Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions
Introduction
The failure of situational and personality measures to significantly predict entrepreneurial activity suggests another approach. In this study, we compare the predictive ability of two intentions models. One was developed and well validated in social psychology (Azjen's 1991 Theory of Planned Behavior). The other was proposed, but not well tested from the domain of entrepreneurship research (Shapero's 1982 model of the `Entrepreneurial Event'). The comparison will examine the efficacy of these models as they try to predict the intentions that a sample of soon-to-graduate undergraduate business students hold towards starting a new business.
Before we consider the past uses of intention models and describe their application in the current work, we begin with an examination of the issue of the degree to which entrepreneurship is planned, and therefore, intentional behavior.
Although it is possible that some will argue otherwise, it seems evident that much of what we consider `entrepreneurial' activity is intentionally planned behavior. Witness the tremendous emphasis on the business plan in virtually every academic and practical treatment on starting a new business. Even in cases where a unique catalyzing event like being downsized may spur the individual to the entrepreneurial act, there are often indications of a long time interest and desire to be in business for one's self.
As new organizations emerge over time, pre-organizational phenomena such as deciding to initiate an entrepreneurial career are both important and interesting Bird 1988, Katz and Gartner 1988. We thus might conclude that intentionality is typical of emerging organizations, although the timing of the launch of the new venture might be relatively unplanned, such as when a sudden new opportunity surfaces.
We best predict, rather than explain, any planned behavior by observing intentions toward that behavior—not by attitudes, beliefs, personality, or mere demographics. Intentions are the single best predictor of planned behavior (Bagozzi et al. 1989). Understanding intentions thus proves particularly valuable where the focal phenomenon is rare, obscure, or involves unpredictable time lags—a focal phenomenon such as entrepreneurship (MacMillan and Katz 1992).
In its simplest form, intentions predict behavior, while in turn, certain specific attitudes predict intention. Intentions thus serve as a conduit to better understanding the act itself Ajzen 1987, Ajzen 1991. As such, intentions serve as important mediating variables between the act of starting a business venture and potential exogenous influences. Intentions toward behavior are absolutely critical to understanding other antecedents. These include situational role beliefs, subsequent moderators, including the perceived availability of critical resources, and the final consequences, including the initiation of a new venture (or lack thereof).
Understand the consequences of intentions—particularly actions—requires that we understand the antecedents of intention. Much of entrepreneurship is intentional, and, therefore, the use of well thought-out and research-tested intention models should provide a good means of examining the precursors to business start-up.
Recognizing that starting a business is an intentional act holds substantial implications for research. If stimulus-response models cannot model intentional behaviors fully, then we need testable, theory-driven process models of entrepreneurial cognitions that focus on intentions and their perceptual bases Bird 1988, Katz and Gartner 1988, Shaver and Scott 1992. When behavior is rare or difficult to observe (Ajzen 1991), intentions offer critical insights into underlying processes such as opportunity recognition. Empirically, behavior is often only weakly predicted by attitudes alone or by exogenous factors that are either situational (for example, employment status or informational cues) or individual (for example, demographic characteristics or personality traits). That is, as a result, predicting entrepreneurial activities by modeling only exogenous factors often results in disappointingly small explanatory power. Remember, exogenous influences usually affect intentions and behavior only indirectly, through attitude changes (Ajzen 1991). Thus, intentions models offer an opportunity to increase our ability to explain—and predict—entrepreneurial activity.
Forces acting upon a potential behavior do so indirectly by influencing intentions via certain key attitudes. Exogenous variables influence attitudes and may also moderate the relationship between intentions and behavior. For example, exogenous factors may serve to inhibit one from realizing the intent to be an entrepreneur. Intentions and their underlying attitudes are perception-based, which should mean they are learned. Accordingly, they will vary across individuals and across situations. Exogenous person or situation variables have a more indirect influence and thus are only weakly predictive of entrepreneurial activity.
The predictive power of intentions is even stronger for more molar behavior chains, capturing long-run tendencies by canceling variations in situations over time. For instance, the intent to attend church predicts annual attendance much better than intent predicts attendance in any one week that may be affected by extreme situational factors like fires, floods, or even a stalled car (Epstein 1979). Intentions are also an unbiased predictor of action (Bagozzi et al. 1989), even where time lags exist. Thus, a strong intention to start a business should result in an eventual attempt, even if immediate circumstances such as marriage, child bearing, finishing school, a lucrative or rewarding job, or earthquakes may dictate a long delay. Accordingly, the relatively molar domain of entrepreneurship should be quite amenable to the successful use of intentions-based models. Intentions may explain why it appears easier to identify chronic entrepreneurs, those who create several new ventures in a lifetime.
In general, much of human behavior is planned; it is difficult to envision starting a business where the nascent firm is launched simply as a conditioned response to a stimulus. Specifically, it is equally difficult not to view starting a business as a career choice. A reasonable body of past research supports the contention that career decisions are clearly planned in nature, not responses to stimuli, thus reflecting some degree of cognitive processing. If entrepreneurship does reflect planned, and therefore, intentional behavior, we should see evidence from other research. Thus, we also examine role model studies as well as studies of nascent or beginning entrepreneurs.
Career choices and related phenomena have been demonstrated, both theoretically and empirically, to be cognitive in nature. That is, career-related decisions reflect a process in which beliefs, attitudes, and intentions evolve as we cognitively process our knowledge, beliefs, and experiences (Lent et al. 1994). Prior research suggests that entrepreneurial careers fit this pattern Davidsson 1991, Katz 1992.
Evidence from entrepreneurial role models supports the potential of intentions models for predicting new venture creation. Intentions explain conflicts in research findings such as the effects of role models and mentors on eliciting subsequent entrepreneurial behaviors. Entrepreneurial role models only weakly predict future entrepreneurial activity Carsrud et al. 1987, Scott and Twomey 1988. Instead, the subjective impact of role models is a stronger predictor. That is, role models affect entrepreneurial intentions only if they affect attitudes such as self-efficacy Krueger 1993, Scherer et al. 1989.
Reynolds and associates are amid a large-scale, long-term project to identify and track “nascent” (newly initiated, but not fully launched) ventures and their founders. Although it is difficult to identify those who have taken some initial steps but have yet to surface in official records, it is believed that “nascent” entrepreneurs are surprisingly numerous. Thus, there is much merit in finding out how to help nascent ventures to avoid being “stillborn” (Reynolds 1994).
These arguments strongly support testing intentionality-driven models of entrepreneurship, but few studies do so explicitly. However, not all agree that intentions are ideal. For example, Bagozzi's work showed that intentions fully mediate the impact of attitudes on behavior, yet he himself argues that understanding volition requires more complexity (1993). There is also a well-developed model of predicting entrepreneurship that employs attitudes (Robinson et al. 1991b). This suggests that researchers exercise some caution in applying intentions models.
Section snippets
Theory-Driven Models of Intentions
Social psychology offers robust and parsimonious models of behavioral intentions with considerable proven predictive value for many behaviors. Such models offer sound theoretical frameworks that specifically map out the nature of processes underlying intentional behavior. Meta-analyses (Kim and Hunter 1993) empirically show that intentions successfully predict behavior, and attitudes successfully predict intentions. Across a wide range of studies relating to a wide variety of types of behaviors
Ajzen's theory of planned behavior (tpb)
Social psychologists and marketing researchers have found great success using intention-based models in practical applications and basic research. Such consistently robust and replicable paradigms have been widely applied in practical situations as career preferences, weight loss, and seatbelt and coupon use Ajzen 1987, Kim and Hunter 1993. There have been a number of developmental intention models and constant advances in modeling intention antecedents have resulted in the current state of the
Shapero's model of the `entrepreneurial event' (see)
Now that the first contender for the title of best predictor of the intention to start a business is fully explicated, we turn to the domain of entrepreneurial research to see if there is anything already extant that would serve as an appropriate comparison. Upon modest reflection, it is clear that Shapero's (1982) model of the `Entrepreneurial Event' (SEE) is implicitly an intention model, specific to the domain of entrepreneurship. In the SEE, intentions to start a business derive from
Comparing and contrasting the models
Both TPB and SEE are largely homologous to one another. Both contain an element conceptually associated with perceived self-efficacy (perceived behavioral control in TPB; perceived feasibility in SEE). TPB's other two attitude measures correspond to SEE's perceived desirability. Yet, one can have great potential for entrepreneurial activity without corresponding intentions. Thus, it would appear that appropriate attitudes may not be enough. Many business founders had little intention of
Conceptual and empirical issues in model testing
Before the test of the two models can be conducted, it is necessary to clear up a few issues. Intentions refer to the target behavior of starting a business. By definition, this behavior is planned. Entrepreneurial intentions also reflect the founders' vision of the emerging organization and subsequent corporate culture. If organizational emergence is a process consisting of a series of purposeful, perception-driven decisions as Shapero (1982), Bird (1988), and Katz and Gartner (1988) suggest,
Research design
Assessing the relative ability of TPB and SEE in explaining entrepreneurial intentions requires comparing and contrasting them. Both models may reasonably fit the empirical data, yet neither model may be fully supported. On the other hand, both models may prove equally weak. We thus use Chamberlin's approach (1890/1965) of multiple working hypotheses that we test against one another, rather than against an arbitrary standard. As we test these models via regression analysis, the appropriate
Sample and Statistical Power
The sample comprised 97 senior university business students (40 female) currently facing important career decisions. This lets us examine entrepreneurial processes prior to actual entrepreneurial activity. Note that these models hold for subjects of all ages. Even among adolescents, career intent significantly predicts eventual career choice (Trice 1991). The sample provides subjects with broad ranges of experiences, intentions, attitudes toward entrepreneurship, and dispositions. This reduces
Theory of Planned Behavior
Figure 3a shows significant, though not complete, support for the theory of planned behavior. Adjusted R2 for the regression of global perceived feasibility, attitude, and social norms upon intentions was 0.350 (p < 0.0001). However, the social norms component was non-significant, though the raw correlation between social norms and intentions was significant (R2 = 0.31, p < 0.002). [Social norms correlated with attitude toward the act (R2 = 0.29, p < 0.004) and perceived feasibility (R2 = 0.31,
Comparing and Contrasting the Models
Figure 2 suggests the Shapero model offers a marginally higher adjusted R2. More important, every component of the Shapero model was supported statistically at p < 0.05, while the variance explained uniquely by the social norms component of the Ajzen model was non-significant. Are there systematic problems in measuring social norms relevant to entrepreneurial populations? Or, do social norms simply not predict entrepreneurial intentions in this sample? It is possible that social norms may only
Implications
Past research shows the importance of intentions and the robustness of the known antecedents of intentions, especially where focal phenomena are relatively rare as with entrepreneurship. These findings offer little, if any, contrary evidence. What can we thus conclude from explicit consideration of entrepreneurial intentionality?
Future research needs: extending model specification and measures
We must address the seeming non-impact of social norms on entrepreneurial intentions in this sample. Given that research elsewhere into entrepreneurial intentions (Davidsson's 1991 work with Swedish samples; Reitan 1997, Shepherd and Douglas 1997) finds a significant impact, we must consider specifying different measures (including multiple-item measures). Research on entrepreneurial networks suggests that the social norms of network members may have more significant impacts on intentions than
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank all those who helped us refine these ideas. We cannot name you all, but we are especially grateful to Jerry Katz, Gayle Baugh, and Kelly Shaver, also the editor and anonymous reviewers whose ideas proved invaluable. Remaining errors, of course, remain our responsiblity. We also wish to pay tribute to the late Michael Scott, a great loss to the field and to us.
References (42)
Attitudes, traits, and actionsDispositional prediction of behavior in social psychology
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
(1987)Theory of planned behavior
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1991)- et al.
An investigation into the role of intentions as mediators of the attitude-behavior relationship
Journal of Economic Psychology
(1989) - et al.
The founder's self-assessed competence and venture performance
Journal of Business Venturing
(1992) Continued entrepreneurshipAbility, need, and opportunity as determinants of small firm growth
Journal of Business Venturing
(1991)- et al.
Personal and extended networks are central to the entrepreneurial process
Journal of Business Venturing
(1991) Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance
Journal of Vocational Behavior
(1994)- et al.
Idiosyncratic milieus of entrepreneurship researchThe need for comprehensive theories
Journal of Business Venturing
(1992) - et al.
State vs. action orientation and the theory of reasoned action
Journal of Consumer Research
(1992) The Social Foundations of Thought and Action
(1986)