COMPETING MODELS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS

NORRIS F. KRUEGER, JR.

Boise State University, Boise, Idaho

MICHAEL D. REILLY
Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana

ALAN L. CARSRUD
University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California

Why are intentions interesting to those who care about new venture formation? Entrepreneurship is a way of thinking, a way of thinking that emphasizes opportunities over threats. The opportunity identication process is clearly an intentional process, and, therefore, entrepreneurial intentions clearly merit our attention. Equally important, they offer a means to better explainand predictentrepreneurship. We dont start a business as a reex, do we? We may respond to the conditions around us, such as an intriguing market niche, by starting a new venture. Yet, we think about it rst; we process the cues from the environment around us and set about constructing the perceived opportunity into a viable business proposition. In the psychological literature, intentions have proven the best predictor of planned behavior, particularly when that behavior is rare, hard to observe, or involves unpredictable time lags. New businesses emerge over time and involve considerable planning. Thus, entrepreneurship is exactly the type of planned behavior (Bird 1988; Katz and Gartner 1988) for which intention models are ideally suited. If intention models prove useful in understanding business venture formation intentions, they offer a coherent, parsimonious, highly-generalizable, and robust theoretical framework for understanding and prediction. Empirically, we have learned that situational (for example, employment status or informational cues) or individual (for example, demographic characteristics or personality traits) variables are poor predictors. That is, predicting entrepreneurial activities by modeling only situational or personal factors usually resulted in disappointingly small explanatory power and even smaller predictive validity. Inten-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Address correspondence to Norris F. Krueger, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725. E-mail: nf krueger@hotmail.com The authors wish to thank all those who helped us rene these ideas. We cannot name you all, but we are especially grateful to Jerry Katz, Gayle Baugh, and Kelly Shaver, also the editor and anonymous reviewers whose ideas proved invaluable. Remaining errors, of course, remain our responsiblity. We also wish to pay tribute to the late Michael Scott, a great loss to the eld and to us.
Journal of Business Venturing 15, 411432 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

0883-9026/00/$see front matter PII S0883-9026(98)00033-0

412

N.F. KRUEGER, JR., M.D. REILLY, AND A.L. CARSRUD

tions models offer us a signicant opportunity to increase our ability to understand and predict entrepreneurial activity. The current study compares two intention-based models in terms of their ability to predict entrepreneurial intentions: Ajzens theory of planned behavior (TPB) and Shaperos model of the entrepreneurial event (SEE). Ajzen argues that intentions in general depend on perceptions of personal attractiveness, social norms, and feasibility. Shapero argues that entrepreneurial intentions depend on perceptions of personal desirability, feasibility, and propensity to act. We employed a competing models approach, comparing regression analyses results for the two models. We tested for overall statistical t and how well the results supported each component of the models. The sample consisted of student subjects facing imminent career decisions. Results offered strong statistical support for both models. (1) Intentions are the single best predictor of any planned behavior, including entrepreneurship. Understanding the antecedents of intentions increases our understanding of the intended behavior. Attitudes inuence behavior by their impact on intentions. Intentions and attitudes depend on the situation and person. Accordingly, intentions models will predict behavior better than either individual (for example, personality) or situational (for example, employment status) variables. Predictive power is critical to better post hoc explanations of entrepreneurial behavior; intentions models provide superior predictive validity. (2) Personal and situational variables typically have an indirect inuence on entrepreneurship through inuencing key attitudes and general motivation to act. For instance, role models will affect entrepreneurial intentions only if they change attitudes and beliefs such as perceived self-efcacy. Intentionbased models describe how exogenous inuences (for eample, perceptions of resource availability) change intentions and, ultimately, venture creation. (3) The versatility and robustness of intention models support the broader use of comprehensive, theory-driven, testable process models in entrepreneurship research (MacMillan and Katz 1992). Intentional behavior helps explain and model why many entrepreneurs decide to start a business long before they scan for opportunities. Understanding intentions helps researchers and theoreticians to understand related phenomena. These include: what triggers opportunity scanning, the sources of ideas for a business venture, and how the venture ultimately becomes a reality. Intention models can describe how entrepreneurial training molds intentions in subsequent venture creation (for example, how does training in business plan writing change attitudes and intentions?). Past research has extensively explored aspects of new venture plans once written. Intentionality argues instead that we study the planning process itself for determinants of venturing behavior. We can apply intentions models to other strategic decisions such as the decision to grow or exit a business. Researchers can model the intentions of critical stakeholders in the venture, such as venture capitalists intentions toward investing in a given company. Finally, management researchers can explore the overlaps between venture formation intentions and venture opportunity identication. Entrepreneurs themselves (and those who teach and train them) should benet from a better understanding of their own motives. The lens provided by intentions affords them the opportunity to understand why they made certain choices in their vision of the new venture. Intentions-based models provide practical insight to any planned behavior. This allows us to better encourage the identication of personally-viable, personally-credible opportunities. Teachers, consultants, advisors, and entrepreneurs should benet from a better general understanding of how intentions are formed, as well as a specic understanding of how founders beliefs, perceptions, and motives coalesce into the intent to start a business. This understanding offers sizable diagnostic power, thus entrepreneurship educators can use this model to better understand the motivations and intentions of students and trainees and to help students and trainees understand their own motivations and intentions. Carefully targeted training becomes possible. For example, ethnic and gender differences in career choice are largely explained by self-efcacy differences. Applied work in psychology and sociology tells us that we already know how to remediate self-efcacy differences. Raising entrepreneurial efcacies will raise perceptions of venture feasibility, thus increasing the perception of opportunity. Economic and community development hinges not on chasing smokestacks, but on growing new businesses. To encourage economic development in the form of new enterprises we must rst increase perceptions of feasibility and desirability. Policy initiatives will increase business formations if those initiatives positively inuence attitudes and thus inuence intentions. The growing trends of downsizing and

COMPETING MODELS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS

413

outsourcing make this more than a sterile academic exercise. Even if we successfully increase the quantity and quality of potential entrepreneurs, we must also promote such perceptions among critical stakeholders including suppliers, nanciers, neighbors, government ofcials, and the larger community. The ndings of this study argue that promoting entrepreneurial intentions by promoting public perceptions of feasibility and desirability is not just desirable; promoting entrepreneurial intentions is also thoroughly feasible. 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.

INTRODUCTION
The failure of situational and personality measures to signicantly predict entrepreneurial activity suggests another approach. In this study, we compare the predictive ability of two intentions models. One was developed and well validated in social psychology (Azjens 1991 Theory of Planned Behavior). The other was proposed, but not well tested from the domain of entrepreneurship research (Shaperos 1982 model of the Entrepreneurial Event). The comparison will examine the efcacy of these models as they try to predict the intentions that a sample of soon-to-graduate undergraduate business students hold towards starting a new business. Before we consider the past uses of intention models and describe their application in the current work, we begin with an examination of the issue of the degree to which entrepreneurship is planned, and therefore, intentional behavior.

Entrepreneurship as Intentional, Planned Behavior

Although it is possible that some will argue otherwise, it seems evident that much of what we consider entrepreneurial activity is intentionally planned behavior. Witness the tremendous emphasis on the business plan in virtually every academic and practical treatment on starting a new business. Even in cases where a unique catalyzing event like being downsized may spur the individual to the entrepreneurial act, there are often indications of a long time interest and desire to be in business for ones self. As new organizations emerge over time, pre-organizational phenomena such as deciding to initiate an entrepreneurial career are both important and interesting (Bird 1988; Katz and Gartner 1988). We thus might conclude that intentionality is typical of emerging organizations, although the timing of the launch of the new venture might be relatively unplanned, such as when a sudden new opportunity surfaces. We best predict, rather than explain, any planned behavior by observing intentions toward that behaviornot by attitudes, beliefs, personality, or mere demographics. Intentions are the single best predictor of planned behavior (Bagozzi et al. 1989). Understanding intentions thus proves particularly valuable where the focal phenomenon is rare, obscure, or involves unpredictable time lagsa focal phenomenon such as entrepreneurship (MacMillan and Katz 1992). In its simplest form, intentions predict behavior, while in turn, certain specic attitudes predict intention. Intentions thus serve as a conduit to better understanding the act itself (Ajzen 1987, 1991). As such, intentions serve as important mediating variables between the act of starting a business venture and potential exogenous inuences. Intentions toward behavior are absolutely critical to understanding other antecedents. These include situational role beliefs, subsequent moderators, including the perceived availability of critical resources, and the nal consequences, including the initiation of a new venture (or lack thereof).

414

N.F. KRUEGER, JR., M.D. REILLY, AND A.L. CARSRUD

Understand the consequences of intentionsparticularly actionsrequires that we understand the antecedents of intention. Much of entrepreneurship is intentional, and, therefore, the use of well thought-out and research-tested intention models should provide a good means of examining the precursors to business start-up.

Implications of Entrepreneurial Intentionality

Recognizing that starting a business is an intentional act holds substantial implications for research. If stimulus-response models cannot model intentional behaviors fully, then we need testable, theory-driven process models of entrepreneurial cognitions that focus on intentions and their perceptual bases (Bird 1988; Katz and Gartner 1988; Shaver and Scott 1992). When behavior is rare or difcult to observe (Ajzen 1991), intentions offer critical insights into underlying processes such as opportunity recognition. Empirically, behavior is often only weakly predicted by attitudes alone or by exogenous factors that are either situational (for example, employment status or informational cues) or individual (for example, demographic characteristics or personality traits). That is, as a result, predicting entrepreneurial activities by modeling only exogenous factors often results in disappointingly small explanatory power. Remember, exogenous inuences usually affect intentions and behavior only indirectly, through attitude changes (Ajzen 1991). Thus, intentions models offer an opportunity to increase our ability to explain and predictentrepreneurial activity. Forces acting upon a potential behavior do so indirectly by inuencing intentions via certain key attitudes. Exogenous variables inuence attitudes and may also moderate the relationship between intentions and behavior. For example, exogenous factors may serve to inhibit one from realizing the intent to be an entrepreneur. Intentions and their underlying attitudes are perception-based, which should mean they are learned. Accordingly, they will vary across individuals and across situations. Exogenous person or situation variables have a more indirect inuence and thus are only weakly predictive of entrepreneurial activity. The predictive power of intentions is even stronger for more molar behavior chains, capturing long-run tendencies by canceling variations in situations over time. For instance, the intent to attend church predicts annual attendance much better than intent predicts attendance in any one week that may be affected by extreme situational factors like res, oods, or even a stalled car (Epstein 1979). Intentions are also an unbiased predictor of action (Bagozzi et al. 1989), even where time lags exist. Thus, a strong intention to start a business should result in an eventual attempt, even if immediate circumstances such as marriage, child bearing, nishing school, a lucrative or rewarding job, or earthquakes may dictate a long delay. Accordingly, the relatively molar domain of entrepreneurship should be quite amenable to the successful use of intentions-based models. Intentions may explain why it appears easier to identify chronic entrepreneurs, those who create several new ventures in a lifetime.

Evidence for Entrepreneurial Intentionality: Ring a Bell, Start a Business?

In general, much of human behavior is planned; it is difcult to envision starting a business where the nascent rm is launched simply as a conditioned response to a stimulus. Specically, it is equally difcult not to view starting a business as a career choice. A reasonable body of past research supports the contention that career decisions are

COMPETING MODELS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS

415

clearly planned in nature, not responses to stimuli, thus reecting some degree of cognitive processing. If entrepreneurship does reect planned, and therefore, intentional behavior, we should see evidence from other research. Thus, we also examine role model studies as well as studies of nascent or beginning entrepreneurs.

Careers Research
Career choices and related phenomena have been demonstrated, both theoretically and empirically, to be cognitive in nature. That is, career-related decisions reect a process in which beliefs, attitudes, and intentions evolve as we cognitively process our knowledge, beliefs, and experiences (Lent et al. 1994). Prior research suggests that entrepreneurial careers t this pattern (Davidsson 1991; Katz 1992).

Role Model Research

Evidence from entrepreneurial role models supports the potential of intentions models for predicting new venture creation. Intentions explain conicts in research ndings such as the effects of role models and mentors on eliciting subsequent entrepreneurial behaviors. Entrepreneurial role models only weakly predict future entrepreneurial activity (Carsrud et al. 1987; Scott and Twomey 1988). Instead, the subjective impact of role models is a stronger predictor. That is, role models affect entrepreneurial intentions only if they affect attitudes such as self-efcacy (Krueger 1993; Scherer et al. 1989).

Research into Nascent Entrepreneurs

Reynolds and associates are amid a large-scale, long-term project to identify and track nascent (newly initiated, but not fully launched) ventures and their founders. Although it is difcult to identify those who have taken some initial steps but have yet to surface in ofcial records, it is believed that nascent entrepreneurs are surprisingly numerous. Thus, there is much merit in nding out how to help nascent ventures to avoid being stillborn (Reynolds 1994).

Possible Limitations
These arguments strongly support testing intentionality-driven models of entrepreneurship, but few studies do so explicitly. However, not all agree that intentions are ideal. For example, Bagozzis work showed that intentions fully mediate the impact of attitudes on behavior, yet he himself argues that understanding volition requires more complexity (1993). There is also a well-developed model of predicting entrepreneurship that employs attitudes (Robinson et al. 1991b). This suggests that researchers exercise some caution in applying intentions models.

INTENTIONS AND BEHAVIOR Theory-Driven Models of Intentions

Social psychology offers robust and parsimonious models of behavioral intentions with considerable proven predictive value for many behaviors. Such models offer sound the-

416

N.F. KRUEGER, JR., M.D. REILLY, AND A.L. CARSRUD

FIGURE 1 Ajzens Theory of Planned Behavior.

oretical frameworks that specically map out the nature of processes underlying intentional behavior. Meta-analyses (Kim and Hunter 1993) empirically show that intentions successfully predict behavior, and attitudes successfully predict intentions. Across a wide range of studies relating to a wide variety of types of behaviors and the intentions to engage in those behaviors, attitudes explain over 50% of the variance in intentions. Intentions explain 30% or more of the variance in behavior. Explaining 30% of the variance in behavior compares favorably to the 10% typically explained directly by trait measures or attitudes (Ajzen 1987). More distal phenomena such as career choices will likely result in a smaller effect size. Still, intention remains a signicant, unbiased predictor of career choice (Lent et al. 1994). Entrepreneurship models have typically been based on less robust, less predictive approaches using personality traits, demographics, or attitudinal approaches (Krueger and Carsrud 1993; Carsrud et al. 1993). Accordingly, it is appropriate to consider two specic intention models.

AJZENS THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR (TPB)

Social psychologists and marketing researchers have found great success using intention-based models in practical applications and basic research. Such consistently robust and replicable paradigms have been widely applied in practical situations as career preferences, weight loss, and seatbelt and coupon use (Ajzen 1987; Kim and Hunter 1993). There have been a number of developmental intention models and constant advances in modeling intention antecedents have resulted in the current state of the artAjzens Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Figure 1 presents TPB in its most robust and valid form. TPB identies three attitudinal antecedents of intention. Two reect the perceived desirability of performing the behavior: personal attitude toward outcomes of the behavior and perceived social norms. The third, perceived behavioral control, reects perceptions that the behavior is personally controllable. Perceived behavioral control reects the perceived feasibility of performing the behavior and is thus related to perceptions of situational competence (self-efcacy). TPB further species antecedents of each of these attitudes.

Attitude Toward Performing the Behavior

This construct (akin to expectancy) taps perceptions of the personal desirability of performing the behavior. As a check on construct validity, this attitude depends on expecta-

COMPETING MODELS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS

417

tions and beliefs about personal impacts of outcomes resulting from the behavior. Empirically, we solicit critical outcomes of behaviors from a focus group, experts, or holdout sample. We then measure subjects outcome expectations and their perceived probability of occurring. A quick scan of prior work on entrepreneurial intentions found critical testable outcomes such as personal wealth, stress, autonomy, and community benets (Shapero 1982).

Perceived Social Norms

The second major construct from the TPB taps perceptions of what important people in respondents lives think about performing a particular behavior. Included would be the individuals family expectations about the desirability of becoming a lawyer, doctor, or entrepreneur. These normative beliefs are weighted by the strength of the motivation to comply with them. To check construct validity, these subjective social norms should depend on the expected support of signicant others. Interestingly, social norms are less predictive of intentions for subjects with a highly internal locus of control (Ajzen 1987) or a strong orientation toward taking action (Bagozzi et al. 1992). Empirically, we must identify the most important social inuences (for example, parents, signicantother, friends) including any role model or mentor. Research into the personal networks of entrepreneurs often focuses on ows of resources and information. Few studies address social norms and values provided by network members (Shapero 1982).

Perceived Behavioral Control and Perceived Self-Efcacy

A major advancement over more widely disseminated intention models is the addition of the third predictive component, perceived behavioral control. Perceived behavioral control overlaps Banduras (1986) view of perceived self-efcacy, the perceived ability to execute a target behavior (Ajzen 1987). As an attribution of personal control in a given situation, self-efcacy connects conceptually and empirically to attribution theory, already successfully applied to new venture initiation (Meyer et al. 1993). The highly self-efcacious attribute setbacks as learning experiences, not personal failure (Bandura 1986; Seligman 1990). Bandura (1986) notes that the mechanisms for inuencing efcacy judgments include enactive mastery (hands-on experience), vicarious learning, and physiological/ emotional arousal.

Self-Efcacy and Managerial Behavior

Self-efcacy has been linked theoretically and empirically with many managerial and entrepreneurial phenomena. Feasibility perceptions consistently predict goal-directed behavior where control is problematic (Ajzen 1991). Most important, feasibility perceptions drive career-related choices, including self-employment as an entrepreneur. For example, gender and ethnic differences in career preferences seem to be fully mediated by differences in self-efcacy (Hackett et al. 1993). Correlations between self-efcacy and career intent range from 0.3 to 0.6 (Bandura 1986; Lent et al. 1994). This correlation is better than most predictors used in entrepreneurship research, such as locus of control (Brockhaus and Horwitz 1986).

418

N.F. KRUEGER, JR., M.D. REILLY, AND A.L. CARSRUD

FIGURE 2 Shapero-Krueger Model.

Self-Efcacy and Entrepreneurial Behavior

Self-efcacy is linked to initiating and persisting at behavior under uncertainty, to setting higher goals, and reducing threat-rigidity and learned helplessness (Bandura 1986). This is important because opportunity recognition depends on situational perceptions of controllability (Dutton 1993) and self-efcacy (Krueger and Dickson 1994). Much as self-efcacy predicts opportunity recognition, self-efcacy perceptions are also pivotal to self-employment intentions (Scherer et al. 1989). Self-reported competencies are predictive of entrepreneurial performance (Chandler and Jansen 1992). Entrepreneurship researchers largely ignore the concept of self-efcacy despite its importance and proven robustness at predicting both general and specic behaviors. For instance, role models affect entrepreneurial intentions only if they affect self-efcacy. In addition, self-efcacy has been associated with opportunity recognition and risk-taking (Krueger and Dickson 1994) as well as career choice (Bandura 1986).

SHAPEROS MODEL OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL EVENT (SEE)

Now that the rst contender for the title of best predictor of the intention to start a business is fully explicated, we turn to the domain of entrepreneurial research to see if there is anything already extant that would serve as an appropriate comparison. Upon modest reection, it is clear that Shaperos (1982) model of the Entrepreneurial Event (SEE) is implicitly an intention model, specic to the domain of entrepreneurship. In the SEE, intentions to start a business derive from perceptions of desirability and feasibility and from a propensity to act upon opportunities. Shaperos model (Figure 2) assumes that inertia guides human behavior until something interrupts or displaces that inertia. Displacement is often negative, such as job loss or divorce, but it can easily be positive, such as getting an inheritance or winning the lottery. Displacement precipitates a change in behavior where the decision maker seeks the best opportunity available from a set of alternatives (Katz 1992). The choice of behavior depends on the relative credibility of alternative behaviors (in this situation to this decision maker) plus some propensity to act (without which signicant action may not be taken). Credibility requires a behavior be seen as both desirable and feasible. Entrepreneurial events thus require the potential to start a business (credibility and propensity to act) to exist before the displacement and a propensity to act afterwards (Shapero 1982). As with TPB, exogenous inuences do not directly affect intentions or behavior. They operate through person-situation perceptions of desirability and feasibility. In a recent study perceived feasibility, perceived desirability, and the propensity to act ex-

COMPETING MODELS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS

419

plain well over half the variance in intentions toward entrepreneurship; feasibility perceptions explained the most variance (Krueger 1993). Shapero offers evidence of how perceptions are critical in this process. Signicant life events (job loss, migration, etc.) can precipitate sizable increases in entrepreneurial activity. The founders have not changed, only their perceptions of the new circumstances have. Their entrepreneurial potential clearly existed, but the potential required displacement to surface. Shapero also offers examples of company foundings where only subjective circumstances had changed, such as approaching ones fortieth birthday.

Perceived Desirability and Perceived Feasibility

Shapero dened perceived desirability as the personal attractiveness of starting a business, including both intrapersonal and extrapersonal impacts. Perceived feasibility is the degree to which one feels personally capable of starting a business. Empirically, Shapero proposed a testable eight-item inventory of questions aimed at different aspects of perceived desirability and feasibility. Empirical measures of self-efcacy (antecedents of perceived feasibility) assess beliefs that one can personally execute a given behavior (I can get 8 out of 10 calculus problems right). Bandura (1986) argues for global measures summing self-efcacy at critical competencies as identied by experts, focus group, or a holdout sample.

Propensity to Act
Shapero conceptualized propensity to act as the personal disposition to act on ones decisions, thus reecting volitional aspects of intentions (I will do it). It is hard to envision well-formed intentions without some propensity to act. Conceptually, propensity to act on an opportunity depends on control perceptions: that is, the desire to gain control by taking action. Empirically, we must identify a measure closely linked to initiating and persisting at goal-directed behavior under uncertainty and adversity. Shapero suggested internal locus of control, although managers often score equally as internal as entrepreneurs do. Another well-established conceptualization of this phenomenon is learned optimism. This highly valid, reliable measure consistently predicts commitment to goal-directed behavior in many settings (Seligman 1990).

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING THE MODELS

Both TPB and SEE are largely homologous to one another. Both contain an element conceptually associated with perceived self-efcacy (perceived behavioral control in TPB; perceived feasibility in SEE). TPBs other two attitude measures correspond to SEEs perceived desirability. Yet, one can have great potential for entrepreneurial activity without corresponding intentions. Thus, it would appear that appropriate attitudes may not be enough. Many business founders had little intention of starting a business only a few years before (Katz 1992). Then, consider the many nascent entrepreneurs who never launch their intended businesses (Reynolds 1994). To account for these phenomena, SEE adds a volitional element to intentions: the propensity to act. Finally, exploratory research on entrepreneurial intentions identied independently much the same antecedent attitudes as these models propose, suggesting further support for the cognitive framework that underlies planned, intentional behavior (Davidsson 1991).

420

N.F. KRUEGER, JR., M.D. REILLY, AND A.L. CARSRUD

CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL ISSUES IN MODEL TESTING

Before the test of the two models can be conducted, it is necessary to clear up a few issues. Intentions refer to the target behavior of starting a business. By denition, this behavior is planned. Entrepreneurial intentions also reect the founders vision of the emerging organization and subsequent corporate culture. If organizational emergence is a process consisting of a series of purposeful, perception-driven decisions as Shapero (1982), Bird (1988), and Katz and Gartner (1988) suggest, then intentions channel this decision-making process. Conceptually and empirically, attitudes and intentions should refer clearly to the same target behavior at the same level of specicity (Kim and Hunter 1993).

Sampling Issues
Meta-analysis (Kim and Hunter 1993) suggests the sensitivity of intentional processes to initial conditions. This urges us to study entrepreneurial phenomena before they occur and to include non-entrepreneurial intending subjects. Such purposive sampling is necessary for proper theory testing (MacMillan and Katz 1992). Clinical studies of disease identify subjects prior to the onset of illness, while geologists study volcanoes prior to eruption and include volcanoes in various stages of dormancy. Sensitivity to initial conditions in new venture initiation processes means that it is inherently nonlinear. Sampling only successful or current entrepreneurs introduces biases that censor data unpredictably, especially for rare phenomena. Samples of upper division students reveal vocational preferences at a time when they face important career decisions. Such samples explicitly include subjects with a broad spectrum of intentions and attitudes toward entrepreneurship. Details of a business may not yet have coalesced in subjects minds, but global career intentions should have (Scherer et al. 1989).

RESEARCH DESIGN
Assessing the relative ability of TPB and SEE in explaining entrepreneurial intentions requires comparing and contrasting them. Both models may reasonably t the empirical data, yet neither model may be fully supported. On the other hand, both models may prove equally weak. We thus use Chamberlins approach (1890/1965) of multiple working hypotheses that we test against one another, rather than against an arbitrary standard. As we test these models via regression analysis, the appropriate comparative diagnostic is adjusted R. We must also consider whether data support each theory-based component of the models. This allows us to assess where overlapping models truly differ. In short, a competing models approach is vital to assess well-established models. Differences in measuring perceived feasibility might dominate any global differences between the models. We thus elected to use a common, theory-driven measure of perceived feasibility for both models (and the same intentions measure). As these components are common to both models, any differences in the models must derive from the other components. Differences might also derive from faulty measures. To check construct validity, we tested key antecedents for each component. Perceived feasibility should be signicantly linked to a measure of perceived self-efcacy. Attitudes toward the act should be linked to expected utilities from key outcomes. Subjective norms should be linked to normative beliefs weighted by motive to comply (Ajzen

COMPETING MODELS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS

421

TABLE 1a. Descriptive Statistics

Variable Intentions Global Perceived Feasibility Global Perceived Desirability Attitude toward Act Subjective Norms Sum of Self-Efcacies Sum of Expectancies Sum of Normative Beliefs Sum of Perceived Desirabilities Mean 26.67 46.30 58.50 56.64 4.18 168.56 114.16 24.26 21.25 Std Dev 28.07 34.70 34.01 32.01 1.64 39.79 46.04 12.91 4.14

1987). Perceived desirability should be linked to Shaperos scale for perceived desirability. Statistical support lessens the risk of differences between models resulting from awed measures. We tested the TPB model by regressing intentions on attitudes toward the act, subjective norms, and perceived feasibility. We tested the SEE model by regressing intentions on perceived desirability, perceived feasibility, and propensity to act.

DATA AND MEASURES Sample and Statistical Power

The sample comprised 97 senior university business students (40 female) currently facing important career decisions. This lets us examine entrepreneurial processes prior to actual entrepreneurial activity. Note that these models hold for subjects of all ages. Even among adolescents, career intent signicantly predicts eventual career choice (Trice 1991). The sample provides subjects with broad ranges of experiences, intentions, attitudes toward entrepreneurship, and dispositions. This reduces risk of range restriction, though the sample did appear homogeneous in ethnicity. This sample will be used in a longitudinal follow-up. A one-tailed test with 0.10, expected effect size of 0.3 (after adjusting for reliabilities), and sample size of 97 yields less than a 20% chance of a Type II error. See Tables 1(a) and 1(b) for descriptive statistics.

Measures1 Measures Used in Both Models

Intentions: Estimate the probability youll start your own business in the next 5 years? Global Perceived Feasibility: How practical is it for you to start your own business? (scale: 0 to 100) Perceived Self-Efcacy: This sums perceived self-efcacies at critical entrepreneurial tasks. [Reliability: Cronbachs was 0.83.]
1

Full instrument is available from the lead author.

422

N.F. KRUEGER, JR., M.D. REILLY, AND A.L. CARSRUD

TABLE 1b. Correlation Matrix

GPF INTENT GPF GPD A_ACT
(*p

GPD 0.572* 0.701*

A_ACT 0.553* 0.668* 0.718*

SUBJNORM 0.310 0.308 0.360 0.290

0.517*

0.001, otherwise, p

0.01)

Measures Used Only in TPB

Attitude Toward the Act: Is starting your own business an attractive idea to you? (scale: 0 to 100) Social Norms: Would family and friends want you to start your own business? (scale: 0 to 100) Expected Utilities: Respondents rated the perceived value of ve different outcomes (autonomy, stress, nancial performance, personal satisfaction, personal quality of life) of starting a business and the likelihood of occurring. This measure is the sum of the values weighted by the expected likelihoods. (Each item used a 7-point Likert scale.) Normative Beliefs and Motives to Comply: Respondents rated perceived reactions of four different normative inuences (friends, parents/family, mentor/role model, signicant other) to the subject starting his/her own business and the perceived importance of their opinions. This measure sums the strength of the perceived reactions weighted by perceived importance.

Measures Used Only in SEE

Global Perceived Desirability: On a scale from 0 to 100, how desirable is it for you to start your own business? Specic Perceived Desirabilities: Four items from Shapero measured on 7-point scales. Cronbachs of 0.69. 1. 2. 3. 4. I would love doing it (Id love doing itId hate doing it) How tense would you be? (very tensenot tense at all) How enthusiastic would you be? (very enthusedvery unenthusiastic) How overworked would you be? (not at all overworkedextremely overworked) Propensity to Act: Version of Seligmans measure of learned optimism. [Reliability: of 0.79.]

RESULTS Theory of Planned Behavior

Figure 3a shows signicant, though not complete, support for the theory of planned behavior. Adjusted R2 for the regression of global perceived feasibility, attitude, and social norms upon intentions was 0.350 (p 0.0001). However, the social norms component was non-signicant, though the raw correlation between social norms and inten-

COMPETING MODELS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS

423

FIGURE 3a Results for Theory of Planned Behavior.

tions was signicant (R2 0.31, p 0.002). [Social norms correlated with attitude toward the act (R2 0.29, p 0.004) and perceived feasibility (R2 0.31, p 0.002).] Intentions were predicted signicantly by global perceived feasibility (p 0.005) and attitude toward the act (p 0.05). As expected, perceived feasibility represented a stronger inuence on intentions. Every other relationship predicted by the theory of planned behavior was signicant (p 0.05 or better) in the expected direction. Each attitude measure was associated signicantly with theorized antecedents, including the relationship between social norms and its predicted antecedent. Perceived feasibility was correlated with self-efcacy (R2 0.100, p 0.002). Attitude toward the act was correlated with 0.189). Social norms were correlated with normative beliefs expected utilities (R2 weighted by motive to comply (R2 0.171, p 0.008).

Shapero Model
Figure 3b shows full support for the Shapero model of the Entrepreneurial Event (SEE). The adjusted R2 for the regression of global perceived feasibility, global perceived desirability, and propensity to act upon intentions was 0.408 (p 0.0001). Every relationship predicted by the model was signicant (p 0.05 or better) in the expected direction. Intentions were correlated signicantly with global perceived feasibility (p 0.004) and global perceived desirability (p 0.005). It is important to note the comparable impact in the TPB model. Intentions were also predicted by propensity to act (p 0.04). As above, each attitude measure was associated signicantly with its theorized antecedents. As noted, global perceived feasibility was correlated with perceived self-efcacy (R2 0.111, p 0.002). Global perceived desirability was correlated with specic perceived desirabilities (R2 0.231, p 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION Comparing and Contrasting the Models

Figure 2 suggests the Shapero model offers a marginally higher adjusted R2. More important, every component of the Shapero model was supported statistically at p 0.05, while the variance explained uniquely by the social norms component of the Ajzen

424

N.F. KRUEGER, JR., M.D. REILLY, AND A.L. CARSRUD

FIGURE 3b Shapero-Krueger Model.

model was non-signicant. Are there systematic problems in measuring social norms relevant to entrepreneurial populations? Or, do social norms simply not predict entrepreneurial intentions in this sample? It is possible that social norms may only be important in ethnic groups who have strong traditions of entrepreneurship. Or, there may be cultural differences in the importance of social norms in economic activity. For example, intentions research in Scandinavia nds a greater impact from social forces (Davidsson 1991; Reitan 1997). Alternately, perhaps the popular stereotype of entrepreneurs as iconoclastic individualists captures a tendency toward inner-directedness. Ajzens review (1987) and related work by Bagozzi et al. (1992) notes that a highly internal locus of control reduced the impact of social norms. In addition, in the minds of subjects, social norms can be hopelessly confounded with other attitudes (recall that social norms were associated both with attitude toward the act and with perceived feasibility). Reitan (1997) suggests that perceived social norms may instead serve to moderate or even mediate the impact of the other attitudes on intentions. Prior research is persuasive that social inuences (such as personal networks) are nonetheless present in entrepreneurial decision making (Dubini and Aldrich 1991). Finally, social norms might prove a more useful predictor of intentions toward corporate ventures, as the organizational setting is social in nature. More research on this conundrum is denitely needed. The Shapero model appears slightly superior for assessing entrepreneurial intentions, at least as the models are specied currently. However, the theory of planned behavior appears equally useful. Both of these two intention-based models offer researchers a valuable tool for understanding the process of organizational emergence.

Limitations of the Study

Before reviewing the implications of this effort for research, practice, and public policy, it is appropriate to consider some of the limitations of this study. Specically, one might want to be cautious about interpreting the results in light of the following factors:

COMPETING MODELS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS

425

Student Sample
The respondents in the study were students facing an immediate career choice, for whom starting a business may be a realistic option. Also, even very early career intent is a good predictor (Trice 1991). Nonetheless, they are still students. Researchers and practitioners may thus be skeptical, even if the sample is valid. For instance, we know that student entrepreneurs are unlike other students and unlike other entrepreneurs (Robinson et al. 1991a). On the other hand, students and managers respond similarly when queried about strategic decisions (Bateman and Zeithaml 1989).

Behavior
The study merely modeled the ability of these models to predict intentions. Ultimately, we are more interested in behavior. It remains to be seen that intending to start a business is as well predicted by intentions as other behaviors are by intentions, but we have the opportunity to follow up on this sample in a few years.

Cross Sectional Study

Along the same lines, we will need to ultimately examine the relationship between entrepreneurial attitudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and entrepreneurial behaviors over time. The current study looks only at a snapshot to explore whether the static relationships among the rst two of these factors are congruent with the predictions derived from two competing models. However, cross-sectional models are widely used in intentions research without losing validity or robustness (Ajzen 1987).

Single-Item Measures
It would be equally valuable if future studies would employ multiple-item measures of key constructs to reduce measurement error. Although research into intentions and selfefcacy has often used single-item measures, multiple items would increase condence of researchers at little cost.2

IMPLICATIONS
Past research shows the importance of intentions and the robustness of the known antecedents of intentions, especially where focal phenomena are relatively rare as with entrepreneurship. These ndings offer little, if any, contrary evidence. What can we thus conclude from explicit consideration of entrepreneurial intentionality?

General Implications
Intentions consistently and robustly predict planned behaviors. As entrepreneurship is a planned behavior, we should nd intentions models quite useful. Understanding the antecedents of intentions implies understanding the behavior. Attitudes inuence behavior through effects on intentions. Intentions and attitudes depend on the situation
2

The authors thank the editor and reviewers for reminding us of this.

426

N.F. KRUEGER, JR., M.D. REILLY, AND A.L. CARSRUD

and person. Accordingly, intentions models predict behavior better than either individual (for example, personality) or situational (for example, employment status) variables. Predictive power is critical to better post hoc explanations of entrepreneurial behavior. Intentions models provide superior predictive validity. Personal and situational variables typically have an indirect inuence on entrepreneurship by inuencing key attitudes and general motivation to act. For instance, role models affect entrepreneurial intentions largely because they affect attitudes and beliefs such as perceived self-efcacy. Intention-based models offer mechanisms to assess relative impacts of exogenous inuences (for example, perceptions of resource availability) on intentions and, ultimately, venture creation. The versatility and robustness of intention models support the broader use of theory-driven, comprehensive, testable process models in entrepreneurship research (MacMillan and Katz 1992). For instance, understanding the nature of intentional behavior helps explain why many entrepreneurs decide to start a business long before they scan for opportunities or decide exactly what type of business to start (Brockhaus and Horwitz 1986). The growing interest in entrepreneurs beliefs and decision-making processes helps us to begin asking what kinds of factors contribute to the decision to become involved in entrepreneurial activity. Intention-based models appear most promising for research and for teaching and practice.

Research Implications
Intentions models offer great utility and considerable potential for entrepreneurship researchers in advancing theory. Using formal intentions models offers the researcher a well-developed theory base used in multiple disciplines and also offers clear, testable hypotheses. Both increase the rigor of research without losing any relevance. This approach and the signicant ndings add strong evidence for person situation variables, as opposed to the more usual person variables or situational variables.

Cognitions are Important

The ndings here add to existing theory and evidence that argues for the importance of cognitive issues. This tells us that it would be most fruitful to open the cognitive black box and try to understand the cognitive processes inside. For example, certain learned attitudes such as self-efcacy are vital. Okay, how do we learn them? We know that skills and skill sets are vital; how do we learn them? And how do we best teach them? For example, the impact of teaching entrepreneurial competencies on perceptions of venture feasibility could be important for specic types of ventures. For example, we can identify more specic task self-efcacies that inuence perceptions of feasibility for high technology ventures.

Business Plans and Planning

Research has explored many aspects of new venture plans. Intentionality argues instead that we study the planning process itself. Understanding intentions helps us to better understand where ideas for a business venture come from and how the venture becomes a reality. Research has explored many aspects of new venture plans. Intentionality ar-

COMPETING MODELS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS

427

gues instead for studies on the process of planning: how do new venture plans evolve from an idea to a well-developed business concept (Bird 1988; Katz and Gartner 1988)?

Extending the Domain

We can use intentions models to predict other strategic decisions (for example, the decision to grow or exit a business). We can model the intentions of critical stakeholders in the venture, such as venture capitalists intentions toward investing in a given company. Finally, management researchers can explore signicant conceptual overlaps between intentions and opportunity identication. Intentions offer a useful vehicle for gaining new insights into the processes by which we identify opportunities and how we formulate and implement resulting actions.

Addressing Past Criticisms

Methodologically, intentions models address several criticisms often leveled at entrepreneurship research. One signicant criticism is emphasizing retrospective and post hoc research methods. Instead of the more prevalent ad hoc models and measures of new venture initiation, critics suggest careful testing of theory-driven models (Carsrud et al. 1993; MacMillan and Katz 1992). Hindsight can be dangerously imperfect for understanding any intentional behavior. We too often accept a spurious relationship based on a biased recall measure or an inappropriately censored sample, then compound the problems by using the unpredictably biased results in an ad hoc model. For instance, we see models based on spurious demographic relationships (Carsrud et al. 1993). The net result is often irreproducible conclusions about the emergence of new businesses. Thus, if organizational emergence is an intentional process (Bird 1988; Katz and Gartner 1988), why not use intentions models? Let us evaluate the entire emergence process including not only successful and unsuccessful entrepreneurs, but also those who change their minds and those whose ventures fail (Reynolds 1992). We can use archival databases to test psychosocial models longitudinally (Katz 1992).

Exogenous Inuences
The rewards from using intentions models include a better understanding of how exogenous factors inuence the emergence of new ventures. The literature (Shapero 1982) offers an interesting menu of exogenous factors that represent potential testable antecedents of attitudes (for example, traits, demographics, skills, and social, cultural, and nancial support). We can test the impact of teaching critical managerial and entrepreneurial competencies on perceptions of venture feasibility, including specic types of ventures. Will perceived self-efcacy at new product development tasks inuence the perceived feasibility of high-tech ventures?

From Intent to Action

Katz (1992) and Reynolds (1994) both note the often-signicant time lags from intent to action. This argues that studying entrepreneurs should prove useful to a better understanding of how intentions are (or are not ) realized in strategic decision-making and

428

N.F. KRUEGER, JR., M.D. REILLY, AND A.L. CARSRUD

how intentions change. We can use intention-based models on corporate ventures or for other strategic decisions such as the decision to exit or to grow a rm. An especially intriguing possibility is to model the intentions of critical stakeholders in the venture. For example, what are the intentions of venture capitalists toward investing in a given company? Do they perceive their most inuential social norms to be within the venture capital community? What specic self-efcacies inuence perceptions of a potential investments feasibility? What about other stakeholders such as bankers, suppliers, and employees? Meyer et al. (1993) have already explored differences in causal attributions between venture capital investors and investees.

Implications for Management Researchers

We see how studying entrepreneurs could be more broadly useful to management research. Studying entrepreneurs already increases our understanding of intentions as Shaperos notions of displacement and propensity to act already add to our understanding of intention-behavior relationships. Adding volition makes a useful contribution of entrepreneurship research to the study of strategic decision making. Equally important is the signicant conceptual overlap between intentions and opportunity identication. Intentions represent a useful vehicle for gaining new insights into the processes by which we identify opportunities and threats and how we formulate and implement resulting action. This extends the impact of intentions models beyond independent new ventures to any arena where opportunity identication is important. Finally, as entrepreneurs are highly visible exemplars of organizational enactment, it should be easier to track the cognitions of founders than to explore more complex organizational mindsets (Guth et al. 1991).

Implications for Teachers

Educators can invoke this model to better understand our students motivations and intentions, and thus provide better training. As noted earlier, gender and ethnic differences in career choice derive from differences in perceived self-efcacy, differences that we already know how to remedy. For example, we still hear that women entrepreneurs are more prone to open businesses in the retail sector than in manufacturing. This suggests that in our teaching or training we look for differences in perceived desirability and, more likely, perceived feasibility. If a critical decit lies in perceived feasibility, we know how to increase self-efcacy perceptions. However, the intentions model is what gave us the diagnosis. This diagnostic strength allows educators a different way of looking at most case studies. Consider the case of Dorsey Trailers, a fascinating entrepreneurial buyout of a truck trailer manufacturer (Lane 1995). Entrepreneur Marilyn Marks not only bootstrapped the buyout but has weathered (literally) both Hurricane Opal and a ood. Usually, most attention is paid to her being a nontraditional entrepreneur (a young woman in the Southern U.S. building truck trailers?) or the recovery from two weather disasters. However, one can also examine Markss strategies through the lens of intentionality. That is, the specic innovative strategies chosen seem to clearly reect courses of action that Marks deemed desirable and feasibleor that could be made feasible.

COMPETING MODELS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS

429

Implications for Practitioners

Intentions-based models yield useful practical applications whenever behavior is intentional. Consultants, advisors, and the entrepreneurs themselves will all benet from a better understanding of how intentions are formed and how founders beliefs, perceptions, and motives coalesce into the intent to start a business. The entrepreneurs themselves should gain considerable value from a better understanding of their own motives. The lens provided by intentions affords them the opportunity to understand why they made certain choices in their vision of the new venture. It is useful to recognize how we differ across types of business in our perceptions of desirability and feasibility.

Implications for Public Policy

Policy makers benet from understanding that government initiatives will affect business formations only if these policies are perceived in a way that inuences attitudes or intentions. Two growing societal trends make all this more than a sterile academic exercise. Downsizing and outsourcing currently dominate much of the U.S. corporate landscape. Recognition is growing among policy-makers that economic and community development hinges not on smokestack-chasing, but on growing your own businesses. If we seek to encourage economic and community development by promoting new enterprises, we need a much better understanding of the process. Robust empirical support for both models argues that promoting entrepreneurial intentions requires promoting perceptions of both feasibility and desirability. Even if we increase the quantity and quality of potential entrepreneurs, we must also increase the credibility of entrepreneurship among critical stakeholders in the community. Government ofcials, politicians, suppliers, investors, bankers, friends and neighbors, and the larger community must also see entrepreneurial activity as desirable and feasible (Shapero 1982). We must also make certain that we include all strata of society (Hood and Young 1993). Ethnic and gender differences in career choice may derive from self-efcacy differences, but we know how to remediate such differences. Finally, this should all be done with an eye toward encouraging already-launched businesses. Reynolds eloquently points out that stillborn ventures contribute little to a local community, thus we must empower already-nascent entrepreneurs (Reynolds 1994).

FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS: EXTENDING MODEL SPECIFICATION AND MEASURES

We must address the seeming non-impact of social norms on entrepreneurial intentions in this sample. Given that research elsewhere into entrepreneurial intentions (Davidssons 1991 work with Swedish samples; Reitan 1997; Shepherd and Douglas 1997) nds a signicant impact, we must consider specifying different measures (including multiple-item measures). Research on entrepreneurial networks suggests that the social norms of network members may have more signicant impacts on intentions than opinions of family and friends. Measures of social capital may signicantly affect a behaviors perceived feasibility. Denitely, we should also test these models on samples of subjects facing career decisions who differ in age, experience, and ethnicity.

430

N.F. KRUEGER, JR., M.D. REILLY, AND A.L. CARSRUD

We could test alternate comprehensive processes. We have already noted that exploratory studies of intent have independently surfaced antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions that parallel the Shapero/SEE framework, but have also added interesting renements (Davidsson 1991). The most recent research suggests that the model itself could be re-specied (Shepherd and Douglas 1997; Reitan 1997). For example, Reitans work argues that perceived social norms might prove as a better mediating or moderating variable. Finally, one might construct a competing models test of intentions models versus alternate attitude models (Robinson et al. 1991b). We can also examine renements from the intentions literature, for example,, prior behavior or experience may explain additional variance in intentions and behavior (Ajzen 1987). For example, intentions models assume that target behaviors are salient in the decision makers mind. Even with signicant potential to act, there need not be any intentions to do so. Salient change in the situation is necessary to precipitate intentions and thus behavior. For example, an unexpected situation is one of the rare non-intentional predictors of behavior which are statistically signicant (Cote et al. Reilly 1985). Finally, we certainly need to explore how intention precipitates into behavior. Although this study focused on the antecedents of intentions to start a business, future research must also explore relationships between intentions and behavior. Shapero (1982) proposed that some precipitating event triggers the process and offers a list of precipitating events worth testing. This includes a follow up of these subjects or other longitudinal design. A variant on this is suggested by the case of Marilyn Marks and Dorsey Trailers (Lane 1995). If we see an actionable opportunity, we might focus on making it feasible (thus changing intent might be changing feasibility perceptions). Recall that self-efcacy can increase signicantly from emotional arousal: I have to do this, therefore I can do it. This argues for exploring the possibility that the causal relationships might run in both directions. If true, that would offer numerous opportunities to expand our understanding of intentions.3 However, in conclusion, we must recognize that the intentional nature of entrepreneurial activity has important ramications, but it also offers sizable opportunities for a deeper, richer understanding of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship. If Hamel and Prahalad are correct in urging the planned, intentional pursuit of new opportunities, then we all need to better understand how we learn to perceive those opportunities.

REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. 1987. Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in social psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 20:163. Ajzen, I. 1991.Theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50:179211. Bagozzi, R., Baumgartner, H., and Yi, Y. 1989. An investigation into the role of intentions as mediators of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Economic Psychology 10:3562. Bagozzi, R., Baumgartner, H., and Yi, Y. 1992. State vs. action orientation and the theory of reasoned action. Journal of Consumer Research 18(4):505518. Bandura, A. 1986. The Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
3

We are grateful to Marlene Fiol for this intriguing (if unsettling) insight.

COMPETING MODELS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS

431

Bateman, T., and Zeithaml, C. 1989. The psychological context of strategic decisions: A test of relevance to practitioners. Strategic Management Journal 10(6):587592. Bird, B. 1988. Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intentions. Academy of Management Review 13:442454. Brockhaus, R., and Horwitz, P. 1986. Psychology of the entrepreneur. In D. Sexton and R. Smilor, eds., The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Ballinger, 2548. Carsrud, A., Gaglio, C., and Kernochan, R. 1993. Demographics in entrepreneurship research: Guidelines for the use of demographic data. R. Brockhaus and J. Katz, eds., Research in Firm Emergence, Growth, and Entrepreneurship, 1. Carsrud, A., Olm, K., and Eddy, G. 1987. Entrepreneursmentors, networks, and successful new venture development: an exploratory study. American Journal of Small Business 12:1318. Chamberlin, T. 1965/1890.The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science 186:7577. Chandler, G., and Jansen, E. 1992. The founders self-assessed competence and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing 7:223236. Cote, J., McCullough, J., and Reilly, M. 1985. Effects of unexpected situations on behavior-intention differences: a garbology analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 12(2):18194. Davidsson, P. 1991. Continued entrepreneurship: Ability, need, and opportunity as determinants of small rm growth. Journal of Business Venturing 6(6):405429. Dubini, P., and Aldrich, H. 1991. Personal and extended networks are central to the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing 6(5):305313. Dutton, J. 1993. The making of organizational opportunities: Interpretive pathway to organizational change. In B. Staw and L. Cummings, eds., Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich: JAI, 15. Epstein, S. 1979. The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:10971126. Guth, W., Kuraswamy, A., and McErlean, M. 1991. Cognition, enactment, and learning in the entrepreneurial process. Paper presented at Babson Entrepreneurship Conference. Hackett, G., Betz, N., Casas, J., and Rocha-Singh, I. 1992. Gender, ethnicity, and social cognitive factors predicting achievement. Journal of Counseling Psychology 39:527538. Hood, J., and Young, J. 1993. Entrepreneurship as a route out of poverty and low-income status. Paper presented to ICSB. Katz, J. 1992. Modeling entrepreneurial career progressions: Concepts and considerations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 19(2):2339. Katz, J., and Gartner, W. 1988. Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review 13:429441. Kim, M., and Hunter, J. 1993. Relationships among attitudes, intentions and behavior. Communication Research 20:331364. Krueger, N. 1993. Impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18(1):521. Krueger, N., and Carsrud, A. 1993. Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behavior. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 5:315330. Krueger, N., and Dickson, P. 1994 How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: Self-efcacy and perceptions of opportunity and threat. Decision Sciences 25:385400. Lane, R. 1995. Dont mess with Marilyn. Forbes 156, December 4:106. Lent, R. et al. 1994. Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior 45(1):79122. MacMillan, I., and Katz, J. 1992. Idiosyncratic milieus of entrepreneurship research: The need for comprehensive theories. Journal of Business Venturing 7:18. Meyer, G., Zacharakis, A., and de Castro, J. 1993. Postmortem of new venture failure: An attribution theory perspective. Paper presented to Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference.

432

N.F. KRUEGER, JR., M.D. REILLY, AND A.L. CARSRUD

Reitan, B. 1997. Where do we learn that entrepreneurship is feasible, desirable, and/or protable? Paper presented to the ICSB World Conference. Reynolds, P. 1992. Sociology and entrepreneurship: Concepts and contributions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16:4770. Reynolds, P. 1994. The entrepreneurial process: Preliminary explorations in the U. S. Paper at 1st Eurostate International Workshop on Techniques of Enterprise Panels, Luxembourg. Robinson, P. et al. 1991a. Entrepreneurial research on student subjects does not generalize to real world entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management 29(2):4250. Robinson, P. et al. 1991b. An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15(4):1331. Scherer, R., Adams, J., Carley, S., and Wiebe, F. 1989. Role model performance effects on development of entrepreneurial career preference. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 13:5381. Scott, M., and Twomey, D. 1988. The long-term supply of entrepreneurs: Students career aspirations in relation to entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management 26:513. Seligman, M. 1990. Learned Optimism. New York: Knopf. Shapero A. 1982. Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton and K. Vesper, eds., The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 7290. Shaver, K., and Scott, L. 1992. Person, process, and choice: The psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16:2345. Shepherd, D., and Douglas, E. 1997. Entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions of career decision makers. Paper presented to the ICSB World Conference. Trice, A. 1991. Relationship between rst aspirations, parental occupation, and current occupation. Psychological Reports 68(1):287290.