Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education

Francisco Lin

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

F. Lin, Associate Professor - Dept. of Applied Economics (Economa Aplicada I), University of
Seville, Av. Ramn 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. 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; Lin
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

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 & Sokols (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). Peoples 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

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 & Sokols (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

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
(Lin & Rodrguez, 2004). In this sense, entrepreneurial education could be pointed
out as a potentially very effective strategy (Lin, 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

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.

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 (Lin, 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 (Guzmn & 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

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 Lin
(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

1
0

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 selfemployment 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 (Guzmn & 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 entrepreneurs 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;
Lin, 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

1
2

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 (Lin 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
1

regional government and divided into six sections: personal data; education and
experience; entrepreneurial assessment; entrepreneurial environment; creation of
1
3

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
2

studies .

Please insert Table 1 around here

1
4

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
1
5

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 & Gaillys (2004) study, a close replication of the latter,

1
6

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
individuals 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.

1
7

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 Ajzens (1991) and Shapero &
Sokols (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
2
0

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
The in
questionnaire
is available
from the(3-year
author upon
request.
2 Investigacin.
University
studies
Spain the
are licenciatura
either
diplomatura
degree)
or licenciatura
to
5-year degrees).
In Seville,
in business administration
lasts 5 years, (4while
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.
2
1

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. & OCinneide, 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. & OCinneide, 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.

2
2

Guzmn, 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.
Lin, F., Educacin empresarial y modelo de intenciones. Formacin para un empresariado
de calidad, PhD Dissertation, Dpto. Economa Aplicada I, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla,
2004.
Lin, F. & Rodrguez, J.C., Entrepreneurial attitudes of Andalusian university students, 44th
ERSA Conference, Porto (Portugal), 25-29 August, 2004.
Lin, F., Martn, D. & Gonzlez, 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.
2
3

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. 1330, 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.

2
4

Figure 1 - Theory of planned behaviour

Attitud
e
towards
the

Subjective

Behavio
ur

Intention

Norms

Perceived
Behavioural
Control

Source: Ajzen, I. (1991).

Figure 2 - Entrepreneurial intention model

Entrepreneurial
Knowledge

Perceived
Desirability
Personal

Entrepreneurial

Attitude
Perceived
Social Norms

Perceived Feasibility
(self-efficacy)

Intention

25

Table 1 - Sample characteristics

Degree
Gender
Age

Length of
studies
Work
Experience

Univ Seville
N
%
61
65.6
31
33.3
1
1.1
59
63.4
34
36.6
8
8.6
37
39.8
35
37.6
13
14.0
9
9.8
25
27.2
32
34.8
26
28.3
51
54.8
42
45.2

Business Adm.
Economics
Others
Men
Women
< 22 years
22 & 23 years
24 & 25 years
> 25 years
< 5 years
5 years
6 years
> 6 years
Yes
No

Univ Jaen
N
%
42
57.5
31
42.5
35
47.9
38
52.1
24
32.9
23
31.5
18
24.7
8
11.0
32
43.8
22
30.1
12
16.4
7
9.6
37
50.7
36
49.3

Total
N
%
103
62.1
31
18.7
32
19.3
94
56.6
72
43.4
32
19.3
60
36.1
53
31.9
21
12.7
41
24.8
47
28.5
44
26.7
33
20.0
88
53.0
78
47.0

Figure 3 - Influence of external variables on intention

Age
Gender

0.087
0.16
2*

Parents
occupation

0.105

Socioeconomic

level

University

0.184*

0.03
1

Degree
studied

Intention
0.212

0.211*
*
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
0.08
6
0.418**
*

0.272**
0.068

Social
Norms

0.204

.041

0.042

Intention

Knowledge

0.164
*

0.473

Feasibil
ity
0.172

0.415***

0.314***

* Significant regression coefficients, p < 0.05;

** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

Table 2 - Change in explained variance

Explained variance of dependent variables

Knowledge

Attitude

Social
norms

Feasibility

Intention

Internal variables

---

0.086

0.042

0.172

0.473

Internal + external
variables

0.081

0.160

0.154

0.350

0.529

+0.081

+0.074

+0.112

+0.178

+0.056

net change

27

Figure 5 - Differing effects of entrepreneurship education courses

Entrepreneurial
Knowledge
0.397
**

Start-up

Perceived Feasibility
(self-efficacy)
0.242*

education
0.327**

Perceived Desirability
Personal Attitude

Awareness
education

Perceived
Social Norms

0.288**

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

Entrepreneurial
Intention

28

Appendix

Model A - External variables on intention

Constructs & indicators

options (ascending)

==========================================================
Age
Gender
Parents occupation
Father self-employed
Mother self-employed
Socioeconomic level
Fathers level of studies
Mothers level of studies
Income level
University
Degree studied
Reason for selecting those studies
Labour experience
Entrepreneurial Intention
Seriously thought about it
Probability of becoming entrepreneur

years
female / male
no / yes
no / yes
primary / secondary / university
primary / secondary / university
low / medium / high
Jaen / Seville
other / business
other / career opportunities / vocation
no / yes
no / yes
low / high

Path Coefficients Table (Original Sample Estimate):

==========================================================
Age
Intention

Gender Parent Socioe Univ.

0.077 0.208

0.077 0.135

Degree Reason Labour

0.012 0.207

0.001

0.149

==========================================================
Path Coefficients Table (T-Statistic)
==========================================================
Age
Intention

Gender Parent Socioe Univ.

0.669 1.522

0.829 0.433

Degree Reason Labour

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)
ship
Social valuation of ent
in closest environment worse / equal / better
than in Spain
ship
Social valuation of ent
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
==========================================================

3
0