lead to entrepreneurial intentions (direct relation, BH2). On the other hand this connectedness may result in a deeper desire to be similar to your family members. Individuals therefore are more likely to invest or utilize the resources at hand (Sieger & Minola, 2015). An individual does not want to be left out as everyone in the family has started a (successful) business (Ishfad et al., 2010; Steier, 2003).
The final reason speculating the moderating role of FoMO concerns the extensiveness of the network. When an individual experiences FoMO, there is an opportunity to contact a lot of individuals/family members (Ellison et al., 2014). Therefore, FoMO can be expected to correlate with a bigger professional- and family network, resulting in more entrepreneurial intentions. These four reasons lead to the following two hypotheses:
H4: When FoMO is present, the relationship between environmental resources and entrepreneurial intentions of an individual is stronger than when FoMO is absent.
H5: When FoMO is present, the relationship between family resources and entrepreneurial intentions of an individual is stronger than when FoMO is absent.
4. Data and Methodology
This chapter will explain what steps have been taken to gather the data in order to statistically prove whether to accept or reject the before stated hypotheses. Firstly, an explanation will be provided on where the research will take place. Then arguments on what the target population should be and how the respondents will be controlled for to ensure a uniform dataset will be provided. The next paragraph will provide clarification about the different components of the survey. And finally, this chapter will explain how the gathered dataset will be cleaned and the different steps towards analyzing the data are provided.
4.1 Research Setting
Data will be collected among students of different business universities. Using university students as research group meets the following conditions. First of all, these students have the same educational background. Moreover, they are roughly of the same age. They are probably all equally equipped with technical knowledge and use of social media. And the final reason concerns the assumption that among business students the percentage of individuals with entrepreneurial intentions is relatively high. These students have the intention to go out and explore the job market and some may even explore their entrepreneurial opportunities. In order to obtain more generalizable data, the study did not focus on one university. The study targeted three major business universities in the Netherlands. The first is the University of Amsterdam (UvA). Secondly, the Rijksuniversiteit of Groningen (RUG) will be used since the city of Groningen claims to be the best start-up city in The Netherlands (RUG, 2017). Moreover, the city of the third university, the Erasmus Universities Rotterdam (EUR), claims to be the best city for entrepreneurs to start with their ventures (EUR, 2018).
4.2 Data collection and sample determination
The sample population will be business students, particularly students in their second or third year of their bachelors, pre-master students and master students. These students have been exposed to several years of academic education and have had their share of exposure to corporates, small- & medium enterprises. They probably have examined the success stories of the “unicorns start-ups” (AirBnb, Peerby, Spotify, Uber) (Zörgiebel, 2016) of this decade. They have thought about their careers, experienced some career opportunities and know better what they want than their first year counterparts. And therefore they have a better understanding of what they are looking for concerning their future job, employment and entrepreneurial ambitions. The convenient part in only selecting second-/third year bachelor, pre-master- or master students is the fact that they are likely to be roughly of the same age and have the similar life- and working experience, which creates a more uniform sample population.
Respondents will be approached via a variety of ways: the main path will be via Facebook groups (a list of Facebook pages and the number of members can be found in Appendix 1). After the Facebook approach, personal contacts will be approached. Finally the UvA Blackboard mailing system will be utilized to send out the survey to all business and economic master students. Due to the fact that the author wants as many respondents as possible the selection method of a sample is convenience sampling. The dataset will be cleaned up and controlled for the field of study [Business & Economics] and age [18 < X > 36]. It is hard to predict just how many respondents there will be; conversion rates differ between the different mediums (Facebook has a low rate, the personal approach a high rate, and Blackboard rates are unknown). Therefore no sample size calculation has been computed.
4.3 Measures
Data will be collected by a survey consisting of 42 questions. All items are presented as statements with answer opportunities on a seven-point-Likert-scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Only survey-questions with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0,70 or higher are included in the survey, in order to obtain only high-quality data. Appendix II contains a list of the articles used to extract questions from including Cronbach’s alphas. Every paper used a seven-point-Likert-scale, which is convenient for the survey for this thesis. The unit of analysis in this study is on single respondents; this implies that the various constructs are measured on individual level. Next, the six constructs measured in the survey are presented.
Entrepreneurial Intentions: the dependent variable in this study will be the
“outcome”. Each individual will be examined to what extent they portrait intentions towards starting a career in entrepreneurship. The intentions will be measured using five questions on this topic derived from the paper of Clercq et al. (2011). These will give an indication of how likely it is for that individual to start a venture.
Environmental Resources (Financial): Together with the governmental resources
this question cluster will form the first independent variable. Literature states that in order for a individual to develop a venture and entrepreneurial intentions in that manner, there must be financial resources present (Cassar, 2007; Sieger & Minola, 2015). In this part of the survey an analysis is made for the financial resources available in the direct environment of individuals, like banking opportunities. However, environmental resources are more than just financial opportunities, therefore this construct will be combined with the governmental opportunities and protection mechanisms of the direct environment of individuals (Baron & Ensley, 2006; Michael & Pearce, 2009; Rotefoss & Kolvereid, 2005; Stephan et al., 2015).
Environmental Resources (Governmental): together with the financial
environmental resources this construct forms the first independent variable. For entrepreneurs it is important to know that their newly developed solutions/products will be protected after release. Support from government and business institutions could mean the difference between starting a venture and not starting a venture (Baron & Ensley, 2006; Rotefoss & Kolvereid, 2005). When individuals know that they can protect their products, the thought of pursuing a career in entrepreneurship is much more attractive. Additional guidance from environmental business institutions or government financial aid can transform the direct environment of an individual into an attractive place to start their own business.
Family Resources (Financial): combined with the family network, the family capital
forms the second independent variable. Like the financial resources in ones direct environment, the family capital provide an individual with the opportunity to pursuit the idea of developing ones own venture. Family capital, together with money from friends is the main initial funding capital for new ventures (Sieger & Minola, 2015; Steier, 2003). Having access to sufficient family funds will likely have an accelerating effect on the development of entrepreneurial intentions.
Family Resources (Network): the second part of the second independent variable
influencing the development of entrepreneurial intentions is your family network. The network will provide an individual with the opportunity to connect with experienced entrepreneurs, search & connect with mentors, have the possibility to meet key players for
their business and have to opportunity to find alternative sources of financing (Astrachan et al., 2003; Sieger & Minola, 2015; Steier, 2003; Subrahmanyam, Reich, Waechter, & Espinoza, 2008). However, the family network needs to be extensive enough to reach these people and the aspiring needs to get access to this network (c.q. introductions).
FoMO: This study will examine the direct effect from this psychological construct on
the development of entrepreneurial intentions. However, this study believes that there is a potential moderating effect of FoMO on the two independent variables. The expectation is that the higher the FoMO of an individual, the more likely the individual is to mirror the behavior of their peers/environment (Oberst et al., 2017). Due to the fact that the individual does not want to be the odd one out, or miss the change to be admired by his peers.
4.4 Methodology
The questions of the survey were compiled on Qualtrics. Next, the anonymous distribution link was published using the message function of Facebook, the message function of Blackboard and towards the personal network (using Whatsapp and email). Several reposts (Facebook) and repeating emails (Blackboard) were sent out over a period of six weeks. The responses have been exported to SPSS version 25. The next step was to analyze the dataset for missing data and responses that fall outside of the target population. If a response (row) is missing more than five items this row will be discarded. Having eliminated these incomplete responses, the follow-up step is to account for the three criteria this study has setup for its target population. 1) Participants need to be second-/third year bachelor -, pre-master – or master students, 2) Follow a study in the field of economics and business and 3) their age should be between 18 and 36.
The first exploratory analysis of the dataset in SPSS was the reliability analysis. Which calculated if the question clusters that were grouped together actually tested what they should be testing (α < .70) (Bonett & Wright, 2014). A logical second step would be a factor analysis (Baglin, 2014). Revealing whether the groups that were formed were also the ones suggested based on the responses. Depending on the outcome of this analysis there could be a possibility to construct new groups based on how likely questions were to belong together. If groups will be rearranged the reliability analysis has to be duplicated in order to check whether the alpha is still sufficient (α < .70) (Bonett & Wright, 2014). There was a slight suspicion that the variable FoMO might be positively skewed; this variable and the others will be tested using the Bayesian Analysis. This analysis will reveal whether a variable needs to be corrected for skewedness using the log-transformation (Baglin, 2014). Using the results of the
factor analysis, the four construct variables will be calculated by adding up the individual question results and dividing those totals over the number of questions. That will lead to the following four constructs: for the dependent variable entrepreneurial intentions (TOTEnIn), for the independent variables environmental resources and family resources (TOTEnRe & TOTFaRe), and finally for the moderator FoMO (TOTFoMO).
5. Results
In the period of six weeks after publishing the survey, 197 respondents had filled it out. There were several responses missing more than five data points. Only N=156 responses were fully filled out and thus could be used. Further analysis pointed out that five respondents did not fit the criteria of the level of education. With regards to the field of study, there were seven respondents who came from fields other than economics & business. Resulting a workable dataset of in total N=134 responses. A side not has to be made concerning the survey question addressing parent entrepreneurial experience. It was setup with three answer options (yes, maybe, no). The “maybe” answer could not be used without computing it into a dummy variable. For the initial part of the analytics the ten “maybe” - responses will be regarded as ‘no’-responses. In the exploratory analysis (5.4) the dummy variable will be created.
5.1 Descriptive statistics
Table 1 (page 23) gives a descriptive summary of the respondents in the dataset (N = 134). Of those N=134 entries, there were 58 males and 76 females. The ages of the respondents differed between 19 and 32 years old, with an average of 22,75 ≈ 23 years. Of the N = 134 respondents there were several (N = 74) that followed entrepreneurship courses although almost half (N = 60) did not follow these courses. There were even individuals who have entrepreneurial experience (N = 21) although the majority did not have entrepreneurial experience (N = 113). Parental entrepreneurial experience is almost evenly distributed with 63 responses with and 71 responses without parental experience.
After computing the descriptive statistics, the first step in analyzing the data is to perform a reliability analysis. Table 2 (page 25) shows the Cronbach’s alphas and correlation matrix. The alphas will be calculated for the four construct variables containing the validated questions: Entrepreneurial Intentions (TOTEnIn), Environmental Resources (TOTEnRe), Family Resources (TOTFaRe) and the Fear of Missing Out (TOTFoMO). The Cronbach’s alpha of the constructs are TOTEnIn α = .935, TOTEnRe α = .762, TOTFaRe α = .881 and
TOTFoMO α = .871. All alphas are exceeding the cut-off value of α > .70 for the reliability consistency. To test whether the correct clusters have been made, the factor analysis pointed out that 2 questions needed to be grouped differently (EnRe4 & EnRe 5 needed to change to EnIn6 & EnIn7) appendix III provides the output of the factor analysis. This lead to changes in the reliability alphas of TOTEnIN and TOTEnRe: TOTEnIn α =.902 & TOTEnRe α =.745. Both alphas are still exceeding the required cut-off limit of α >.70.
5.2 Correlations
As mentioned in paragraph 5.1, table 2 (page 25) shows the correlation matrix including all the variables and control variables and the Cronbach’s alphas. The table shows that both the independent variables ‘Environmental resources’ and ‘Family resources’ positively correlate to the outcome (dependent variable) of ‘Entrepreneurial Intentions’ (resp. r = .463, p < .01; r
= .273, p < .01). This suggests that having either kind or both kinds of resources available will lead to an increase in entrepreneurial intentions. ‘Family resources’ do also correlate with ‘Environmental resources’ (r = .284, p< .01). This suggests that when an individual has access to ‘Family resources’ 28,4% likelihood that they will also have access to ‘Environmental resources’.
The control variable of ‘age’ correlates negatively with the four variables, although there is only a significant negative correlation of ‘age’ on both independent variables (‘environmental resources’ & ‘family resources’) (resp. r = -.210, p < .05; r = -.182, p < .05). This implies that the older an individual is, the less resources there are available.
Interestingly, the other control variable ‘education’ correlates negatively towards ‘Entrepreneurial intentions’ and ‘FoMO’ but positively towards the control variable “age” (resp. r = -.229, p < .01; r = -.231, p < .01 and r = .424, p < .01). The higher the education the lower is the intention of individuals to start their own ventures. Furthermore the higher the education the lower is their level of FoMO. Consequently, the higher the level of education the older an individual will be. The reason for that being that it takes time for an individual to finish any form of education. Interestingly, the age of an individual does not correlate with the level of FoMO (r = -.062, p > .480). Therefore it seems that education is the only variable able to affect the level of FoMO. However as table shows, the control variables of ‘Entrepreneurial experience’ and ‘Parental income’ also affect the level of FoMO (resp. r = .172, p < .05; r = -.278, p < .01).
With regards to individuals following entrepreneurial courses, the higher their level of education the less likely they are to follow these courses (r = -.249, p < .01). The same goes for having entrepreneurial experience. ‘Entrepreneurial experience’ correlates negatively with choosing to follow entrepreneurial courses (r = -.234, p < .01). So having experience will result in not choosing to follow entrepreneurial courses. The opposite could also be true; individuals that have followed an entrepreneurial course are less likely to develop entrepreneurial intentions, although this correlation is not significant (r = -.075, p > .05). Similar to the level of education and the intention to start ones own venture, the higher the education the lower are the intentions of an individual to start their own venture (r = -.253, p < .01). However, when parents have entrepreneurial experience individuals are more likely to follow entrepreneurial courses (r = .277, p < .01). But ‘parental entrepreneurial experience’ does negatively insignificantly correlate with ‘Entrepreneurial intentions’, ‘Environmental resources’ and ‘Family resources’ (resp. r = -.089, p > .05; r = -.038, p > .05; r = -.154, p > .05). Which implies that there are less resources and entrepreneurial intentions present when
parents have entrepreneurial experience. A stimulating factor for ‘Family resources’ would be the ‘parental income’, table 2 does show that correlation however it is not significant (r = .115, p > .05). ‘Parental income’ is stimulated by ‘age’ and ‘Parental education’. Both are in line with what could be expected, higher education often means better salaries. The same can be said for age, however the variable ‘age’ does not measure the age of parents it measures age of the respondents. However, the higher the age of individuals the more likely it is that their parents are also of higher age.
5.3 Testing of the hypotheses
To test the five hypotheses, SPSS version 25 will be used and the SPSS add-on Process Function of Andrew Hayes (Hayes, 2012). This add-on will be used for calculating the two expected moderator effects of FoMO. First, the three hypotheses concerning the direct relations will be examined. Thereafter the two moderating models will be tested. First the model where entrepreneurial intentions will be used as the dependent variable (Y), Environmental Resources as the independent variable (X) and FoMO as the moderator (W). And secondly the model where entrepreneurial intentions will be used as the dependent variable (Y), Family Resources as the independent variable (X) and FoMO as the moderator (W).
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between the level of environmental resources and the entrepreneurial intentions of an individual.
The first step in analyzing this direct relation is to compute a linear regression analysis. The testing of this hypothesis has been suggested by Sieger & Minola (2015) and Campopiano et al. (2016). This hypothesis has been tested but in order to accept hypotheses 4, in the context of this sample, this hypothesis needs to be re-examined within this sample population. From
the results of the linear analysis the conclusion can be drawn that this hypothesis is accepted. The R square of the direct relation between environmental resources (IV) and entrepreneurial intentions (DV) is r = .214 (table 3). The model is statistical significant F (1, 132) = 36,00; p < .01 and explains 21,4% (R Square, table 3) of the variance in entrepreneurial intentions.
Table 3. Results describing the regression analysis between environmental resources and entrepreneurial intentions
Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between the level of family resources and the entrepreneurial intentions of an individual.
This second hypothesis has been tested by Sieger & Minola (2015). But in order to accept hypotheses 5, in the context of this sample, this hypothesis needs to be re-examined within this sample population. From the results of the linear regression analysis between family resources (IV) and entrepreneurial intentions (DP), the conclusion can be drawn that H2 will be accepted. The model (table 4, page 27) present statistical significant results F (1, 132) = 10,618; p < .01 and explains 7,4% (R Square, table 4) of the variance of entrepreneurial intentions.
Table 4. Results describing the regression analysis between family resources and entrepreneurial intentions
Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship between the level of Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) and the entrepreneurial intentions of an individual.
The next step is to compute a regression analysis between the Fear of Missing Out (IV) and entrepreneurial intentions (DP). The results (table 5, page 28) show that this regression is not statistically significant F (1, 132) = 3,456, p > .065. Additionally, if the model were significant it only would have explained 1,8% (R Square, table 5) of the variance between the Fear of Missing Out and entrepreneurial intentions. Hypothesis 3 will not be accepted based on these results.
Hypothesis 4: When FoMO is present, the relationship between environmental resources and entrepreneurial intentions of an individual is stronger than when FoMO is absent.
Proving a moderating effect is based on three assumptions: (1) the direct relation between the independent variable and dependent variable needs to be, (2) the moderator have a significant direct effect on the dependent variable and (3) the interaction between the independent variable and the moderator should be significant therefore significantly effecting the dependent variable. Using the Hayes model 1 (table 5, page 28), the three assumptions can be accepted or not. From the results from table 3 (page 26) one can state that assumption 1 is met, environmental resources have a significant positive effect on entrepreneurial intentions.
However the second assumption is not met, there is no significant relation between the FoMO and entrepreneurial intentions (table 5). Although the significance of this assumption comes close with p = .065. Model 1 of the Hayes Process function (Hayes, 2012) in SPSS is used to test the third assumption: Y = TOTEnIn, X = TOTEnRe, W =TOTFoMO and TOTFaRe = control. This model does not result in a statistical significant interaction (Int_1) F (4, 129) = 11,34, p = .2148. Therefore concluding that FoMO does not have a moderating effect on the relation between environmental resources and entrepreneurial intentions. Thus supporting evidence cannot be found resulting in the fact that H4 is not accepted.
Table 5. Results describing the regression between the Fear of Missing Out and entrepreneurial intentions
Hypothesis 5: When FoMO is present, the relationship between family resources and entrepreneurial intentions of an individual is stronger than when FoMO is absent.
Similar to the fourth hypothesis, in order to confirm the moderator model it needs to meet the same three assumptions as stated in H4. (1) A significant effect between family resources and entrepreneurial intentions, this assumption has been met. (2) A significant effect between FoMO and entrepreneurial intentions has not been met. (3) Testing the moderating model using model 1 of Hayes (Hayes, 2012) (Y = TOTEnIn, X = TOTFaRe and W =TOTFoMO and TOTEnRe as control variable), resulted in the following results (table 7). The model interaction (Int_1) is statistically significant F (4, 129) = 12,13, p = .0496. Although assumption 2, the direct effect between FoMO and entrepreneurial intentions could not be proven at a significance level, there is strong evidence that hints to a moderating effect of FoMO on the relation between family resources and entrepreneurial intentions. This moderating effect will explain 27,34% of the variance on entrepreneurial intentions, which is much more than the 7,4% proven in H2. When the FoMO of an individual passes the level of x = 4.05 the effect on entrepreneurial intentions would be r = .0907 at p = .2413, so no significant influence of FoMO on the relation. However, when the FoMO of the individual exceeds x = 5.48, there would be a positive effect of r = .2833 at p = 0.0108. However due to the insignificance of Hypothesis 3 also hypothesis 5 could not be accepted.
Table 7. Output examining the moderating effect of FoMO on the relation between family resources and entrepreneurial intentions
5.4 Exploratory analysis of the results
Only two hypotheses tested significant, resulting in the other three hypotheses not being accepted at the desired significance levels (either p < .05 or p < .01). Therefore H3, H4 and H5 have to be rejected. Nevertheless, the results of the moderation model of H5 indicated a statistical significant result and hint towards a moderating effect.
In the first segment of this chapter, the author mentioned that 10 respondents had answered ‘maybe’ to the question if their parents had entrepreneurial experience and that these ‘maybe’ responses were considered as ‘no’ responses in the initial analysis. However this is not the correct way of working with these responses, three dummy variables should have been computed (Field, 2009). Table 8, presents an overview of the correlations with these three dummy variables included (12, 13, 14). The correlations show that students who have parents with entrepreneurial intentions to obtain higher education, however they are less likely to follow entrepreneurial courses (resp. r = .253, p < .01; r = -.293, p < .01). The opposite is true individuals with parents without any entrepreneurial experience; they are less likely to obtain higher education and are more likely to choose to follow entrepreneurial courses (resp. r = -.258, p < .01; r = .276, p < .01). This could be the reason why respondents with parents without entrepreneurial experience perceive higher levels of FoMO (r = .181, p < .05): they may foster a desire to be an entrepreneur (r = .089, p > .05). Additionally, if parents do not have any entrepreneurial experience they are less likely to provide their children with family resources (r = -.192, p < .05). Which could be due to the fact that they are hesitant to start a venture of their own.
In order to examine the possible moderating effect of FoMO (H5), additional research into this dataset is necessary. A possibility towards examining whether the moderating effect of FoMO will surface would be to examine the entire dataset. In order to compute reliable calculations, the sample population had to comply with several restrictions such as: the field
