Theories of Entrepreneurial Intention and the Role of Necessity

William A Lucas
Gordon Engineering Leadership Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Contact: William A Lucas, Director of Research, Gordon Engineering Leadership Program,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA, USA
Tel +1-617-253-4840, Email:walucas@mit.edu
and
Sarah Y Cooper, Senior Lecturer in Entrepreneurship
University of Edinburgh Business School, University of Edinburgh

Keywords: entrepreneurship; opportunity; necessity; intentions model; self-efficacy; desirability

Abstract
Objectives: Most research on the Entrepreneurial Intention Model (EIM) has drawn on college students and
other accessible populations that see entrepreneurship largely as an opportunity. Research reported here
explores necessity-driven entrepreneurship in a peripheral region of Northern Scotland, where UKAEAs
decision to wind-down operations at Dounreay Nuclear Power facility are resulting in loss of 1,500
employee/contractor jobs over several years. The remote rural location in northern Scotland is unable to
provide sufficient employment to absorb this number of workers, creating, for many, a condition of
entrepreneurial necessity.
Prior Work: The paper explores the EIM in the context of necessity, building on Ajzens Theory of Planned
Behavior (TPB) and Perceived Behavioral Control, and incorporating changes advocated by Armitage and
Cooper. Rather than viewing PBC as a single concept encompassing internal/external controls, self-efficacy
(inner control) and PBC, narrowly defined as external control, are seen as separate constructs with
independent effects on intention. The paper also draws on work by Bandura and Lent, Brown & Hackett to
explore relationships between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and attitude towards entrepreneurship.
Approach: Following a review of relevant literature analysis uses survey data from 311 Dounreay workers,
including their gender and other demographic information, and the presence of proximate entrepreneurial role
models to anchor the test of a revised model. Regression analysis is used to estimate the importance of
predictors of self-efficacy, perceived value (seen as desirability, attractiveness or TPB Attitude), outcome
expectancy and intention. Stepwise regression is used to identify further effects of necessity, showing it has
direct effects on perceived value of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention.
Results: Results suggest displacement can be represented as a linear effect. The presence of proximate role
models is shown to be related independently to self-efficacy (Azjens internal control), and to outcome
expectancy (Ajzens external control) consistent with their being separate constructs, and they each have an
independent effect on intention. Self-efficacy has a motivational value, predicting the perceived value
(desirability or TPB Attitude) of entrepreneurship.
Implications: These data support the extended version of the TPB offered by Armitage and Connor rather
than Ajzens more widely used model. Of the other general models available, the most applicable theoretical
model for the study of entrepreneurship is found to be the Social Cognitive Career Theory of Lent et al who
study career development and include a motivational relationship showing career self-efficacy strengthens the
interest and subsequent attraction of entrepreneurship.
Value: This research conducted among the Dounreay workforce offers a rare opportunity to study necessitydriven entrepreneurship and enhance theoretical understanding by testing a revised EIM. Lessons for policymakers/agencies and would-be/new entrepreneurs and practitioners are discussed.

Introduction
Despite the fact that the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor reports suggest that two in five new firms are started
out of necessity (Acs, Arenius, Hay & Minniti, 2005), the vast majority of research on the Entrepreneurial
Intention Model has drawn on university students and other, more available populations that are seen as
pursuing entrepreneurship largely as an opportunity. A chance to study necessity-driven entrepreneurship in
Scotland occurred when most operations at the Dounreay Nuclear Power Station were being terminated, and
its management was in the process of releasing the vast majority of its workforce. Its location in a relatively
rural area in a remote region of northern Scotland meant that the area could not possibly provide sufficient
employment to absorb this number of workers, creating what was for many a condition of entrepreneurial
necessity. Survey data were collected to inform the design of an entrepreneurial training course that was to be
held at Dounreay, with questions added to test the explanatory power of the Entrepreneurial Intention Model
(EIM) under conditions of economic necessity.
The development of the model used here to guide measurement and analysis is based on the Theory of
Planned Behavior (Ajzen 1991, 2002), but it includes the consequential change in the concept of Perceived
Behavioral Control (PBC) advocated by Armitage & Conner (1999, 2001b). Rather than viewing PBC as a
single concept encompassing a range of both internal and external forms of control, the alternative view
adapted here is that self-efficacy (as inner control) and outcome expectancy (external control) are separate
constructs with independent effects on intention. In adapting TPB for the study of entrepreneurial intention, it
is also suggested that the EIM might usefully incorporate Banduras (1986) view of the motivational effects of
self-efficacy, which implies it is a predictor of the desirability of entrepreneurial career goals. This perspective
is also found in the model of Social Cognitive Career Theory offered by Lent, Brown & Hackett (1994) whose
model again supports the separation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy, and suggests the appropriate
intention model also includes relationships between domain self-efficacy and motivated interest, and hence
the desirability, of entrepreneurship.
Once this model is defined, this research tests whether self-efficacy and outcome expectancy are
independent, whether there is a relationship between both these predictors and the desirability of
entrepreneurship, and then estimates the pathways and influence of entrepreneurial necessity on these
variables and entrepreneurial intention. The analysis uses survey data collected from 311 Dounreay workers
including gender, age, technical occupation and social contact with entrepreneurial role models that are used
as control variables. Regression analysis is used to estimate the importance in turn of EIM predictors of selfefficacy, desirability, suggested outcome expectancy, and intention. In each case, hierarchical regression is
used to identify the independent effects of necessity, showing that it has direct effects on the desirability of
entrepreneurship, as well as having independent effects on entrepreneurial intention.
Background
The Dounreay Nuclear Power Station began operation on the far north coast of Scotland in 1955. The UK
Atomic Energy Authority placed it there both as a safety measure to keep what was viewed as, however
small, a potential risk that should be distanced from large population centres, while serving as a source of
economic benefit to a rural agricultural area with very little industry. Having now out-lived its design life, the
facility was being decommissioned, and the workforce was being steadily released. Those who were older
were considering early retirement, but at the time of the survey the lions share of its 1,500 employees and
contractors who were heavily dependent on its work at Dounreay, a number equal to 20% of all employment
in the local area and representing 30% of the local payroll, needed to find new work. Although the Dounreay
employees expressed a strong preference for the pace and lifestyle of the area, given the likely effects of the
loss of the Dounreay payroll the prospects of most employees finding employment in existing businesses
would seem to be rather doubtful. In light of the limited local employment opportunities, the United Kingdom
Atomic Energy Authority advised its employees that in all likelihood they would either have to leave the area
to find employment elsewhere or they should consider becoming entrepreneurs (MacFarlane, 2007).
The plan of this paper. This paper begins with an introduction to the Entrepreneurial Intention Model and
then a discussion of three bodies of literature. A short introduction of the origin of the Entrepreneurial
Intention Model (EIM) calls attention to its use of Feasibility and Desirability to predict entrepreneurial
intention, and the importance of Displacement in strengthening the disposition to act. There then follows a
discussion of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), the work in psychology that arguably has had the
greatest influence of the evolving representation of the EIM. First the dominant body of work following Ajzen
(1991, 2002) is reviewed, highlighting its concept of Perceived Behavioral Control and how it is measured.
Then a minority view of TPB offered by Armitage and Conner (1999, 2001) is discussed that questions the
unitary view of Perceived Behavioral Control, suggesting that a better predictive psychological model is found
by separating it into self-efficacy, seen as internal control, and a form of outcome expectancy, or external
control.
Then Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) is used to raise a question about the possibility that there is
a meaningful relationship between self-efficacy and the desirability of a career that should be added to the
EIM. An application of Banduras Social Cognitive Theory, SCCT is shaped to model the process individuals
2

are believed to follow in selecting and then pursuing a career (Lent, Brown & Hackett, 1994; Brown & Lent,
2006), and it offers an empirical base for expecting the use of a self-efficacy - perceived value relationship in
the EIM. There follows a brief history of the EIM, focusing on the central elements of what might be referred
to as the Shapero/Krueger model. The work that has followed generally supports that model, but there are a
number of results that suggest a more consistent model might be considered.
A set of relationships is then offered for testing as a representation of the EIM model that in general
follows the TPB model as represented by Conner & Armitage (1998), and includes aspects found in SCCT
(Lent, Brown & Hackett, 1994) rather than the model as used by Ajzen (2002). After a description of the
survey process and a discussion of the measures to be used, linear regression analysis is used to test a
series of relationships that constitute this modified view of the EIM, finding that self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy, while strongly correlated, are nonetheless separate constructs; and that both of these concepts
have independent influence on entrepreneurial desirability. At each step of the analysis, the regression
models will also be used to test whether the economic conditions facing the Dounreay workforce, measured
as the necessity to need to find new work, constitute negative displacement. This construct is found to have
substantial and independent effects on entrepreneurial desirability, as well as having a direct and
independent effect on entrepreneurial intention.
Evolving Representations of the EIM
The dominant model for the study of entrepreneurial behaviour is the Entrepreneurial Intention Model (EIM)
that may be seen as belonging to an expectancy - value family of models that can be dated to the work of
Vroom (1964). His view is that actions are predicted by the individuals belief of the probability that one can
perform the behaviour, called Expectancy, and the positive and negative values they attach to the set of
consequences will follow from that performance, called Valence. While the success of Vrooms formal models
and methods for measuring these concepts are not generally seen as promising (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996),
various representation of the expectancy value model continue to be used in the social sciences. Shapero
(1975) comes from this tradition when he introduces expectancy as the need to recognise the importance of
the belief that one would be one can be successful if an attempt were made to start a company, called
Feasibility, and calls attention to the importance of displacement events that trigger entrepreneurial
behaviour. Shapero and Sokol (1982) add Desirability to the model, which might readily be thought of as a
way of representing the perception of value of a becoming an entrepreneur. Krueger (1993) then began a line
of studies that formally represented and then tested the role of Feasibility and Desirability in increasing
entrepreneurial intention. This line of research has come to be referred to as the Entrepreneurial Intention
Model, or simply the EIM.
The work of Bandura on self-efficacy (1986, 1997) and Ajzens (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior have
been central to the research focus of the formation of entrepreneurial intention among those who become first
potential (Krueger, 1993) and then active entrepreneurs. Less attention has been paid to an alternative view
of the TPB represented by the work of Conner & Armitage (1998), and the application of self-efficacy to
career development referred to as Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent, Brown & Hackett, 1994). There
follows a brief review of the concepts used in these lines of research, and how they are represented in the
entrepreneurship literature.
Ajzens Theory of Planned Behavior. The roots of the Theory of Planned Behavior are found in the work of
Fishbein (1985) and others seeking to understand the failure of attitude studies to predict behaviour. The
dominant concept in psychology at the time was Attitude or Affect, the positive or negative emotion an
individual feels about some object. What caused great concern in social psychology was that, the general
consensus was that measures of attitude have little value for the prediction of overt behavior (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1977, 888). As a first step, the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) postulated that a behaviour would
be performed if there were both a positive attitude towards its performance and social norms that supported
that performance (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). While including social norms and attitude strengthened the ability
to predict behaviour above that when using attitude alone, it remained less than satisfactory until Ajzen (1985)
advanced his Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).
TPB is based on three considerations: First, like the earlier TRA, it includes beliefs about the likely
consequences of the behaviour (behavioural beliefs) which is to say the value the individual would receive
from the performance of the behaviour, and second, the normative expectations of others (normative beliefs)
or social norms that influence the individual. Going further, Ajzen (1985, 1991) adds a third belief about the
presence of factors that may facilitate or impede performance of the behaviour (control beliefs).
Research comparing TPB with TRA had found that TPB had greater explanatory power (Madden, Ellen &
Ajzen, 1992), and a substantial literature that followed confirmed the usefulness of TPB and the importance of
the difficulty of the behaviours being studied. A particularly important meta-analysis reported by Armitage &
Conner (2001) drew on a data base of 185 independent studies that had been published since 1997 that
allowed direct comparisons of TPB and TRA, finding that the new approach including a measure of PBC
increased the explained variance in behaviour by an average of 11% over the variance explained by the
3

earlier approach. Continued success with the use of TPB has since led to Azjens TPB focusing on Attitude,
Social Norms and PBC becoming a central theory in social psychology concerned with explaining behaviour.
Of particular relevance to the EIM, Ajzen (1991, 184) suggests that PBC is compatible with Banduras
(1982) concept of perceived self-efficacy. As part of a larger discussion of PCB, Ajzen (2001, 44) suggests
that only perceived difficulty not perceived controllability added significantly to the prediction of intentions
and behavior, and aligns himself with Bandura (1997) referring to self-efficacy as also being conceptualised
as being about a behaviours relative difficulty to perform. He quotes Banduras definition as, concerned with
judgments of how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations. (Ajzen
1991, 184, quoting Bandura, 1982, 122). Later Ajzen repeated a similar position suggesting that the name of
PBC may have been misleading because the term has been taken to mean the attainment of an outcome
and has not been the intended meaning.
The distinction here is the same as that between efficacy expressions (i.e., the perceived ability to
perform a behavior) and outcome expectations (i.e., the perceived likelihood that performing the behavior will
produce a given outcome; Bandura 1977). To avoid misunderstanding of this kind, Ajzen suggests that the
term perceived behavioral control should be read as perceived control over performance of a behavior.
(Ajzen, 2002, 668, Bandura citation in the original). While this view suggests that PBC is relatively
synonymous with self-efficacy, in practice Ajzens recommended measures of PCB are more ambiguous. In a
current on-line sample questionnaire, some of his recommended items for PBC include a place for the agency
of outside forces to prevent the behaviour: e.g., Whether or not I attend the meetings of this class on a
regular basis is completely up to me (Strongly disagree to Strongly agree), (2012).
Segmenting Perceived Behavioral Control. While thousands of studies have since been conducted using
the TPB model, this ambiguity has fed a continuing debate over the content of PBC. There is consensus that
attempts are two elements, individuals have both perceived inner control over task performance and the
beliefs about their capabilities to overcome any external constraints. Armitage and Conner (1999) report on a
study of pursuing a low-fat diet with scale items of both self-efficacy (I have the ability to eat a low-fat diet)
and perception of external constraints (Eating a low-fat diet takes too much time) when factor analysis
demonstrates that self-efficacy and external pressures and constraints are separate concepts. In a second
study the same authors (Armitage and Connor 2001a) provide scale items for both self-efficacy for donating
blood (e.g., I believe I have the ability to donate blood in the future) and PCB (e.g. Whether or not I donate
blood in the future is entirely up to me) and factor analysis again yields two separate scales. Ajzen cites five
studies that used factor analysis to show self-efficacy and the control that individuals have over their actions,
and concurs that there is, consistent support for the proposed distinction between self-efficacy and
controllability (2002, 675).
There also seems to be substantial consensus that internal constraints are assessed using Banduras
(1997) concept of self-efficacy. The difference of opinion is primarily over whether external constraints should
be considered to be an independent variable, or whether self-efficacy and what Ajzen (2002, 679) terms
Perceived Controllability should be incorporated into a single construct combining PBC which is a
combination of both external and internal control. This same decision between using one combined or two
separate constructs, with the first being self-efficacy, is at the heart of understanding the EIM and is one of
the central questions addressed in this study.
Social Cognitive Career Theory. A further modification of the EIM is suggested by the research on career
development, Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT), an extension of Banduras Social Cognitive Theory
(Lent, Brown & Hackett, 1994). Many if not most behaviours used in the general TPB literature involve
decisions about behaviours that are largely under their own control, can be performed in the near future
(donating blood, selecting low calorie food during a meal, wearing a bicycle helmet for safety) and generally
do not require a long-term commitment to a major course of action. By contrast, the choice of a career is
subject to an array of external limitations and involves a number of years of invested effort, and would on it
face seem closer to entrepreneurial processes that TPB.
Similar to the approach found in the EIM, SCCT postulates that the pursuit of a career is shaped by selfefficacy for the capabilities needed to succeed in a career (Brown & Lent, 2006) and by outcome
expectations, a potentially confusing label, which in this work is defined as the value that the individual
expects from the career activity (Brown & Lent, 2006). Much like the EIM, their model shows background
factors and past performance predicting both self-efficacy and outcome expectancy, which might are treated
here as the Desirability construct in the EIM. While the use of these concepts is consistent with the EIM
studies that employ the constructs of desirability and self-efficacy, Lent, Lopez and Bieschke (1993) and Lent,
Brown and Hackett (1994) also specify that a relationship is expected to occur between those concepts with
self-efficacy having the motivational effect of leading the individual to value the results that follow from the
exercise of their skills. Support for the belief that there is a Self-efficacy Desirability relationship and that the
primary direction of influence is from self-efficacy to perceived value is also found in Bandura (1997, 424):
Social cognitive theory posits a reciprocal but asymmetrical relationship between perceived efficacy and
occupational interests, with efficacy beliefs playing the stronger determinant role.
4

It should be noted that the SCCT approach might be expected to offer particular value for studying young
entrepreneurs and others starting a career of any kind because research has shown that initial interest in a
career path arises from knowing ones capabilities (Lent, Lopez & Bieschke, 1993). For the purpose of this
research, however, the central question is whether such a relationship appears in the data collected from the
Dounreay population, with an average age of 41.
The evolution of the EIM. The early history of EIM research shares a similar impetus found in the
development of the intention models in psychology: Personality and background factors did not have
consequential predictive power in explaining individual behavior (Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner & Hunt, 1991).
Bird (1992, 11) quotes Fishbein & Ajzen (1975, 369) to say that the single best predictor of an individuals
behaviour will be a measure of his intention to perform that behaviour. Soon thereafter, Krueger (1993, 5)
cites the TPB research (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen, 1987) and writes that Intentions models offer a
coherent, parsimonious and robust framework for pursuing a better understanding of entrepreneurial
processes.
Early entrepreneurship research using an intention model begins with approaches quite compatible with
TPB. Kruegers measurement of Perceived Desirability includes items including agreement with, I would love
doing it, and levels of How tense would you be? and How enthusiastic would you be? which seem well
aligned with the TPB Attitude construct. At this point, he sees Feasibility as a single construct, defined as a
persons ability to execute some target (Krueger, 1994, 11), and its measurement includes items that
arguably represent both general confidence that includes possible external constraints (How certain of
success are you?) and internal control (Do you know enough to start a business?). Krueger and Brazeal
reference TPB, agreeing with the view that the three factors predicting behaviour are Ajzens Attitude-towardsthe-act, Social Norms and Perceived Behavioral Control (1993). They suggest that the Feasibility construct,
largely overlaps with Banduras construct of perceived self-efficacy (1994, 93).
Further advances of EIM are found in subsequent work by Krueger and his colleagues. Krueger (2000)
proposes that Perceived Desirability is predicted by two factors, Personal Desirability and Perceived Social
Norms, rejecting that part of the classic TPB model that social norms have a direct effect on intention, a view
also found in the TPB literature.(Rivis, Sheeran. & Armitage ; 2009). Contrary to the idea of a single construct
of PBC, he suggests that Self-efficacy and Perceived Feasibility are separate concepts, with Feasibility being
predicted by the individuals personal self-efficacy and perceived collective self-efficacy, the latter referring to
the individuals confidence that the group including the individual will be successful. Note that the latter
concept involves the behaviour of others not under the individuals control. In addition, he also refers to the
use of benchmarking start-up company success as useful because it, can offer concrete evidence that, yes,
this opportunity is feasible (2000, 13), perhaps suggesting feasibility includes external forces that might
block efforts made by individuals trying to start a business. He presents these concepts in a version of the EIM
that includes a rare representation of the role of displacement referred to as Precipitating Factors which is
mentioned again below.
TPB and further EIM work. In the work that has followed, the investigation of the intention model has
generally continued to rely on TPB, albeit to varying degrees, to guide research on the EIM. The interest in
TPB continues, with Krueger, Reilly & Carsrud (2000) offering a direct comparison of TPB and the proposed
EIM using the data collected from the same individuals. Ajzens Attitude concept is represented as suggesting
that in general an approach to understanding entrepreneurship based on the study of attitude is superior to
relying on demographic and personality factors and others suggest that there are precursor attitudes and
social norms that shape entrepreneurial intention (Elfving, Brnnback & Carsrud, 2009)
The result of these definitions is a straightforward two factor Desirability Feasibility model that is
consistent with Shaperos view, and further predicting entrepreneurial intention that has had widespread
influence on the study of entrepreneurship.
A number of other studies reference the TPB as authority for their research, and some use the model as
Ajzen recommends (Ajzen, 2012), including Kuehns (2008) study of the intentions of the children of
entrepreneurs in family businesses.. (Autio. Keely, Klofsten, Parker & Hay; 2001). Touns (2006), and de
Jong (2011) follow the TPB model and use all three predictive variables of Attitude, Subjective Norms, and
Perceived Behavioral Control. Like Ajzen (2012), their measures of PBC include both items about overall
success and summary references to their capabilities.
More often, the effects of subjective norms are not included, and a simpler model with only perceived
value/desirability and self-efficacy is used to predict intention. A general finding in this body of research is that
studies continue to confirm the basic structure of the Shapero/Krueger EIM, and the finding that background
effects are mediated. Krueger (1993) finds that that prior factors show no consequential direct relationship
with intention, suggesting that any influence they might have on intention is only through the magnitude of
their impact on desirability and feasibility. min (2006) uses structural equation modeling to show that
feasibility and desirability mediate the effects of other factors and predict intention, and Urban (2006) finds that
the effects of diverse cultures in South Africa on intention are large mediated by self-efficacy. Possible
exceptions are found in Zhao, Seibert & Hills (2005) who model the effects of formal learning, entrepreneurial
5

experience, risk propensity, and gender in a pre- and post- study of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention
(but did not include perceived value in the model), and found that these factors except for gender are
mediated by self-efficacy. Another exception suggesting that some background effects are not mediated is
found in Davidsson (1995). Despite these exceptions, one might conclude that this strong mediation effect is
a major source of the parsimony and consequential appeal of the EIM.
For the most part this body of work also uses the concept of Feasibility as a unitary construct, but its
definition sometimes is and sometimes not seen as being measured as self-efficacy. However, like the TPB
research, there is research suggesting one should include both self-efficacy and the larger expectancy of
success in the EIM.. Townsend, Busenitz & Arthurs (2010) distinguish between ability expectancies (readily
seen as self-efficacy) and outcome expectancies, defined as the likelihood that a company the individual
would start would be successful, and explore what follows when the individual holds an exaggerated positive
estimate of one or the other. Elfving, Brnnback & Carsrud (2009) and Mauer, Neergaard & Linstad (2009)
provide a theoretical view that Self-efficacy is a predictor of feasibility (and they also join those who consider
that social norms are mediated by the perceived desirability of entrepreneurship.)
Displacement and Entrepreneurial Intention
The importance of displacement events drawing or pushing the individual into entrepreneurship found in the
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor are widely known, with all entrepreneurship divided into opportunity and
necessity-driven displacement (Acs et al., 2005). Notwithstanding the belief in its frequency, the EIM literature
has only a few empirical studies that test for the role of negative displacement in the EIM. The strongest
statement is still Shapero (1975) who after a long career studying entrepreneurship asserts that desirability
and feasibility alone are not sufficient to explain whether and when an individual will actively begin to start a
business: It requires some event that precipitates a change in the individuals career path. He reports that
such events can be the arrival at some cross-roads, such as completing school or leaving military service;
negative displacements that include being fired or insulted by ones superior in a company; and positive
displacements such as the appearance of an excellent opportunity.
Few empirical studies exist that have explored displacement and the EIM. Krueger & Brazeal (1993)
included displacement in one of the early EIM models but do not develop it in that study. Krueger (2000) again
includes Precipitating Factors in his theoretical model, and refers to the role of exogenous factors that might
precipitate or facilitate entrepreneurship. He also comments that Tangible barriers may serve to prevent an
intention from coming to fruition (Krueger, 2000, 94), which again leads one to wonder if the individuals view
of such factors should be seen as a more explicit part of expectation of outcome success, the approach used
in the present study.
Determining the Role of Necessity on Intention
This study returns to Shapero and Sokols (1982) displacement concept and tests its role in a formal model of
the EIM that includes entrepreneurial Desirability, Self-efficacy and a separate Success Expectancy, and
Intention. The need for new work at Dounreay varies from very low, particularly for older employees, to a
feeling of great urgency that provides a meaningful measure of negative displacement. Once these variables
are placed in a model, one can address the question of whether there is a qualitative difference between
those experiencing displacement by asking if their effects on intention are mediated by self-efficacy and
desirability, or if displacement affects intention directly. If displacement events or processes have a qualitative
effect on intention, moving individuals from a potential to a more active state.
Resulting Hypotheses
The following hypotheses emerging from this discussion consistent are generally related to existing models in
the literature, but they seeks to test three persistent differences that may be traced to researchers relying on
different views of how TPB should be applied to entrepreneurship. Starting a company requires persistence
over a greater period of time and is subject to external forces, such as similar products being introduced by
others before one gets to market or tight credit making investors reluctant to step forward.
Self-efficacy (internal control) and Success Expectancy are different concepts (with the latter
representing both external and internal expectations);
Self-efficacy and Success Expectancy both increase the Perceived Value of entrepreneurship;
Self-efficacy, Success Expectancy and Perceived Value predict entrepreneurial intention (and
mediate background factors);
Necessity (negative displacement) motivates behaviours that can enhance self-efficacy; and
Necessity (negative displacement) has a direct effect on Intention.
Method and Results
This research uses regression analysis of data collected at the nuclear facility that is now managed by
Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd. At the time of this research, the Dounreay management had decided to
arrange an offering of an entrepreneurship short course to interested employees, and they agreed to support
a survey of the workforce to gather information that would be useful in the course design. Both a paper and
6

on-line versions of the questionnaire were prepared because, while many employees had ready access to the
on-line survey, some of those working in facilities and other trades often did not. Once designed, the survey
was then discussed with management and with Dounreay union representatives to obtain their support for the
survey effort. When the on-line survey was made available a paper version was also distributed, both the
Dounreay management and the union representatives encouraged participation in the survey. The responses
of 311 workers are available from this study.
Because the survey was intended to inform the subsequent offering of an entrepreneurship short
course, the call asking individuals to take the survey suggested that it would be of value to those interested in
entrepreneurship, and those who did not participate were more likely to be those who were either part of the
small population that would be retained in the small Dounreay facility that would succeed the current
organisation, or those that had already determined that they were prepared to seek traditional employment
outside the Dounreay area.
Measurement. The variables considered here include background factors of age, sex, education and
technical occupation. Variables constructed from multiple items included the social availability of
entrepreneurial role models, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, feasibility, desirability and intention, and a single
question is used here to assess the urgency the respondents felt for finding new work.
Age. Age is included because much of the public sector promotion of entrepreneurship in the United
Kingdom stresses the importance of opportunities for young entrepreneurs, although older individuals have
more experience that may lend itself to higher self-efficacy. In a separate study of Scottish new business
activity, both nascent entrepreneurship and new business start levels were higher among those 18 to 34 than
those 35 to 64 (Galloway and Levie, 2001). The average age of this Doureay population is 40.8 (Table 1).
Gender and education. Gender is generally regarded as having a consequential effect on
entrepreneurial pursuits, as men a generally found to have higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy than women
and more likely to start companies. Men constituted 68.2% of the respondents studied here. Education is
included to determine whether those with higher education degrees may have been influenced by having
access to financial resources or other advantages. Four levels of education were reported: some respondents
had no education beyond their high school leaving certificate, others had attained a qualification at a college
of further education while the remaining group held a university degree. Reflecting the mix of education levels
at Dounreay, 23.8% of the respondents had ended their education with university degrees, and 10.3% had
postgraduate degrees.
Occupation. The individuals occupation could strongly influence interest in entrepreneurship,
positively or negatively, depending on whether that career investment had to be abandoned if one is to start a
company. The average Dounreay employee is 41 and, thus, has at least 10 to 15 years invested in a career,
and many had built their careers on knowledge and skills specific to the nuclear industry, a body of
experience that has limited value for starting companies in rural Scotland. A binary or dummy variable (0/1) is
created to represent the 43.1% who have scientific, engineering or other technology vocations that might be
viewed as having sunk cost investments that they may not be prepared to abandon. The 8.0% of employees
working in information technology are not included in this group because their capabilities had ready
applications in almost any environment, and several were known to be working on information systems for
tourism in the area.
Entrepreneurial role model effects. A measure of the presence of entrepreneurial role models is
particularly useful because it is a known correlate of entrepreneurial pursuits. The relationship might be due to
several types of influence, which alternatively might primarily affect self-efficacy, feasibility, perceived value of
entrepreneurship. Role models represent a major source of Subjective Norms (Carsrud, Brnnback, Kickul,
Krueger, & Elfving, 2007), allowing an exploration of the place of that construct in the model being tested. The
sociological literature tends to stress role models as individuals that someone models on when how positively
they feel positive about the role model. If the individual has a strong positive attitude towards an
entrepreneurial role model, the subject will take on their normative behaviour and attitudes as their own
(Gnyawali & Fogel, 1994) which might be expected to lead the individual to see a greater perceived value of
entrepreneurship.
A second view of the path of influence of role models is found in the self-efficacy literature, most
notably in the writing of Bandura (1986, 1997). Here the individual is seen as engaged in vicarious learning,
watching others to learn about how to perform those tasks. When the role model is a close family member or
spouse/partner, the individual may actually help in that business and gain direct experience. One difference
between this path and that involving modeling effects on attitude is that vicarious learning would seem to
depend less on whether one has a positive or negative orientation towards those role models, and its primary
effect would be expected to heighten self-efficacy rather than increase the perceived value or desirability of
entrepreneurship.
A third way role models might affect the predictors of entrepreneurial intention is through their
providing a demonstration that one can be successful. Referred to as existence proof by Venkataraman
(2004), this view suggests that proximate role models would provide reassurance that external conditions are
benign, and would not block success, increasing Feasibility.
7

To measure role model effects, the respondents were asked in turn if they had one of six types of
entrepreneurial role models: a father, mother, some other close relative, a spouse or partner, a friend or
neighbour and a co-worker who had their own business. After each affirmative answer, they were asked to
report the frequency they speak with that individual. A measure of the diversity and number of socially
proximate role models in their lives at the time of the survey is created by summing the number of times they
said they speak with their entrepreneurial role models occasionally or frequently. The scores, thus, ranged
from 0 to 6, with an average of 1.3. Only 34.4% of respondents did not have social contact with proximate
role models with their own business. The entrepreneurial nature of the area is evidenced by the fact that
20.6% had 3 to 5 role models, providing substantial social support for entrepreneurship in this area of largely
rural Scotland.
Measures of EIM concepts
The remaining concepts to be used in the following analysis are entrepreneurial Self-efficacy, Feasibiity,
Perceived Value, Intention, and Necessity.
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The confidence Douneay individuals have in their entrepreneurial
capabilities was assessed with a set of 14 statements of capabilities. Among other items, participants rated
their skill and ability from Not at all confident to Completely confident that they could Write a clear and
complete business plan, Sell a brand new product service to a first time customer, Persuade investors to
put a substantial sum into a new company and Recognise and hire good employees for a new project of
venture. A similar self-efficacy scale focusing on venturing skills that included similar items had a Cronbachs
alpha coefficient of .91 (Lucas, Cooper, Ward & Cave, 2009). The alpha coefficient for the present study is
.94.
Entrepreneurial Feasibility. The inclusion of this variable follows both Armitage and Conner (1999,
2001b) who separate self-efficacy and external success and those studying the EIM who feel a larger
outcome of success should be included in addition to self-efficacy (Krueger 2000). Two items are used to
constitute a scale, with the first asking whether the individual can understands what it takes to start your own
business, thought to represent confidence that the potential entrepreneur has confidence that the strategy
they select will be a correct one. The second is an overall statement of success that they can Start a
successful business if you want to. This two item scale has been used in several studies of entrepreneurial
education and the alpha coefficients have varied from .78 to .80 (Cooper & Lucas, 2006), and the alpha for
the Dounreay participants was .75. This summary measure is not seen as Armitage and Conners external
control concept because it is expected to be greatly influenced by self-efficacy. Instead it is thought to be a
summary measure of Feasibility, defined as expectation of success that includes both internal (self-efficacy)
and external factors outside the individuals control.
Perceived Value/Desirability of entrepreneurship. Whether it is called Valence (Vroom 1964),
Attitude (Ajzen 1991), Attitude towards the act (Lin & Chen 2009), or Desirability (Shapero & Sokol, 1982,
Krueger 1993), this construct is the individuals perception of the net benefit to be gained from the successful
performance of a behaviour. Given the emphasis here that the EIM is an expectancy value model, the
concept is referred to as the Perceived Value of entrepreneurship which is believed to be synonymous with
the Desirability construct in the EIM.
Here the concept of the individuals Desirability of entrepreneurship is operationalised as the strength of
the attractiveness of being an owner/manager in an entrepreneurial company. The respondent was presented
with a battery of opportunities that they might be considering, including being employed in a large, established
firm, being founder of a non-profit firm, and working part-time, asking them to use a 5-point scale to indicate
whether they considered opportunities from very unattractive to very attractive. Factor analysis using the
reported attractiveness of a set of employment conditions that included both entrepreneurial and nonentrepreneurial choices identified an entrepreneurship component consisting of three opportunities: being full
owner of a small and stable company, being a manager and part-owner of a new firm, and being part of the
management team that would grow and sell their company. These three items had a Cronbachs alpha of .74,
and the items were averaged and used as a measure of the Perceived Value of entrepreneurship.
Intention. Entrepreneurial intention is often regarded as the purposive pursuit of forming a new
organisation (Gartner 1988). Because many Dounrey employees have not yet taken any concrete steps to
start a business, intention among potential entrepreneurs is seen as a conscious state of mind that precedes
action (Shook, Priem & McGee, 2003, 380). This same quote is also offered by Thompson (2009, 675)
whose carefully developed intention scale includes items similar to those in this study. His research asks for
agreement or disagreement that the individual has an Intent to start a company in the future, and Never
search for business start-up opportunities, with the latter being reverse coded. The items used in the present
study include three items (At least once I will have to try and start my own company and If I see an
opportunity to start a company Ill take it) and another asking if the individual focuses on opportunities: I
often think about ideas and ways to start a business. Together these three statements in an agree/disagree
response structure had a Cronbachs alpha = .80.
Necessity. Each respondent was asked to respond to a number of statements using a 5-point agreedisagree format, including a single item intended to capture the level of urgency the individual feels about
8

their need to find a new position of any kind: The average response is I need to find a new job as soon as
possible. Over half disagreed with this statement (strongly disagree 27.0%, disagree 29.9%), 28.9% were in
a condition of uncertainty in many cases because they were going to be able to remain at Dounreay for at
least some time more, and 14.3% agreed or agreed strongly that they need to find work as soon as possible.
Measures of association
In general the relationships found among the variables are what would be expected (Table 1). The outcome
variables of Self-efficacy, Feasibility, Perceived Value and Intention are all significantly inter-correlated,
providing evidence that the measures have predictive validity. Notably the measures of broader expectation
of success, Perceived Value and Necessity all relate to entrepreneurial intention more strongly than does
Self-efficacy. Those with more numerous role models have higher Self-efficacy, expectation of a successful
outcome, and give entrepreneurship a Perceived Value than those without role models. Looking at the
background variables, men were much more likely to be older and more likely to have scientific or technical
occupations (r = .29**). While men have higher Self-efficacy for starting a company (r= .12*), the gender
difference is not as great as might be expected. Dounreay men and women do not differ significantly on the
other outcome measures.
Focusing on the Necessity to find new work. Perhaps due in part to the 9.3% of the respondents
who are 55 or older and are much more likely to consider early retirement, it is found that older respondents
***
feel less necessity to find new work (r = -.22 ). Those who have more entrepreneurial role models feel
*
somewhat more necessity (r = .13 ). Those who agree that there is an immediate need to find new work are
higher on all outcome measures.
Table 1: Measures of association
Mean
s.d,
1
2
3
1. Age
40.8
9.9
--***
2. Sex
0.68
.33
--3. Education
2.68
-.05
.10
--4. Technical
***
***
occu-pations 43.1
-.09
.29
. 28
(0/1)*
5. Proximate role 1.34 1.31
.07
-.07
.03
models
*
*
6. Self-efficacy
2.18
.80
.11
.12
.07
7. Feasibility
2.89 1.21
.07
-.04
-.04
8. Perceived
3.42
.87
-.08
-.01
-.01
value
***
9. Necessity
2.37
-.22
-.08
.06
10. Intention
2.98
.97
-.03
-.02
-.10
*Excluding professionals in information technologies.

---.07

---

-.05
-.10

.30
***
.38

***

--***
.68

-.05

***

.21

***

.34

.32

.00
-.07

.13
***
.25

.13
***
.45

.18
***
.52

--***

---

***

.19
***
.44

***

--***
.33

Results
This analysis uses a series of four regression models that control for the effects of background factors,
starting with the effects of the background variables and proximate role models to predict self-efficacy. Then
in turn, the model is used to predict entrepreneurial Feasibility, Perceived Value and Intention, both with and
without the inclusion of Necessity
Predicting entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Table 2 provides the results when the effects of the demographic
variables and the number of proximate role models on entrepreneurial self-efficacy are estimated. The
members of the Dounreay workforce who have one or more family members or peers that they speak with
occasionally or more often, provide them with opportunities to learn vicariously, whether they are benefiting
from verbal reports or the opportunity to learn from direct observation. In the cases where the role model is
their spouse or other circumstances where contact is close and frequent, they may be learning from actually
assisting the role models enterprise.
Table 2: Hierarchical regression of Necessity on Self-efficacy
Step 1
Controls
Age
Men
Education
Science/technical occupations*
Number of proximate role models
Necessity to find new work

Step 2

beta

beta

.04
.15
.07
-.09
.30

0.66
*
2.47
1.30
-1.45
***
5.63

.06
.15
.07
-.08
.29
.12

t
1.10
*
2.47
1.20
-1.39
5.29
*
2.10
9

R = .35, R = 12.5%;
***
df = 5, 305, F =8.69

R = .37, R = 13.7%;
df = 6, 304, F = 8.06***

Model R change = 1.3%; F change = 4.42**, df = 1, 304

*

**

**

**

***

*Excludes those in information technologies. Beta & F value < .05, beta & F value < .01, beta & F value

< .001.

Predicting Feasibility. The regression model in Table 3 again includes the background factors including
entrepreneurial role models, but progresses by including self-efficacy as a predictor of the larger expectation
of success that includes possible outside factors. This analysis, thus, follows the modified EIM with two levels
of success, including Self-efficacy and Feasibility, seen as a general form of expected success that
encompasses both self-efficacy and external factors that might occur.
The first step of this model is similar to that above, with background factors not having any significant
effects except, again, men are less likely to feel positive about the over-all outcome. Self-efficacy has a major
***
influence on Feasibility (beta = .62 ) as would be expected if it incorporates both what the TPB refers to as
internal and external control. Consistent with the theory that role models provide evidence that success over
external conditions is possible, the number of proximate role models an individual enjoys has an effect on
***
Feasibility, independent of role model effects on Self-efficacy. (beta = .18 ).
Table 3: Hierarchical regression of Self-efficacy and Necessity on Feasibility
Step 1
Controls
Age
Men
Education
Science/technical occupations*
Number of proximate role models
Self-efficacy (internal control)
Necessity to find new work

beta

.09
-.08
-.08
.02
.19
.63

0.21
-1.83
-1.90
0.44
4.52***
14.60***

Step 2
T

beta

R = .71, R = 50.4%;
df = 6, 304, F =51.24***

.04
0.78
-.08
-1.81*
-.08
-2.02
.02
0.49
.18
4.27***
.62
14.32***
.11
2.60**
2
R = .72, R = 51.5%;
df = 7, 303, F =45.92***

Model R change = 1.1%; F change = 6.76, df = 1,

303**
*

**

**

**

***

*Excludes those in information technologies. Beta & F value < .05, beta & F value < .01, beta & F value

< .001.

In the second step of this regression model, Necessity is again introduced to show that it has a
**
modest (beta = .11 ) but further independent effect on Feasibility. The added explanatory power of its addition
**
to the model is small at 1.1% of the explained variance, but significant (F change = 6.76, df = 1, 303 ) which is
to some degree a function of having data on 311 individuals.
Predicting Perceived Value. Following the SCCT literature, the next regression model presumes that the
dominant direction of influence is that Self-efficacy, and by inference Feasibility, would predict Perceived
Value (or Desirability) of entrepreneurship. Table 4 shows the model with both Self-efficacy and Feasibility as
predictive variables, and Perceived Value as the dependent variable.
Table 4: Hierarchical regression of Self-efficacy, Feasibility and Necessity on Perceived Value
Step 1
Controls
Age
Men
Education
Science/technical occupations*
Number of proximate role models
Self-efficacy
Feasibility
Necessity to find new work

beta

-.14
.03
-.03
-.04
.10
.23
.14

-2.47
0.54
-0.47
-0.61
1.75
**
3.06
1.81

R = .39, R = 15.5%;
***
df = 7, 303, F =7.96

beta

Step 2
T

-.12
.03
-.03
-.03
.09
.22
.12
.11

-1.97
0.54
-0.58
-0.58
1.60
**
3.02
1.61
*
2.00

R = .41, R = 16.6%;
***
df = 8, 302, F =7.54

Model R change = 1.1%; F change = 4.00 , df = 1, 302

*

**

**

**

***

*Excludes those in information technologies. Beta & F value < .05, beta & F value < .01, beta & F value

< .001.

10

Age is found to be slightly and negatively related to Perceived Value (beta = -.12 ) even with all the other
variables controlled, while for the most part the background factors have little relationship with Perceived
Value. This finding includes the absence of a significant relationship between having proximate role models
and Perceived Value (beta = 1.75, n.s.), both before and after the introduction of Necessity into the model in
Step 2 (beta = 1.60, n.s.). The predominant predictor of perceiving entrepreneurship as having a higher value
**
**
is Self-efficacy, both before (beta = .23 ) and after Necessity is introduced into the model (beta = .22 ).
Necessity does appear to have a small incremental increase on the Perceived Value of entrepreneurship with
2
*
R change = 1.1% (F change = 4.00 ).
Predicting entrepreneurial Intention. In the final regression model (see Table 5), the full EIM model is
presented. In the first step of the model, here one sees that those with greater education have lower
*
entrepreneurial intention (beta = -.10 ), an unusual example of a background effect that is not mediated by
Self-efficacy and Perceived Value. The other background factors of Gender, Age, Occupation and Role
Models are fully mediated.
***
Intention is predicted in the first Step primarily by Feasibility (beta = .33 and Perceived Value (beta =
***
.28 ) which is consistent with the extensive body of work on the EIM. What departs somewhat from the
classic EIM is that Self-efficacy has modest but still significant independent effect on Intention (beta = 2.05*).
The model as a whole explains 37.6% of the variance (R2 significant F =22.7***) which is somewhat lower
explanatory power than some prior work.
In addition to its contribution to some of the other predictors of Intention in the models presented
above, Table 5 shows that Necessity also has a major predictive effect on Intention of its own. Again Selfefficacy (beta = .13*) makes a small, independent contribution, and the dominant predictors of Necessity of
Intention are Feasibility (beta = .31***) and Perceived Value (beta = .26***), but Necessity also plays a major
***
role (beta = .21 ). The addition of Necessity to this model increases the explained variance by 4.1% (F
***
change ), bringing the total explained variance to 41.7%.
Table 5: Hierarchical regression of EIM Variables and Necessity on Intent
beta
Controls
Age
Men
Education
Science/technical occupations*
Number of proximate role models
Self-efficacy
Feasibility
Perceived value (Desirability)
Necessity of finding new work

Step 1
t

.06
01
.10
.01
.00
13
33
28

-1.15
0.13
*
-1.984
0.11
-0.64
*
2.05
***
5.09
***
5.67
2

R = .68, R = 46.6%;
df = 8, 302, F =32.91***

Step 2
T

beta
-.01
.01
-.11
-.01
-.02
.13
.31
.26
.21

-0.21
0.14
*
-2.31
0.17
0.35
*
2.09
***
4.83
***
5.29
***
4.60
2

R = .70, R = 49.6%;
df = 9, 301, F =32.94***

Model R change = 3.0%; F change = 18.22***, df =

1,301
*

**

**

**

***

*Excludes those in information technologies. Beta & F value < .05, beta & F value < .01, beta & F value

< .001.

Discussion
This research raises questions about the common representation of the Entrepreneurship Intention Model,
asking first whether the EIM has should be seen as having two primary predictors consistent with the Theory
of Planned Behavior as advanced by Ajzen (1991, 2002) and a substantial body of research that uses the
EIM, or whether Self-efficacy and Feasibility should be recognized as separate concepts (Armitage and
Cooper, 1999, 2001; Krueger, 2000). Having found that the two concepts are empirically separable, the
further question is whether Self-efficacy predicts higher Perceived Value of starting a company. A second
question then uses this extended representation of the EIM to test what factors in the EIM are influenced
Necessity, defined here as an urgent need to find a new job.
Self-efficacy and/or Feasibility. Entrepreneurship research has drawn heavily on the Theory of Planned
Behavior (Ajzen 1991, 2002) which holds that behaviours can be predicted by the degree of positive or
negative Attitude one has for the result of performing the behaviour, Social Norms found in the individuals
social context, and Perceived Behavioral Control over being able to produce that outcome. There is some
consensus in the entrepreneurship literature that Attitude is similar if not synonymous with Shaperos
Desirability, and further that both are alternative representations of the general expectancy model which
might represent the concept as the Perceived Value one would receive from starting a company.
11

The results that differ strongly from much of both the TPB and EIM literature is whether TPB and the
expectation of success is best represented by one or two separate concepts. This study finds support for the
minority view in the TPB literature that Perceived Behavioral Control and Self-efficacy should be treated as
separate constructs. The entrepreneurship literature also uses a single variable for the individuals confidence
in their future performance, sometimes suggesting it is Self-efficacy and sometimes Feasibility. More
important than how the constructs are named, how the constructs are measured is often more instructive.
Self-efficacy is best measured with narrowly defined items, asking respondents about their confidence
regarding quite specific tasks that include explicit language and that assign varying levels of difficulty to each
item, and the responses one then receives better reflect actual abilities. Conversely, survey items which are
more general and open-ended like a business I start would be successful might generally be expected to be
influenced both by Self-efficacy and by the individuals personality traits of optimism and Locus of Control, the
bias that one has substantial control over ones environment.
The results found here suggest that the construct of Self-efficacy and the larger expected outcome
(called Feasibility here) are separate constructs because of their relationships with other variables. Role
models have separate and independent effects on these concepts which are consistent with the view that role
models affect both the actual and subsequent confidence of individuals in their abilities (their self-efficacy),
and separately affect their outcome expectation that they would achieve the larger success of starting a
company. In turn, Self-efficacy and Feasibility are found to have a separate and independent effect on
entrepreneurial Intention.
Other relationships found here support the view that Necessity affects Self-efficacy and Intention.
While it may be that there are precipitating events that have a sharp and discontinuous effect on intention
(Shapero and Sokol 1982, Krueger and Brazeal 1994), it appears that negative displacement is taking the
form at Dounreay of steadily increasing pressures to find work in the face of the inevitable closing of the
facility. This steady pressure over a number of years may explain why a relationship is found between
Necessity and Self-efficacy, because the mounting pressure is likely to have led individuals to investigate
what would be needed to start a company and take steps to improve their skills. The most important result,
however, is found in Table 5: Necessity has a strong effect on Intention that is independent of age, education,
gender, technical occupation, social contact with individuals who have businesses, Self-efficacy, Feasiblity
and Perceived Value.
Conclusion
The Dounreay environment has provided an opportunity to test a less typical version of the EIM, and an
unusual opportunity to study the negative displacement effects on entrepreneurial intention. This study first
used the data to establish the form of the EIM, finding that Self-efficacy is a less important predictor of
entrepreneurial intention than a more general expectation of success which is expected to incorporate it.
Using a model that distinguishes between Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy (seen as Feasibility) also
opens the way to study the role of Self-efficacy in increasing Perceived Value, a path of influence that might
be expected from Banduras Social Cognitive Theory (1986, 1997) that sees self-efficacy as a consequential
motivational force. The existence of a Self-efficacy Perceived Value effect found in this study suggests that
the entrepreneurship education that strengthens concrete skills will have a substantial effect on Perceived
Value (Desirability).
Then the extended EIM tested here shows there are several effects of Necessity. While it might be
expected that those who need work will value the possibility of entrepreneurship more, this is the lesser of
three paths of influence on entrepreneurial intention found here. Necessity among the Dounreay respondents
is associated with higher self-efficacy, and it has a direct influence on intention that is independent of the
separate effects of self-efficacy, general feasibility, and perceived value of entrepreneurship.
The possible importance of this study as a highly unusual use of the EIM to study entrepreneurial necessity is
also a reason to consider these results with caution. Absent other studies of entrepreneurial necessity and
intention, one cannot say if the EIM results separating self-efficacy and feasibility are a result of the presence
of necessity, or of other conditions specific to Dounreay. It is hoped, however, that this study will inform
further research where necessity is present.

REFERENCES
Acs, Z.J., Arenius, P., Hay, M., & Minniti, M. (2005). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2004 Executive Report.
www.gemconsortium.org, accessed May 14, 2011.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to action: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (eds.),
Action control: From cognitions to behavior, 11-39. New York: Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
50(2), 179-211.
12

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned
Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 4, 665-683.
Ajzen, I. (2012). Sample TpB Questionnaire. http://people.umass.edu/ajzen/pdf/tpb.questionnaire.pdf
Accessed 22 June 2012.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical
research.. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 5, 888-915.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,
1980).
Armitage, C.J. and Conner, M. (1999). Distinguishing Perceptions of Control from Self-Efficacy: Predicting
Consumption of a Low-Fat Diet Using the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 29, 1, 72-90.
Armitage, C.J. & Conner, M. (2001a). Social Cognitive Determinants of Blood Donation, Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 31, 7, 1431-1457.
Armitage, C.J. and Conner, M. (2001b). Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behavior: A meta-analytic review.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.
Armitage, C.J. & Connor, M. (2002). Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-efficacy, Locus of Control, and the
Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Apllied Psychology, 32, 4, 665-683.
Autio, E., Keeley, R.H.,George, M.K., Parker, G.C. & Hay, M. (2001). Entrepreneurial intent among students
in Scandinavia and in the USA. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 2, 32, 2001.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood
Cliffs: NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Bird, B (1992). The operation of intentions in time: The emergence of the new venture. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 17, 1, 11-20.
Brown, S.D. & Lent, R.W. (2006). Preparing adolescents to make career decisions: A social cognitive
perspective. In Pajares, F. & Urdan, T. (eds.), Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, Information Age
Publishing: Greenwich CT, 201-244.
Carsrud, A., Brnnback, M., Kickul, J., Krueger, N., & Elfving, J. (2007) The family pipelines: Why intentions
matter. Academy of Management, Philadelphia
Conner, M. and Armitage, C.J. (1998). Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Review and Avenues for
Further Research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 15, 1429-1464.
Davidsson, P. (1995). Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions. RENT IX Workshop, Piacenza, Italy, Nov
23-24, 1995.
de Jong, J.P.J. (2011). The decision to exploit opportunities for innovation: A study of high-tech smallbusiness owners. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 30, 5, 585-593.
Elfving, J., Brnnback, M., & Carsrud, A., (2009). Towards a contextual models of entrepreneurial intentions.
In A.L. Carsrud and M. Brnnback (eds) Understanding the Entrepreneurial Mind (pp. 23-33). , Springer
Science + Business Media.
min, S (2006). La cration dentreprise: une perspective attractive pour les cherheurs publics? Finance
Contrle Stratgie, 9, 3, 39-65.
Gnyawali, D.R., & Fogel, D.S., (1994). Environments for entrepreneurship development: Key dimensions and
research implications, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, 4, 43-62.
Krueger, N.F. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility
and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(1), 5-21.
Krueger, N.F. (2000). The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 24, 3, 5-23.
Krueger, N.F., & Brazeal, D.V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 18(3), 91-104.
Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D., & Carsrud, A.L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intention. Journal of
Business Venturing, 15, 5/6, 411-432.
Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D. & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and
academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79-122.
Lent, R.W., Lopez, F.G. & Bieschke (1993). Predicting mathematics-related choice and success behaviors:
Test of an expended social cognitive model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 223-236.
Lin, F. and Chen, Y-W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to
measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 593-617.
Lucas, W.A., Cooper, S.Y., Ward, T. & Cave, F. (2009). Industry placement, authentic experience and the
development of venturing and technology self-efficacy. Technovation, 29, 738-752.
Madden, T.J., Ellen, P.S. & Ajzen, I.(1992). A comparison of the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Theory
of Reasoned Action, PSPB, 18, 1, 3-9.
Mauer, R., Neergaard, H. and Linstad, A.K. (2009). Towards a contextual models of entrepreneurial
intentions. In A.L. Carsrud and M. Brnnback (eds) Understanding the Entrepreneurial Mind (pp. 223257), Springer Science + Business Media.
13

Peterman, N.E., & Kennedy, J. (2003) Enterprise education: influencing students perceptions of
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(1), 129-144.
Rivis, A., Sheeran, P. & Armitage, C.J. (2009). Expanding the affective and normative components of the
Theory of Planned Behavior: A meta-analysis of anticipated affect and moral norms. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 12, 2985-3019.
Shapero, A. (1975) The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur. Psychology Today, 9(Nov), 83-88.
Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C.A. Kent, D.L. Sexton, & K.H.
Vesper (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, (pp. 72-89). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Shook, C.L., Priem, R.I. & & McGee, J.E. (2003). Venture creation and the enterprising individual: A review
and synthesis. Journal of Management, 29, 3, 379-399.
Thompson, E.R. (2009). Individual entrepreneurial intent: Construct clarification and development of an
internationally reliable metric. Entrepreneurship, Theory & Practice, 33, 3, 669-694.
Touns. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial intention of students: The French case. La Revue des Sciences des
Gestion, Directiion et Gestion, 219, 57-66.
Townsend, D.M., Busenitz, L.W. &Arthurs, J.D. (2010). To start or not to start: Outcome expectations in the
decision to start a new venture. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 192-202.
Urban, B. (2006). Entrepreneurship in the rainbow nation: Effect of cultural values and ESE on intentions.
Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 11(3), 171-186.
Van Eerde, W. & Thierry, H. (1996). Vrooms expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 5, 575-586.
Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York, Wiley.
Zhao, H.S., Seibert, S.E., & Hills, G.E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of
entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265-1272.

14