Sie können Operatoren mit Ihrer Suchanfrage kombinieren, um diese noch präziser einzugrenzen. Klicken Sie auf den Suchoperator, um eine Erklärung seiner Funktionsweise anzuzeigen.
Findet Dokumente, in denen beide Begriffe in beliebiger Reihenfolge innerhalb von maximal n Worten zueinander stehen. Empfehlung: Wählen Sie zwischen 15 und 30 als maximale Wortanzahl (z.B. NEAR(hybrid, antrieb, 20)).
Findet Dokumente, in denen der Begriff in Wortvarianten vorkommt, wobei diese VOR, HINTER oder VOR und HINTER dem Suchbegriff anschließen können (z.B., leichtbau*, *leichtbau, *leichtbau*).
Die Studie untersucht die unternehmerischen Absichten von Spitzensportlern und konzentriert sich dabei auf die Rolle der Resilienz bei ihren Karriereübergängen. Er diskutiert die Relevanz von Resilienz sowohl im Sport als auch im Unternehmertum und wie diese Eigenschaft von einem Bereich auf einen anderen übertragen werden kann. Die Forschung untersucht auch die Theorie des geplanten Verhaltens (Theory of Planned Behavior, TPB) im Kontext unternehmerischer Absichten und prüft die vermittelnde Rolle von Resilienz in Bezug auf persönliche Einstellungen, subjektive Normen und wahrgenommene Verhaltenskontrolle. Der Artikel beleuchtet die einzigartigen Herausforderungen, vor denen Spitzenathleten stehen und wie ihre Erfahrungen ihre unternehmerischen Absichten beeinflussen können, und liefert eine umfassende Analyse des Zusammenspiels zwischen Resilienz und Unternehmertum.
KI-Generiert
Diese Zusammenfassung des Fachinhalts wurde mit Hilfe von KI generiert.
Abstract
Some jobs have a higher level of challenges and adversities. Individuals pursuing these jobs learn how to react to challenges and build up resilience. Within this study, we concentrated on the potential career path of top athletes as entrepreneurs, who are both expected to have a higher level of resilience than non-athletes. The purpose of this research was to examine if resilience is a determining factor on entrepreneurial intention and if the model based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) can be applied in general and for specific groups with a high level of resilience. To address the research questions, we collected data from a sample of 195 top athletes and 142 non-athletes. First, the level of resilience and entrepreneurial intention were compared with an analysis of variance (ANOVA). Subsequently, the structural equation model tested the influence of resilience on entrepreneurial intention, mediated by the TPB, first for the whole sample and then as a multigroup comparison for both groups. Resilience had an indirect influence on entrepreneurial intention, mediated by the explaining factors of the TPB (personal attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control). The multigroup comparison revealed a difference in the influence of perceived behavioral control on entrepreneurial intention between top athletes and non-athletes. Based on these results, this research added further knowledge to the field of entrepreneurial intention by examining the specific role of resilience necessary for careers as top athletes and entrepreneurs. It also contributes by researching the specific group of top athletes compared to non-athletes and extrapolating recommendations in entrepreneurship education for both groups, as creating athletes' awareness of potential overconfidence or implementing resilience training in education for non-athletes.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Introduction
Some professions are curtailed, and individuals are at some point, sometimes even unforeseeable, forced into occupational re-orientation. This limitation affects professional athletes for different reasons, such as declining performance due to aging, accidents, illness, or personal reasons. Research on the topic of sports entrepreneurship increase progressively over the last years (González-Serrano, Jones, & Llanos-Contrera, 2019). Evidence suggests that entrepreneurship is a popular second-career option for professional athletes (Kenny, 2015), who seem well-equipped for this career (Steinbrink et al., 2020).
When considering the person-job fit theory, with a positive assessment of a job environment being a fit between a person's abilities and a job's demands (Kristof, 1996), an entrepreneurial career for former top athletes seems even more likely. Success as an athlete often translates into success as an entrepreneur (Bernes et al., 2009). Both experience and personality influence the entrepreneurial intention (EI) of athletes (e.g., Ardichvili et al., 2003; Kerr et al., 2018). Entrepreneurs face the risk of failure in general and operate daily in a changing environment, dealing with uncertainty and incomplete information (Ayala & Manzano, 2014). This experience is similar to an athlete's (Fletcher & Hanton, 2003). Within the context of professional sports, stressors range from daily demands to major life events (Sarkar & Fletcher, 2013) and can be classified into three categories: competitive performance (e.g., performance expectations, loss of form, rivalry), organizational (e.g., finances, interpersonal conflicts), and personal stressors (e.g., social contacts, injury; Fletcher & Sarkar, 2012). One crucial aspect both jobs have in common is resilience.
Anzeige
Prior research has shown that resilience helps entrepreneurs overcome adversity (D'andria et al., 2018) and achieve career success (Salisu et al., 2020). However, researchers have called for more research on personality traits in the context of sports entrepreneurship (Ratten & Tajeddini, 2019). Although numerous studies on the resilience of athletes can be found (Galli & Gonzalez, 2015), most research focuses on the current situation of being a sports student (Gonzalez et al., 2016), coach (Sarkar & Hilton, 2020), or athlete (Belem et al., 2014; Brown et al., 2015). In their meta-analysis, Korber and McNaughton (2018) identified six research streams within the discussion of entrepreneurship and resilience, e.g., antecedents of entrepreneurial resilience (as traits or characteristics) or resilience as a determinant of EI. Resilience influences entrepreneurial intention in different contexts, such as adverse political (Bullough et al., 2014) or economic situations (Bullough & Renko, 2013). Additionally, the positive relationship between sports and EI was examined in sports students (González-Serrano et al., 2018a; Naia et al., 2017; Teixeira & Forte, 2017), but no research was found on top athletes. Korber and McNaughton (2018) stated that more research is needed to understand the multiple dimensions of entrepreneurial resilience.
Resilience in both research fields, sports and work, has been comprehensively researched within an interdisciplinary meta-analysis of over 52 studies (Bryan et al., 2019). Nevertheless, no study has combined resilience as a result of previous experience as an athlete and the transition of that skill into a new field of work. This study aimed to widen the scope of this field and research resilience as a gained skill that can be transferred for further career options after a sports career. In this case, the influence of resilience on entrepreneurial intention, or the willingness to start a firm, was researched in general and in top athletes. Furthermore, we contributed to the discussion on the Theory of planned behavior (TPB) in two ways. The TPB is a psychological theory stating that the three components, personal attitude (PA), subjective norms (SN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC), together explain with high accuracy an individual's behavioral intention (Ajzen, 1991). First, the influence of an additional variable within the TPB (resilience on intention, mediated by PA, SN, and PBC) was tested. Subsequently, the model was researched within the environment of professional sports with its specific adversities and stressors.
In summary, this research sought to determine if resilience is a defining factor of entrepreneurial intention if the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) mediates this relationship, and if the model can be applied in general or for specific groups with a high level of resilience on a homogenous sample of top athletes.
Theoretical framework
Resilience and the person–job fit
Sarkar and Fletcher (2013) pointed out that resilience is based on the presence of adversity and positive adaptation. Resilience is conceptualized as a personality trait (e.g., Ayala & Manzano, 2010; Shin et al., 2012) but also as a process that is able to change over time (e.g., Brewer & Hewstone, 2004; Luthar et al., 2000). This changeable process includes that resilience varies contextually (depending on the situation) and temporally (during a specific situation and as a lifespan process) (Bonanno et al., 2010; Hobfoll, 1989). In their grounded theory on the resilience of Olympic champions, Fletcher and Sarkar (2012) combined both perspectives (trait and process) and suggested an influence of numerous psychological factors on the relationship between stress and resilience. According to Fletcher and Sarkar (2012, p. 675), we understand resilience as "the role of mental processes and behavior in promoting personal assets and protecting an individual from the potential negative effect of stressors."
Anzeige
Athletes build up emotional capital during their career, supporting them to overcome obstacles and hurdles (Ratten, 2015). Dirmanchi and Khanjani (2019) found a significant difference in resilience between athletes and non-athletes with spinal cord injuries. Galli and Vealey (2008) found that high-level athletes faced adversities and experienced negative psychological effects but also developed a range of coping strategies to deal with those situations. As a result, athletes experienced growth and improvement, underlying the developmental process of resilience within sports. Considering resilience as a changing and learnable skill (Gu & Day, 2007; Luthar et al., 2000), we expected a higher level of resilience in top athletes who used to be confronted with stressors and hypothesized that:
H1a: the level of resilience is higher in top athletes than in non-athletes.
The investment in human capital affects the motivation towards an entrepreneurial career but is influenced by culture (Pinzón et al., 2021). Do Paço et al. (2015) examined the entrepreneurial intention of girls attending a business school compared to boys attending a sports school without entrepreneurship education. The authors concluded that other factors influencing EI have to be considered. According to the person-job fit theory, jobs with suitable demands for a person's abilities are compatible (Kristof, 1996); jobs that fit are expected to be assessed positively by an individual. Entrepreneurs face the risk of failure in general and operate daily business in a changing environment, dealing with uncertainty and incomplete information (Ayala & Manzano, 2014). Specific psychological characteristics are expected of entrepreneurs, as they have chosen a path containing risks and adversities (Bulmash, 2016). Based on the person-job fit and Steinbrink et al.'s (2020) findings, athletes are expected to consider entrepreneurship a suitable career option. In agreement with Pellegrini et al. (2020), who identified different reasons for a higher entrepreneurial intention in athletes within their literature review, it was hypothesized that:
H1b: the level of EI is higher in top athletes than in non-athletes.
Theory of planned behavior
In general, intention can be defined as "a person's readiness to perform a [given] behavior" (Ajzen, 2011, p. 1122). More specifically, the entrepreneurial intention is understood as an individual's conscious awareness and determination to create a new venture. In the perspective of Ajzen’s (1991) theory, the intention to create a new venture can be considered the best predictor for the actual venture creation. Explaining the entrepreneurial process and, therefore, the intention with only personality variables is highly complex. In a previous study, individual and situational variables showed poor predictive validity and explanatory power (Krueger et al., 2000). Therefore, a mediating role of variables explaining entrepreneurial intention is suggested (Munir et al., 2019). A widely used and validated model predicting entrepreneurial intention is TPB, which was applied here following Ajzen (1991). Within this model, the entrepreneurial intention is based on the personal attitude towards entrepreneurship, the perceived behavioral control, and the subjective norm (Ajzen, 1991).
Personal attitude
(PA) reflects the individual's (favorable or unfavorable) evaluation of the behavior (Ajzen, 1991) or is their personal attitude towards entrepreneurship.
Subjective norms
(SN) reflect the social components within the TPB. This term refers to the perceived normative beliefs of the individual's social reference group regarding whether to engage in the behavior (here entrepreneurship) or not (Ajzen, 1991). The social reference group can be family and friends. However, in the case of athletes, trainers, sponsors, media, and the public can also be perceived as a reference group generating social pressure to perform (Hayes et al., 2020). The role of the subjective norm within the TPB is unequivocal as several studies found no significant relationship between SN and EI (e.g., Autio et al., 2001; Krueger et al., 2000).
Perceived behavioral control
The concepts of perceived behavioral control (PBC), perceived feasibility (Shapero & Sokol, 1982), and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) are similar (Dissanayake, 2013). PBC refers to the individual's belief in being able to perform the behavior, and in addition includes the perception of an individual's control of the behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In this context, PBC is the individual's belief in being able to start a firm and volitionally control the circumstances. The more individuals feel capable of an activity, the more they are involved in and committed to achieving that activity (Bandura, 1991).
In line with previous studies (e.g., Kautonen et al., 2015), we expected PA, SN, and PBC to be antecedents of EI. Therefore, we hypothesized that:
H2: (a) personal attitude, (b) subjective norm, and (c) perceived behavioral control have a positive effect on entrepreneurial intention.
Integration of resilience in the TPB
Korber and Naughton (2018) examined the relationship between resilience and entrepreneurship, where EI represents one of the six identified research directions. It is expected that a person with a high level of resilience might consider entrepreneurship as a career path to fulfill the demand of facing stressors/adversities with the skill of resilience. Thus, based on the person-job fit theory and considering the three explaining factors of EI according to the TPB, a person with a high level of resilience should have a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship. This also applies to the social perspective; resilient individuals are perceived to be able to work under pressure (Gould et al., 2002). This belief in the perception by the social reference group is expected to lead to a positive influence on resilience in the SN. Stress tolerance has been found to be positively related to perceived behavioral control (Ahmed et al., 2019), leading to the hypothesis that.
H3: resilience has a positive effect on (a) attitudes towards entrepreneurship, (b) subjective norms, and (c) perceived behavioral control.
Jin (2017) studied the effect of psychological capital on entrepreneurial intention and found resilience to be positively and significantly related to intention but did not consider the framework of the TPB. The mediating effect of TPB variables between psychological, cultural, and socioeconomic variables and entrepreneurial intention has been confirmed in several studies (e.g., Ahmed et al., 2019; Entrialgo & Iglesias, 2016; Gorgievski et al., 2018; Munir et al., 2019). Hlatywayo et al. (2017) found resilience to be the only psychological capital construct that added significant value to the prediction of entrepreneurial intention in university graduates. In line with the TPB, it was hypothesized that.
H4: the relationship between resilience and entrepreneurial intention is mediated by (a) attitudes towards entrepreneurship, (b) subjective norms, and (c) perceived behavioral control.
Multigroup comparison
A positive adaption to adversity and resilience-building starts in early childhood and continues by belonging to different communities (Clauss-Ehlers, 2008; Waller, 2001), such as sports teams. Life as an entrepreneur is as highly demanding as it is for athletes. Hisrich et al. (2005) highlighted financial, psychological, and social risks in their definition of entrepreneurship. Applying the categories of Fletcher and Sarkar (2012) to entrepreneurs, competitive performance stressors can be market-related, e.g., market shares. Organizational stressors are highly relevant for entrepreneurs, e.g., uncertainty concerning income. Personal stressors might, for example, be personal health issues due to entrepreneurial stress (Cardon & Patel, 2015).
As previously mentioned, a higher level of resilience is expected for athletes, influencing resilience for an entrepreneurial intention (Hlatywayo et al., 2017). Therefore, considering the framework of TPB, we hypothesized that:
H5: the effect size of resilience on (a) PA, (b) SN, and (c) PBC is greater in top athletes than in non-athletes.
H6: the effect size of (a) PA, (b) SN, and (c) PBC on EI is greater in top athletes than in non-athletes.
Methodology
Data collection and sample
Data were collected between June and August 2021 via an online survey of 337 people in Germany (Table 1). Of the participants, 195 were coded as top athletes, and 142 were coded as non-athletes (control group). Based on Steinbrink et al. (2020), interviewees were classified as top athletes by answering "(1) the frequency of training and participation in competitions with a focus on winning, and [either] (2a) the participation in high-level international competitions, [or] (2b) the affiliation to a squad" with yes (p. 866). Two respondents were deleted, answering (1) with no and both (2a) and (2b) with yes. Profession was also considered; if an athlete's main paid occupation was pursuing a sport, he/she was also classified as a top athlete. Therefore, homogeneity concerning the personal relevance of sport and a high timely focus on sports within the life situation is assumed for the here defined top athletes. The average age was 25.35 years (26.01 for top athletes, 24.87 for non-athletes), and in sum, 67.06% were female (131 top athletes, 95 non-athletes), and 32.94% were male (64 top athletes, 47 non-athletes). Participation was voluntary, and to ensure confidentiality, all questionnaires were anonymous.
Table 1
Sample characteristics
top athlete
non-athlete
sum
absolute
in %
absolute
in %
absolute
in %
n
195
100,00
142
100,00
337
100,00
m
64
32,82
47
33,10
111
32,94
w
131
67,18
95
66,90
226
67,06
average age
24,87
26,01
25,35
Measures
A 10-item short version of the original CD-RISC survey by Connor and Davidson (2003) was developed by Campbell-Sills and Stein (2007) to measure the multidimensional construct of resilience and is widely used within the research fields of sport and entrepreneurship (e.g., Salisu et al., 2020; Schippers et al., 2019). Furthermore, a study across cricket players found the short version more suitable (Gucciardi et al., 2011). The instrument uses 10 items, e.g. the “tend to bounce back after illness or hardship” or whether the persons asked “can stay focused under pressure” or “think of self as a strong person”, rated on a scale from 0 (not true at all) to 4 (true nearly all the time) (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007, p. 1025). As the questionnaire was conducted in German, the German translation by Sarubin et al. (2015) was applied. With an αCronbach of 0.90 for 25 items and 0.84 for ten items, the internal consistency of both versions in the German language was confirmed. The reliability was also tested with a test–retest measure and confirmed for both versions (Sarubin et al., 2015). The survey length was reduced by choosing the short version for an increased response rate.
The entrepreneurial intention questionnaire (EIQ), developed and validated by Liñán and Chen (2009), is a widely used questionnaire measuring entrepreneurial intention (e.g., Al-Jubari et al., 2019; Hassan et al., 2020; Krasniqi et al., 2019). Already used and validated in the research of resilience (González-López et al., 2019), the EIQ was applied within this study. To measure entrepreneurial intention, 6 items were asked (e.g. “I am determined to create a firm in the future”); measuring the antecedents, the instrument included 5 items to measure personal attitude (e.g. “A career as entrepreneur is attractive for me”), 3 items to measure subjective norm (e.g. “If you decided to create a firm, would your close family approve of that decision?”, and 6 items to measure perceived behavioral control (e.g. “I know how to develop an entrepreneurial project”) (Liñán & Chen, 2009, p. 612 f.).
As control variables, entrepreneurial background and experience (both dichotomous) were integrated into the model. Prior research found a positive relationship between entrepreneurial background and entrepreneurial intention (Feder & Niţu-Antonie, 2017). The entrepreneurial background was defined here by knowing an entrepreneur (in the family or social environment). Another aspect positively influencing the explaining factors of the TPB is the entrepreneurial experience (Miralles et al., 2016). Therefore, we explicitly asked about entrepreneurial experiences. Conscious of the simplification, we followed Farmer et al. (2011) to evaluate theoretical or practical experiences of entrepreneurship as a binary variable (yes or no) prior to the survey.
To prevent distortion and reduce the possibility of an alternative explanation for the results (Becker, 2005; Schmitt & Klimoski, 1991), control variables were included as influencing the TPB, in addition to the exogenous variable of resilience. As some studies explained the direct influence on entrepreneurial intention (e.g., Altinay et al., 2012; Garaika et al., 2019; Rasli et al., 2013) and others via the TPB (Fini et al., 2012; Miralles et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2014), this study included all possible paths for initial testing on controls.
Data analysis
All questions were mandatory to ensure no missing values. First, the data were checked for normality with Cook's Distance using SPSS. No outliers were identified, as no value exceeded 0.57. The critical value was 1 (Norušis, 2006).
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was executed in SPSS to first check for differences in top athletes' resilience and entrepreneurial intention compared to non-athletes (H1a–b). Second, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to validate the convergent and discriminant validity of the measurement model. The measurement model contained the factors and correlations between the latent variables of the model. Subsequently, the structural model was built, and H2 and H3 were tested with the maximum likelihood method. The bootstrap procedure was applied to test the mediation (H4a–c) (Cheung & Lau, 2008). For testing H5, a multigroup comparison was conducted to identify differences between athletes and non-athletes, which were categorized as dichotomous variables.
Results
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
To check for differences between top athletes and non-athletes, an ANOVA was conducted in SPSS. Following Fischer and Milfont (2010), the variables were z standardized. The results (Table 2) showed significant differences in R and EI between the groups of top athletes and non-athletes (FR[1,335] = 42,363, p = 0.000; FEI[1,335] = 19,314, p = 0.000). As shown in Fig. 1, there was a greater difference between top athletes and non-athletes for R than for EI. Therefore, hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported.
Table 2
Results of the ANOVA of resilience and entrepreneurial intention between top athletes and non-athletes
SS
df
MS
F
Sig
Resilience
Between groups
37.719
1
37.719
42.363
0.000
Within groups
298.281
335
0.890
Total
336.000
336
Entrepreneurial intention
Between groups
18.316
1
18.316
19.314
0.000
Within groups
317.684
335
0.948
Total
336.000
336
SS sum of squares, df degrees of freedom, MS mean square
Fig. 1
Level of Resilience and Entrepreneurial Intention for top athletes and non-athletes
Harman's single-factor test (Harman, 1976) for common method bias was performed with SPSS 25. 42.45% of the variance was explained by loading all variables on a single factor. Common method bias is expected if more than 50% of the variance can be explained (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Additionally, common method bias was checked with AMOS, showing a very poor model fit (χ2 = 4600,678, p = 0.000, CFI = 0.403, GFI = 0.275, AGFI = 0.206, RMSEA = 0.217, SRMR = 2021, PCLOSE = 0.000) (Biraglia & Kadile, 2017; Kumar & Shukla, 2019). Therefore, common method bias was expected not to be an issue in this study.
Measurement model analysis
Due to improvable model fit, covariances between the error terms were added; two items (R5, PBC1) were removed due to low loadings, and after checking for residual covariances, R3 and R7 were also removed. Model fit indices can be classified into absolute, incremental, and parsimony fit indices (Hair et al., 2019). According to Hair et al. (2019), at least the χ2 with the associated degrees of freedom (df) and one fit index of each category should be displayed to report the model fit. Lower values are desirable for badness-of-fit indices (χ2, RMSEA, SRMR) as they measure error or deviation. In contrast, goodness-of-fit indices (CFI, TLI, AGFI) range from 0 to 1, and values < 0.9 are considered acceptable (Malhotra, 2010). The adjusted measurement model showed a satisfactory fit for all three categories of model fit (χ2 = 5483.932, df = 274, CMIN/df = 1,766, RMSEA = 0.048, SRMR = 0.0366, CFI = 0.972, TLI = 0.967, AGFI = 0.875, PNFI = 0.791).
Construct validity
Construct validity was assessed by convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity (Hair et al., 2019). For checking the convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) is a common method for covariance-based models (dos Santos & Cirillo, 2021). The AVE for PA, SN, PBC, and EI was above the threshold of 0.5 (AVEPA = 0.741, AVESN = 0.531, AVEPBC = 0.917, AVEEI = 0.845) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As Malhotra (2010) argued, AVE is often too strict, and other criteria, such as composite reliability (CR), are also reliable. The slight deviation of AVER = 0.497 could be considered sufficient considering that the CRR = 0.830 exceeds the minimum for CR > 0.7 (Hair et al., 2019). Table 3 shows the results of the average variance extracted and the composite reliability.
Table 3
Results of the average variance extracted and composite reliability
Construct
Item
Loading
Composite reliability
Average variance
extracted
Resilience
R1
0.641
0.83
0.497
R2
0.798
R6
0.707
R9
0.741
R10
0.622
Personal Attitude
PA1
0.723
0.934
0.741
PA2
0.904
PA3
0.849
PA4
0.894
PA5
0.918
Subjective Norm
SN1
0.769
0.767
0.531
SN2
0.841
SN3
0.541
Perceived behavioral control
PBC2
0.868
0.917
0.689
PBC3
0.855
PBC4
0.894
PBC5
0.918
PBC6
0.761
Entrepreneurial intention
EI1
0.846
0.97
0.845
EI2
0.938
EI3
0.914
EI4
0.965
EI5
0.916
EI6
0.931
The discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the square root of AVE with the correlations between the constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In Table 4, the square roots of AVE are presented in the diagonals, showing higher values compared to the correlations presented below them. The significant positive correlations between the constructs support the nomological validity (Hair et al., 2019).
Table 4
Square root of AVE and correlations between the constructs testing discriminant validity
Variable
CR
AVE
MSV
R
PA
SN
PBC
EI
R
0.83
0.497
0.28
0.705
PA
0.934
0.741
0.739
0.421***
0.861
SN
0.767
0.531
0.185
0.431***
0.291***
0.728
PBC
0.917
0.689
0.478
0.529***
0.666***
0.338***
0.83
EI
0.97
0.845
0.739
0.356***
0.860***
0.266***
0.692***
0.919
The diagonal numbers in italic are the square root of the AVE values
CR composite reliability, AVE average variance extracted, MSV maximum shared variance, R resilience, PA personal attitude, SN subjective norm, PBC perceived behavioral control, EI entrepreneurial intention
***Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level
All path coefficients leading from the latent factors on the items were statistically significant (p < 0.001), and the standardized regression weights ranged from 0.539 (SN3) to 0.965 (EI4).
Based on the statistics, the model can be considered reliable and valid (Hair et al., 2019).
Structural model analysis
The structural model was built based on the hypothesized paths. The maximum likelihood method was used to test H2(a–c) and H3(a–c). Following a recursive method, at each iteration, the path with the lowest t-statistic was removed until all paths showed a significance of p < 0.05 (Liñán & Chen, 2009), except for the hypothesized paths.
There was a significant positive relationship between PA and EI and between PBC and EI; therefore, H2a and H2c were supported. H2b was rejected, as there was a very small negative effect size from SN on EI. The positive effect from R on all three antecedents of the TPB was confirmed with a high level of probability. Thus, H3(a–c) was supported.
Table 5 also presents the results of testing for mediation between R and EI. The total indirect effects of the mediated paths were significant and positive for the mediation of PA and PBC, supporting H4a and H4c. However, the construct of SN was not significant, and therefore, H4b was rejected. In addition, the direct effect between R and EI was not significant. The relationship between R and EI was completely explained by full mediation via PA and PBC.
Table 5
Hypothesis with standardized estimates, p-value, and results of the hypothesized paths, including model fit indices
S.E. estimated standard error, C.R. composite reliability, R resilience, PA personal attitude, SN subjective norm, PBC perceived behavioral control, EI entrepreneurial intention
This model explained 74.4% of the variance in entrepreneurial intention. Figure 2 shows the structural model with standardized estimates of the hypothesized paths for the whole sample, the top athletes and non-athletes.
Fig. 2
Standardized estimates of the hypothesized paths for the whole sample, top athletes and non-athletes
After validating the suggested model in general and in consideration of the differences in the means of R and EI, the relationship within the model was compared between top athletes and non-athletes. The multigroup test was also a test on mediation. The moderating variable was the dichotomous variable of top athlete versus non-athlete.
Table 6 shows the effect sizes and p-values of both groups. An overall chi-square difference test over the whole model detected a difference in the model for top athletes versus non-athletes (χ2 = 53,217, df = 30, p-value = 0.006). A significant difference was observed between the two groups for at least one path. Assessing multigroup differences with CR has been criticized because it only compares one path for both groups and does not consider the other paths within the model (Klesel et al., 2019). Therefore, a chi-square difference test was conducted for all paths to determine which relationships differed significantly (Byrne, 2004).
Table 6
Multigroup comparison with standardized estimates and p-value for top athletes and non-athletes, including model fit indices
Byrne and Stewart (2006) suggested the ΔCFI-method and the chi-square difference test to test factorial invariance. The CFI of the model without constraints was 0.952. When constraining the path from resilience to the antecedents of the TPB, the CFI remained 0.952. When constraining the paths within the TPB (PA → EI, SN → EI, PBC → EI), the CFI decreased to 0.951. Although that difference seems marginal, the model fit was reduced when equally constraining the TPB for top and non-athletes.
As a second method to examine differences in the paths, Byrne and Stewart (2006) suggested the chi-square difference test to constrain each path individually. Table 7 shows the results of the chi-square difference test, including the results of the hypothesized paths. As indicated by the ΔCFI, the difference between the groups for the relationship between R and PA, SN, and PBC was not significant. Therefore, H5(a–c) was rejected. The significant difference between top athletes and non-athletes, as shown by the overall χ2 test and suggested by the ΔCFI test, was found for PBC → EI. Thus, H6a and H6b were also rejected, and H6c was supported.
Table 7
Hypothesis with results of the chi-square difference test including the results of the hypothesized paths
Hypothesis
Model description
χ2
df
Δχ2
Δdf
Sign.
Findings
Unconstrained
911.818
562
Fully constrained
965.035
592
53.217
30
0.000
H5a
R → PA constrained
912.046
563
0.228
1
n.s
Rejected
H5b
R → SN constrained
911.855
563
0.037
1
n.s
Rejected
H5c
R → PBC constrained
911.826
563
0.008
1
n.s
Rejected
H6a
PA → EI constrained
912.491
563
0.673
1
n.s
Rejected
H6b
SN → EI constrained
913.300
563
1.482
1
n.s
Rejected
H6c
PBC → EI constrained
914.816
563
2.998
1
p < 0,1
Supported
Discussion and theoretical implications
Explaining the entrepreneurial intention of athletes
The role of the subjective norm within the TPB is controversial. Some studies have found a significant direct relation between SN and EI (e.g., Moriano et al., 2012; Tong et al., 2011), whereas others have not (e.g., González-Serrano et al., 2018b; Liñán & Chen, 2009). Focusing on sport science students, a significant positive relationship of PA and PBC was observed on EI (Gonzalez-Serrano et al., 2018b; Naia et al., 2017), but no relationship (Gonzalez-Serrano et al., 2018b) or a weak negative relationship at a low level of significance (Naia et al., 2017) was observed between SN and EI. A possible explanation might be the different contexts in which the TPB was applied (Krueger et al., 2000). A meta-analysis of social entrepreneurship intention found the subjective norm significant over 31 studies (Zaremohzzabieh et al., 2019). Conversely, Kachkar and Djafri (2021) found SN not significantly influencing the intention of refugees, indicating that the opinion of the refugee community did not determine their intention to participate in microenterprise support programs. As shown in Fig. 2, the whole sample and the non-athletes failed in significance. For top athletes, a weak but significant relation was identified. A possible reason is that athletes have an additional social reference group through media and their huge network, which they gained during their active careers (Ratten & Miragaia, 2020). Athletes might feel a high pressure from that extended social group, which leads to the higher importance of the other’s opinion when forming the entrepreneurial intention.
Ajzen (1991) demonstrated that the extent to which PBC influences intention varies across situations, stating that "the addition of perceived behavioral control should become increasingly useful as volitional control over behavior decreases" (p. 185). Control beliefs are expected to be influenced by experiences and reduce the perceived adversity of a subsequent situation (Su et al., 2021). Karimi et al. (2014) found differences in the relationship between perceived behavioral control and intention based on culture. The argument of low uncertainty avoidance for Iranians (meaning being less afraid in uncertain situations and having a higher tolerance for ambiguity) compared to other countries (Karimi et al., 2014) can be transferred to the context of professional sport. A higher risk propensity is required and confirmed for professional athletes by prior research (Steinbrink et al., 2020). Therefore, top athletes are expected to feel more capable of facing adversities and coping with the uncertainties of the entrepreneurial path. Furthermore, athletes who exhibit a high sense of internal control or those that are less controlled by their environment are able to maintain low stress levels (Holden et al., 2019). Athletes exhibiting high levels of self-efficacy and self-confidence are expected to believe in their abilities and athletic performance (Besharat & Pourbohlool, 2011; Fletcher & Sarkar, 2012). Boyd et al. (2021) identified indicators showing that athletes have a strong belief in their skills for entrepreneurship and gained them within their sports careers. Therefore, the strong relation between PBC and EI can be explained for athletes.
The role of resilience
In addition, Korber and McNaughton (2018) concluded that resilience might reduce the fear of failure and lead to the entrepreneurial engagement of overconfident entrepreneurs. Our results showed a higher level of resilience for top athletes compared to non-athletes and a positive relationship between PBC and EI. Compared to non-athletes, this influence was found to be significantly stronger, indicating that top athletes were highly influenced in their intention by the level of perceived control over a situation. Therefore, top athletes are expected to be highly confident in their ability to control a situation, such as an entrepreneurial event. Entrepreneurship education has to increase the awareness of risks and potential obstacles to prevent top athletes from being overconfident and making irrational, risky entrepreneurial decisions.
Another indicator that resilience explained EI was the explained variance. The meta-analysis by Armitage and Conner (2001) analyzed 185 studies using the TPB to explain behavior and intention, showing 29 to 39% of the explained variance. Looking at the specific context of entrepreneurial intentions, the TPB can explain up to 59% of the variance (Kautonen et al., 2015). Zhao et al. (2010) calculated an R2 = 0.36 for the big five personality traits (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism), explaining the entrepreneurial intention. Liñán and Chen (2009) tested different demographic and human capital variables on the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention within the TPB. With the variables of gender, role model (personally knowing an entrepreneur), self-employment experience, and work experience, the antecedents achieved R2PA = 0.192, R2SN = 0.152 R2PBC = 0.177, and R2EI = 0.555. Therefore, 55.5% of the variance in entrepreneurial intention and 17,7% in PBC were explained by the model Liñán and Chen (2009). The model applied in this study explained 32.1% more of the variance in PBC. Therefore, the relevance of resilience is very high for explaining the perceived behavioral control concerning an entrepreneurial event. The R2 of this study reached R2EI = 0.744 for all participants, R2EI, NO = 0.667 for non-athletes, and R2EI,TA = 0.790 for top athletes. Thus, the explained variance for the entrepreneurial intention of top athletes was 79.0% in the model. This value, being 12.3% higher than for non-athletes, indicated that the expected model implies highly relevant explaining factors for top athletes.
Practical implications
The great model fit for the overall sample and the group of top athletes could lead to the conclusion that the model based on resilience explained the entrepreneurial intention for top athletes but not exclusively. Considering the results of ANOVA, which showed that both resilience and EI were greater for top athletes, we expected the model to work well for people with a high level of resilience, notwithstanding how the level of resilience was gained. No significant difference was observed between top athletes and non-athletes in the relationship between resilience and PA, SN, and PBC, supporting this presumption. Therefore, all individuals with a high level of resilience, whether gained through competitive sport or other adverse experiences, such as illness or loss, had a positive relationship with the explaining factors of EI within this study. By strengthening the awareness of resilience and helping people to discover their potential for resilient behavior, their attitude towards entrepreneurship, perceived behavioral control, and normative beliefs about entrepreneurship can be strengthened, leading to a higher entrepreneurial intention. Furthermore, as the strength of the relationship between PBC and intention was very high, the level of perceived controllability over an entrepreneurial event should be enhanced to strengthen entrepreneurial intention. As a learnable skill, resilience training should be considered a part of entrepreneurship education for non-athletes.
The need for a more interdisciplinary approach in sports education (Ratten & Jones, 2018) and especially the need for entrepreneurship education of sports students (Jones & Jones, 2014) and athletes was pointed out in prior research. The same was found in this study concerning the group of top athletes. With a potentially high level of confidence and fearlessness (Korber & McNaughton, 2018), entrepreneurial risks could be taken carelessly by top athletes. A high level of risk can lead to great success but can also result in failure (Georgiana-Delia, 2013). Motivation towards an entrepreneurial career is needed to support top athletes in their career transition. However, understanding and managing risks should also be considered.
Sport associations can use the study's findings to support athletes on an individual basis as well as leverage the associations’ success with internal projects on innovation, supported by athletes as intrapreneurs. Furthermore, the findings are highly relevant for investors, as they invest rather in the entrepreneur than products or business plans (Mason & Stark, 2004). As entrepreneurship has a high relevance for a country’s economic success (Wennekers & Thurik, 1999), policy should be aware of the study’s findings and make leverage of that asset by promoting athletes to an entrepreneurial career and providing suitable policy interventions as funding requirements (Ratten & Miragaia, 2020).
Limitations and future research
Intention was found to be the best predictor of actual behavior, which are both considered in the full TPB (Ajzen, 1991). Kautonen et al. (2015) criticized the scarcity of research on actual entrepreneurial behavior. Additionally, within this study, entrepreneurial intentions were the best approximation for understanding the career transition process of athletes. Future research on the influence of resilience on an entrepreneurial career should further develop this study's findings and include entrepreneurial action. Further longitudinal studies to research the actual entrepreneurial behavior of top athletes should also be undertaken.
Within the multigroup comparison, the results should be interpreted with caution based on existing limitations. The parsimony fit indices measure the fit compared to its complexity (Hair et al., 2019). A simpler model with fewer variables or estimated parameter paths is suggested to improve parsimony fit (Hair et al., 2019). A remarkable difference in the parsimony fit (see AGFI in Table 6) was identified within the multigroup comparison. The absolute fit indices indicate how well a model fits the sample data (Hair et al., 2019). The difference in SRMR was striking. The eligibility of the model can be confirmed for athletes but has to be further explored for non-athletes.
Future research might look at other contexts promoting resilience, such as other job profiles with specific stressors leading to resilience (e.g., army; Lee et al., 2013) or personal stressors (e.g., illness or victims of domestic abuse; Anderson et al., 2012) and their influence on entrepreneurial intention. Furthermore, not only athlete entrepreneurship as a second career option should be researched in more deepness. Also, interpreneurial activities of athletes (Jones et al., 2020) within the sports industry, e.g. within associations or clubs, should be considered. Thinking about training methods and competition results, resilience and entrepreneurial intention can also be drivers towards success that should be content of future research.
Conclusion
Resilience is considered a learnable skill that athletes develop by permanently facing adversities affecting their sports and private lives. Compared to the reference group, the level of resilience and entrepreneurial intention was higher for top athletes. Overall, this study confirmed that the TPB includes resilience as an additional influencing factor, both in general and for the specific group of top athletes. In addition to contributing to the research field of athlete entrepreneurship, this study also adds knowledge to the discussion of the TPB, especially concerning the relationship between PBC and EI that differs under the perspective of resilience. Practical implications underline specific requirements of entrepreneurship education for athletes. Resilience and its advantages are not exclusive to athletes as different kinds of adverse events can foster resilience (Seery et al., 2010). In the case of athletes, adversities are conspicuously present. Therefore, athletes should be aware of their function as role models and discuss their success stories after failure to motivate non-athletes to take risks, fail, and try again, aiming to build a high competence of resilience.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Al-Jubari, I., Hassan, A., & Liñán, F. (2019). Entrepreneurial intention among university students in Malaysia: Integrating self-determination theory and the theory of planned behavior. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,15(4), 1323–1342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0529-0CrossRef
Altinay, L., Madanoglu, M., Daniele, R., & Lashley, C. (2012). The influence of family tradition and psychological traits on entrepreneurial intention. International Journal of Hospitality Management,31(2), 489–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHM.2011.07.007CrossRef
Anderson, K. M., Renner, L. M., & Danis, F. S. (2012). Recovery: Resilience and growth in the aftermath of domestic violence. Violence Against Women,18(11), 1279–1299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212470543CrossRef
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology,40(4), 471–499. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939CrossRef
Autio, E., Keeley, H., & R., Klofsten, M., GC Parker, G., & Hay, M. (2001). Entrepreneurial intent among students in Scandinavia and in the USA. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies,2(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/14632440110094632CrossRef
Ayala, J. C., & Manzano, G. (2014). The resilience of the entrepreneur. Influence on the success of the business. A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology,42, 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2014.02.004CrossRef
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods,8(3), 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105278021CrossRef
Belem, I. C., Caruzzo, N. M., Nascimento Junior J. R. A. D., Vieira, J. L. L., & Vieira, L. F. (2014). Impact of coping strategies on resilience of elite beach volleyball athletes. Revista Brasileira De Cineantropometria & Desempenho Humano,16(4), 447–455. https://doi.org/10.5007/1980-0037.2014v16n4p447CrossRef
Bernes, K. B., McKnight, K. M., Gunn, T., Chorney, D., Orr, D. T., & Bardick, A. D. (2009). Life after sport: Athletic career transition and transferable skills. Journal of Excellence,13, 63–77.
Besharat, M. A., & Pourbohlool, S. (2011). Moderating effects of self-confidence and sport self-efficacy on the relationship between competitive anxiety and sport performance. Psychology,2(7), 760–765. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2011.27116CrossRef
Biraglia, A., & Kadile, V. (2017). The role of entrepreneurial passion and creativity in developing entrepreneurial intentions: Insights from American homebrewers. Journal of Small Business Management,55(1), 170–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12242CrossRef
Bonanno, G. A., Brewin, C. R., Kaniasty, K., & Greca, A. M. L. (2010). Weighing the costs of disaster: Consequences, risks, and resilience in individuals, families, and communities. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,11(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100610387086CrossRef
Brewer, M. B., & Hewstone, M. (2004). Social Cognition. Blackwell Publishing.
Bryan, C., O’Shea, D., & MacIntyre, T. (2019). Stressing the relevance of resilience: A systematic review of resilience across the domains of sport and work. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology,12(1), 70–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1381140CrossRef
Bullough, A., Renko, M., & Myatt, T. (2014). Danger zone entrepreneurs: The importance of resilience and self–efficacy for entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,38(3), 473–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12006CrossRef
Bulmash, B. (2016). Entrepreneurial resilience: Locus of control and well-being of entrepreneurs. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Organization Management,5(1), 171–177. https://doi.org/10.4172/2169-026X.1000171CrossRef
Byrne, B. M., & Stewart, S. M. (2006). Teacher’s corner: The MACS approach to testing for multigroup invariance of a second-order structure: A walk through the process. Structural Equation Modeling,13(2), 287–321. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_7CrossRef
Campbell-Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress: Official Publication of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies,20(6), 1019–1028.CrossRef
Cardon, M. S., & Patel, P. C. (2015). Is stress worth it? Stress-related health and wealth trade-offs for entrepreneurs. Applied Psychology,64(2), 379–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12021CrossRef
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods,11(2), 296–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300343CrossRef
Clauss-Ehlers, C. S. (2008). Sociocultural factors, resilience, and coping: Support for a culturally sensitive measure of resilience. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,29(3), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.02.004CrossRef
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety,18(2), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10113CrossRef
D’andria, A., Gabarret, I., & Vedel, B. (2018). Resilience and effectuation for a successful business takeover. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research,24(7), 1200–1221. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2016-0367CrossRef
Dirmanchi, N., & Khanjani, M. S. (2019). Comparison of resilience and self-efficacy in athletes and non-athletes with disabilities caused by spinal cord injury. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, 25(2), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.32598/ijpcp.25.2.150
Dissanayake, D. M. N. S. W. (2013). The impact of perceived desirability and perceived feasibility on entrepreneurial intention among undergraduate students in Sri Lanka: An extended model. The Kelaniya Journal of Management,2(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.4038/kjm.v2i1.6543CrossRef
Do Paço, A., Ferreira, J. M., Raposo, M., Rodrigues, R. G., & Dinis, A. (2015). Entrepreneurial intentions: Is education enough? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,11(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0280-5CrossRef
Dos Santos, P. M., & Cirillo, M. Â. (2021). Construction of the average variance extracted index for construct validation in structural equation models with adaptive regressions. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, ahead of print.https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2021.1888122
Entrialgo, M., & Iglesias, V. (2016). The moderating role of entrepreneurship education on the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,12(4), 1209–1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0389-4CrossRef
Farmer, S. M., Yao, X., & Kung-Mcintyre, K. (2011). The behavioral impact of entrepreneur identity aspiration and prior entrepreneurial experience. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,35(2), 245–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00358.xCrossRef
Feder, E.-S., & Niţu-Antonie, R.-D. (2017). Connecting gender identity, entrepreneurial training, role models and intentions. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship,9(1), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJGE-08-2016-0028CrossRef
Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Marzocchi, G. L., & Sobrero, M. (2012). The determinants of corporate entrepreneurial intention within small and newly established firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,36(2), 387–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00411.xCrossRef
Fischer, R., & Milfont, T. L. (2010). Standardization in psychological research. International Journal of Psychological Research,3(1), 88–96.CrossRef
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312CrossRef
Galli, N., & Gonzalez, S. P. (2015). Psychological resilience in sport: A review of the literature and implications for research and practice. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,13(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2014.946947CrossRef
Garaika, G., Margahana, H. M., & Negara, S. T. (2019). Self efficacy, self personality and self confidence on entrepreneurial intention: Study on young enterprises. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,22(1), 1–12.
Georgiana-Delia, C. C. (2013). The risk-an element that influences the success of an entrepreneur. Ovidius University Annals, Series Economic Sciences,13(1), 732–735.
Gonzalez, S. P., Detling, N., & Galli, N. A. (2016). Case studies of developing resilience in elite sport: Applying theory to guide interventions. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action,7(3), 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2016.1236050CrossRef
González-López, M. J., Pérez-López, M. C., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2019). Clearing the hurdles in the entrepreneurial race: The role of resilience in entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education,18(3), 457–483. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2016.0377CrossRef
González-Serrano, M. H., González García, R. J., & Pérez Campos, C. (2018a). Entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial intentions of sports science students: What are their determinant variables? Journal of Physical Education and Sport,18(3), 1363–1372. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2018.s3202CrossRef
González-Serrano, M. H., Jones, P., & Llanos-Contrera, O. (2019). An overview of sport entrepreneurship field: a bibliometric analysis of the articles published in the Web of Science. Sport in Society, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2019.1607307
González-Serrano, M. H., Valantine, I., Hervás, J. C., Pérez-Campos, C., & Moreno, F. C. (2018b). Sports university education and entrepreneurial intentions: a comparison between Spain and Lithuania. Education + Training, 60(5), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-12-2017-0205
Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and their development in Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,14(3), 172–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200290103482CrossRef
Gorgievski, M. J., Stephan, U., Laguna, M., & Moriano, J. A. (2018). Predicting entrepreneurial career intentions: Values and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Career Assessment,26(3), 457–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717714541CrossRef
Gucciardi, D. F., Jackson, B., Coulter, T. J., & Mallett, C. J. (2011). The Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC): Dimensionality and age-related measurement invariance with Australian cricketers. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,12(4), 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.02.005CrossRef
Hair, J. F., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. C. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Hassan, A., Saleem, I., Anwar, I., & Hussain, S. A. (2020). Entrepreneurial intention of Indian university students: the role of opportunity recognition and entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 62(7/8), 843–861. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2020-0033
Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago press.
Hisrich, R. D., Peters, M. P., & Shepherd, D. A. (2005). Entrepreneurship. McGraw-Hill Education.
Hlatywayo, C. K., Marange, C. S., & Chinyamurindi, W. T. (2017). A hierarchical multiple regression approach on determining the effect of psychological capital on entrepreneurial intention amongst prospective university graduates in South Africa. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 9(1), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.22610/jebs.v9i1(J).1568
Holden, S. L., Forester, B. E., Williford, H. N., & Reilly, E. (2019). Sport locus of control and perceived stress among college student-athletes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,16, 2823. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16162823CrossRef
Jin, C. H. (2017). The effect of psychological capital on start-up intention among young start-up entrepreneurs: A cross-cultural comparison. Chinese Management Studies,11(4), 707–729. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-06-2017-0162CrossRef
Jones, P., & Jones. A. (2014). Attitudes of Sports Development and Sports Management undergraduate students towards entrepreneurship: a University perspective towards best practice. Education + Training, 56(8/9), 716–732. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2014-0060
Jones, P., Ratten, V., & Hayduk, T. (2020). Sport, fitness, and lifestyle entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,3, 783–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00666-x
Kachkar, O., & Djafri, F. (2021). Exploring the intentional behaviour of refugees in participating in micro-enterprise support programmes (MESP): Is theory of planned behaviour (TPB) still relevant? Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, ahead-of-print.https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-05-2020-0150CrossRef
Karimi, S., Biemans, H. J., Lans, T., Chizari, M., & Mulder, M. (2014). Effects of role models and gender on students’ entrepreneurial intentions. European Journal of Training and Development,38(8), 694–727. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-03-2013-0036CrossRef
Kautonen, T., Van Gelderen, M., & Fink, M. (2015). Robustness of the theory of planned behavior in predicting entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,39(3), 655–674. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12056CrossRef
Kenny, B. (2015). Meeting the entrepreneurial learning needs of professional athletes in career transition. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,21(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2013-0113CrossRef
Kerr, S. P., Kerr, W. R., & Xu, T. (2018). Personality traits of entrepreneurs: A review of recent literature. Foundations and Trends®in Entrepreneurship, 14(3), 279–356. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000080
Klesel, M., Schuberth, F., Henseler, J., & Niehaves, B. (2019). A test for multigroup comparison using partial least squares path modeling. Internet Research,29(3), 464–477. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-11-2017-0418CrossRef
Korber, S., & McNaughton, R. B. (2018). Resilience and entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,24(7), 1129–1154. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-10-2016-0356CrossRef
Krasniqi, B. A., Berisha, G., & Pula, J. S. (2019). Does decision-making style predict managers’ entrepreneurial intentions? Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research,9(68), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-019-0200-4CrossRef
Kumar, R., & Shukla, S. (2019). Creativity, proactive personality and entrepreneurial intentions: Examining the mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Global Business Review, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150919844395
Lee, J. E., Sudom, K. A., & Zamorski, M. A. (2013). Longitudinal analysis of psychological resilience and mental health in Canadian military personnel returning from overseas deployment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,18(3), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033059CrossRef
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development,71(3), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00164CrossRef
Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing research: an applied orientation (6th ed.). Pearson Education.CrossRef
Mason, C., & Stark, M. (2004). What do investors look for in a business plan? A comparison of the investment criteria of bankers, venture capitalists and business angels. International Small Business Journal,22(3), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242604042377CrossRef
Miralles, F., Giones, F., & Riverola, C. (2016). Evaluating the impact of prior experience in entrepreneurial intention. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,12(3), 791–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-015-0365-4CrossRef
Moriano, J. A., Gorgievski, M., Laguna, M., Stephan, U., & Zarafshani, K. (2012). A cross-cultural approach to understanding entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Career Development,39(2), 162–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845310384481CrossRef
Munir, H., Jianfeng, C., & Ramzan, S. (2019). Personality traits and theory of planned behavior comparison of entrepreneurial intentions between an emerging economy and a developing country. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,25(3), 554–580. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-05-2018-0336CrossRef
Naia, A., Baptista, R., Biscaia, R., Januário, C., & Trigo, V. (2017). Entrepreneurial intentions of sport sciences students and theory of planned behavior. Motriz: Revista de Educação Física, 23(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1980-6574201700010003
Norušis, M. J. (2006). SPSS 14.0 guide to data analysis. Prentice Hall.
Pinzón, N., Montero, J., & González-Pernía, J. L. (2021). The influence of individual characteristics on getting involved in an entrepreneurial team: The contingent role of individualism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-021-00768-0CrossRef
Pellegrini, M.M., Rialti, R., Marzi, G., & Caputo, A. (2020). Sport entrepreneurship: A synthesis of existing literature and future perspectives. International Entrepreneurship and Management. 16(3), 795–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00650-5
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), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879CrossRef
Rasli, A., Khan, S. U. R., Malekifar, S., & Jabeen, S. (2013). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention among graduate students of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Social Science,4(2), 182–188.
Ratten, V. (2015). Athletes as entrepreneurs: The role of social capital and leadership ability. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business,25(4), 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2015.070217CrossRef
Ratten, V., & Tajeddini, K. (2019). Entrepreneurship and sport business research: Synthesis and lessons: Introduction to the special journal issue. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing,19(1), 1–7.
Salisu, I., Hashim, N., Mashi, M. S., & Aliyu, H. G. (2020). Perseverance of effort and consistency of interest for entrepreneurial career success: Does resilience matter? Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies.,12(2), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-02-2019-0025CrossRef
Sarkar, M., & Hilton, N. K. (2020). Psychological resilience in Olympic medal-winning coaches: A longitudinal qualitative study. International Sport Coaching Journal,7(2), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2019-0075CrossRef
Sarubin, N., Gutt, D., Giegling, I., Bühner, M., Hilbert, S., Krähenmann, O., Wolf, M., Jobst, A., Sabaß, L., Rujescu, D., Falkai, P., & Padberg, F. (2015). Erste Analyse der psychometrischen Eigenschaften und Struktur der deutschsprachigen 10-und 25-Item Version der Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Zeitschrift Für Gesundheitspsychologie,23(3), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1026/0943-8149/a000142CrossRef
Schippers, M. C., Rauch, A., Belschak, F. D., & Hulsink, W. (2019). Entrepreneurial intentions of teams: Sub-dimensions of machiavellianism interact with team resilience. Frontiers in Psychology,10, 2607. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02607CrossRef
Seery, M. D., Holman, E. A., & Silver, R. C. (2010). Whatever does not kill us: Cumulative lifetime adversity, vulnerability, and resilience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,99(6), 1025–1042. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021344CrossRef
Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K. Vesper (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship (pp. 72–90). Prentice Hall.
Shin, J., Taylor, M. S., & Seo, M.-G. (2012). Resources for change: The relationships of organizational inducements and psychological resilience to employees’ attitudes and behaviors toward organizational change. Academy of Management Journal,55(3), 727–748. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0325CrossRef
Steinbrink, K. M., Berger, E. S., & Kuckertz, A. (2020). Top athletes’ psychological characteristics and their potential for entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,16(3), 859–878. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00612-6CrossRef
Su, Y., Zhu, Z., Chen, J., Jin, Y., Wang, T., Lin, C.-L., & Xu, D. (2021). Factors influencing entrepreneurial intention of university students in China: Integrating the perceived university support and theory of planned behavior. Sustainability.,13(8), 4519. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084519CrossRef
Teixeira, A. A., & Forte, R. P. (2017). Prior education and entrepreneurial intentions: The differential impact of a wide range of fields of study. Review of Managerial Science,11(2), 353–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-015-0188-2CrossRef
Tong, X. F., Tong, D. Y. K., & Loy, L. C. (2011). Factors influencing entrepreneurial intention among university students. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies,3(1), 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2017.0111CrossRef
Zaremohzzabieh, Z., Ahrari, S., Krauss, S. E., Samah, A. A., Meng, L. K., & Ariffin, Z. (2019). Predicting social entrepreneurial intention: A meta-analytic path analysis based on the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Research,96, 264–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.030CrossRef
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), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11365-012-0246-ZCrossRef
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2010). The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management,36(2), 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309335187CrossRef
