shaping the entrepreneurial mindset: entrepreneurial intentions of business students in croatia

Shaping the Entrepreneurial Mindset: EntrepreneurialIntentions of Business Students in Croatiaby Sanja Pfeifer, Nataša Šarlija, and Marijana Zekic Sušac

Business students from a public university in Croatia participated in an international study onentrepreneurial self-efficacy, identity, and education. The results of this preliminary empiricalresearch indicate that the main predictors of the entrepreneurial intentions in Croatia are strengthof entrepreneurial identity aspiration and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. These two main constructsmediate the number of personal, situational, or contextual factors, including education. Empiri-cal analysis supports the majority of Social Cognitive Career Theory hypothesized interactionbetween control variables and main constructs such as self-efficacy, positive outcome expectations,and entrepreneurial identity. These findings thus fill the gap in the empirical evidence of thetheoretical framework validity derived from different contexts.

IntroductionRenewed interest in intention-based models

of entrepreneurial behavior derives fromseveral avenues. First, empirical evidence sug-gests that intention-based models are still ahighly relevant theoretical framework forexploring entrepreneurial behavior. It has beenargued that intention is still the single bestpredictor of future behavior. However, majorintention-based models still produce divergentor narrowly focused results. Therefore, inte-grated, cross-disciplinary approaches, moresophisticated methodologies, more robustinstruments for measuring, and more evidencefrom multinational and diverse populations arewelcome. Second, the global economic crisisand slowdowns in national economic growthrates all over the world urge policy makers to

seek a fresh supply of new entrepreneurs.Policy makers are searching for answers aboutwhat makes a person willing to become anentrepreneur, how these influencing factorscan be amplified, and how the number ofpotential or actual entrepreneurs can beincreased in order to provide more significanteconomic growth. Intention-based models canoffer more insight into these issues. Third,industries’ restructuring, and public sectors’downsizing reduce hiring and job openings. Analarming number of young adults are facedwith unemployment, including graduates fromhigher education institutions. Higher educationinstitutions have been increasingly called uponto provide more enterprising orientationamong graduates (Henry, Hill, and Leicht2005). Therefore, there is a need to criticallyevaluate how entrepreneurship education

Sanja Pfeifer is professor of Management at the Department of Economics, J.J. Strossmayer University.Nataša Šarlija is professor of Methodology of Entrepreneurship Research at the Department of Economics,

J.J. Strossmayer University.Marijana Zekic Sušac is professor of Methodology of Entrepreneurship Research at the Department of

Economics, J.J. Strossmayer University.Address correspondence to: Sanja Pfeifer, Department of Economics, J.J. Strossmayer University, Gajev

trg7, Osijek 31000, Croatia. E-mail: [email protected].

Journal of Small Business Management 2014 ••(••), pp. ••–••

doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12133

PFEIFER, ŠARLIJA, AND ZEKIC SUŠAC 1

mailto:[email protected]

contributes to the development of career inter-est, intentions, and behavior.

Croatia is a postsocialist, south-eastern Euro-pean country in transition from an efficiency toan innovation-driven economy. Fostering entre-preneurship through entrepreneurship educa-tion programs has recently become a part ofthe national strategic agenda. Croatian highereducation, especially in the field of businessor social studies, has been introducingentrepreneurship-related courses, modules, oreven official programs since 2005. Studies con-ducted on the population of Croatian highereducation students indicated that studentsreport various barriers to entrepreneurship,including the lack of attitudes or capabilities tosuccessfully launch and manage a new venture.Entrepreneurship education has been per-ceived as a way of promoting enterprisingattitudes and professional capabilities for mas-tering an entrepreneurial career after gradua-tion. However, there is little research on theeffects of entrepreneurship education on thedifferent antecedents of intentions. In addition,there remains a lack of research about thegeneralizability of the intent-based models andentrepreneurship education impact comingfrom developing or entrepreneurially youngcontexts.

The aim of this paper is to explore whatexplains entrepreneurial intentions of Croatianstudents, and how well recently hypothesizedorganizing framework on entrepreneurial inten-tions fits in the Croatian cultural and socioeco-nomic context. In addition, the paper willinvestigate the influence of formal entrepreneur-ship courses on attitudes, self-efficacy, and posi-tive outcome expectations that usually precedesthe formation of the entrepreneurial intentionsor career choice. Data were collected from thebusiness students of a public university inCroatia who participated in an internationalsurvey, “Entrepreneurship Education Project:Enhancing Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy andIdentity,” during 2010–2012.

The paper is structured as follows: It beginswith a short overview of the theoretical frame-work of entrepreneurship intentions. Empiricalevidence of previous research is presented inorder to justify the selection of the main con-structs for the model and the presumptionsbehind their interactions. The paper proceedswith a description of the sample, measurementinstruments, and main dependent, indepen-dent, and control variables. After that, the

main results are presented and discussed. Thefinal part of the paper focuses on the implica-tions of this preliminary research and itslimitations.

Theoretical BackgroundIntegration of the Intention-BasedModels

Understanding what compels individuals tobecome entrepreneurs remains an importantquestion in entrepreneurship research (Shaneand Venkataraman 2000). Krueger and Brazeal(1994) indicated that “before there can beentrepreneurship there must be the potentialfor entrepreneurs.” In pursuit of the elusiveentrepreneurial potential or potential entrepre-neurs’ determinants, academic research hasbeen evolving through related fields of inquiryanchored in motivational theories such as theTheory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen1991) and social cognition theories such as theSocial Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) (Lent,Brown, and Hackett 2002).

The intention-based models derived aroundthe TPB suggest that entrepreneurial intentionsare a function of the perceived feasibilityand perceived desirability of the entrepreneurialact (Krueger, Reilly, and Carsrud 2000). TheSCCT also offers a comprehensive frameworkin which the choice of career is a functionof dynamic interaction among self-efficacy,outcome expectations, and personal goals (Lent,Brown, and Hackett 2002). These constructsfully or partially mediate the influence of per-sonal (demographic, attitudes, experience) orexternal (supports, barriers) factors, and explain(1) the development of interest for career, (2)actual career choices, and (3) stability of theperformance. The general overview of the entre-preneurial career as an interaction of these keyconstructs in the SCCT model is presented inFigure 1.

The SCCT model suggests that the develop-ment of entrepreneurial aspirations dependson interaction among self-efficacy and outcomeexpectations. The interaction of these keyconstructs leads to the formation of the entre-preneurial intentions. The entrepreneurialintentions are more likely to develop if aperson: (1) feels capable to successfullyconduct entrepreneurial tasks or activities; (2)anticipates positive outcomes from entrepre-neurial activity; and (3) has a high personalinterest or aspiration toward entrepreneurship.High entrepreneurial intentions increase the

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT2

likelihood of actual nascent entrepreneurialbehavior and new venture creation. The per-sonal or external factors such as aptitudes, pastlearning experiences, social norms, support,and barriers may directly or indirectly lead tochanges in entrepreneurial intentions ornascent behavior. The actual behavior or per-formance serves as feedback for personal orenvironmental influences.

Winkel, Vanevenhoven, and Ehrhardt (2011)recently proposed the new, integrative organiz-ing framework for intention-based researchanchored in the SCCT theory. The overallgeneralizability of their organizational frame-work has not been empirically validated in thecontext of a transitional, postsocialist, entre-preneurially young culture such as Croatia.Some studies conducted with internationalsamples suggest that entrepreneurial intentionmodels are time or cultures invariant (Liñánand Chen 2009). Other studies suggest thatrelationship among the key constructs maydiverge from those proposed by theoreticalframework (Liñán, Urbano, and Guerrero2011) and show a different configurationamong the key constructs from those hypoth-esized. Therefore, in order to confirm portabil-ity of the SCCT model, we kept the maindrivers of intentions in the model, also keepingan open door to the possibility of the newconfiguration or some additional paths thatmay make the SCCT model more indigenous toCroatian context.

SCCT Model IndigenizationKey Constructs Configuration. In order tocontribute to the empirical base of the SCCT

theoretical framework validity, we assumedthat self-efficacy and outcome expectation havea strong direct influence on entrepreneurialintentions in the sample of Croatian students.The entrepreneurial self-efficacy is a capabilityof the successful conducting of particular entre-preneurial tasks such as recognizing opportu-nity. It has been perceived as one of thestrongest predictors of entrepreneurial inten-tions and, consequently, behavior (Zhao, Hills,and Seibert 2005). Positive expectations to getfinancial benefits, more security and autonomy,or other outcomes from entrepreneurial activityare assumed to be positively related to theentrepreneurial intentions (Carter et al. 2003).Segal, Borgia, and Schoenfeld (2002) found thatself-efficacy and outcome expectations togetherexplained over half the variance of students’entrepreneurial intentions.

Croatia as a transitional country faced withthe economic downturn, displays a specificsocioeconomic and environmental conditionsthat may influence the perception of entrepre-neurial intentions. In addition to the straightfor-ward and joint impact of self-efficacy andoutcome expectation on intentions, it is pos-sible that some additional path or differentconfiguration of the key constructs plays a moreexplicit and more central role. For example,Nabi and Linan (2011) found that entrepreneur-ial intentions are higher for the graduates indeveloping countries when compared with thedeveloped ones. Developing countries haveunfavorable economic or institutional frame-work conditions which usually diminish theoutcome expectation or appropriation of thevalued outcomes. Therefore, we assumed that

Figure 1Development of Entrepreneurial Interests and Career Choices

Source: Adopted from Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent, Brown, and Hackett 2002)


additional construct that will describe the inter-est or attractiveness of the entrepreneurialcareer may be introduced, along with self-efficacy and positive outcome expectations.Recently, Farmer, Yao, and Kung-Mcintyre(2009) raised the issue of entrepreneurial iden-tity aspiration as a strong precursor of indi-vidual engagement or actions. Perception of the“possible self as an entrepreneur can be animportant motivational mechanism in thenascent entrepreneurial process” (Farmer, Yao,and Kung-Mcintyre 2009). The issue of identityaspirations has been rarely treated explicitly inthe SCCT. Bandura (1986) states that one’s par-ticular pattern of likes or dislikes regardingvarious occupations should have a more impor-tant position in the formation of the careerinterest. Downsizing of job openings in thesectors that traditionally employ a majority ofbusiness study graduates (such as public sectoror large private companies) makes an entrepre-neurial career more attractive. The presence ofunemployment poses a specific triggering effectand may make the aspiration to “entrepreneuridentity” stronger. The number of graduateswho are faced with unemployment in Croatia isincreasing. For example, in 2011, Croatia regis-tered 36.1 percent of young unemployed adultsaged 18–25, and according to the Eurostat data-base this was the second highest rate in Europe.These specific circumstances led us to theassumption that the strength of entrepreneurialidentity aspiration may have a more prominentrole in explaining entrepreneurial intentionsamong business students in Croatia.

In order to evaluate whether these hypoth-esized key constructs of intentions fit withCroatian context, we propose the followinghypothesis:

H1: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepre-neurial outcome expectation, and entrepre-neurial identity aspiration are positivelyassociated with entrepreneurial intentions.

As suggested in motivational or social cogni-tion intent models, there is a multitude of per-sonal and contextual factors that affect thedevelopment of entrepreneurial intentions andtheir key constructs. Personal factors such asgender, age, ethnicity, family wealth, as well asabilities influence intentions either directly orindirectly through their impact of self-efficacy(Lent, Brown, and Hackett 1994). Therefore, wesuggest

H2: Personal factors are related to (a) entrepre-neurial self-efficacy and (b) entrepreneurialintentions.

It has been assumed that self-efficacy,outcome expectation, or even identity aspira-tions are acquired and influenced throughsituational factors such as: (1) personal accom-plishments; (2) learning experiences fromeither personal or family business, entrepre-neurial exposures; and (3) social persuasions(social norms about entrepreneurship). Posi-tive experiences usually raise self-efficacy,identity, and outcome expectations. Empiricalevidence suggests particularly that rolemodels, prior family, or own business expo-sure, and academic entrepreneurship pro-grams may have both direct impact onintentions and indirect impact on key con-structs of self-efficacy, identity, or outcomeexpectation (Lent, Brown, and Hackett 2002;Zellweger, Sieger, and Halter 2011; Zhao,Hills, and Seibert 2005).

The impact of formal academic programs inentrepreneurship on SCCT key constructs isparticularly perplexing. Gerry, Marques, andNogueira (2008) found no significant impact ofentrepreneurship-related training on students’entrepreneurial intentions, whereas Fayolle,Gailly, and Lassas-Clerc (2006) found thatentrepreneurship training programs may have adirect positive impact as well as a counter-effect on entrepreneurial intentions. Some pre-liminary evidence of the samples of Croatianstudents shows that university-based entrepre-neurship education has a significant directimpact on developing entrepreneurial capacityand mindsets (Kružic and Pavic 2010). Bilic,Prka, and Vidovic (2011) provided evidence ofa rather weak entrepreneurial orientationtoward entrepreneurship among Croatian uni-versity students (29.8 percent of the studentsreported that they have entrepreneurial inten-tions), and a low correlation between students’enrollment in entrepreneurship courses andtheir entrepreneurial intentions.

It has also been suggested that situational,educational, or contextual impact might befunneled primarily through self-efficacy,outcome expectations, or identity aspirations.Krueger and Brazeal (1994) suggested thatentrepreneurship education should have apositive impact on perceived feasibility forentrepreneurship by increasing abilities tosolve entrepreneurship-related tasks. It should


also improve the perceived aspirations andexpectations by presenting entrepreneurship asa personally rewarding career. On the otherside, Brockner, Higgins, and Low (2004)suggest that entrepreneurship education cantrigger a person’s sensitivity to negative out-comes and force a person to decrease outcomeexpectation or intention to start a business inorder to avoid the possibility of failure. There-fore, we propose that entrepreneurship educa-tion impact, as well as situational or contextualfactors may be mediated through entrepreneur-ial identity, outcome expectation, and self-efficacy effect as follows:

H3: Situational, educational, and contextualfactors are related to: (a) entrepreneurialself-efficacy; (b) entrepreneurial identityaspiration; (c) outcome expectation; and (d)entrepreneurial intentions.

Configuration of the Key Constructs Relationsand Their Interactions. Lent, Brown, andHackett (2002) hypothesized that self-efficacyinteracts with outcome expectations. A personwho feels capable to carry out specific entre-preneurial activities has a higher positiveexpectation of the outcomes of entrepreneurialactivities. In addition, the person who feelsefficacious in entrepreneurial activities mayform higher aspirations and create a strongerimage of entrepreneurial identity, or mayanticipate more positive outcomes. However,the interaction between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and outcome expectation or aspirationsmay be more complex. A person’s intentionsand career choices do not always reflect thisprimary and straightforward path. For example,a person who aspires and perceives positiveoutcomes from entrepreneurship may choose acareer in entrepreneurship, despite the absenceof self-efficacy or entrepreneurial identity,simply to seize the emergent opportunity. Aperson with high self-efficacy and capability tosuccessfully conduct activities connected tostarting or managing a new venture may notdevelop high entrepreneurial aspirations in thepresence of other more attractive careeroptions. In addition, one may feel capable butunsure about outcomes he or she may get outof an entrepreneurial career. The interactionsof the key constructs may open opportunitiesfor a broader set of academic interventions. Forexample, Fitzsimmons and Douglas (2011) pro-vided evidence for the interaction of perceived

desirability and perceived feasibility. Theyfound that key constructs “need not both behigh to induce entrepreneurial intentions.”Therefore, we propose to test interrelationsbetween the key constructs in the SCCT intentmodel to find whether the intention may beinfluenced through either enhancing self-efficacy or nurturing expectations. We expectthat the interactive and multiplicative relation-ships between the key constructs of intentiondevelopment may be assessed through highcorrelations between key construct variablesand presume

H4: Entrepreneurial identity aspirations, self-efficacy, and outcome expectation arehighly correlated and interactive.

In light of the aforementioned, we suggestthe hypothesized relationship between the keyconstructs in the SCCT model as presented inFigure 2.

MethodologyDuring 2010, the Entrepreneurship Educa-

tion Project: Enhancing Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Identity (http://quipuapps.com/EEP/) gathered 467 higher educationinstitutions from 91 countries worldwide. Themain purpose of the project was to enable thelongitudinal exploration of the motivationalprocesses underlying students’ interest orintention in an entrepreneurial career, andentrepreneurial education impact on it. Theproject resulted in the international database onstudent perceptions, values, and drives towardan entrepreneurship career. Students wereasked to self-administer an online question-naire in English. For the purposes of this study,we have used the data set for Croatia in orderto analyze Croatian students’ attitudes on anentrepreneurship career.

Sample DemographicsThe Croatian sample included 504 under-

graduate and graduate students from theDepartment of Economics, University of Osijek,Croatia. The survey was conducted in twowaves: 194 students entered the survey in 2010and 310 entered the survey in 2012. No differ-ences in the key constructs variables werefound in the two waves of data collection. Afterelimination of the incomplete questionnaires,the data set of 454 respondents was created.


http://quipuapps.com/EEP/

http://quipuapps.com/EEP/

The sample comprises 67.84 percent women;82.38 percent Croats; and the average age is20.5.

The Dependent VariableThe main dependent variable was entrepre-

neurial intentions. Recently, Thompson (2009)suggested that entrepreneurial intent has beendefined in a variety of ways: from broad dispo-sitions or interests, to relatively advanced speci-fications of actions that are being taken andconnected to entrepreneurial behavior. He sug-gested that entrepreneurial intent is not “simplya yes or no question but a matter of extentranging from very low to very high degree,”and proposed a uniform reliable and interna-tionally applicable individual entrepreneurialintent scale for measuring intentions. Conse-quently, the seven-point Likert scale measure ofstudents’ perception on “How true is it that youare saving money (have plans to launch, spendtime learning, etc)?” was adopted fromThompson (2009), and for this study the origi-nal six statements were aggregated in a singleconstruct. This procedure was necessary toprovide the single proxy for various degrees ofentrepreneurial intentions.

The Independent VariablesThe selection of the independent variables

was based on theoretical framework presentedearlier in a paper. Recently, McGee et al. (2009)introduced a refined instrument for measuring

entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a person’s confi-dence in his/her ability to perform standardentrepreneurial tasks such as identifying oppor-tunity, assessing market potential, masteringbusiness plans, leading teams, and so on. Inthis paper, the self-efficacy statements wereaggregated in a single construct in order toget a distinctive indicator for the complexphenomenon. The same procedure was usedfor all key variables described with multi-itemmeasurement scales such as: strength of theentrepreneurial identity (Farmer, Yao, andKung-Mcintyre 2009), the entrepreneurialoutcome expectation (Krueger 2000), and socialnorms (Kolvereid and Isaksen 2006). The mul-tidimensional and multi-item instrument forsocial norms was aggregated to reflect the mul-tiplicative effect of the positive or negative opin-ions of the family, relatives, and friends, andtheir importance for student’s own opinions.Appendix 1 presents descriptive statistics fordependent variable, main model constructs, anda few other multi-item measurement instru-ments used in our study.

The control variables comprise the set ofpersonal, situational, and educational factors(see Appendix 2). One particular variable—thestudent’s major—is created to allow us to getpreliminary insight in certain aspects of theeducational impact on students’ intentions.Undergraduates at the time of the survey havenot yet been enrolled in any of the entrepreneur-ship courses. Majors in the entrepreneurship

Figure 2Integrative Model of Entrepreneurial Intention


program have also been enrolled in a number ofentrepreneurship courses and exposed to avariety of activities relevant for entrepreneur-ship education. Other majors such as marketing,management, finances, or informatics have beenexposed to at least two courses in entrepreneur-ship. This allows us to track the subsampledifferences in the perception of entrepreneur-ship due to the students’ exposure to the courseswith entrepreneurship-related content.

MethodsWe used descriptive statistics, t-test, analysis

of variance (ANOVA), chi-square test, Pearsoncorrelation coefficient, logistic regression (LR),and classification and regression tree (CART).The t-test was used to test the differencebetween two means. In order to test the differ-ence between three or more means, ANOVAwas used. Chi-square was used to test thedependence on categorical and ordinal vari-ables. Pearson correlation coefficient was usedto test the significance of correlation betweencontinuous variables (Sheskin 2009).

LR modeling is widely used for analyzingmultivariate data involving binary responsesthat we deal with in our research. It provides apowerful technique analogous to multipleregression and ANOVA for continuousresponses. Because the likelihood function ofmutually independent variables Y1, . . . , Yn withoutcomes measured on a binary scale is amember of the exponential family with

log , , logπ

ππ

π1

11 1−( ) …−( )( )n

n

as a canonical

parameter (πj is a probability that Yj becomes1), the assumption of the LR model is a linearrelationship between a canonical parameterand the vector of explanatory variables xj

(dummy variables for factor levels and mea-sured values of covariates):

logπ

πτj

j

x1 −

⎛⎝⎜

⎞⎠⎟ = jb

This linear relationship between the loga-rithm of odds and the vector of explanatoryvariables results in a nonlinear relationshipbetween the probability of Yj equals 1 andthe vector of explanatory variables (Harrel2001):

π τ τj x xx x= ( ) + ( )( )exp expj jb b1

Additionally, the CART algorithm was usedfor creating a model for classifying entrepre-neurial intentions. Questier et al. (2005) sum-marized CART steps as: (1) assign all objects toroot node; (2) split each explanatory variable atall possible split points; (3) for each split point,split the parent node into two child nodes byseparating the objects with values lower andhigher than the split point for the consideredexplanatory variable; (4) select the variable andsplit point with the highest reduction of impu-rity; (5) perform the split of the parent nodeinto the two child nodes according to theselected split point; (6) repeat steps 2–5, usingeach node as a new parent node, until the treehas maximum size; and (7) prune the tree backusing cross-validation to select the right-sizetree. The evaluation function used in thisresearch for splitting in CART is the Gini indexdefined as (Apte and Weiss 1997):

Gini t pii( ) = − ∑1 2

where t is a current node and pi is the prob-ability of class i in t. The CART algorithm con-siders all possible splits in order to find the bestone according to the Gini index. The algorithmcan deal with continuous as well as with cat-egorical variables. The aim is to identify thebranches that provide the least additional pre-dictive power per leaf. Some of the advantagesof this method are: it makes no distributionalassumptions for dependent and independentvariables, it is not affected by the outliers, andit does not vary under a monotone transforma-tion of independent variables (Yohannes andWebb 1999).

ResultsIn order to support H1, we have calculated

Pearson correlation coefficients between entre-preneurial intention and self-efficacy, outcomeexpectation and entrepreneurial identity (seeTable 1).

Students with higher entrepreneurial inten-tions have higher strength of entrepreneurialidentity, higher self-efficacy, and higher entre-preneurial outcome expectation. Consequently,H1 is confirmed.

In order to test H2, we performed the t-testand ANOVA test, and presented the mainresults in Table 2.

Personal factors such as gender, minority,and marital status are not related to the student


perception of self-efficacy. However, the stu-dents who are coming from wealthier familiesand students from urban areas have a higherperception of self-efficacy. This partially con-firms the H2a. Male students have higher entre-preneurial intentions, although they do nothave higher self-efficacy. Minority, married,wealthier students coming from urban areashave higher entrepreneurial intentions. Thus,the H2b is confirmed.

In order to support H3, we tested how situ-ational (prior family or personal exposure tobusiness activities, positiveness of that experi-ence), educational variables (major, degree,student status), and contextual variables (socialnorms) explain the main intention-based modelconstructs. The ANOVA, t-test, and Pearson cor-relation tests are presented in Table 3.

All tested factors are related to entrepreneur-ial intentions (H3d). The entrepreneurial self-efficacy is related to all mentioned factors, with

Table 1Correlation

Coefficients—EntrepreneurialIdentity, Self-Efficacy Outcome

Expectation, and EntrepreneurialIntentions

Variable EntrepreneurialIntentions

Entrepreneurial identity 0.551***Entrepreneurial self-efficacy

construct0.374***

Entrepreneurial outcomeexpectation construct

0.127***

*Significant at 10 percent.**Significant at 5 percent.***Significant at 1 percent.

Table 2t-Test and ANOVA—Personal Factors According to Intentions

and Self-Efficacy

Variable Mean (S.D.)

Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy Entrepreneurial Intention

Gender Female 67.67 (14.96) 4.13 (1.04)Male 66.91 (15.41) 4.39 (1.20)

t = 0.50 t = 2.21**Minority Yes 67.37 (12.06) 4.60 (0.89)

No 67.99 (14.95) 4.18 (1.12)t = 0.30 t = 2.76**

Married Yes 67.87 (16.13) 4.44 (1.15)No 67.77 (14.32) 4.17 (1.09)

t = 0.05 t = 1.77*Family wealth Below 62.65 (13.31) 4.33 (0.84)

Average 67.64 (14.51) 4.17 (1.10)Above average 72.63 (17.09) 4.78 (1.13)

F = 3.15** F = 4.97***Area Urban 70.11 (15.29) 4.42 (1.09)

Rural 66.04 (15.14) 4.07 (1.10)Suburb 65.91 (13.88) 4.00 (1.11)Mixed 66.45 (13.73) 4.17 (1.06)

F = 2.55* F = 3.52*

Boldfaced entries indicate significant differences at following levels:*Significant at 10 percent.**Significant at 5 percent.***Significant at 1 percent.


Tab

le3

AN

OV

A,

t-Tes

tan

dC

orr

elat

ion

Coef

fici

ents

—K

eyC

onst

ruct

of

Inte

nti

ons

Acc

ord

ing

toSit

uat

ional

,Educa

tional

,an

dC

onte

xtu

alFac

tors

Var

iable

Sel

f-Effi

cacy

Iden

tity

Asp

irat

ion

Outc

om

eExpec

tati

on

Entr

epre

neu

rial

Inte

nti

on

H3a

H3b

H3c

H3d

Situ

atio

nal

inputs

Fam

ily

busi

nes

sex

posu

reY

es69

.26

(14.

35)

3.42

(0.9

1)5.

64(1

.08)

4.41

(1.0

9)N

o65

.86

(15.

61)

3.29

(0.8

7)5.

67(1

.14)

4.03

(1.0

9)t

=2.3

9**

t=

1.6

1*

t=

0.31

t=

3.6

3**

*O

wn

busi

nes

sex

posu

reY

es70

.24

(14.

64)

3.40

(0.9

1)5.

79(0

.96)

4.32

(1.0

9)N

o64

.68

(15.

08)

3.29

(0.8

7)5.

54(1

.22)

4.09

(1.1

2)t

=3.9

5**

*t=

1.38

t=

2.4

3**

t=

2.2

2**

Fam

ily

added

confiden

cer

=0.1

15**

r=

0.04

4r

=−0

.072

r=

0.0

77*

Ow

nad

ded

confiden

cer

=0.1

67**

*r

=0.1

51**

*r

=0.

054

r=

0.1

85**

*Educa

tional

inputs

Maj

or

Entr

epre

neu

rship

68.2

2(1

1.62

)4.

14(0

.62)

5.73

(0.7

6)4.

93(0

.70)

Gra

duat

e68

.80

(13.

66)

3.23

(0.9

4)5.

92(0

.87)

4.21

(1.1

5)U

nder

grad

uat

e65

.26

(17.

10)

3.38

(0.7

8)5.

24(1

.35)

4.09

(1.0

2)F

=2.9

1*

F=

13.4

3**

*F

=20.4

5**

*F

=6.9

6**

*St

atus

Full

tim

e67

.43

(14.

70)

3.33

(0.8

9)5.

68(1

.06)

4.19

(1.1

0)Par

ttim

e72

.32

(16.

10)

3.75

(0.9

2)5.

19(1

.85)

4.66

(1.0

0)t=

1.48

t=

2.0

9**

t=

1.20

t=

1.9

4*

Conte

xtual

inputs

Soci

alnorm

sr

=0.1

56**

*r

=0.2

01**

*r

=0.1

27**

*r

=0.1

71**

*

Bold

face

den

trie

sin

dic

ate

sign

ifica

nt

diffe

rence

sat

follow

ing

leve

ls:

*Sig

nifi

cant

at10

per

cent.

**Si

gnifi

cant

at5

per

cent.

***S

ignifi

cant

at1

per

cent.


the exception of student status (H3a). Not allhypothesized relations between situational,educational, or contextual factors and key con-struct have been supported. For example, theoutcome expectations are higher for those whoeither have previous own business experiences,higher perception of the social norms, or areenrolled in graduate programs. Identity aspira-tion is higher for students who have family orown business experiences, higher perceptionof social norms, or have entrepreneurship astheir major field of study. Therefore, H3b andH3c are partially confirmed (Table 4).

Based on this evidence, the LR and CARTanalysis were performed in order to find keyoverall predictors of the entrepreneurial inten-tions. For the purpose of this analysis, theconstruct that measures entrepreneurial inten-tion is transformed into a dichotomous variablewhere 1 represents entrepreneurial intention(students who scored more than 4 in the seven-point Likert measurement scale), and 0 repre-sents no entrepreneurial intention (studentswho scored 4 or less on the seven-point Likertmeasurement scale). For modeling purposes,the whole data set was divided into a develop-ment sample and a validation sample. Thedevelopment sample (75 percent of data) con-sisted of 344 cases, 198 cases with entrepre-neurial intentions and 146 cases withoutentrepreneurial intentions. The validationsample (25 percent of data) consisted of 110cases, out of which 43 have an intention and 67have no intention to start a business. Results ofthe best extracted LR and CART are presentedin Table 5. The logistic regression is presentedwith estimated LR coefficients whereas CART

lists rank the variables according to theirimportance for prediction.

Both models (LR and CART) extractedentrepreneurial identity and self-efficacy as thebest predictors of entrepreneurial intentions.From the logistic regression coefficient, it canbe seen that increasing entrepreneurial iden-tity, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, as well aspersonal business exposure would increaseprobability of entrepreneurial intention. Inaddition, students above average in familywealth would have a higher probability ofstarting a business than those below averageand average. The CART model also identifiesentrepreneurial identity and self-efficacy as thetwo most highly ranked variables, whereas thethird important predictor extracted by CART isthe construct of social norms, followed byfamily wealth and personal business exposure.Gender, family business exposure, and expo-sure to longer entrepreneurship education(graduate students) contribute to the predic-tive power of the CART model, although to alesser extent.

Both models are tested on the same valida-tion sample. The best extracted LR modelregarding standard overall fit measures for LR(e.g., Pearson χ2 = 435.919***) showed the totalhit rate of 71.2 percent, the hit rate for thosewith entrepreneurial intention was 79.2percent, and for those without entrepreneurialintention, it was 63.2 percent. The CART modelshowed a total hit rate of 69.15 percent,whereas the hit rate for respondents with entre-preneurial intention was 64.41 percent, and thehit rate for respondents without entrepreneur-ial intention was 75.0 percent.

Table 4Pearson Correlations Between Self-Efficacy, Aspirations, and

Outcome Expectations

Identity Self-Efficacy OutcomeExpectations

Identity construct 1 0.32*** 0.19***Self-efficacy construct 1 0.37***Outcome expectation construct 1

*Significant at 10 percent.**Significant at 5 percent.***Significant at 1 percent.


DiscussionAs suggested in Winkel, Vanevenhoven, and

Ehrhardt (2011), the recently elaborated inte-grative framework that “seeks to encapsulatethe key elements of current theoretical modelsand to reduce the conceptual overlaps in dif-ferent intent-based models,” needs to be vali-dated in different contexts. The purpose of thisstudy was to examine what explains entrepre-neurial intentions of Croatian students, andhow well-hypothesized SCCT anchored frame-work on entrepreneurial intentions fits in theCroatian cultural and socioeconomic context.

LR and CART indicated the importance ofself-efficacy, identity aspirations, personal busi-ness exposures, family wealth, and social normsin the prediction of Croatian students’ entrepre-neurial intentions. The entrepreneurial inten-tions are higher for students who perceiveentrepreneurial identity as an attractive careeroption, who feel capable of performingentrepreneurship-related tasks, who perceivethat such a career choice enjoys positive valua-tions from family members or other importantreferrals, and who have a wealthier family back-ground. The main theoretical assumption wasthat SCCT constructs such as capability andexpectations should serve as the most important

constructs in explaining entrepreneurial inten-tions. In our study, the measuring instrumentsof the SCCT key constructs showed good inter-nal consistency, and were considered as valid.The self-efficacy construct importance was con-firmed. Expectation constructs showed interest-ing interaction. Positive outcome expectation iscorrelated with entrepreneurial identity, andself-efficacy, allowing either of these constructsto mediate the effect of positive outcome expec-tations. In the context of Croatia, the entrepre-neurial identity aspiration construct took a moreprominent role than theoretically presumed.Croatia’s transitional past, the present economicdownturn, and relatively young entrepreneurialculture with a weak institutional infrastructureexplain why students’ positive outcome expec-tations did not take a more important rankin our prediction model. Even if studentshave high expectations of financial rewards,autonomy, personal rewards, or family security,they may have doubts about the possibility toachieve those outcomes during slowdowns. Inaddition, they may overemphasize entrepre-neurial career desirability in the presence ofunemployment and find entrepreneurial iden-tity highly appealing. Their valuation of theentrepreneurial identity may be higher andstronger than their expectations about the

Table 5The Logistic Regression and CART Models

Variable LR estimates CART rank

Entrepreneurial identity 0.929*** 1Entrepreneurial self-efficacy 0.033*** 2Personal business exposure added to confidence 0.070** 5Family wealth Below average 0.281 4

Average −0.051above average 0.843*

Gender: Male 0.190 7Social norms 0.021 3Major Entrepreneurship 0.608 6

Other graduate −0.324Undergraduate 0.018

Family business exposure added to confidence 0.3927 8

Boldfaced entries indicate significant differences at following levels:*Significant at 10 percent.**Significant at 5 percent.***Significant at 1 percent.CART, classification and regression tree; LR, logistic regression.


appropriation of valuable outcomes. We there-fore implicate that SCCT key constructs such asself-efficacy or expectations or entrepreneurialaspirations are useful and highly valid forexplaining intentions. This provides an initialsupport for generalizability of the SCCT-basedmodel in different contexts. However, furthervalidation in the larger samples and across dif-ferent countries would be beneficial.

The other theory-driven assumption that wewere interested in was that entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurial identity aspiration, andpositive outcome expectations fully or partiallymediate the effect of personal or other externalfactors. Our evidence also supports the mediat-ing role of self-efficacy and entrepreneurialidentity. The self-efficacy construct seems tofully or partially mediate the impact of personalor educational factors. Students who areenrolled in graduate programs (either witha major in entrepreneurship or marketing,finances, management, etc.) have higher inten-tions, self-efficacy, and positive outcome expec-tation. Moreover, majors in an entrepreneurshipprogram have the highest entrepreneurial iden-tity aspirations. Education factors (particularlyenrollment in graduate programs) have beenrelated to all main constructs in the model. Inaddition, key SCCT constructs are interactiveand correlated. There are several implicationswe would like to emphasize. Because thesemain constructs are correlated, we imply thatentrepreneurial intentions of the students mightbe amplified through either one of these keyconstructs. The findings suggest that entrepre-neurship education programs should take intoaccount the multidimensional nature of entre-preneurial intentions. Croatian students, forinstance, show dispersion along the identity andself-efficacy lines (see Figure 3).

The design of entrepreneurship education,at least in Croatia, seems to be more focused onthe professional cognitive competences orskills, and emphasize the educational impacton self-efficacy. The impact of education onaspirations is highly relevant but often leftuntapped. The exposure of entrepreneurshipmajors to role models may be accountable totheir strong entrepreneurial identity aspiration.Students may follow a high aspiration/low self-efficacy route, or low aspiration/high efficacyroute. We suggest that these less investigatedinteractions of key constructs be treated asevolving phenomena where education pro-grams should exert stronger impact. Entrepre-

neurship education programs may introducethe courses or pedagogies in which inspira-tions, envisioning, positive attitudes, and emo-tions are emphasized, and a broader range ofcareer paths is welcome.

This study has focused on a relatively narrowarray of main effects and generalizability out-comes. The more detailed and more robustexploration of the interaction between educa-tion and self-efficacy or identity construct goesbeyond the aim of this paper. This study usedsingle constructs as the representative of multi-item measurement instruments of main depen-dent and independent variables. Future studiescould make more use of these multi-item instru-ments and use structural equation modeling inorder to provide a more robust and accuratemeasure of direct and indirect effect, as well asinteractions between the variables in the model.Future research could also provide educators orprogram designers with more practical sugges-tions, address the issue of the longitudinaleffects, and explore the broader range of careerprogress indicators (i.e., whether an individualactually became an entrepreneur).

ConclusionThe empirical evidence in this paper sug-

gests the validity of the SCCT-based integrativeentrepreneurial intentions model in Croatia.The paper supports the implication that

Figure 3Distribution of Graduates andUndergraduates Along Identity

and Self-Efficacy Scores


self-efficacy and entrepreneurial identitymediate the educational impact on intentions.The personal, situational, educational, andsocial backgrounds of the Croatian studentsthat have direct impact on entrepreneurialintentions are rather comparable with thosehypothesized by theory or supported in previ-ous research. However, the one particularconstruct—entrepreneurial identity—seems tocall for more attention in the Croatian sample.Contrary to the SCCT-based models where self-efficacy serve as the strongest mediator, inCroatia, a more prominent role is given to theidentity construct. We assume that self-efficacyand identity may be treated as an evolvingphenomena, and that education can impacttheir formation. The paper contributes to thefield of SCCT-based intention models by fillingthe gap in the empirical evidence of the theo-retical framework validity in the context ofdeveloping entrepreneurially young countries.

ReferencesAjzen, I. (1991). “The Theory of Planned

Behavior,” Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes 50, 179–211.

Apte, C., and S. Weiss (1997). “Data Miningwith Decision Trees and Decision Rules,”Future Generation Computer Systems 13,197–210.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations ofThought and Action: A Social CognitiveTheory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bilic, I., A. Prka, and G. Vidovic (2011). “HowDoes Education Influence EntrepreneurshipOrientation? A Case Study of Croatia,” Man-agement 16(1), 115–128.

Brockner, J., E. T. Higgins, and M. B. Low(2004). “Regulatory Focus Theory and theEntrepreneurial Process,” Journal of Busi-ness Venturing 19, 203–220.

Carr, J. C., and J. M. Sequeira (2007). “PriorFamily Business Exposure as Intergenera-tional Entrepreneurial Intent: A Theory ofPlanned Behavior Approach,” Journal ofBusiness Research 60, 1090–1098.

Carter, N. M., W. B. Gartner, K. G. Shaver, andE. J. Gatewood (2003). “The Career Reasonsof Nascent Entrepreneurs,” Journal of Busi-ness Venturing 18(1), 13–39.

Farmer, S. M., X. Yao, and K. Kung-Mcintyre(2009). “The Behavioral Impact of Entrepre-neur Identity Aspiration and Prior Entrepre-neurial Experience,” EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice 35(2), 1–29.

Fayolle, A., B. Gailly, and N. Lassas-Clerc(2006). “Effect and Counter-Effect of Entre-preneurship Education and Social Contexton Student’s Intentions,” Estudios deEconomia Aplicada 24(2), 509–523.

Fitzsimmons, J. R., and E. J. Douglas (2011).“Interaction Between Feasibility and Desir-ability in the Formation of EntrepreneurialIntentions,” Journal of Business Venturing26, 431–440.

Gerry, C., C. S. Marques, and F. Nogueira(2008). “Tracking Student EntrepreneurialPotential: Personal Attributes and the Pro-pensity for Business Start-ups after Gradua-tion in a Portugese University,” Problemsand Perspectives in Management 6(4),45–53.

Harrel, F. E. (2001). Regression Modeling Strat-egies with Applications to Linear Models,Logistic Regression and Survival Analysis.Berlin: Springer.

Henry, C., F. Hill, and C. Leicht (2005). “Entre-preneurship Education and Training: CanEntrepreneurship be Taught: Parts I–II,”Education and Training 47(2), 98–111.47(3), 158–169.

Kolvereid, L., and E. Isaksen (2006). “NewBusiness Start-up and Subsequent Entry intoSelf-Employment,” Journal of Business Ven-turing 21, 866–885.

Krueger, N. F., M. D. Reilly, and A. L. Carsrud(2000). “Competing Models of Entrepreneur-ial Intentions,” Journal of Business Ventur-ing 15, 411–432.

Krueger, N. F., Jr. (2000). “The Cognitive Infra-structure of Opportunity Emergence,” Entre-preneurship Theory and Practice 24(3),5–23.

Krueger, N. F., Jr., and D. V. Brazeal (1994).“Entrepreneurial Potential and PotentialEntrepreneurs,” Entrepreneurship Theoryand Practice 18, 91–104.

Kružic, D., and I. Pavic (2010). “Students’ Entre-preneurial Characteristics: Empirical Evi-dence from Croatia,” The Business Review14(2), 216–221.

Lent, R. W., S. D. Brown, and G. Hackett(1994). “Toward a Unifying Social CognitiveTheory of Career and Academic Interest,Choice, and Performance,” Journal of Voca-tional Behavior 45, 79–122.

——— (2002). “Social Cognitive CareerTheory,” in Career Choice and Development,4th ed. Eds. D. Brown and Associates. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 255–311.


Liñán, F., and Y.-W. Chen (2009). “Develop-ment and Cross-Cultural Application of aSpecific Instrument to Measure Entrepre-neurial Intentions,” Entrepreneurship Theoryand Practice 33(3), 593–617.

Liñán, F., D. Urbano, and M. Guerrero (2011).“Regional Variations in EntrepreneurialCognitions: Start-up Intentions of UniversityStudents in Spain,” Entrepreneurshipand Regional Development 23(2–4), 187–215.

McGee, J., M. Peterson, S. Mueller, and J. M.Sequeira (2009). “Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy: Refining the Measure,” Entrepre-neurship Theory and Practice 33(4), 963–988.

Nabi, G., and F. Linan (2011). “Graduate Entre-preneurship in the Developing World: Inten-tions, Education and Development,”Education and Training 54(5), 325–334.

Questier, F., R. Put, D. Coomans, B. Walczak,and Y. Vander Heyden (2005). “The Use ofCART and Multivariate Regression Trees forSupervised and Unsupervised Feature Selec-tion,” Chemometrics and Intelligent Labora-tory Systems 76, 45–54.

Schwarzer, R., and M. Jerusalem (1995). “Gen-eralized Self-Efficacy Scale,” in Measures inHealth Psychology: A User’s Portfolio, Causaland Control Beliefs. Eds. J. Weinman, S.Wright, and M. Johnston. Windsor, England:NFER-NELSON, 35–37.

Segal, G., D. Borgia, and J. Schoenfeld (2002).“Using Social Cognitive Career Theory toPredict Self-Employment Goals,” NewEngland Journal of Entrepreneurship 5,47–56.

Shane, S., and S. Venkataraman (2000). “ThePromise of Entrepreneurship as a Field ofResearch,” Academy of Management Review25(1), 217–226.

Sheskin, D. J. (2009). Handbook of Parametricand Nonparametric Statistical Procedures.Washington, DC: Chapman and Hall/CRC.

Thompson, E. R. (2009). “Individual Entrepre-neurial Intent: Construct Clarification andDevelopment of an Internationally ReliableMetric,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac-tice 33(3), 669–694.

Winkel, D., J. Vanevenhoven, and K. Ehrhardt(2011). “An Organizing Framework forEntrepreneurial Intentions Research: AnIntegration and Extension of DominantIntent-Based Models Using Social CognitiveCareer Theory,” USASBE 2011 Proceedings.http://sbaer.uca.edu/research/USASBE/2011/PaperID72.pdf (accessed October 20,2012).

Yohannes, Y., and P. Webb (1999). “Classifica-tion and Regression Trees, CART: A UserManual for Identifying Indicators of Vulner-ability to Famine and Chronic Food Insecu-rity,” Microcomputers in Policy Research 3,1–50.

Zellweger, T., P. Sieger, and F. Halter (2011).“Should I Stay or Should I Go? Career ChoiceIntentions of Students with Family BusinessBackground,” Journal of Business Venturing26, 521–536.

Zhao, H., G. E. Hills, and S. E. Seibert (2005).“The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in theDevelopment of Entrepreneurial Intentions,”The Journal of Applied Psychology 90(6),1265–1272.


http://sbaer.uca.edu/research/USASBE/2011/PaperID72.pdf

http://sbaer.uca.edu/research/USASBE/2011/PaperID72.pdf

AppendicesAppendix 1. Descriptive Statistics—Multi-Items Measurement Instruments and Scales

Description of Multi-Item MeasurementInstruments

Scale Mean(S.D.)

Cronbach’s α

Personal, situational, contextual factorsGeneral self-efficacy Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995)

10 items aggregateFor example: I can always manage

to solve difficult problems if I tryhard enough . . .

1 = strongly disagree5 = strongly agree

3.79 (0.51) 0.85

Family businessexposure added toconfidence

Carr and Sequeira (2007)3 items aggregateExposure to the businesses started

by parents/guardians, siblings,grandparents added ordetracted to your ownconfidence

1 = detracted3 = added to personal

confidence

1.79 (4.99)

Personal businessexposure added toconfidence

Carr and Sequeira (2007)2 items aggregatePersonal paying/nonpaying

position at a new business

1 = detracted3 = added to personal

confidence

2.25 (3.73)

Social norms Partly based on Kolvereid andIsaksen (2006)

6 items weighted aggregateReferral opinions on favorability

of starting a business areweighted with the referralimportance for respondents.After that, the statements wereaggregated. The higher thevalue, the more positive andmore important the social normsare.

Response scale: Referralopinion: From extremelynegative to extreme

Referral importance:Not important to extremely

important

12.05 (6.47)

Main independentEntrepreneurial

identityFarmer, Yao, and Kung-Mcintyre

(2009)6 items aggregateI often think about becoming an

entrepreneur . . .

1 = strongly disagree5 = strongly agree

3.35 (0.89) 0.94

Entrepreneurialself-efficacy

McGee et al. (2009)20 items aggregate“How much confidence do you

have in your ability to . . .come up with a new idea for a

product or service on your own. . .”

Response scale: 0 to 100percent

67.41 (15.08) 0.85

Entrepreneurialoutcomeexpectations

Partly based on Krueger (2000)4 items“To what extent do you expect to

achieve . . .Financial rewards . . .Independence . . .”

1 = not expected at all7 = very much expected

5.64 (1.12) 0.86

Main dependentEntrepreneurial

intentionsThompson (2009)6 items aggregateThinking of yourself, how true is it

that you . . . (search foropportunities, money, learning,plan . . .)

1 = very untrue7 = very true

4.21 (1.09) 0.73


Appendix 2. Descriptive Statistics—Personal Factors, Situational and EducationalFactors

Variables MeasurementInstrument/Scale

Frequencies(Percent)

Gender 1 = Male 31.932 = Female 67.84

Minority 1 = Yes 8.592 = No 82.383 = Dk 9.03

Family wealth (SES) 1 = Below 4.412 = Average 84.583 = Above average 7.714 = Nr 3.30

Area 1 = Urban 38.332 = Rural 22.913 = Suburban 13.444 = Mixed 22.695 = Dk 2.64

Marital status 1 = Partnered 15.862 = Not partnered 79.743 = Nr 4.40

Prior family business exposureDid your (parents/guardians, siblings, grandparents . . .)

ever start a new venture?

1 = Yes 46.262 = No 52.423 = Dk 1.32

Prior entrepreneurial experienceHave you started a business that is currently operating?

1 = Yes 3.962 = No 96.04

Prior own business exposureHave you ever held a paying/nonpaying position in

a new company or entrepreneurial venture?

1 = Yes 51.982 = No 46.043 = Dk 1.98

Student status 1 = Full time 91.852 = Part time 4.633 = Nr 3.52

Major field of study: 1 = Graduates in entrepreneurship 5.952 = Other graduates 53.083 = Undergraduates 39.874 = Nr 1.00

Dk, do not know; Nr, not responded.


shaping the entrepreneurial mindset: entrepreneurial intentions of business students in croatia

Documents