Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education

Francisco Liñána
University of Seville, Spain

Summary

Despite the widespread development of entrepreneurship education initiatives in the last decades, a
consensus definition about it has not been reached. As a consequence, there is also a lack of consistent
classifications of educational activities. In this paper, our main objective is to develop a view of
entrepreneurship education based on entrepreneurial intention models. Given the wide variety of this kind
of training programmes being implemented, and their different effects on participants, it is also important
for the proposed definition to allow the establishing of a useful classification. Finally, a preliminary test
has been carried out, both on the validity of intention models and on the subsequent derived classification.
Empirical results tend to validate the theoretical approach adopted.

Keywords: entrepreneurship education, intention models, entrepreneurial intention, conceptualization,

classification

1. Introduction

Entrepreneurship education has been spreading over the last decades at a

considerable pace. Courses are being implemented in universities, secondary schools,

and even primary ones. At the university level, programmes are being developed

enthusiastically. More recently, examples of Master degrees in entrepreneurship are

starting to appear. Outside the educational system, there are courses and programmes

carried out for specific audiences, especially for different subgroups of the unemployed

and/or minorities.

Taking into account all this widespread development, one should think that the

theoretical bases of entrepreneurship education are solidly established. However, this is

not the case. The absence of an accepted definition poses important problems, such as

the controversy arising from the different objectives and varieties of entrepreneurship

a
F. Liñán, Associate Professor - Dept. of Applied Economics (Economía Aplicada I), University of
Seville, Av. Ramón y Cajal, 1, E-41018 Seville (Spain); Tel.: +34954554487; Fax: +34954551636; email:
flinan@us.es

1
education considered in the various studies. In fact, depending on the initial

assumptions, these studies may reach opposite results. Or they may be referring to very

dissimilar educational experiences.

Authors such as Sexton & Bowman (1984) have claimed that entrepreneurship

education has to be considered as an extension of entrepreneurship itself. Therefore, any

attempt to define the former has to be based on a view of the latter. However, there is no

consensus definition of entrepreneurship. And yet, it is essential, if the field is to be

developed, to establish some theoretical foundations on which the “building” may be

based. In this sense, intention models seem to be a very good starting point. There is a

considerable agreement that intention is a necessary prerequisite both to being an

entrepreneur and to carrying out specific behaviours after the start-up phase.

The main objective of this paper, therefore, is to develop a view of entrepreneurship

education based on an entrepreneurial intention model. Thus, after this introduction, we

devote the following section to describing that entrepreneurial intention model. Section

3 attempts to define the concept of entrepreneurship education. Then, it will be used to

establish a classification of educational activities. We believe this taxonomy may

encompass all the different initiatives labelled as entrepreneurship education. Section 4

presents some empirical results that constitute a partial test on the validity of this

approach. Firstly, we have tested intention models themselves, to see if they qualify as

the basis for describing entrepreneurship. Secondly, we have checked the influence of

entrepreneurship education activities on entrepreneurial intention of students. Finally, in

section 5 we summarize our main conclusions.

2
2. Intention models

Over the years, the decision to become an entrepreneur has been analysed using very

different methodologies. Authors began looking for the existence of certain personality

traits that could be associated with the entrepreneurial activity (McClelland, 1961).

Later on, other studies have pointed to the importance of different characteristics such

as age, gender, origin, religion, level of studies, labour experience, and so on (Reynolds

et al., 1994; Storey, 1994). These are usually called “demographic” variables (Robinson

et al., 1991). Both lines of analysis have allowed the identification of significant

relationships among certain traits or demographic characteristics of the person, and the

fulfilment of entrepreneurial behaviours. However, the predictive capacity has been

very limited (Reynolds, 1997). From the theoretical point of view, those approaches

have been criticized (Gartner, 1989; Robinson et al., 1991; Krueger et al., 2000; Liñán

et al., 2002), both for their methodological and conceptual problems and for their low

explanatory capacity.

From a third perspective, since the decision to become an entrepreneur may be

plausibly considered as voluntary and conscious (Krueger et al., 2000), it seems

reasonable to analyze how that decision is taken. In this sense, entrepreneurial intention

would be a previous and determinant element towards performing entrepreneurial

behaviours (Fayolle & Gailly, 2004; Kolvereid, 1996). In turn, the intention to carry out

a given behaviour will depend on the person's attitudes towards that behaviour (Ajzen,

1991). A more favourable attitude would increase the intention of carrying it out. In this

manner, this “attitude approach” would be preferable to those traditionally used, such as

the trait or the demographic approaches (Robinson et al., 1991; Krueger et al., 2000).

Thus, attitudes would measure the extent to which an individual positively or negatively

3
evaluates something. Attitudes are relatively stable, but they change according to time

and situation.

In this paper, we especially rely on two contributions, due to their influence on

recent research. In the first place, Shapero & Sokol’s (1982) theory of the

“entrepreneurial event” and, secondly, the much more highly structured theory of

“planned behaviour” (Ajzen, 1991). These two models present a high level of mutual

compatibility (Krueger et al., 2000). Our work, therefore, starts from an integration of

both.

The theory of the entrepreneurial event considers firm creation as the result of the

interaction among contextual factors, which would act through their influence on the

individual's perceptions. The consideration of the entrepreneurial option would take

place as a consequence of some external change -a precipitating event- (Peterman &

Kennedy, 2003). People’s answers to that external event will depend on their

perceptions about the available alternatives. There are two basic kinds of perceptions:

– Perceived desirability refers to the degree to which a person feels an attraction

towards a given behaviour (to become an entrepreneur). Similarly,

– Perceived feasibility is defined as the degree to which people consider themselves

personally able to carry out that behaviour. The presence of role models, mentors or

partners would be a decisive element in establishing the individual's feasibility level.

In turn, both types of perceptions are determined by cultural and social factors

through their influence on the individual's value system (Shapero & Sokol, 1982).

Therefore, external circumstances would not determine behaviours directly, but rather

they would be the result of (conscious or unconscious) analysis carried out by the

4
person about the desirability and feasibility of the different possible alternatives in that

situation.

Along the same line, but much more detailed, Ajzen (1991) develops a

psychological model of “planned behaviour”. This is a theory that may be applied to

nearly all voluntary behaviours and it provides quite good results in very diverse fields,

including the choice of professional career (Ajzen, 2001; Kolvereid, 1996). According

to it, a narrow relationship would exist between the intention of carrying out a given

behaviour and its effective performance, as Figure 1 shows. Intention becomes the

fundamental element towards explaining behaviour. It indicates the effort that the

person will make to carry out that behaviour. And so, it captures the motivational

factors that influence behaviour.

As shown in Figure 1, if individuals consider the implementation of a given

behaviour within their reach, this makes them try harder. More specifically, “perceived

behavioural control” would be defined as the perception of ease or difficulty in the

fulfilment of the behaviour of interest (Ajzen, 1991). It is, therefore, a concept quite

similar to self-efficacy, though some authors consider it to be wider (Fayolle & Gailly,

2004). And it is also very similar to Shapero & Sokol’s (1982) “perceived feasibility”.

In all three instances, the important thing is the sense of capacity regarding the

fulfilment of the behaviour under consideration.

Please insert Figure 1 about here

Another interesting question to be taken into account is related to the degree of

realism in the perceptions. Some people may have a wrong impression of their own

5
capacity to carry out a behaviour (Ajzen, 2002). This could be due to some new

elements appearing on the scene, or to facing non-familiar situations. In these cases,

they could try to perform the behaviour even though their actual capacity is negligible,

or they could fail to attempt it although the objective probabilities of success are very

high. Therefore, in the case of entrepreneurship, specific knowledge would help

increase a realism of perceptions.

On the other hand, the remaining elements of the model are much more intuitive.

The first of them is attitude towards the behaviour: this refers to the degree to which the

person holds a positive or negative valuation of that behaviour. Secondly, subjective

norms would measure the perceived social pressure to carry it out -or not. These two

elements, together with perceived control, would make up the explanatory variables of

intention. Their relative contribution to the configuration of intention is not established

in the model, as it may change from case to case. In particular, in the sixteen empirical

studies analyzed by Ajzen (1991), subjective norms tended to contribute very weakly to

the intention of carrying out different behaviours. Finally, the model assumes the

existence of interactions among the three explanatory elements.

Please insert Figure 2 around here

If we compare these explanatory variables with those considered by Shapero &

Sokol (1982), we can see that perceived feasibility -as mentioned above- corresponds

quite well with perceived behavioural control. On the other hand, the willingness to

carry out that behaviour (perceived desirability) could be understood as composed of the

6
attitude towards it and subjective norms. In this sense, it may be recalled that Shapero &

Sokol (1982) considered desirability as a result of social and cultural influences.

Additionally, as mentioned above, the presence of role models would have an

influence on perceived self-efficacy and possibly on desirability as well (Scherer et al.,

1991). Finally, a greater knowledge of the entrepreneurial environment will surely

contribute to more realistic perceptions about entrepreneurship. It will also directly

provide a greater awareness about the existence of that professional option, and will

make the intention to become an entrepreneur more credible. Figure 2 summarizes the

entrepreneurial intention model used in this paper.

3. Definition and classification of entrepreneurship education

Just as the interest towards entrepreneurship has been growing since the seventies,

both in the academic and political circles, entrepreneurship education has also

experienced a rapid increase all over the world (Loucks, 1988; European Commission,

1999; SBA, 2000). Current theories on economic development and structural

adjustment of economies include entrepreneurial promotion as one of their crucial

instruments (Liñán & Rodríguez, 2004). In this sense, entrepreneurial education could

be pointed out as a potentially very effective strategy (Liñán, 2004). However, it would

be necessary to establish a certain delimitation of the different existing types of

entrepreneurship education.

In this sense, there have been numerous attempts to conceptualize this educational

form. The simplest one identifies it with training for firm creation. This is the case, for

example, of McIntyre & Roche (1999, p. 33), when they affirm that it is «the process of

providing individuals with the concepts and skills to recognize opportunities that others

7
have overlooked, and to have the insight and self-esteem to act where others have

hesitated. It includes instruction in opportunity recognition, marshalling resources in the

face of risk, and initiating a business venture».

On the other hand, wider conceptions are comprised of a number of objectives and

of different stages that usually include action during the whole educational system. The

view of the Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education would be an example of this.

According to them, entrepreneurship education should be considered as a model of

lifelong learning. One of its more salient characteristics is the division into five stages

which are formally independent and that would be developed without the need of a tight

coordination between them (Ashmore, 1990). Nevertheless, the conjunction of these

five stages may have a very remarkable effect on the level of entrepreneurial spirit of a

society, on firm creation rates, and also on their survival and their subsequent

dynamism. A similar approach, although not so wide, is supported by the European

Commission (2002).

In developing countries, meanwhile, there is also a considerable presence of this

type of initiatives, with economic development as their main concern. These

experiences, frequently called Entrepreneurship Development Programmes, have spread

noteceably, due to their more-than-reasonable level of success (Loucks, 1988). These

programmes do not normally include an explicit definition of entrepreneurship

education. However, the objective almost always consists of trying to promote effective

firm creation. The contents of these programmes tend to be very basic, and normally

include training on a specific occupation at the same time as they promote the

participants’ establishing as independent craftspeople.

8
 In our opinion, the following conception would be wide enough to embrace those

mentioned above: «the whole set of education and training activities -within the

educational system or not- that try to develop in the participants the intention to

perform entrepreneurial behaviours, or some of the elements that affect that intention,

such as entrepreneurial knowledge, desirability of the entrepreneurial activity, or its

feasibility» (Liñán, 2004, p. 163). This includes the development of knowledge,

capacities, attitudes and personal qualities identified with entrepreneurship. Specifically

for those of working age, entrepreneurship education would seek the effective creation

of enterprises and their subsequent dynamism.

This definition presents a number of characteristic features that, in our opinion,

makes it useful as a reference framework for analysis and classification of the different

existing initiatives. In the first place, it seeks to include all education activities and not

only those developed within the educational system. Secondly, it includes broader

objectives than the diffusion of an entrepreneurial culture or the creation of enterprises.

It also tries to increase the degree of dynamism of entrepreneurs; that is to say, the

entrepreneurial quality (Guzmán & Santos, 2001). Thirdly, the role of educators would

be clearly established. Instructors should concentrate on creating and strengthening

entrepreneurial intention of participants (Fayolle, 2003). Whether this intention turns

into action or not depends on very different factors (environment, opportunity,

resources, etc) which lie outside the reach of educators.

Besides, this definition allows a clear distinction between entrepreneurship

education and management training. A typical instance of the latter would be university

business studies. Management training is not usually concerned with traits, skills,

attitudes or intentions of the participant, but mainly with the necessary technical

9
knowledge for business administration. Similarly, management training would not be

interested in the creation process of an independent entrepreneurial project, or its

dynamism, but mainly in the organization of firms in operation.

In principle, any entrepreneurship education initiative could fit within this

definition, so it becomes necessary to establish some kind of classification. Thus,

McMullan & Gillin (1998), based on the theoretical outline previously developed by

McMullan & Long (1987), specify six differentiating elements of an entrepreneurship

education project: a) objectives that are pursued; b) faculty or teaching team who will be

imparting it; c) participant students; d) content of the course; e) teaching methods; and

f) specific support activities for the participants to start their ventures.

As Brockhaus (1992) points out, objectives are the fundamental question, under

which all other elements should be placed. Therefore, in this paper, we have used those

aims as the main classifying criteria. In this sense, Curran & Stanworth (1989) try to

define the main types of objectives that can be pursued by entrepreneurship education.

Their classification has been widely assumed by Garavan & O'Cinneide (1994) or Liñán

(2004). In our opinion, though the general idea may be valid, some changes have to be

included to make it compatible with our conception:

– Entrepreneurial awareness education. Its purpose would be to increase the number

of people having enough knowledge about small enterprises, self-employment and

entrepreneurship, so that they consider that alternative as a rational and viable

option. Thus, this educational category would not directly pursue the creation of

more entrepreneurs. According to intention models, it would be acting on one or

more of the elements that determine intention (entrepreneurial knowledge,

desirability or feasibility), but not directly on intention. One example of this type of

10
 initiatives would be courses imparted at universities. They are usually optional

courses within business or engineering degrees. Instructors do not actually try to

transform students into entrepreneurs, but only allow them to make their future

professional career choice with a greater perspective. This kind of courses fits very

well into the characteristics of university instruction and, especially, of secondary

schools (Garavan & O'Cinneide, 1994). In fact, many of the start-up or self-

employment courses -especially shorter ones- would be really working as awareness

programmes (Curran & Stanworth, 1989).

– Education for start-up. It would consist of the preparation to be the owner of a small

conventional business, as are the great majority of all new firms. It would be centred

on the specific practical aspects related to the start-up phase: how to obtain

financing; legal regulations; taxation; and so on (Curran & Stanworth, 1989).

Participants in this type of courses are usually highly-motivated about the project.

So, they tend to show much interest in course contents. Frequently, the selection

criteria rely excessively on already having a viable business idea. In this sense, these

courses should try to develop the entrepreneurial intention of the participants.

However, in practice, it is very common for them to select persons showing a high

previous level of intention, and concentrate on the practical questions for start-up

(self-selection bias).

– Education for entrepreneurial dynamism. It would try to promote dynamic

entrepreneurial behaviours after the start-up phase. Therefore, their objective would

not only be to increase the intention of becoming an entrepreneur, but also the

intention of developing dynamic behaviours when the enterprise is already in

operation. However, the conventional forms of education do not allow for the

11
 development of entrepreneurial quality (Guzmán & Santos, 2001), thus it would be

necessary to use alternative educational models (Garavan & O'Cinneide, 1994).

Some examples of this kind of educational programmes are described by Garavan &

O'Cinneide (1994b).

– Continuing education for entrepreneurs. This would be the fourth and last type of

entrepreneurship education. It would be a specialized version of adult education in

general, designed to allow improvement of the existing entrepreneur’s abilities

(Weinrauch, 1984). In particular, it is difficult to attract these entrepreneurs towards

this type of programmes, since they tend to consider these initiatives as too general

for the particular needs of their firms. A possible way to overcome this difficulty

could be linking this category with the above-mentioned modalities. In this sense,

participation in some start-up or dynamism programme could make entrepreneurs

more receptive to continuous training.

These four objectives of entrepreneurship education still need a lot of research to

enlarge their knowledge-base, to perfect their teaching techniques, to improve their

effectiveness and to advance towards the achievement of all their potential (Curran &

Stanworth, 1989). In any event, there is some agreement in considering education for

entrepreneurial dynamism as the most relevant category (Garavan & O'Cinneide, 1994;

Liñán, 2004).

4. Some empirical results

Given the characteristics of intention models, for empirical analysis to provide valid

and useful results, the situation needs to be studied before the entrepreneurial behaviour

has been performed (Noel, 2002). It is also necessary to include both individuals with

12
and without entrepreneurial intention (Krueger et al., 2000). Therefore, last year

university students constitute a highly suitable community, used for example by Fayolle

& Gailly (2004). In the first place, they are about to face a professional career choice.

Secondly, within this group one can expect to find people with all kinds of preferences

and intentions. Thirdly, few of them will have developed entrepreneurial behaviours, so

we can study their intention before the fulfilment of that behaviour. Besides, young

adults with university education show a greater propensity towards entrepreneurship

(Reynolds et al., 2002).

Accordingly, a longitudinal study may be undertaken to verify the correspondence

between intention and subsequent behaviour. In this sense, longitudinal studies offer

much more satisfactory results, even when only demographic variables are used in the

analysis (Liñán et al., 2002). Our purpose is to carry out such longitudinal studies

ourselves, with this and with successive samples of students.

4.1 Design of the empirical analysis

For this study, a questionnaire was given to students of last year subjects in two

Andalusian university business schools. Since Andalusia (southern Spain) is a large

region with a sizeable population, a considerable diversity may be expected to exist

within it. The situation in two very different centres within the region has, therefore,

been analyzed. The University of Seville is large (more than 60.000 students), old, and

located in the biggest metropolitan area in the region. The University of Jaen is small

(15.000 students), new, and located in a medium-sized town.

The questionnaire used was developed under a research project financed by the

regional government1 and divided into six sections: personal data; education and

experience; entrepreneurial assessment; entrepreneurial environment; creation of

13
enterprises; and contact data. These latter data will allow a longitudinal follow up of

interviewees over a period of time. The items included in the first five parts have been

measured using 5-point likert-type scales, or by means of ordinal scales with three or

four categories. Nevertheless, when necessary, dichotomic answers (yes/no) or nominal

variables have been used.

In classrooms where the questionnaire was used, answer rates were above 95%.

Thus, the total number of valid answers reached 166. Of them, 141 filled in contact data

(84.9%), so they could ideally be traced for the longitudinal follow-up. Our sample is

made up of 93 students from the University of Seville, and 73 from that of Jaen. 43.4%

of the sample are women, while 68.0% of it belongs to the age interval from 22 to 25.

The degree studied by most interviewees is Business Administration (103 cases,

62.1%).

Table 1 displays the main characteristics of both sub-samples. As may be observed,

some minor differences exist between them. In the first place, those surveyed in Seville

are studying business administration or economics. In Jaen, economics is not available

as a degree and, as the campus is geographically concentrated, it is more common for

students of other degrees to take subjects at the business school. Besides, those other

degrees tend to be shorter (3 years). Therefore, this would help to explain the existing

difference with respect to age in both sub-samples and also with respect to the length of

studies2.

Please insert Table 1 around here

14
 The second significant difference refers to gender. In Jaen, the proportion of women

within the sample (52.1%) is well above that of Seville (36.6%). This difference seems

to correspond to the general situation in both universities. In Seville there are relatively

fewer women studying, while in Jaen they represent a slight majority, not only in

business administration, but in most degrees.

With respect to other characteristics, there is not any significant difference regarding

the following features: income level, parents' level of studies, labour experience, or

personality traits. Therefore, we understand that both sub-samples are considerably

homogeneous. Thus, the Andalusian population of university students may be taken as a

whole.

The results obtained can be considered on two different levels. In the first place, the

relationships established among the analyzed variables seem to confirm the validity of

the intention model for studying the entrepreneurial phenomenon. Secondly, different

entrepreneurship education courses have distinct effects on students’ attitudes and

intentions.

4.2 Testing the entrepreneurial intention model

Intention models assume that external variables (demographic or background

characteristics) do not directly affect the intention of performing a given behaviour, or

the behaviour itself (Ajzen, 1991; Kolvereid, 1996). That effect would be only indirect,

through their influence on the antecedents of intention. The model developed in section

2 identifies these antecedents as: entrepreneurial knowledge, perceived desirability

(personal attitudes and social norms) and perceived feasibility (self-efficacy).

According to this, one should expect intention to be better predicted through those

antecedents. To test this hypothesis, the Partial Least Squares (PLS) technique was

15
used. This is a multivariate analysis technique. Gefen et al. (2000) indicate that PLS is

more adequate than covariance-based techniques, such as LISREL, when carrying out

exploratory analysis and working with small sample sizes. In this case, two different

sets of explaining variables were compared. The first of them considers only external

variables, while the second uses the above-mentioned antecedents. Detailed results are

included in the appendix, as well as the indicators used in each of the constructs.

Figure 3 summarizes the influence of external variables directly on the intention of

being an entrepreneur. In simple linear models with only one endogenous (dependent)

variable, PLS results are equivalent to those obtained with Ordinary Least Squares

(Gefen et al., 2000). As can be seen, demographic characteristics of students explain

only 21.2% of the variance in intention. Only four of those variables are significant,

exerting a sizable effect on the dependent variable.

In contrast, when the entrepreneurial intention model is used, results are

significantly improved. Figure 4 presents those findings. In this case, the proportion of

the explained variance in intention rises to 47.3%. That is, nearly half of the change in

intentions may be explained by only those four antecedents. In particular, attitude

towards entrepreneurship and perceived feasibility make the largest contributions, and

the most significant ones.

Social norms, on the other hand, contribute very weakly to explaining intention.

This is consistent with other studies that have applied the theory of planned behaviour

in general (Ajzen, 1991), and also specifically to entrepreneurship (Krueger, et al.,

2000). Yet, , Kolvereid (1996) found a direct significant effect of social norms on

intention. However, in Fayolle & Gailly’s (2004) study, a close replication of the latter,

16
those social norms were not significant. Further analysis of this relationship is surely

needed to solve this discrepancy.

In our case, a possible explanation could be the absence of an entrepreneurial

tradition in the territorial context we have investigated. Interestingly, though, the

influence of social norms on attitude is significant. This would be indicating that

perceived social valuation of entrepreneurship plays its main role by affecting an

individual’s attitude towards that behaviour.

Please insert Figure 3 around here

Please insert Figure 4 around here

A high correlation was also found between attitude and feasibility. Nevertheless, as

the literature is not clear on the sense of this relationship, it has not been included in the

final model. In any case, when that relationship was included, it helped increase the

explained variance of the respective antecedent (attitude or feasibility), but had no

impact on intention, and only a marginal one on the regression coefficients.

Additionally, Figure 4 confirms the relevance of knowledge, not only to explain

other antecedents of intention, but also the theory predicted, as a direct influence on it.

In particular, this variable exerts a strong influence on perceived feasibility, as could be

expected. Knowing an entrepreneur, and being familiar with the business environment,

makes students more confident about their own capacity of becoming entrepreneurs.

Knowledge alone explains 17.2% of the variance in feasibility. On the other hand, its

effect on attitudes and social norms is much weaker.

17
 Please insert Table 2 around here

The addition of external or demographic variables to the model in Figure 4 does not

change coefficients appreciably. Table 2 shows the change in explained variance after

inclusion of those external variables. As can be seen, the improvement in intention is

relatively small. The highest effect is produced on feasibility and, to a lesser extent, on

social norms. The demographic characteristics are probably too general to explain

attitudes or knowledge. Meanwhile, socioeconomic level, degree studied and having

labour experience significantly explain feasibility, whereas self-employed parents exert

a significant influence on social norms.

4.3 Differential effect of entrepreneurship education courses

Entrepreneurship education is a new phenomenon in Andalusia. The available offer

is still limited to little more than business-plan courses, which could be classified as

education for start-up. This is the case in the University of Jaen. In Seville, however,

there is at least another kind of initiatives, which would correspond to entrepreneurial

awareness education. Therefore, for Seville students, it is possible to analyse the

different effect of each of those categories on the variables included in the intention

model.

In this sense, the participation in either of these two distinct kinds of

entrepreneurship education tends to be associated with higher levels of perceived

feasibility and desirability, as well as a greater entrepreneurial knowledge. However,

there is also a statistically significant differential effect of awareness and start-up

education, which is reflected in Figure 5.

18
 Please insert Figure 5 around here

The awareness education course centres on the analysis of the role of entrepreneurial

agents in economic development and highlights their importance. For that reason, it

could contribute to increasing a perceived social valuation of those agents. Our results

seem to confirm this hypothesis. The start-up course, on the other hand, centres on the

elaboration of the business plan. Therefore, its differential effect concentrates on

improving feasibility perceptions.

We have also found a higher direct relationship between participation in the start-up

course, on the one hand, and perceived attraction and level of intention, on the other.

However, as other researchers have pointed out (Noel, 2002; McMullan & Long, 1987),

this is probably due to the so-called “self-selection bias”. That is, those students with a

higher attraction to becoming entrepreneurs and a stronger intention towards

entrepreneurship enrol on that course. In Figure 5, this situation is reflected by dashed

lines.

5. Conclusions

Intention models seem to be a solid starting point for the analysis of

entrepreneurship. In particular, this work has integrated Ajzen’s (1991) and Shapero &

Sokol’s (1982) theories into an entrepreneurial intention model. This, in turn, has been

used as the basis to define entrepreneurship education and to classify it. The

differentiating element of these educational activities would be trying to increase the

19
intention of performing entrepreneurial behaviours, or any of the variables determining

that intention.

This allows for a clear distinction from conventional management training, which is

mainly concerned with technical knowledge for business administration. It also enables

us to clarify the role of educators, who should concentrate on strengthening participants’

intention of developing those entrepreneurial behaviours.

Depending on the specific objective pursued, four categories of entrepreneurship

education could be thought of. In particular, education for entrepreneurial dynamism

could be considered as the most relevant category. It not only tries to promote the

intention of being an entrepreneur, but also of developing dynamic entrepreneurial

behaviours after the start-up phase.

A partial empirical test has been carried out about the validity of the entrepreneurial

intention model. However, as this work is part of a wider research project, the

questionnaire was not designed to allow for a full validation of that model.

Undoubtedly, this makes up a serious limitation. Therefore, even though the results

obtained are clearly encouraging, they should be considered with caution.

In the first part of the empirical analysis carried out, the entrepreneurial intention

model has offered much better predictions of intention than external or demographic

variables alone. What is more, when these latter variables are added to the former, the

joint model -despite being substantially more complicated- does not offer much better

results. Therefore, a tentative conclusion would be that the entrepreneurial intention

model is a valid explanation of intention.

Similarly, we have found that the influence of each course on the variables

determining intention is different depending on the kind of course considered. This

20
result is consistent with the classification developed. Nevertheless, only awareness and

start-up courses have been considered. In future research, a test on the four categories

should be implemented.

Natural extensions of this work would include, in the first place, the reformulation

of the questionnaire to allow for a thorough validation of the theory. Secondly, we plan

to carry out a longitudinal follow-up of interviewees to test the relationship between

intention and subsequent behaviour.

Acknowledgements
The author wants to thank comments by participants at the IntEnt 2004 Conference, where a
previous version of this paper was presented. In particular, Alain Fayolle helped me clarify the
position of “entrepreneurial knowledge” as a previous element within the entrepreneurial
intention model. I am also indebted to an anonymous referee for his/her interesting comments
and suggestions.

Notes
1
Ref. No.: ACC-953-SEJ-2002, Programa Acciones Coordinadas, III Plan Andaluz de
Investigación. The questionnaire is available from the author upon request.
2
University studies in Spain are either “diplomatura” (3-year degree) or “licenciatura” (4- to
5-year degrees). In Seville, the “licenciatura” in business administration lasts 5 years, while
in Jaen it is 4.

References

Ajzen, I., “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, vol. 50, pp. 179-211, 1991.

Ajzen, I., “Nature and operation of attitudes”, Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 52, pp. 27-58,

2001.

Ajzen, I., “Residual effects of past on later behavior: habituation and reasoned action

perspectives”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol. 6 (2), pp. 107-122, 2002.

Ashmore, C.M., “Entrepreneurship in vocational education”; en Kent, C.A. (Ed.):

Entrepreneurship education: current developments, future directions, Quorum Books,

Westport, 1990.

21
Brockhaus, R.H., “Entrepreneurship education: a research agenda”, IntEnt92 Conference,

Dortmund (Germany), 23-26 June, 1992.

Curran, J. & Stanworth, J., “Education and training for enterprise: some problems of

classification, evaluation, policy and research”, International Small Business Journal, vol. 7

(2), pp. 11-22, 1989.

European Commission, Action Plan to Promote Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness, Office

for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 1999.

European Commission, Final report of the expert group «best procedure» project on education

and training for entrepreneurship, Enterprise Directorate-General, Brussels, 2002.

Fayolle, A., “Using the theory of planned behaviour in assessing entrepreneurship teaching

programmes: exploratory research approach”, IntEnt2003 Conference, Grenoble (France),

7-10 September, 2003.

Fayolle, A. & Gailly, B., “Using the theory of planned behaviour to assess entrepreneurship

teaching programs: a first experimentation”, IntEnt2004 Conference, Naples (Italy), 5-7

July, 2004.

Garavan, T.N. & O’Cinneide, B., “Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: a

review and evaluation”, Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 18 (8), pp. 3-12,

1994.

Garavan, T.N. & O’Cinneide, B., “Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: a

review and evaluation - Part II”, Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 18 (11), pp.

13-21, 1994b.

Gartner, W.B., “ “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question”, Entrepreneurship Theory

and Practice, vol. 13 (4), pp. 47-68, 1989.

Gefen, D.; Straub, D.W. & Boudreau, M.C., “Structural equation modelling and regression:

guidelines for research and practice”, Communications of the Association for Information

Systems, vol. 4, article 7, 2000.

22
Guzmán, J. & Santos, F.J., “The booster function and the entrepreneurial quality: an application

to the province of Seville”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol. 13 (3), pp.

211-228, 2001.

Kolvereid, L., “Prediction of employment status choice intentions”, Entrepreneurship Theory

and Practice, vol. 21 (1), pp. 47-57, 1996.

Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D. & Carsrud, A.L., “Competing models of entrepreneurial

intentions”, Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 15 (5/6), pp. 411-432, 2000.

Liñán, F., Educación empresarial y modelo de intenciones. Formación para un empresariado

de calidad, PhD Dissertation, Dpto. Economía Aplicada I, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla,

2004.

Liñán, F. & Rodríguez, J.C., “Entrepreneurial attitudes of Andalusian university students”, 44th

ERSA Conference, Porto (Portugal), 25-29 August, 2004.

Liñán, F., Martín, D. & González, R., “Characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs in Germany”,

42nd ERSA Conference, Dortmund (Germany), 27-31 August, 2002.

Loucks, K.E., Training entrepreneurs for small business creation, I.L.O., Ginebra, 1988.

McClelland, D., The achieving society, The Free Press, London, 1961.

McIntyre, J.R. & Roche, M., University education for entrepreneurs in the United States: a

critical and retrospective analysis of trends in the 1990s, Center for International Business

Education & Research, Working Paper Series 99/00-021, Georgia Institute of Technology,

Atlanta, 1999.

McMullan, W.E. & Gillin, L.M., “Developing technological start-up entrepreneurs: a case study

of a graduate entrepreneurship programme at Swinburne University”, Technovation, vol. 18

(4), pp. 275-286, 1998.

McMullan, W.E. & Long, W.A., “Entrepreneurship education in the nineties”, Journal of

Business Venturing, vol. 2 (3), pp. 261-275, 1987.

Noel, T.W., “Effects of entrepreneurial education on intent to open a business: an exploratory

study”, The Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, vol. 5, pp. 3-13, 2002.

23
Peterman, N.E. & Kennedy, J., “Enterprise Education: influencing students’ perceptions of

entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 28 (2), pp. 129-144, 2003.

Reynolds, P.D., “Who start new firms? – Preliminary explorations of firms-in-gestation”, Small

Business Economics, vol. 9 (5), pp. 449-462, 1997.

Reynolds, P., Storey, D.J. & Westhead, P., “Cross-national comparison of the variation in new

firm rates”, Regional Studies, vol. 28, p. 443-456, 1994.

Reynolds, P.D., Bygrave, W.D., Autio, D. & Hay, M., Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 2002

summary report, Ewin Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, 2002.

Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C. & Hunt, H.K., “An attitude approach to the

prediction of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 15 (4), pp. 13-

30, 1991.

S.B.A., Building the Foundation for the new century. Report on the implementation of the White

House Conference, Small Business Administration, Washington, 2000.

Scherer, R.F., Brodzinsky, J.D. & Wiebe, F.A., “Examining the relationship between

personality and entrepreneurial career preference”, Entrepreneurship and Regional

Development, vol. 3, pp. 195-206, 1991.

Sexton, D.L. & Bowman, N.B., “Entrepreneurship education: suggestions for increasing

efectiveness”, Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 22 (2), pp. 18-25, 1984.

Shapero, A. & Sokol, L., “Social dimensions of entreprenurship”, in Kent, C.A., Sexton, D.L. y

Vesper, K.H. (eds.): Encyclopaedia of entrepreneurship. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

(NJ), 1982.

Storey D.J., Understanding the small business sector, Routledge, London, 1994.

Weinrauch, J.D., “Educating the entrepreneur: understanding adult learning behavior”, Journal

of Small Business Management, vol. 22 (2), pp. 32-37, 1984.

24
 Figure 1 - Theory of planned behaviour

Attitude
towards the

Subjective
Norms Intention Behaviour

Perceived
Behavioural
Control

Source: Ajzen, I. (1991).

Figure 2 - Entrepreneurial intention model

Entrepreneurial
Knowledge

Perceived
Desirability

Personal Entrepreneurial
Attitude Intention

Perceived
Social Norms

Perceived Feasibility
(self-efficacy)

25
 Table 1 - Sample characteristics

Univ Seville Univ Jaen Total

Nº % Nº % Nº %
Business Adm. 61 65.6 42 57.5 103 62.1
Degree Economics 31 33.3 - - 31 18.7
Others 1 1.1 31 42.5 32 19.3
Men 59 63.4 35 47.9 94 56.6
Gender
Women 34 36.6 38 52.1 72 43.4
< 22 years 8 8.6 24 32.9 32 19.3
22 & 23 years 37 39.8 23 31.5 60 36.1
Age
24 & 25 years 35 37.6 18 24.7 53 31.9
> 25 years 13 14.0 8 11.0 21 12.7
< 5 years 9 9.8 32 43.8 41 24.8
Length of 5 years 25 27.2 22 30.1 47 28.5
studies 6 years 32 34.8 12 16.4 44 26.7
> 6 years 26 28.3 7 9.6 33 20.0
Work Yes 51 54.8 37 50.7 88 53.0
Experience No 42 45.2 36 49.3 78 47.0

Figure 3 - Influence of external variables on intention

Age
0.087
Gender 0.162*

Parent’s occupation 0.105

Socioeconomic level 0.184*

Intention
-0.031
University 0.212
0.211**

Degree studied
0.025

Reason for studies

Labour experience 0.204**

* Significant regression coefficients, p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

26
 Figure 4 - Influence of internal variables on intention

Attitude
0.086
0.272** 0.418***
0.068 Social
Norms 0.041
0.204 0.042
Intention
Knowledge
0.164* 0.473

0.415*** 0.314***
Feasibility
0.172

* Significant regression coefficients, p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

Table 2 - Change in explained variance

Explained variance of dependent variables

Social
Knowledge Attitude norms Feasibility Intention
Internal variables --- 0.086 0.042 0.172 0.473
Internal + external
0.081 0.160 0.154 0.350 0.529
variables
net change +0.081 +0.074 +0.112 +0.178 +0.056

27
 Figure 5 - Differing effects of entrepreneurship education courses

Entrepreneurial
Knowledge

Perceived Feasibility
0.397** (self-efficacy)
Start-up
0.242*
education Entrepreneurial
Intention
0.327**
Perceived Desirability

Personal Attitude
Awareness
education Perceived
Social Norms
0.288**

Pearson correlations. * = p<0.05; ** = p<0.01

28
 Appendix

Model A - External variables on intention

Constructs & indicators options (ascending)

==========================================================
Age years
Gender female / male
Parents’ occupation
- Father self-employed no / yes
- Mother self-employed no / yes
Socioeconomic level
- Father’s level of studies primary / secondary / university
- Mother’s level of studies primary / secondary / university
- Income level low / medium / high
University Jaen / Seville
Degree studied other / business
Reason for selecting those studies other / career opportunities / vocation
Labour experience no / yes
Entrepreneurial Intention
- Seriously thought about it no / yes
- Probability of becoming entrepreneur low / high

Path Coefficients Table (Original Sample Estimate):

==========================================================
Age Gender Parent Socioe Univ. Degree Reason Labour

Intention 0.077 0.208 0.077 0.135 0.012 0.207 0.001 0.149

==========================================================
Path Coefficients Table (T-Statistic)
==========================================================
Age Gender Parent Socioe Univ. Degree Reason Labour

Intention 0.669 1.522 0.829 0.433 0.133 1.757 0.015 1.485

==========================================================

29
 Model B - Internal variables on intention

Constructs & indicators options (ascending)

==========================================================
Entrepreneurial Knowledge
- Knows an entrepreneur no / yes
- Knows business associations no / yes
- Knows business promotion bodies no / yes
Personal Attitude
- Prospects to be entrepreneur vs gral. Economy worse / equal / better
- Prospects to be entrepreneur vs employee worse / equal / better
- Preferred career option other / indep. prof. / entrepreneur
- Preferred option immediately after studies other / continue studying / entrepreneur
Perceived Social Norms
- No. of social obstacles to be an entrepreneur 0 to 4 (reversed)
- Social valuation of entship in closest environment worse / equal / better than in Spain
- Social valuation of entship in closest environment worse / equal / better than in your county
Perceived Feasibility
- Probability of survival if firm created <10% 25% 50% 75% >90%
- Probability of success if firm created <10% 25% 50% 75% >90%
- Qualified to be an entrepreneur would need much help / with some help / yes
- Difficult to be an entrepreneur no / yes
- Sufficiently trained to be entrepreneur no / almost not at all / a little / yes
- Number of training needs to be entrepreneur 0 to 6 (reversed)
Intention
- Seriously thought of becoming entrepreneur no / yes
- Probability of becoming entrepreneur low / high

Path Coefficients Table (Original Sample Estimate):

==========================================================
Knowl. Attit. Soc.N Feasibility
Attitude 0.0680 0.0000 0.2720 0.0000
Social norms 0.2040 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Feasibility 0.4150 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Intention 0.1640 0.4180 0.0410 0.3140
==========================================================
Path Coefficients Table (T-Statistic)
==========================================================
Knowl. Attit. Soc.N Feasibility
Attitude 0.6977 0.0000 2.8475 0.0000
Social Nomrs 1.7509 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Feasibility 6.7391 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Intention 2.1151 6.9483 0.6052 4.7649
==========================================================

30