Int Entrep Manag J

DOI 10.1007/s11365-014-0351-2

Extending the link between entrepreneurial self-efficacy

and intention: a moderated mediation model
Kuen-Hung Tsai & Hui-Chen Chang & Chen-Yi Peng

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract This study extended the research on the relationship between entrepreneurial
self-efficacy and intention by developing a moderated mediation model. This model
posits that the link between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention is mediated by
attitudes toward entrepreneurship and planned entrepreneurial control, and that these
mediation processes are further moderated by subjective norms. Based on a sample of
308 valid responses, regression analysis yielded two noteworthy results. First, entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively affects intention through attitudes toward entrepreneurship and planned entrepreneurial control. Second, the direct effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on intention decreases as subjective norms increase. By contrast, the
indirect intention effects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy through attitudes toward entrepreneurship and planned entrepreneurial control increase as subjective norms increase. In addition, the results indicated that subjective norms positively affect entrepreneurial intention. These findings indicated that the model advances the use of the
theory of planned behavior and can be used to define a person as an entrepreneur.
Keywords Entrepreneurial self-efficacy . Entrepreneurial intention . Subjective norm .
Theory of planned behavior . Entrepreneurship

Introduction
Understanding the process of becoming an entrepreneur is an imperative topic in
entrepreneurship and management research. A volume of scholarly research has identified entrepreneurial efficacy as an important factor, even the best predictor, for
K.<H. Tsai (*) : H.<C. Chang : C.<Y. Peng
Department of Business Administration, National Taipei University, 151 University Rd., San Shia,
Taipei 237, Taiwan
e-mail: atmas@mail.ntpu.edu.tw
H.<C. Chang
e-mail: cjenny@gm.ntpu.edu.tw
C.<Y. Peng
e-mail: chenyi.paul@gmail.com

Int Entrep Manag J

understanding an individuals business start-up intentions and success (e.g., Chen et al.
1998; Drnovek et al. 2010; Krueger et al. 2000; Lin 2008; Naktiyok et al. 2010;
Segal et al. 2005). These studies have made a substantial contribution to the entrepreneurial literature; however, there are still unanswered issues regarding the influential
process of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on the intentions of starting a business. The
planned behavioral theory suggests that personal beliefs in the ability to perform
particular behaviors influences perceptions of behavioral control and attitudes toward
particular behaviors, thus affecting the intention to perform those behaviors (Ajzen
1991). This view implies that there are processes mediating the entrepreneurial selfefficacyintention relationship when perceived behavioral control and attitudes toward entrepreneurship are considered. Furthermore, the entrepreneurial motivation
from subjective norms, which are reflective of the expectations of salient others, is
extrinsic. In contrast, the motivation from the internal beliefs in the skills and
abilities to start a business is intrinsic in nature. Past literature has suggested that
the effects of intrinsic motivation on behavioral intention are influenced by extrinsic motivation (Deci et al. 1999). Thus, subjective norms may impact the relationships between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention. However,
so far, the entrepreneurial literature has not investigated these issues. This reinforces the necessity of further research to answer why and how entrepreneurial
self-efficacy affects entrepreneurial intention.
This study fills existing knowledge gaps in the entrepreneurship and management
literature by investigating two questions: (1) Do attitudes toward entrepreneurship and
perceived behavioral control mediate the relationship between entrepreneurial selfefficacy and intention? (2) How do subjective norms affect these mediating effects?
This study contributes to the entrepreneurship literature in three respects. First, this
study expands upon the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention by investigating its mediation process. Whereas relevant studies
have focused on examining the direct effect entrepreneurial self-efficacy exerts on
intention (Chen et al. 1998; Markman et al. 2002; Naktiyok et al. 2010; Segal et al.
2005), this study investigates the mediating roles of attitudes toward entrepreneurship
and perceived behavioral control in the entrepreneurial self-efficacyintention relationship. Second, this study contributes by affording a contingency perspective.
Although many studies have examined the effect entrepreneurial self-efficacy exerts
on entrepreneurial intention, they have not investigated the moderators of the entrepreneurial self-efficacyintention relationship. This study increases the knowledge of this
relationship by investigating the moderating roles of subjective norms. Third, this study
extends the roles concerning the theory of planned behavior during the process of
becoming an entrepreneur. Relevant entrepreneurship literature has adopted the planned
behavioral theory, considering attitudes toward entrepreneurship, perceived behavioral
control, and subjective norms as the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention (Fayolle
et al. 2006; Kolvereid and Isaksen 2006; Krueger et al. 2000). By contrast, this study
suggests that these three components play mediating and moderating roles in the
relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention to start a business.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Literature Review briefly
reviews the literature linking entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention. Conceptual
Framework and Research Hypotheses presents the conceptual framework that guided
the literature review and the development of the research hypotheses; Methods

Int Entrep Manag J

describes the research methods, including the model, definitions of variables, measurements, and data used in this study; and Analyses and Results presents and discusses the
results. Discussion summarizes and discusses the results. Finally, Conclusion presents a
brief conclusion, addresses the implications of the findings for theory and managerial
practice, and suggests compelling directions for future research.

Literature review
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy has been defined by researchers from various
perspectives. Some researchers have described entrepreneurial self-efficacy as
the self-confidence of entrepreneurs regarding specific tasks (Baum et al. 2001;
Baron et al. 1999; Boyd and Vozikis 1994); others have defined entrepreneurial
self-efficacy as confidence in the personal ability to accomplish the business
start-up process (Chen et al. 1998; Segal et al. 2005). In this study, we adopt
the second perspective to define this construct.
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy differs from perceived behavior control. Whereas control beliefs are defined as peoples beliefs in regard to the presence of factors that may
help in performing a behavior, perceived behavioral control refers to whether a person
perceives performing a particular behavior as easy or difficult (Ajzen 1991). Many
studies have suggested that self-efficacy and perceived behavioral control are two
distinct constructs (Manstead and Van Eekelen 1998; Sparks et al. 1997; Tavousi
et al. 2009). In this study, we defined entrepreneurial self-efficacy as the confidence
of people in their ability to engage in entrepreneurship.
Previous studies have investigated the effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on
business start-up intentions based on samples of undergraduate and graduate
students. For example, Chen et al. (1998) investigated this relationship by using a
sample of students and determined that entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively affected
entrepreneurial intention. De Noble et al. (1999) analyzed a sample of students and
observed a positive link between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention. Jung et al.
(2001) investigated students in the United States and South Korea, and their results
supported a positive link between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention. Segal
et al. (2005) investigated U.S. students and indicated that entrepreneurial self-efficacy
positively affected self-employment intention. Furthermore, Wilson et al. (2007) analyzed a sample of students in the United States and determined that entrepreneurial selfefficacy positively affected entrepreneurial intention. In more recent studies, Borchers
and Park (2010) investigated American university students, observing a positive
relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial mindset (intent).
By using a sample of university students in Uganda, Byabashaija and Katono (2011)
determined that entrepreneurial self-efficacy has a positive effect on the intention to
start a business. Nwankwo et al. (2012) focused on a sample of female students in
Nigeria and noted that entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively influences intention. By
contrast, using a cross-country sample included in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
(GEM) project, Arenius and Minniti (2005) found that confidence about personal skills
is positively associated with nascent entrepreneurship. Kolvereid and Isaksen (2006)
based their study on a sample of Norwegian business founders and did not observe a
significant relationship between entrepreneurial efficacy and entrepreneurial behavior.

Int Entrep Manag J

Overall, most previous studies have investigated university students as the sample to
examine the entrepreneurial self-efficacyintention relationship.

Conceptual framework and research hypotheses

Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual model of this study. This model was based on selfefficacy theory and the theory of planned behavior. Self-efficacy theory contributes to
explaining the relationships among beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behavior. A
previous study indicated that peoples intentions and behavior are strongly influenced
by their beliefs to effectively complete a given task (Bandura et al. 1980). The theory of
planned behavior suggests that peoples control beliefs affect their perceived behavioral
control and attitudes toward behaviors, thus affecting their subsequent intentions and
behaviors (Ajzen 1991). According to these perspectives, we posited that, in addition to
a direct link between entrepreneurial efficacy and entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurial self-efficacy is indirectly linked to entrepreneurial intention through attitudes
toward entrepreneurship and perceived behavioral control of entrepreneurship.
Furthermore, based on the interaction perspectives of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations
(Deci et al. 1999), this study argues that the levels of indirect links are contextdependent, and that subjective norms serve as the contextual factor. The framework
was used to guide the development of the research hypotheses. The specific hypotheses, as well as their underlying rationale, are detailed in the remainder of this section.
The mediating roles of attitudes toward entrepreneurship and perceived entrepreneurial
control
Peoples attitudes toward entrepreneurship consist of their positive and negative evaluations of entrepreneurship. According to the theory of planned behavior, peoples
beliefs regarding the consequences of a particular behavior affect their attitude toward
that behavior (Ajzen 1991). People who exhibit high levels of self-efficacy strongly

H3

Atude
Toward Entrepreneurship

H1
H4

H4

Entrepreneurial
Self-Ecacy

Entrepreneurial
Intenon

Subjecve Norms

H5
H2

H1

Perceived
Entrepreneurial Control

H5

Fig. 1 A moderated mediated framework linking entrepreneurship self-efficacy and intention

H2

Int Entrep Manag J

believe in their ability to complete a job or a specific set of tasks (Bandura 1977;
Bandura et al. 1980).1 Persons with high levels of confidence in their skills to start a
business are likely to expect that they can establish a successful venture, and this
expectation may motivate their behavior in regard to entrepreneurship. Based on this
logic, entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively affects entrepreneurial intention by engendering a positive attitude toward entrepreneurship. Furthermore, similar to the
concept of perceived behavioral control defined in the theory of planned behavior,
perceived entrepreneurial control refers to a persons perceived ease or difficulty in
beginning a venture. The theory of planned behavior asserts that the control beliefs of
people determine their perceived behavior control (Ajzen 1991). Based on this logic,
people with strongly confident in their ability to perform entrepreneurial activities are
more likely to have a low risk perception of performing these activities (Lin 2008);
thus, they may be highly willing to begin a business. Similarly, people who exhibit high
levels of entrepreneurial self-efficacy may have high levels of entrepreneurial intention
because they strongly believe that a venture can be established with ease. Based on
these arguments, we posited the following hypotheses:
H1 Attitudes toward entrepreneurship mediate the positive relationship between
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention.
H2 Perceived entrepreneurial control mediates the positive relationship between
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention.

The moderating roles of subjective norms

Subjective norms reflect the perceived expectations people have toward salient others
(Ajzen 1991). In entrepreneurial research, subjective norms refer to a persons perceptions of reference people, including family, friends, and significant others, who would
or would not approve of the decision to become an entrepreneur (Lin 2008). This
definition suggests that subjective norms related to entrepreneurship may be positive or
negative; the current study focuses on positive subjective norms. Relevant research has
investigated the influence subjective norms exerts on entrepreneurial intention (e.g.,
Abebe 2012; Solesvik 2013). Although reference groups affect an individuals entrepreneurial motivation, they may also provide the support and resources required for
starting a business to the individual, and then enhance the roles of personal attraction
and perceived behavioral control (Lin and Santos 2007). Thus, building on relevant
research, this paper further asserts that subjective norms influence both the effects of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention and the mediating roles of
attitudes toward entrepreneurship and perceived entrepreneurial control.
From the perspective of motivation theory, the motivation to begin a business in
response to the pressures associated with perceived expectations is extrinsic in nature.
By contrast, entrepreneurial motivation grounded in entrepreneurial self-efficacy, i.e.,
1

In Bandura (1977) study, jobs or tasks are related to conventional activities, such as entrepreneurship. Selfefficacy related to conventional pursuits is associated with a positive response toward the conventional
pursuits. However, individuals may develop self-efficacy in relation to nonconventional pursuits (e.g., crime).
Under the cases of nonconventional pursuits, the self-efficacyattitude relationship may not be the same as
that discussed in relation to entrepreneurship.

Int Entrep Manag J

the confidence in perceived skills and abilities to begin an enterprise, is intrinsic

(Amabile et al. 1994). Intrinsic motivation includes the motivation to begin a business
primarily for its own sake because starting a business provides the person with a sense
of accomplishment or satisfaction. Previous research on the interaction between extrinsic and intrinsic motivations has suggested that the controlling property of external
influence hinders the intrinsic orientation associated with a behavior, diminishing the
effect of intrinsic motivation (Deci et al. 1999; Fu et al. 2010). In other words, the
influence of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention may be partially
attributed to subjective norms. Thus, we expected that a persons perceived external
expectations may suppress the influence entrepreneurial self-efficacy exerts on intention. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
H3 Subjective norms negatively moderate the relationship between entrepreneurial
self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention.
However, regarding entrepreneurship and the perspective of social capital (Greve
and Salaff 2003; Lin and Santos 2007), salient people are likely to assist others for
whom they have high expectations to begin a business by offering available resources.
Relevant literature has suggested that people typically receive resources and support
from family members or others to whom they are strongly tied when beginning
businesses (Greve and Salaff 2003). Family and other salient people are the core origin
of subjective norms. Thus, more resources are possibly associated with high levels of
subjective norms. These resources may encourage people who are confident in their
capability to perform entrepreneurial activities and feel more positively toward entrepreneurship, resulting in a greater willingness to start a business. Similarly, these
resources and supports may also enable people with high levels of confidence in their
ability to be entrepreneurs to believe that they can establish a venture with ease, thereby
producing higher levels of entrepreneurial intention. Thus, subjective norms may
increase the influence of perceived entrepreneurial control in the entrepreneurial selfefficacyintention relationship. According to these perspectives, we propose the
following hypotheses:
H4 Subjective norms positively moderate the mediating effect of attitudes toward
entrepreneurship in the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and
entrepreneurial intentions.
H5 Subjective norms positively moderate the mediating effect of perceived entrepreneurial control in the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention.

Methods
Measures of constructs
This study developed measures of constructs based on previous research. Wherever
possible, existing measures were used or modified to meet the purpose of this study. A

Int Entrep Manag J

pretest of the measures was first performed on a sample of seven academic experts
working in areas pertaining to entrepreneurship development to evaluate the comprehensiveness of the constructs. The measures used in this study were based on the
Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire (EIQ) first developed by Lin and Chen
(2009) and later modified by Lin et al. (2011c). The revised EIQ comprises 20 items
that were used to measure the four constructs of entrepreneurial intention, attitudes
toward entrepreneurship, perceived entrepreneurial control, and subjective norms; these
four constructs are separately measured by six items (4, 6, 9, 13, 17, 19), five items (2,
10, 12, 15, 18), six items (1, 5, 7, 14, 16, 20), and three items (3, 8, 11), respectively. In
addition, entrepreneurial self-efficacy was measured using six items adopted from De
Noble et al. (1999) and Lin (2008). All of the measures were scored using a sevenpoint scale. These measured were reported in the appendix.
In this study, demographic variables, including age, gender, level of education,
marriage status, prior experience in entrepreneurship, and working experience, were
controlled to reduce the possibility of alternative explanations. These variables were
adopted to explain entrepreneurial intention and have been widely documented in the
entrepreneurship literature (Dabic et al. 2012; Daz-Garca and Jimnez-Moreno 2010;
Daz-Casero et al. 2012; Lin et al. 2011a; Lin et al. 2011b). Gender was a nominal
variable for which 1=male and 0=female. Age is scored on a 5-point scale on which
1=younger than 25 years, 2=older than 2535 years, 3=older than 3545 years, 4=
older than 4555 years, and 5=older than 55 years. Marriage was scored as 1=
married and 0=unmarried. Level of education is scored on a four-point scale on which
1=junior school, 2=high or vocational school, 3=university, and 4=graduate. Prior
experience of entrepreneurship was measured by asking the attendants whether they
had started a business; 1=yes and 0=no. Working experience was scored on a 5-point
scale on which 1=never, 2=less than 3 years, 3=more than 35 years, 4=more than 5
10 years, and 5=more than 10 years. The two controls were not applicable to the factor
analysis because they are measured using a single item. In addition, this study analyzed
subjective norms as a control in the models when investigating the moderating effect of
gender, and vice versa.
Statistical methods
Confirmatory factor analysis, which was used to assess reliability and validity of the
scales for measuring the constructs, was adopted because this approach can be used to
test whether measures of a construct are consistent with the nature of that construct, and
has been widely employed in social research (Hair et al. 2010). In addition, regression
analysis was utilized to test the research hypotheses (i.e., the mediating effects of
attitudes toward entrepreneurship and perceived entrepreneurial control and the moderating effects of subjective norms). Essentially, a structural equations method can be
considered to analyze the data in this study. However, using measures to construct the
interaction terms in a structural equations model is a complex process (Ping 1996), and
lacks a measure with which to evaluate the degree of multicollinearity. Thus, instead of
using a structural equations model, we adopted regression analysis according to the
suggestion by Aiken and West (1991) to evaluate the proposed models. In addition, we
employed the bootstrap approach suggested by Zhao et al. (2010) and the method by
Preacher and Hayes (2008) to assess the mediating effects. We conducted confirmatory

Int Entrep Manag J

factor analysis using LISREL 8.51; for multiple regression analysis and the bootstrap
approach, we used SPSS for Windows.
Sample and data collection
Most studies on entrepreneurship intention have investigated university students rather
than potential real-world entrepreneurs as research subjects. Although university students are considered a population highly inclined toward entrepreneurship (Lin 2004;
Reynolds et al. 2002a; Zhang et al. 2014), they may not be representative of the total
population. McGee et al. (2009) even consider that the results based on samples of
students may be associated with a bias because students could not judge whether they
can be successful entrepreneurs. Researchers have suggested that entrepreneurial research should be conducted in other contexts, in addition to university students (DazGarca and Jimnez-Moreno 2010; Lin 2008; Naktiyok et al. 2010). Thus, this study
sampled potential real-world entrepreneurs. We collected data by surveying people who
were interested in attending an entrepreneurial awareness course. This course was free
and designed to provide entrepreneurship knowledge to people aged 18 or older in
Taiwan. The course was held twice in 2 months. Before the course commenced, the
attendees were asked to complete the questionnaires anonymously. A total of 308 valid
responses were obtained; 85 unqualified or incomplete questionnaires were eliminated.
This sample included respondents of diverse demographic backgrounds (gender: women, 53.2 %, and men, 46.8 %; marital status: married, 37.3 %, and unmarried, 62.3 %;
degree of education: high school or vocational degree, 50.7 %, and university or
graduate degrees 30.2; entrepreneurial experience: yes, 18.2 %, and no, 81.8 %; age,
younger than 35 years, 51.9 %, 3645 years, 30.5 %, and older than 45 years, 17.6 %).
The average age and working experience of the sample population were approximately
40.8 and 8.6 years, respectively.
To examine the representativeness of the sample, we performed a multivariate
analysis of variance to compare the differences between the two sets of valid responses
(175 vs. 158) based on all of the antecedent variables. The results were nonsignificant
at the 95 % confidence level, suggesting that there were no significant differences
between the two groups. We also compared the possible differences in age, gender, and
education between the first collection of response samples and the remaining response
samples. The results were nonsignificant at the 95 % confidence level. In addition, we
used a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to compare the differences in the demographic
variables between finished and unfinished questionnaires. The chi-square value revealed a nonsignificant difference at the 95 % confidence level.
Because the data were collected using survey measures from a single source, a
potential concern was contamination by common-method variance. To address this
concern, we adopted the suggestion of Podsakoff et al. (2003) to lay the scale by
randomly ordering the measures and including reversed items. We also adopted several
statistical approaches recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003). First, we conducted
Harmans one-factor test. We used varimax rotations and principal component analysis
to conduct an exploratory factor analysis for all of the independent and dependent
variables. The first factor extracted accounted for only 22.68 % of the total variance. No
single major factor emerged that explained most of the variance involved in the model.
This provided preliminary evidence that no substantial common-method bias existed in

Int Entrep Manag J

the data. Second, we conducted a partial correlation analysis. We performed a factor

analysis on all of the variables used in this study (except for the demographics of the
respondents) and partialled out the variance from the first unrotated factor. We determined that the correlation structure involving entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurial
self-efficacy, attitudes toward entrepreneurship, perceived entrepreneurial control, and
subjective norms remained because all the significant zero-order correlations remained
significant after partial correlation analysis. We then conducted a post-hoc analysis.
Based on the items loaded together on the first factor of the previous factor analysis, we
trimmed the items that overlapped for various measures. We conducted another
Harmans one-factor test and partial correlation analysis and determined that the results
remained unchanged. A severe common-method bias problem is indicated when a
single latent factor accounts for all manifest variables (Podsakoff et al. 2003). The onefactor model showed a bad fit and yielded a high chi-square value (2 =1517.88 and
170 of freedom). Overall, these statistical evaluations suggested that common-method
bias was not a severe problem in this study.
Another potential concern is that the people included in the sample may have high
entrepreneurial intention because they voluntarily attended a free entrepreneurship awareness course. To address this concern, we compared the mean (3.77) and variance (.97) of
entrepreneurial intention with that determined in previous research by using nonstudent
samples. The cross-country evaluation of entrepreneurial intention by Engle et al. (2010)
showed that the means (and variances) of entrepreneurial intention in Bangladesh, Costa
Rica, Ghana, Russia, Egypt, Spain, the USA, and France were 3.73 (.75), 3.70 (1.19), 4.10
(.72), 4.07 (.62), 3.63 (.77), 2.60 (1.11), 2.63 (1.28), and 2.80 (1.21), respectively. In
another study conducted in Taiwan, the mean (and variance) of entrepreneurial intention
was 3.82 (.84) (Lo and Wang 2007). Compared with these descriptive statistics, the
entrepreneurial intention in the present study was not abnormally high.

Analyses and results

Reliability, validity, and descriptive statistics
Table 1 presents the reliability, validity, and descriptive statistics for the variables used
in model estimation. Reliability was evaluated using Cronbachs alpha (). The
values for entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, attitudes toward entrepreneurship, perceived entrepreneurial control, and subjective norms were .83, .82,
.84, .79, and .87, respectively. The results indicated that the measures for the constructs
were highly reliable (Nunnally 1978). This study also performed confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) to verify the reliability and validity of the scales. The fit indices
indicated that the model fit the data reasonably well (2/d.f. =2.85, goodness-of-fit
index=.85, root mean square error of approximation=.07, root of mean square error=.04, non-normed fit of index=.96, comparative fit index=.96, and incremental fit
index=.96). The composite reliability (CR) of each scale was calculated using the
procedures suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The CR values for entrepreneurial
intention, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, attitudes toward entrepreneurship, perceived
entrepreneurial control, and subjective norms were .83, .82, .84, .80, and .88, exceeding
the acceptable level of .60 suggested by Bagozzi and Yi (1988).

Int Entrep Manag J

Table 1 Reliability, validity, and descriptive statistics of the variables
1

1. EI

.75

2. ESE

.52a

.72

3. ATE

.68a

.41a

.76

4. PEC

.58a

.45 a

.71

.52 a

.49a

.55

5. SN

.52

.40

6. GE

.01

.09

.07

.01

10

.84
.01

N.A.

7. Age

.18

.12

.10

.29

.02

.05

N.A.

8. EE

.27a

.19b

.27 a

.30a

.22a

.04

.35a

9. LE

.45

.11

.42

.31

.32

.16

.34a

.34a

N.A.

.11

.49

.32a

.37a

N.A.

.58

.19

.20a

.49b

a
a

a
a

10.WE

.21

.17

.08

.37

.07

11.MS

.12

.03

.02

.22

.01

.12

Mean

N.A.

3.77

3.60

3.90

3.18

3.55

1.53

2.48

1.82

4.00

SD

.97

.59

.70

.64

.81

.50

1.04

.39

1.01

3.72
1.52

CR

.83

.82

.84

.80

.88

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

GE gender, EE prior experience of entrepreneurship, LE level of education, WE working experience, MS

mirage status, ESE entrepreneurial self-efficacy, ATE attitude toward entrepreneurship, PEC perceived
entrepreneurial control, SD standard deviation, CR composite reliability, N.A. not applicable
The figures underlined and included on the diagonal are square roots of the AVE. The figures on the triangle
elements are correlations among the variables
a

p<.001

p<.01

p<.05

Furthermore, all of the values for average variance extracted (AVE) exceed the
threshold level of .50 suggested by Bagozzi et al. (1991). All of the indicators loaded
significantly on their corresponding latent constructs and ranged from .65 to .88. The
significance of each standardized coefficient loading indicated convergent validity
(Bagozzi et al. 1991). The CFA results showed that each of the measures loaded
significantly on its intended construct, indicating convergent validity for each scale.
As Table 1 indicates, the diagonal elements representing the square roots of the AVE for
each construct were significantly greater than the off-diagonal elements (Hulland
1999), meeting the criterion for discriminant validity suggested by Fornell and
Larcker (1981). In addition, we assessed discriminant validity by running all pairs of
constructs in a two-factor CFA model analysis (Anderson and Gerbing 1988; Fornell
and Larcker 1981). The results indicated discriminant validity because all of the
differences between the constraining model and the free model of each construct
dimension were higher than the critical value of 3.84 (Bagozzi and Yi 1988).
Results
We followed the procedure of Baron and Kenny (1986) to test the mediating effects of
attitudes toward entrepreneurship and perceived entrepreneurial control. The results by

Int Entrep Manag J

using regression analyses were presented in Table 2. These results may have been
contaminated by the concern of multicollinearity because Table 1 shows that some
correlation coefficients were greater than .5. To assess the degree of multicollinearity,
we computed the variance inflation factor (VIF) of each independent variable. The
results depicted in the last column in Table 2 show that all VIFs were below the
threshold (VIF <4) (Hair et al. 2010), indicating that the model estimations did not have
a multicollinearity bias. Model 1 suggested that entrepreneurial self-efficacy significantly affects entrepreneurial intention (=.50, p<.01). Models 2 and 3 showed that
entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively affects attitudes toward entrepreneurship and
perceived entrepreneurial control (=.34, p<.01; =.46, p<.01). By including attitudes
toward entrepreneurship and perceived entrepreneurial control in the model, the results
(i.e., Model 4) indicated that entrepreneurial self-efficacy, attitudes toward entrepreneurship, and perceived entrepreneurial control significantly affect entrepreneurial
intention, but with decreasing magnitudes (=.23, p<.01; =.56, p<.01; =.16,
p<.01, respectively); however, despite the decrease in the magnitude of the effects of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy, its statistical significance persists. Furthermore,
employing the bootstrap approach suggested by Zhao et al. (2010) to assess the
mediating effects, we set the bootstrap samples to 5000 and the confidence level to
95 %. The results indicated that the confidence intervals (bias corrected confidence
intervals) of the indirect effects of attitudes toward entrepreneurship and perceived
entrepreneurial control were .19-.40 and .02.15, respectively. These confidence intervals do not include 0, indicating that the indirect effects were significant and the
mediations were established. These results support Hypotheses 1 and 2, indicating that
Table 2 The mediating effects of attitude toward entrepreneurship and perceived entrepreneurial control
Variables Model 1 (DV = EI) Model 2 (DV = ATE) Model 3 (DV = PEC) Model 4 (DV = EI) VIF

Intercept

3.28 (7.93)a

4.02 (9.99)a

1.89 (5.52)a

.32 (.90)

Gender

.00 (.05)

.03 (.49)

.08 (1.32)

.03 (.60)

1.11

EE

.14 (1.42)

.22 (2.33)c

.16 (1.93)

.03 (.44)

1.29

AGE

.03 (.58)

.04 (.84)

.04 (1.02)

3.26

LE

.30 (7.78)a

.28 (7.58)a

.10 (3.14)b

.10 (3.11)b

1.52

WE

.01 (.28)

.08 (2.17)c

.10 (3.02)b

.03 (.98)

3.14

MS

.08 (.91)

.10 (1.33)

.11 (1.69)

1.58

.46 (11.30)a

.23 (4.24)a

1.64

ATE

.56 (14.81)a

1.61

PEC

.16 (2.97)b

1.92

ESE

R2
F-value

.50 (10.16)a

.43
31.36a

.02 (.42)

.07 (.78)
.34 (7.57)a

.35
22.24a

.45
34.78a

.70
74.91a

N 308, DV dependent variable, EE prior experience of entrepreneurship, LE level of education, WE working

experience, MS mirage status, ESE entrepreneurial self-efficacy, ATE attitude toward entrepreneurship, PEC
perceived entrepreneurial control. The figures in parentheses are t-values. VIFvariance inflation factor
a

p<.001

p<.01

<.05 (one-tailed test for hypotheses, and two-tailed test for control variables)

Int Entrep Manag J

attitudes toward entrepreneurship and perceived entrepreneurial control mediate the

effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention.
We further examine the moderating effects of subjective norms in the aforementioned
mediation relationships. Because product terms are usually highly correlated with individual variables, the model estimations follow the procedure suggested by Friedrich
(1982) to reduce or eliminate multicollinearity bias. We first standardize the explanatory
variables (except for the dummies) and then form the cross-product terms. We estimate the
moderated mediation models by adopting the approach used in Muller et al. (2005). All of
the VIF values of the regressors are lower than 4 (the maximal value is 3.34, associated
with WE), the threshold suggested by Hair et al. (2010), indicating that the model
estimations do not have multicollinearity bias. Following the procedures suggested by
Muller et al. (2005), we summarize the regression results as Table 3. Model 1 indicates
that subjective norms negatively influence the effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on
intention (=.10, p<.05), which is also determined in Model 4 (=.14, p<.05). The
results support Hypothesis 3. Furthermore, in this study, subjective norms are posited to
moderate the mediating effects of attitude toward entrepreneurship and perceived entrepreneurial control in the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention.
As shown in Table 3, Model 4 indicates that subjective norms affect the effect of attitudes

Table 3 The moderating effects of subjective norms on the mediating roles of attitude toward entrepreneurship and perceived entrepreneurial control
Variables

Model 1 (DV = EI) Model 2 (DV = ATE) Model 3 (DV = PEC) Model 4 (DV = EI) VIF
3.06 (7.35) a

1.22 (3.46) a

.15 (.43)

.03 (.38)

.03 (.38)

.09 (1.67)

.05 (.94)

.07 (.79)

.17 (1.84)

.10 (1.30)

.04 (.54)

1.29

.01 (.11)

.05 (.97)

.02 (.37)

.02 (.55)

3.34

.06 (2.04) b

1.60

Intercept

1.85 (4.59)a

Gender
EE
AGE
LE

.20 (5.57) a

.21 (5.78) a

.05 (1.52)

WE

.00 (.02)

.08 (2.15)

.09 (3.10)

MS

.07 (.84)

.07 (.86)

1.15

.04 (1.35)

3.25

.11 (1.58)

.10 (1.60)

1.60

.42 (7.38) a

.30 (5.11) a

.43 (8.60) a

.19 (3.62) a

1.74

.21 (5.43) a

1.73

ATE

.50 (13.51) a

1.81

PEC

.10 (1.92) b

2.18

ESE
SN

ESE x SN

.29 (9.03)

.10 (1.80)

.27 (6.10)

.02 (.28)

.22 (5.77)

.11 (2.13)

.14 (2.57)

1.66

ATE x SN

.07 (1.75) b

1.27

PEC x SN

.02 (.38)

1.88

R2
F-value

.55

.42

.52

.73

40.33 a

23.49 a

34.84 a

61.40 a

N 308, DV dependent variable, EE prior experience of entrepreneurship, LE level of education, WE working

experience, MS mirage status, ESE entrepreneurial self-efficacy, ATE attitude toward entrepreneurship, PEC
perceived entrepreneurial control, SN subjective norms. The figures in parentheses are t-values, VIF variance
inflation factor
a

p<.01

p<.05 (one-tailed test for hypotheses, and two-tailed test for control variables)

Int Entrep Manag J

toward entrepreneurship on intention (=.07, p<.05) even though Model 2 presents a

nonsignificant moderating effect of subjective norms on the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and attitude toward entrepreneurship (=.02, p>.05). These
results suggest that subjective norms positively moderate the mediating effect of attitudes
toward entrepreneurship; thus, Hypothesis 4 is supported. The same rules are used to
examine the fourth hypothesis. Model 4 shows that subjective norms fail to affect the
effect of perceived entrepreneurial control on intention (=.02, p>.05); however, Model 3
indicates that subjective norms moderate the relationship between entrepreneurial selfefficacy and control (=.11, p<.05). Thus, the results support Hypothesis 5: subjective
norms positively moderate the mediating role of perceived entrepreneurial control in the
entrepreneurial self-efficacy-intention linkage.

Discussion
In this section, according to previous entrepreneurship research, we further discuss the
results. First, many studies have demonstrated that entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively influences entrepreneurial intention (e.g., Byabashaija and Katono 2011; Lin
2008; Naktiyok et al. 2010; Nwankwo et al. 2012). The results of this study verify the
findings of previous studies and include the mediating roles of attitudes toward
entrepreneurship and perceived entrepreneurial control. The results suggest that the
entrepreneurial self-efficacy-intention relationship is influenced by subjective norms.
When subjective norms increase, the direct entrepreneurial self-efficacy-intention relationship diminishes or even vanishes, whereas the indirect linkages between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention strengthen. These findings have not
been documented in the entrepreneurship literature. Second, previous studies based on
the planned behavioral theory have revealed that attitudes toward behavior
(entrepreneurship) and perceived behavioral (entrepreneurial) control enhance the
intention to start a business even though the magnitudes differ (e.g., Mueller 2011;
Solesvik 2013; Van Gelderen et al. 2008). Again, our results verify the findings of these
studies, suggesting that the effect perceived entrepreneurial control exerts on intention
is significant but weak. A possible reason for this result may be inferred from the metaanalytic review by Schlaegel and Koenig (2014) that indicated that the perceived
behavioral controlintention relationship in a group of nonstudents was far lower than
that in the student sample. In other words, our results may have been affected by the
sample chosen for model testing. In this study, we focused on members of society
instead of students. People in society may encounter a more realistic entrepreneurial
environment than that perceived by students and consider more factors, such as family
and time; thus, the influence of perceived behavioral control on entrepreneurial intention may diminish. Third, this study suggests that subjective norms negatively influences the direct effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on intention and positively
influences the mediating effects of attitudes toward entrepreneurship and perceived
entrepreneurial control. According to the view of motivation interaction, these results
afford a more complex interpretation than the traditional view that external influence
diminishes the influence of intrinsic motivation (Deci et al. 1999; Fu et al. 2010). In
addition, the review by Schlaegel and Koenig (2014) indicated the need to explore
contextual factors accounting for the variation in the entrepreneurial self-efficacy

Int Entrep Manag J

intention relationship. The findings of the current study suggest that subjective norms
may be one of these factors. In addition, various previous studies have not verified the
subjective normsintention relationship (e.g., Garcia-Rodrigues et al. 2013; Lin 2013;
Shiri et al. 2012); by contrast, the current study supports the traditional view that
subjective norms negatively affect entrepreneurial intention. In Taiwan, family support
and resources strongly affect a persons perception of entrepreneurial behavior
(Numazaki 1997). Since family and people with whom a person has close ties play a
key role in formulating subjective norms, our finding is not surprising.

Conclusion
Implications
The findings of this study have several critical implications for entrepreneurship research and practices. First, we clarified the attitudes toward entrepreneurship and
perceived entrepreneurial control by revealing their mediating roles. We indicated that
attitudes toward entrepreneurship and perceived entrepreneurial control convert entrepreneurial self-efficacy into entrepreneurial intention. This new insights implies that by
not considering the mediating roles of attitudes toward entrepreneurship and perceived
entrepreneurial control, previous research may have overlooked the roles of interest and
ability self-evaluation when beginning a business and therefore may have portrayed a
overly simplified view of the entrepreneurial self-efficacy involved in entrepreneurial
intention. In addition, these findings verify the planned behavioral theory notion that
beliefs are necessary but insufficient for behavioral intention and that both attitudes
toward the behavior and perceived behavioral control are the key stimulants of intention.
This study suggests that attitudes toward entrepreneurship and perceived entrepreneurial
control play critical roles in entrepreneurial intention (as predicted by using the theory of
planned behavior) by partially mediating the effects entrepreneurial self-efficacy exerts
on entrepreneurial intention. In other words, the value of self-efficacy in regard to
entrepreneurial intention may not be completely intrinsic, but rather is realized through
attitudes toward entrepreneurship and perceived entrepreneurial control.
Second, regarding the moderating effects of subjective norms, this study indicates
that at high levels, subjective norms can stifle the direct effect entrepreneurial selfefficacy exerts on entrepreneurial intention, but enhance the indirect effects entrepreneurial self-efficacy exerts on entrepreneurial intention through attitudes toward entrepreneurship and perceived entrepreneurial control. These results suggest that theoretically exploring the entrepreneurial self-efficacyintention relationship should not be
restricted to a single method, as suggested in many previous studies. Rather, the
relationship can be described as direct and indirect paths that are contextually dependent. Examining the entrepreneurial self-efficacyintention relationship is crucial
because much relevant research may afford an incomplete view of the relationship.
The results of this study also have implications for entrepreneurial practice. First, the
results suggested that self-efficacy remains a critical driver of entrepreneurial intention even
though its effects may be influenced by subjective norms. These findings suggest that
governments should encourage people to become entrepreneurs by improving their selfefficacy. This can be done by implementing policy tools, such as entrepreneurial activity

Int Entrep Manag J

funds and loans, and by promoting the exchange and sharing of experiences by guest
speakers and entrepreneurs with various experiences and expertise. These results also
suggested that, among students, governments could improve students entrepreneurial
intention after graduation by increasing their entrepreneurial self-efficacy. This can be done
by implementing entrepreneurship courses in universities. Second, the results revealed that
attitudes toward entrepreneurship and perceived behavioral control in entrepreneurship
pivot on the link between self-efficacy and intention. These findings imply that entrepreneurial training and education that promote self-efficacy should also focus on enhancing
positive attitudes and perceived entrepreneurial control among attendees and students.
Limitations and directions for future research
This study yielded compelling results; however, the generalizability of these results is
limited because they are based on a sample of people who only had work experience in
Taiwan. The findings should be validated through further research in other contexts,
because entrepreneurial activities may vary between different cultures (FernndezSerrano and Romero 2014). In addition, because the people included in the sample
voluntarily attended a free entrepreneurship awareness course, they may have had high
entrepreneurial intentions. Even if comparisons with the results reported in previous
research suggest the concern is not serious, the generalizability of the findings may still
be limited by the specificity of the sample. In addition to validating external validity in
other contexts, this study also suggested interesting directions for future research. First,
in relevant research, subjective norms have been referred to as injunctive norms and
descriptive norms (Larimer et al. 2004; Rhodes and Courneya 2003). Previous psychological research has suggested that these two types of norm influence behavioral
intention differently (Manning 2009). Future research can extend this study by investigating how different norms affect the relationship between entrepreneurial selfefficacy and intention. Second, recent entrepreneurship studies have examined the
entrepreneurial self-efficacy variable as a multidimensional construct (Drnovek et al.
2010; Naktiyok et al. 2010). Researchers can examine whether attitudes toward
entrepreneurship and perceived entrepreneurial control mediate the links between
different dimensions of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention and how subjective
norms moderate the intention effects of the dimensions of entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Finally, in addition to subjective norms, future research can investigate the moderating
roles of other variables. For example, differences in mediating roles relevant to men and
women can be investigated. The literature has suggested that gender plays a significant
role in entrepreneurship in regard to self-efficacy and intention (Dabic et al. 2012; Haus
et al. 2013; Kickul et al. 2008; Wilson et al. 2007). Even though several studies on
entrepreneurial intention have investigated the effects of gender (Daz-Garca and
Jimnez-Moreno 2010; Haus et al. 2013), they have focused on its direct influence
instead of its moderating role. Numerous researchers have also determined that women
exhibit higher levels of perceived risk, have a greater fear of failure, and are hindered
by more difficulties than are men when beginning a business (Fernndez et al. 2009;
Minniti and Nardone 2007; Roper and Scott 2009), suggesting that females have lower
levels of perceived entrepreneurial control. These findings imply that the relationships
between self-efficacy and attitude and self-efficacy and control may be weaker in
regard to women compared with men in the context of entrepreneurship.

Int Entrep Manag J

In conclusion, this study augments the entrepreneurship literature by examining

the mediating roles of attitudes toward entrepreneurship and perceived entrepreneurial control in the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention. Overall, the results suggest that entrepreneurial self-efficacy
affects entrepreneurial intention through attitudes toward entrepreneurship and
perceived entrepreneurial control. Moreover, subjective norms influence the mediating effects of attitude toward entrepreneurship and perceived entrepreneurial
control. These results imply that determining the mediating roles of attitudes
toward entrepreneurship and perceived entrepreneurial control and the moderating
roles of subjective norms is beneficial to understand the process involved in
becoming an entrepreneur. This study enhances the understanding of the entrepreneurial process by refining extant research. More importantly, these findings
underscore the requirement for a contextual process view to be included in the
entrepreneurship theory. Without a contextual process view, the entrepreneurship
theory is unlikely to be used to develop new insights into the role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in entrepreneurial intention.

Appendix

Table 4 The Scale Items

01. Starting a firm and keeping it viable would be easy for me.
02. A career as an entrepreneur is totally unattractive to me.
03. My friends would approve of my decision to start a business.
04. I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur.
05. I believe I would be completely unable to start a business.
06. I will make every effort to start and run my own business.
07. I am able to control the creation process of a new business.
08. My immediate family would approve of my decision to start a
business.
09. I have serious doubts about ever starting my own business.
10. If I had the opportunity and resources, I would love to start a
business.
11. My colleagues would approve of my decision to start a business.
12. Amongst various options, I would rather be anything but an
entrepreneur.
13. I am determined to create a business venture in the future.
14. If I tried to start a business, I would have a high chance of being
successful.
15. Being an entrepreneur would give me great satisfaction.
16. It would be very difficult for me to develop a business idea.
17. My professional goal is to be an entrepreneur.
18. Being an entrepreneur implies more advantages than
disadvantages to me.

The items are adopted from the

revised entrepreneurial intention
questionnaire (Lin et al. 2011c)

19. I have a very low intention of ever starting a business.

20. I know all about the practical details needed to start a business.

Int Entrep Manag J

References
Abebe, M. A. (2012). Social and institutional predictors of entrepreneurial career intention: evidence from
Hispanic adults in the US. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 20(1), 123.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park:
Sage Publications.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
50(2), 179211.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference inventory:
assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
66(5), 950967.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411423.
Arenius, P., & Minniti, M. (2005). Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business
Economics, 24(3), 233247.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 16(1), 7494.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421458.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84(2), 191215.
Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B., & Howells, G. N. (1980). Tests of the generality of self-efficacy
theory. Cognitive Theory and Research, 4(1), 3966.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51(6), 11731182.
Baron, R. A., Markman, G. D., et al. (1999). Cognitive mechanisms: Potential differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. In P. D. Reynolds & W. D. Bygrave (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship
research. Wellesley: Babson College.
Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. (2001). A multidimensional model of venture growth. Academy of
Management Journal, 44(2), 292303.
Borchers, A., & Park, S. A. (2010). Understanding entrepreneurial mindset: a set of entrepreneurial self-efficacy,
locus of control, and intent to start a business. Journal of Engineering Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 5162.
Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The Influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial
intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 6390.
Byabashaija, W., & Katono, I. (2011). The impact of college entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial attitudes
and intention to start a business in Uganda. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 16(1), 127144.
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs
from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295316.
Dabic, M., Daim, T., Bayraktaroglu, E., Novak, I., & Basic, M. (2012). Exploring gender differences in
attitudes of university students towards entrepreneurship. International Journal of Gender and
Entrepreneurship, 4(3), 316336.
De Noble, A. F., Jung, D., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1999). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The development of a
measure and its relation to entrepreneurial action. In P. D. Reynolds et al. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 7387). Wellesley: Babson College.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects
of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivations. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627668.
Daz-Casero, J. C., Ferreira, J. J. M., Mogolln, R. H., & Raposo, M. L. B. (2012). Influence of institutional
environment on entrepreneurial intention: a comparative study of two countries university students.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(1), 5574.
Daz-Garca, M. C., & Jimnez-Moreno, J. (2010). Entrepreneurial intention: the role of gender. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(3), 261283.
Drnovek, M., Wincent, J., & Cardon, S. C. (2010). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and business start-up:
developing a multi-dimensional definition. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research, 16(4), 329348.
Engle, R. L., Dimitriadi, N., Gavidia, J. V., Schlaegel, C., Delanoe, S., Alvarado, I., He, X., Buame, S., &
Wolff, B. (2010). Entrepreneurial intent: a twelve-country evaluation of Ajzend model. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 16(1), 3557.

Int Entrep Manag J

Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education
programmes: a new methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(9), 701720.
Fernndez, J., Lin, F., & Santos, F. J. (2009). Cognitive aspects of potential entrepreneurs in Southern and
Northern Europe: an analysis using GEM-data. Revista De Economia Mundial, 23, 151178.
Fernndez-Serrano, J., & Romero, I. (2014). About the interactive influence of culture and regulatory barriers
on entrepreneurial activity. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. doi:10.1007/
s11365-014-0296-5.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 3950.
Friedrich, R. J. (1982). In defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations. American Journal
of Political Science, 26(4), 797833.
Fu, F. Q., Richards, K. A., Hughes, D. E., & Jones, E. (2010). Motivatin salespeople to sell new products: the
relative influence of attitudes, subjective norms, and self-efficacy. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 6176.
Garcia-Rodrigues, F. J., Gil-Soto, E., Ruiz-Rosa, I., & Sene, P. M. (2013). Entrepreneurial intentions in diverse
development contexts: a cross-cultural comparison between Senegal and Spain. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. doi:10.1007/s11365-013-0291-2.
Greve, A., & Salaff, J. W. (2003). Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 27(1), 122.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global
perspective. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.
Haus, I., Steinmetz, H., Isidor, R., & Kabst, R. (2013). Gender effects and entrepreneurial intention: a metaanalytical structural equation model. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 130156.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent
studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195202.
Jung, D. I., Ehrlich, S. B., De Noble, A. F., & Baik, K. (2001). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and its relationship
to entrepreneurial action: a comparative study between the US and Korea. Management International,
6(1), 4153.
Kickul, J., Wilson, F., Marlino, D., & Barbosa, S. D. (2008). Are misalignments of perceptions and selfefficacy causing gender gaps in entrepreneurial intentions among our nations teens? Journal of Small
Business in Enterprise Development, 15(2), 321335.
Kolvereid, L., & Isaksen, E. (2006). New business start-up and subsequent entry into selfemployment. Journal
of Business Venturing, 21(6), 866885.
Krueger, N. F., Jr., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions.
Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5/6), 411432.
Larimer, M. E., Turner, A. P., Matlett, K. A., & Gcisner, I. M. (2004). Predicting drinking bebaviour and
alcohol related problems among fraternity and sorority members: examining the role and injunctive norms
on college student gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviours, 17(5), 235243.
Lin, X. (2013). Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions: applying western model to the Sri Lanka context.
Journal of Entreprising Culture, 21(2), 153174.
Lin, F. (2004). Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education. Piccola Impresa/Small Business,
2004(3), 1135.
Lin, F. (2008). Skill and value perceptions: how do they affect entrepreneurial intention. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(3), 257272.
Lin, F., & Chen, Y. W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to
measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 33(3), 593617.
Lin, F., & Santos, F. J. (2007). Does social capital affect entrepreneurial intentions? International Advances
in Economic Research, 13(4), 443453.
Lin, F., Rodrguez-Cohard, J. C., & Rueda-Cantuche, J. M. (2011a). Factors affecting entrepreneurial
intention levels: a role for education. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2),
195218.
Lin, F., Santos, F. J., & Fernndez, J. (2011b). The influence of perceptions on potential entrepreneurs.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(3), 373390.
Lin, F., Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2011c). Regional variations in entrepreneurial cognitions: start-up
intentions of university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(3/4), 187
215.
Lo, C.-M., & Wang, J.-R. (2007). The entrepreneurial intention under environmental uncertainty. Journal of
Accounting, Finance & Management Strategy, 3(1), 2143.
Manning, M. (2009). The effects of subjective norms on behaviour in the theory of planned behaviour: a metaanalysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(4), 649705.

Int Entrep Manag J

Manstead, A., & Van Eekelen, S. (1998). Distinguishing between perceived behavioral control and selfefficacy in the domain of academic achievement intentions and behaviors. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 28(15), 13751392.
Markman, G. D., Balkin, D. B., & Baron, R. A. (2002). Inventors and new venture formation: the effects of
general self-efficacy and regretful thinking. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 27(2), 149166.
McGee, J. E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S. L., & Sequeira, J. M. (2009). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: refining the
measure. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33(4), 965988.
Minniti, M., & Nardone, C. (2007). Being in someone elses shoes: gender and nascent entrepreneurship.
Small Business Economics Journal, 28(23), 223239.
Mueller, S. (2011). Increasing entrepreneurial intention: effective entrepreneurship course characteristics.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 13(1), 5574.
Muller, D., Judd, C., & Yzerbyt, V. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 89(6), 852863.
Naktiyok, A., Karabey, C. N., & Gulluce, A. C. (2010). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial
intention: the Turkish case. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(4), 419435.
Numazaki, I. (1997). The laoban-led development of business enterprises in Taiwan: an analysis of the
Chinese entrepreneurship. The Developing Economies, 35(4), 440457.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Nwankwo, B. E., Kanu, G. C., Marire, M. I., Balogun, S. K., & Uhiara, A. C. (2012). Geneder-role orientation
and self-efficacy as correlates of entrepreneurial intention. European Journal of Business and Social
Sciences, 1(7), 926.
Ping, R. A. (1996). A parsimonious estimating technique for interaction and quadratic latent variables. Journal
of Marketing Research, 32(4), 336347.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(5), 879903.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing
indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879891.
Reynolds, P. D., Bygrave, W. D., Autio, E., Cox, L. W., & Hay, M. (2002a). Global entrepreneurship monitor:
2002 Executive report. Babson College/Ewin Marion Kauffman Foundation, London Business School.
Rhodes, R. E., & Courneya, K. S. (2003). Investigating multiple components of attitude, subjective norm, and
perceived control: an examination of the theory of planned behaviour in the exercise domain. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 129146.
Roper, S., & Scott, J. M. (2009). Perceived financial barriers and the start-up decision: an econometric analysis
of gender differences using GEM data. International Small Business Journal, 27(2), 149171.
Schlaegel, C., & Koenig, M. (2014). Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: a meta-analytic test and
integration of competing models. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38(1), 291332.
Segal, G., Borgia, D., & Schoenfeld, J. (2005). The motivation to become an entrepreneur. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 11(1), 4257.
Shiri, N., Mohammadi, D., & Hosseini, S. M. (2012). Entrepreneurial intention of agricultural students: effects
of role model, social support, social norms, and perceived desirability. Archives of Applied Science
Research, 4(2), 892897.
Solesvik, M. Z. (2013). Entrepreneurial motivations and intentions: investigating the role of education major.
Education + Training, 55(3), 253271.
Sparks, P., Guthrie, C. A., & Shepherd, R. (1997). The dimensional structure of the perceived behavioral
control construct. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(4), 418438.
Tavousi, M., Hidarnia, A. R., Montazeri, A., Hajizadeh, E., Taremian, F., & Ghofranipour, F. (2009). Are
perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy distinct constructs? European Journal of Scientific
Research, 30(1), 146152.
Van Gelderen, M., Brand, M., Van Praag, M., Bodewes, W., Poutsma, E., & Van Gils, A. (2008). Explaining
entrepreneurial intentions by means of the theory of planned behavior. Career Development International,
13(6), 538559.
Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career
intentions: implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 31(3),
387406.
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, 10(3), 623641.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about
mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197206.