Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education

Francisco Liñán

a

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

The presence of role models. In this paper. starts from an integration of both. Therefore. Our work. we especially rely on two contributions. – Perceived feasibility is defined as the degree to which people consider themselves personally able to carry out that behaviour. In turn. both types of perceptions are determined by cultural and social factors through their influence on the individual's value system (Shapero & Sokol. secondly. 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). mentors or partners would be a decisive element in establishing the individual's feasibility level. These two models present a high level of mutual compatibility (Krueger et al. the much more highly structured theory of “planned behaviour” (Ajzen. People’s answers to that external event will depend on their perceptions about the available alternatives. 2003). Similarly. due to their influence on recent research. 1982).. The theory of the entrepreneurial event considers firm creation as the result of the interaction among contextual factors.evaluates something. 1991). external circumstances would not determine behaviours directly.(Peterman & Kennedy. The consideration of the entrepreneurial option would take place as a consequence of some external change -a precipitating event. In the first place. Attitudes are relatively stable. but rather they would be the result of (conscious or unconscious) analysis carried out by the 4 . therefore. 2000). but they change according to time and situation. Shapero & Sokol’s (1982) theory of the “entrepreneurial event” and. which would act through their influence on the individual's perceptions.

1991). a narrow relationship would exist between the intention of carrying out a given behaviour and its effective performance. In all three instances. 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 . this makes them try harder. Kolvereid. but much more detailed. According to it. Ajzen (1991) develops a psychological model of “planned behaviour”. though some authors consider it to be wider (Fayolle & Gailly.person about the desirability and feasibility of the different possible alternatives in that situation. if individuals consider the implementation of a given behaviour within their reach. a concept quite similar to self-efficacy. as Figure 1 shows. 1996). As shown in Figure 1. More specifically. 2001. And so. And it is also very similar to Shapero & Sokol’s (1982) “perceived feasibility”. Intention becomes the fundamental element towards explaining behaviour. It indicates the effort that the person will make to carry out that behaviour. 2004). This is a theory that may be applied to nearly all voluntary behaviours and it provides quite good results in very diverse fields. Along the same line. the important thing is the sense of capacity regarding the fulfilment of the behaviour under consideration. It is. “perceived behavioural control” would be defined as the perception of ease or difficulty in the fulfilment of the behaviour of interest (Ajzen. it captures the motivational factors that influence behaviour. therefore. including the choice of professional career (Ajzen.

On the other hand. 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. or they could fail to attempt it although the objective probabilities of success are very high. 2002). we can see that perceived feasibility -as mentioned above. subjective norms tended to contribute very weakly to the intention of carrying out different behaviours. they could try to perform the behaviour even though their actual capacity is negligible. the willingness to carry out that behaviour (perceived desirability) could be understood as composed of the 6 . These two elements. Secondly. In these cases.capacity to carry out a behaviour (Ajzen. the model assumes the existence of interactions among the three explanatory elements. Their relative contribution to the configuration of intention is not established in the model. in the case of entrepreneurship. Finally. This could be due to some new elements appearing on the scene. subjective norms would measure the perceived social pressure to carry it out -or not.corresponds quite well with perceived behavioural control. or to facing non-familiar situations. In particular. the remaining elements of the model are much more intuitive. together with perceived control. Therefore. as it may change from case to case. specific knowledge would help increase a realism of perceptions. Please insert Figure 2 around here If we compare these explanatory variables with those considered by Shapero & Sokol (1982). On the other hand. in the sixteen empirical studies analyzed by Ajzen (1991). would make up the explanatory variables of intention.

Current theories on economic development and structural adjustment of economies include entrepreneurial promotion as one of their crucial instruments (Liñán & Rodríguez. 2000). However. Figure 2 summarizes the entrepreneurial intention model used in this paper. In this sense. and will make the intention to become an entrepreneur more credible. 1988. as mentioned above. In this sense. p. 1991). It will also directly provide a greater awareness about the existence of that professional option. 33).attitude towards it and subjective norms.. The simplest one identifies it with training for firm creation. Definition and classification of entrepreneurship education Just as the interest towards entrepreneurship has been growing since the seventies. Additionally. of McIntyre & Roche (1999. both in the academic and political circles. SBA. for example. European Commission. there have been numerous attempts to conceptualize this educational form. it may be recalled that Shapero & Sokol (1982) considered desirability as a result of social and cultural influences. entrepreneurial education could be pointed out as a potentially very effective strategy (Liñán. when they affirm that it is «the process of providing individuals with the concepts and skills to recognize opportunities that others 7 . This is the case. the presence of role models would have an influence on perceived self-efficacy and possibly on desirability as well (Scherer et al. it would be necessary to establish a certain delimitation of the different existing types of entrepreneurship education. 2004). Finally. In this sense. a greater knowledge of the entrepreneurial environment will surely contribute to more realistic perceptions about entrepreneurship. 3. 2004). 1999. entrepreneurship education has also experienced a rapid increase all over the world (Loucks.

A similar approach. is supported by the European Commission (2002). These experiences. According to them. 1988). there is also a considerable presence of this type of initiatives. wider conceptions are comprised of a number of objectives and of different stages that usually include action during the whole educational system. 8 . Nevertheless. These programmes do not normally include an explicit definition of entrepreneurship education. due to their more-than-reasonable level of success (Loucks. 1990). The view of the Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education would be an example of this. and to have the insight and self-esteem to act where others have hesitated. meanwhile.have overlooked. In developing countries. frequently called Entrepreneurship Development Programmes. on firm creation rates. However. entrepreneurship education should be considered as a model of lifelong learning. the conjunction of these five stages may have a very remarkable effect on the level of entrepreneurial spirit of a society. the objective almost always consists of trying to promote effective firm creation. 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. The contents of these programmes tend to be very basic. It includes instruction in opportunity recognition. although not so wide. and also on their survival and their subsequent dynamism. and initiating a business venture». and normally include training on a specific occupation at the same time as they promote the participants’ establishing as independent craftspeople. have spread noteceably. marshalling resources in the face of risk. with economic development as their main concern. On the other hand.

it seeks to include all education activities and not only those developed within the educational system. Whether this intention turns into action or not depends on very different factors (environment. A typical instance of the latter would be university business studies. p. It also tries to increase the degree of dynamism of entrepreneurs. Specifically for those of working age. Secondly. This includes the development of knowledge. 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. Besides. this definition allows a clear distinction between entrepreneurship education and management training. entrepreneurship education would seek the effective creation of enterprises and their subsequent dynamism. capacities. Instructors should concentrate on creating and strengthening entrepreneurial intention of participants (Fayolle.that try to develop in the participants the intention to perform entrepreneurial behaviours. makes it useful as a reference framework for analysis and classification of the different existing initiatives. such as entrepreneurial knowledge. it includes broader objectives than the diffusion of an entrepreneurial culture or the creation of enterprises. the entrepreneurial quality (Guzmán & Santos. that is to say. attitudes or intentions of the participant. 2004. in our opinion. attitudes and personal qualities identified with entrepreneurship. 2001). Management training is not usually concerned with traits. or some of the elements that affect that intention. skills. opportunity.In our opinion. resources. desirability of the entrepreneurial activity. This definition presents a number of characteristic features that. 2003). etc) which lie outside the reach of educators. 163). Thirdly. or its feasibility» (Liñán. but mainly with the necessary technical 9 . the role of educators would be clearly established. In the first place.

in this paper. e) teaching methods. any entrepreneurship education initiative could fit within this definition. Similarly. According to intention models. Its purpose would be to increase the number of people having enough knowledge about small enterprises. management training would not be interested in the creation process of an independent entrepreneurial project. d) content of the course. so it becomes necessary to establish some kind of classification. Curran & Stanworth (1989) try to define the main types of objectives that can be pursued by entrepreneurship education. Thus. As Brockhaus (1992) points out. In principle. objectives are the fundamental question. we have used those aims as the main classifying criteria. In our opinion. based on the theoretical outline previously developed by McMullan & Long (1987). c) participant students. under which all other elements should be placed. McMullan & Gillin (1998). it would be acting on one or more of the elements that determine intention (entrepreneurial knowledge. but mainly in the organization of firms in operation. One example of this type of 1 0 . some changes have to be included to make it compatible with our conception: – Entrepreneurial awareness education. Their classification has been widely assumed by Garavan & O'Cinneide (1994) or Liñán (2004). though the general idea may be valid.knowledge for business administration. but not directly on intention. and f) specific support activities for the participants to start their ventures. this educational category would not directly pursue the creation of more entrepreneurs. or its dynamism. desirability or feasibility). Therefore. In this sense. Thus. so that they consider that alternative as a rational and viable option. specify six differentiating elements of an entrepreneurship education project: a) objectives that are pursued. self-employment and entrepreneurship. b) faculty or teaching team who will be imparting it.

It would be centred on the specific practical aspects related to the start-up phase: how to obtain financing.initiatives would be courses imparted at universities. and concentrate on the practical questions for start-up (self-selection bias). So. in practice. 1994). – Education for start-up. it is very common for them to select persons showing a high previous level of intention. Participants in this type of courses are usually highly-motivated about the project. 1989). Frequently. legal regulations. they tend to show much interest in course contents. taxation. the conventional forms of education do not allow for the 11 . However. but also the intention of developing dynamic behaviours when the enterprise is already in operation. – Education for entrepreneurial dynamism. They are usually optional courses within business or engineering degrees. many of the start-up or selfemployment courses -especially shorter ones.would be really working as awareness programmes (Curran & Stanworth. It would consist of the preparation to be the owner of a small conventional business. Therefore. In fact. In this sense. especially. their objective would not only be to increase the intention of becoming an entrepreneur. but only allow them to make their future professional career choice with a greater perspective. and so on (Curran & Stanworth. of secondary schools (Garavan & O'Cinneide. This kind of courses fits very well into the characteristics of university instruction and. 1989). It would try to promote dynamic entrepreneurial behaviours after the start-up phase. these courses should try to develop the entrepreneurial intention of the participants. However. Instructors do not actually try to transform students into entrepreneurs. the selection criteria rely excessively on already having a viable business idea. as are the great majority of all new firms.

Some examples of this kind of educational programmes are described by Garavan & O'Cinneide (1994b). 1994). for empirical analysis to provide valid and useful results. the situation needs to be studied before the entrepreneurial behaviour has been performed (Noel. It is also necessary to include both individuals with 1 2 . 2004). designed to allow improvement of the existing entrepreneur’s abilities (Weinrauch. In particular. A possible way to overcome this difficulty could be linking this category with the above-mentioned modalities. 1984). These four objectives of entrepreneurship education still need a lot of research to enlarge their knowledge-base. 4. This would be the fourth and last type of entrepreneurship education. In any event. it is difficult to attract these entrepreneurs towards this type of programmes. 1989). In this sense. Some empirical results Given the characteristics of intention models. 2002). – Continuing education for entrepreneurs. It would be a specialized version of adult education in general. 1994. 2001). thus it would be necessary to use alternative educational models (Garavan & O'Cinneide.development of entrepreneurial quality (Guzmán & Santos. to improve their effectiveness and to advance towards the achievement of all their potential (Curran & Stanworth. there is some agreement in considering education for entrepreneurial dynamism as the most relevant category (Garavan & O'Cinneide. participation in some start-up or dynamism programme could make entrepreneurs more receptive to continuous training. since they tend to consider these initiatives as too general for the particular needs of their firms. Liñán. to perfect their teaching techniques.

with this and with successive samples of students. a questionnaire was given to students of last year subjects in two Andalusian university business schools. education and experience. In the first place. so we can study their intention before the fulfilment of that behaviour. a longitudinal study may be undertaken to verify the correspondence between intention and subsequent behaviour. new. young adults with university education show a greater propensity towards entrepreneurship (Reynolds et al. therefore. Accordingly.. they are about to face a professional career choice. and located in a medium-sized town. Thirdly. used for example by Fayolle & Gailly (2004). 4. and located in the biggest metropolitan area in the region. 2002). Our purpose is to carry out such longitudinal studies ourselves.. The questionnaire used was developed under a research project financed by the 1 regional government and divided into six sections: personal data. Therefore. been analyzed.. 2002).000 students). 2000). Since Andalusia (southern Spain) is a large region with a sizeable population. The situation in two very different centres within the region has. entrepreneurial environment. few of them will have developed entrepreneurial behaviours. Besides. within this group one can expect to find people with all kinds of preferences and intentions. In this sense. The University of Seville is large (more than 60. longitudinal studies offer much more satisfactory results.000 students). entrepreneurial assessment. old.and without entrepreneurial intention (Krueger et al. creation of 1 3 . even when only demographic variables are used in the analysis (Liñán et al. The University of Jaen is small (15.1 Design of the empirical analysis For this study. a considerable diversity may be expected to exist within it. last year university students constitute a highly suitable community. Secondly.

when necessary. The items included in the first five parts have been measured using 5-point likert-type scales. it is more common for students of other degrees to take subjects at the business school. those surveyed in Seville are studying business administration or economics.9%). Therefore. Please insert Table 1 around here 1 4 .1%).4% of the sample are women. 43. and 73 from that of Jaen. As may be observed. as the campus is geographically concentrated. 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 . while 68. dichotomic answers (yes/no) or nominal variables have been used. These latter data will allow a longitudinal follow up of interviewees over a period of time. Of them. the total number of valid answers reached 166. Our sample is made up of 93 students from the University of Seville. 141 filled in contact data (84. and contact data. Thus. economics is not available as a degree and. Table 1 displays the main characteristics of both sub-samples. In classrooms where the questionnaire was used. those other degrees tend to be shorter (3 years). Nevertheless. The degree studied by most interviewees is Business Administration (103 cases. In the first place.enterprises. Besides. In Jaen. so they could ideally be traced for the longitudinal follow-up.0% of it belongs to the age interval from 22 to 25. answer rates were above 95%. some minor differences exist between them. or by means of ordinal scales with three or four categories. 62.

not only in business administration. or the behaviour itself (Ajzen. In the first place. To test this hypothesis. Thus. perceived desirability (personal attitudes and social norms) and perceived feasibility (self-efficacy). while in Jaen they represent a slight majority. we understand that both sub-samples are considerably homogeneous. 1991. there is not any significant difference regarding the following features: income level. the Andalusian population of university students may be taken as a whole. one should expect intention to be better predicted through those antecedents. With respect to other characteristics.1%) is well above that of Seville (36.6%). through their influence on the antecedents of intention. but in most degrees. labour experience.The second significant difference refers to gender. The results obtained can be considered on two different levels. 1996). That effect would be only indirect. the Partial Least Squares (PLS) technique was 1 5 .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 personality traits. According to this. different entrepreneurship education courses have distinct effects on students’ attitudes and intentions. Secondly. Therefore. The model developed in section 2 identifies these antecedents as: entrepreneurial knowledge. Kolvereid. This difference seems to correspond to the general situation in both universities. In Jaen. the proportion of women within the sample (52. parents' level of studies. In Seville there are relatively fewer women studying. 4. the relationships established among the analyzed variables seem to confirm the validity of the intention model for studying the entrepreneurial phenomenon.

1991). demographic characteristics of students explain only 21. contribute very weakly to explaining intention. while the second uses the above-mentioned antecedents. Yet.. That is. et al. and the most significant ones. results are significantly improved. In this case. exerting a sizable effect on the dependent variable. The first of them considers only external variables. and also specifically to entrepreneurship (Krueger. two different sets of explaining variables were compared. Only four of those variables are significant. This is a multivariate analysis technique. as well as the indicators used in each of the constructs. Kolvereid (1996) found a direct significant effect of social norms on intention. As can be seen. Detailed results are included in the appendix.2% of the variance in intention. 2000). Figure 3 summarizes the influence of external variables directly on the intention of being an entrepreneur.. when the entrepreneurial intention model is used. Figure 4 presents those findings. attitude towards entrepreneurship and perceived feasibility make the largest contributions. In particular.used. Social norms. (2000) indicate that PLS is more adequate than covariance-based techniques. Gefen et al. such as LISREL. 1 6 . This is consistent with other studies that have applied the theory of planned behaviour in general (Ajzen. in Fayolle & Gailly’s (2004) study. a close replication of the latter. PLS results are equivalent to those obtained with Ordinary Least Squares (Gefen et al. In this case. In simple linear models with only one endogenous (dependent) variable. However. In contrast.3%. the proportion of the explained variance in intention rises to 47. when carrying out exploratory analysis and working with small sample sizes. 2000). . nearly half of the change in intentions may be explained by only those four antecedents. on the other hand.

but had no impact on intention. it helped increase the explained variance of the respective antecedent (attitude or feasibility). On the other hand. Knowing an entrepreneur. This would be indicating that perceived social valuation of entrepreneurship plays its main role by affecting an individual’s attitude towards that behaviour. Interestingly. as the literature is not clear on the sense of this relationship. Nevertheless. Further analysis of this relationship is surely needed to solve this discrepancy. not only to explain other antecedents of intention. In any case. it has not been included in the final model. its effect on attitudes and social norms is much weaker. the influence of social norms on attitude is significant. and only a marginal one on the regression coefficients. Please insert Figure 3 around here Please insert Figure 4 around here A high correlation was also found between attitude and feasibility. and being familiar with the business environment. 1 7 . Additionally. Figure 4 confirms the relevance of knowledge. when that relationship was included. Knowledge alone explains 17. a possible explanation could be the absence of an entrepreneurial tradition in the territorial context we have investigated.2% of the variance in feasibility. though. but also the theory predicted. this variable exerts a strong influence on perceived feasibility. makes students more confident about their own capacity of becoming entrepreneurs. as could be expected.those social norms were not significant. In our case. as a direct influence on it. In particular.

which would correspond to entrepreneurial awareness education. there is also a statistically significant differential effect of awareness and start-up education. Therefore. whereas self-employed parents exert a significant influence on social norms. which could be classified as education for start-up. In this sense. However. The highest effect is produced on feasibility and. degree studied and having labour experience significantly explain feasibility. it is possible to analyse the different effect of each of those categories on the variables included in the intention model. This is the case in the University of Jaen. on social norms. Meanwhile. 4. As can be seen. The available offer is still limited to little more than business-plan courses. In Seville. as well as a greater entrepreneurial knowledge.3 Differential effect of entrepreneurship education courses Entrepreneurship education is a new phenomenon in Andalusia. to a lesser extent. for Seville students. the improvement in intention is relatively small. socioeconomic level. the participation in either of these two distinct kinds of entrepreneurship education tends to be associated with higher levels of perceived feasibility and desirability. 18 . Table 2 shows the change in explained variance after inclusion of those external variables. however. which is reflected in Figure 5. there is at least another kind of initiatives.Please insert Table 2 around here The addition of external or demographic variables to the model in Figure 4 does not change coefficients appreciably. The demographic characteristics are probably too general to explain attitudes or knowledge.

those students with a higher attraction to becoming entrepreneurs and a stronger intention towards entrepreneurship enrol on that course. McMullan & Long. Conclusions Intention models seem to be a solid starting point for the analysis of entrepreneurship. it could contribute to increasing a perceived social valuation of those agents. In particular. 5. centres on the elaboration of the business plan. this work has integrated Ajzen’s (1991) and Shapero & Sokol’s (1982) theories into an entrepreneurial intention model. in turn. its differential effect concentrates on improving feasibility perceptions. this situation is reflected by dashed lines. on the one hand. We have also found a higher direct relationship between participation in the start-up course. In Figure 5. The start-up course. on the other. this is probably due to the so-called “self-selection bias”. Therefore. Our results seem to confirm this hypothesis. has been used as the basis to define entrepreneurship education and to classify it. That is. For that reason. and perceived attraction and level of intention. 2002. as other researchers have pointed out (Noel. on the other hand.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. The differentiating element of these educational activities would be trying to increase the 19 . This. 1987). However.

In the first part of the empirical analysis carried out. even though the results obtained are clearly encouraging. A partial empirical test has been carried out about the validity of the entrepreneurial intention model. This 2 0 . we have found that the influence of each course on the variables determining intention is different depending on the kind of course considered. who should concentrate on strengthening participants’ intention of developing those entrepreneurial behaviours. the questionnaire was not designed to allow for a full validation of that model. as this work is part of a wider research project. which is mainly concerned with technical knowledge for business administration. Undoubtedly. However. education for entrepreneurial dynamism could be considered as the most relevant category. they should be considered with caution. What is more. four categories of entrepreneurship education could be thought of. or any of the variables determining that intention. In particular. Therefore. Depending on the specific objective pursued. but also of developing dynamic entrepreneurial behaviours after the start-up phase. the entrepreneurial intention model has offered much better predictions of intention than external or demographic variables alone. the joint model -despite being substantially more complicated. This allows for a clear distinction from conventional management training.does not offer much better results. this makes up a serious limitation. Similarly. a tentative conclusion would be that the entrepreneurial intention model is a valid explanation of intention. when these latter variables are added to the former.intention of performing entrepreneurial behaviours. Therefore. It also enables us to clarify the role of educators. It not only tries to promote the intention of being an entrepreneur.

107-122. 2002. In future research.: ACC-953-SEJ-2002. Ajzen. 27-58. (4while in Jaen it is 4. 2 Investigación. pp. I.result is consistent with the classification developed. “Nature and operation of attitudes”. in the first place. C. 52. (Ed. vol. In Seville. Programa Acciones Coordinadas. Notes 1 Ref.. Annual Review of Psychology. 50. pp. 2 1 . Secondly. I.): Entrepreneurship education: current developments. vol. Ashmore. University studies Spain the are “licenciatura” either “diplomatura” degree) or “licenciatura” to 5-year degrees). 1991.. Quorum Books. 2001. “Residual effects of past on later behavior: habituation and reasoned action perspectives”.A. the reformulation of the questionnaire to allow for a thorough validation of the theory. in business administration lasts 5 years. a test on the four categories should be implemented. I am also indebted to an anonymous referee for his/her interesting comments and suggestions. Alain Fayolle helped me clarify the position of “entrepreneurial knowledge” as a previous element within the entrepreneurial intention model. References Ajzen. In particular. No. Westport. future directions. C. Natural extensions of this work would include. pp. vol.M. Personality and Social Psychology Review. Nevertheless. “Entrepreneurship in vocational education”. Acknowledgements The author wants to thank comments by participants at the IntEnt 2004 Conference.. I. en Kent. only awareness and start-up courses have been considered. we plan to carry out a longitudinal follow-up of interviewees to test the relationship between intention and subsequent behaviour. 6 (2). “The theory of planned behavior”. 179-211. Ajzen. 1990. III Plan Andaluz de The in questionnaire is available from the(3-year author upon request. where a previous version of this paper was presented.. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

H. 7 (2). 18 (8).W. Curran. “Structural equation modelling and regression: guidelines for research and practice”. article 7. 5-7 July.N. 47-68. B. 2000. European Commission. 18 (11). D. “Using the theory of planned behaviour in assessing entrepreneurship teaching programmes: exploratory research approach”. IntEnt2004 Conference. A... T. 2004. T. pp. vol.. vol.C. 1989. Garavan. Action Plan to Promote Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness. pp. “Education and training for enterprise: some problems of classification. pp. 3-12. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 11-22. 13-21. W. Straub. vol. “Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: a review and evaluation”.Brockhaus. 23-26 June.Part II”.. “Using the theory of planned behaviour to assess entrepreneurship teaching programs: a first experimentation”.N. 1999.. pp. 1989. 2 2 . Journal of European Industrial Training. D. 1992. R.B. Gartner.. Final report of the expert group «best procedure» project on education and training for entrepreneurship. 13 (4). & Stanworth. Fayolle. Brussels. & O’Cinneide. “Entrepreneurship education: a research agenda”. “Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: a review and evaluation . 1994b. 1994. 2003. IntEnt2003 Conference. A. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. & Gailly.. Fayolle. Grenoble (France). IntEnt92 Conference. Naples (Italy). 2002. International Small Business Journal. M. B. Gefen. J. Journal of European Industrial Training. J. Enterprise Directorate-General. vol. 7-10 September. evaluation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. policy and research”. & Boudreau.. vol. 4. Luxembourg. B.. “ “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question”. Dortmund (Germany). Garavan. & O’Cinneide. European Commission.

Journal of Business Venturing. pp. 1961. University education for entrepreneurs in the United States: a critical and retrospective analysis of trends in the 1990s. Center for International Business Education & Research.. A. Loucks. Journal of Business Venturing.A. D. & Santos. M. F.. W. 44th ERSA Conference. PhD Dissertation. Educación empresarial y modelo de intenciones. 25-29 August. 2001. Working Paper Series 99/00-021. McIntyre.R. & González. Porto (Portugal). Georgia Institute of Technology. L. vol. 2002. Technovation. D. Dortmund (Germany). “Effects of entrepreneurial education on intent to open a business: an exploratory study”. 27-31 August.. & Long. 47-57.. 15 (5/6). Liñán. Ginebra. Noel. London. The achieving society.Guzmán. & Gillin. pp. McMullan. McClelland. Economía Aplicada I. T. 1996. 2002. McMullan. “Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions”. Liñán.E. K. vol. “Entrepreneurship education in the nineties”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.. & Rodríguez. F. 1987. Atlanta.. N. J. 42nd ERSA Conference. Krueger. vol. The Journal of Entrepreneurship Education.F.L. 1988. Universidad de Sevilla..W..J. “Prediction of employment status choice intentions”. Training entrepreneurs for small business creation. Formación para un empresariado de calidad. “Entrepreneurial attitudes of Andalusian university students”. vol. 261-275.. 411-432.D. pp. Kolvereid. 18 (4).L. Martín. vol. I. F.M. 2 (3).C. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. Reilly. 2004. 275-286. 1998. L. pp. Liñán.E. 5. “Developing technological start-up entrepreneurs: a case study of a graduate entrepreneurship programme at Swinburne University”. J. 13 (3). “The booster function and the entrepreneurial quality: an application to the province of Seville”. & Carsrud. 1999.. The Free Press. pp. 2 3 . R. “Characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs in Germany”. 2000.. Dpto.. 21 (1). vol. 3-13. Sevilla.O. W. 2004. W.E... M. pp. F.. & Roche. 211-228. J.

P. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. & Hay. W. pp. “Entrepreneurship education: suggestions for increasing efectiveness”. N. Scherer. Weinrauch. & Wiebe. “An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship”.D. pp. vol. 1984. Routledge. y Vesper.E.. “Educating the entrepreneur: understanding adult learning behavior”. Sexton. pp. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. pp. 28 (2). Autio. “Who start new firms? – Preliminary explorations of firms-in-gestation”.V. & Westhead. London. D. P. 1991. P.. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.D. Journal of Small Business Management. 2003.K. “Social dimensions of entreprenurship”. Sexton. H. Journal of Small Business Management.A... “Cross-national comparison of the variation in new firm rates”.. Englewood Cliffs (NJ). J.B. 18-25.B. Storey D. Robinson.. C. in Kent. P. J. D. D. Prentice Hall. D. & Hunt. A. Report on the implementation of the White House Conference.D. vol. 1984. Kansas City. Regional Studies. Bygrave.H.A. 15 (4). Storey. Reynolds. Reynolds. R. J. 2 4 . (eds. 1991. 22 (2). 2000.J. Understanding the small business sector.A.D. vol.. 1330.L. Shapero. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.. 9 (5). 2002. P.C.. 195-206. N. K. 1997.. Huefner. Building the Foundation for the new century. 22 (2). Brodzinsky. 129-144.. S.B.. 1994.F. 1982. Reynolds. “Examining the relationship between personality and entrepreneurial career preference”. & Bowman.. D.J... 1994. Ewin Marion Kauffman Foundation. Washington.. 449-462.L. 28. pp. M. & Kennedy. J. vol. 443-456. 32-37. vol. F. 3. Small Business Economics. 2002 summary report. L..Peterman. p. Small Business Administration. pp. “Enterprise Education: influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship”.): Encyclopaedia of entrepreneurship.D. & Sokol. vol. vol. Stimpson..

Theory of planned behaviour Attitud e towards the Subjective Behavio ur Intention Norms Perceived Behavioural Control Source: Ajzen. Figure 2 . (1991).Figure 1 . I.Entrepreneurial intention model Entrepreneurial Knowledge Perceived Desirability Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude Perceived Social Norms Perceived Feasibility (self-efficacy) Intention .

25 .

184* 0.8 42 45.16 2* Parent’s occupation 0.9 21 12.5 35 47.1 59 63.3 60 36.05.01.8 22 30.0 9 9.2 Business Adm.6 72 43.204** * Significant regression coefficients.7 8 11.8 35 37.0 88 53.03 1 Degree studied Intention 0.0 32 43.7 41 24.1 31 18.0 Figure 3 .5 31 42. .105 Socioeconomic level University 0.5 18 24.7 32 19.8 26 28.4 32 19.6 37 39.4 34 36.3 1 1.4 7 9.3 51 54.025 Reason for studies Labour experience 0.8 25 27.3 Total Nº % 103 62.Table 1 .6 31 33.Influence of external variables on intention Age Gender 0.7 33 20.1 24 32.2 32 34.087 0.6 37 50.7 36 49.212 0.1 12 16.5 44 26.3 94 56.9 23 31.6 13 14. p < 0.0 78 47.8 47 28.1 53 31.211* * 0. 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 Nº % 42 57. ** p < 0.6 8 8.Sample characteristics Degree Gender Age Length of studies Work Experience Univ Seville Nº % 61 65.9 38 52.

26 .

042 0. p < 0.529 +0.172 0.204 .056 net change .081 0.350 0.160 0.074 +0.418** * 0.001.Figure 4 .415*** 0.086 0. *** p < 0.068 Social Norms 0.314*** * Significant regression coefficients.01.041 0.164 * 0.08 6 0.Change in explained variance Explained variance of dependent variables Knowledge Attitude Social norms Feasibility Intention Internal variables --- 0.473 Feasibil ity 0. Table 2 . ** p < 0.Influence of internal variables on intention Attitude 0.112 +0.172 0.042 Intention Knowledge 0.272** 0.178 +0.473 Internal + external variables 0.081 +0.05.154 0.

27 .

* = p<0.288** Pearson correlations. ** = p<0.01 Entrepreneurial Intention .Differing effects of entrepreneurship education courses Entrepreneurial Knowledge 0.05.327** Perceived Desirability Personal Attitude Awareness education Perceived Social Norms 0.242* education 0.397 ** Start-up Perceived Feasibility (self-efficacy) 0.Figure 5 .

28 .

001 0.433 Degree Reason Labour 0.485 ========================================================== 29 .External variables on intention Constructs & indicators options (ascending) ========================================================== Age Gender Parents’ occupation Father self-employed Mother self-employed Socioeconomic level Father’s level of studies Mother’s 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. 0.208 0.135 Degree Reason Labour 0.829 0.149 ========================================================== Path Coefficients Table (T-Statistic) ========================================================== Age Intention Gender Parent Socioe Univ.Appendix Model A .207 0.077 0.015 1.757 0.133 1.669 1.012 0.522 0.077 0. 0.

7391 0.0410 0.0000 Intention 2.4150 0.1640 0.0000 0. Attit. prof.0000 Feasibility 0.0000 Social norms 0.6052 4.6977 0.0000 0.0000 Social Nomrs 1.N Feasibility Attitude 0.0000 0. Economy worse / equal / better Prospects to be entrepreneur vs employee worse / equal / better Preferred career option other / indep.0680 0.7649 ========================================================== 3 0 .0000 0. Soc.3140 ========================================================== Path Coefficients Table (T-Statistic) ========================================================== Knowl.2040 0.0000 0.2720 0.0000 0.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.7509 0.0000 Intention 0. Soc.1151 6.8475 0.0000 Feasibility 6.0000 0.0000 2. / entrepreneur Preferred option immediately after studies other / continue studying / entrepreneur Perceived Social Norms No.4180 0.9483 0. 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.Model B . Attit.N Feasibility Attitude 0.0000 0.0000 0.