Sabrina Sihombing-Pelita Harapan

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur?
An Examination of the Theory of Trying
Sabrina O. Sihombing
What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur? An Examination of the Theory of Trying Sabrina O. Sihombing University of Pelita Harapan sabrinasihombing@gmail.com
Abstract Being an entrepreneur is one goal of many students after completing the study. This is because entrepreneurships offer many benefits such as owning business and a possibility of having significant financial rewards than working for others. Entrepreneurship is also known as a key for innovation and the wealth of nations. Much research has applied the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to predict intention to become entrepreneurs. However, no researches have applied the theory of trying (TT) to understand intention to become entrepreneur. The aim of this research to assess applicability of the theory of trying to predict intention to become entrepreneurs. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect the data for this study. Questionnaires were distributed to respondents by the drop-off/pick-up method and a total of 146 usable questionnaires were used in the analysis. The data was then analyzed using structural equation modeling. Three out of six hypotheses were supported. Those hypotheses are the relationship between attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur and intention to try becoming an entrepreneur, the relationship subjective norms and intention to try becoming an entrepreneur, and the relationship between attitude toward success and expectation of success and attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur. This paper also provides discussion and offers directions for future research. Key words: theory of trying, theory of planned behavior, intention, entrepreneur
International Seminar Becoming The Key Player in New Globalism 63rd FEB Unhas
What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur? An Examination of the Theory of Trying
Introduction Entrepreneur is a word that attracts many people from different fields nowadays. People in government fields believe that entrepreneurs as one main factor that can contribute to the development of nations. Academicians believe that entrepreneurs as people who can find many potential things to be done. Furthermore, entrepreneurship is then offered in many universities. Not only that, entrepreneurship is now also offered as a subject in high school (Kompas, 2011). Being an entrepreneur is also as one goal of many students after completing the study. This is because entrepreneurships offer many benefits such as owning business and a possibility of having significant financial rewards than working for others. Entrepreneurship is also known as a key for innovation and the wealth of nations (Bouncken, Zagvozdina, Golze, and Mrozewska, 2009). Many entrepreneurship researches have focused on student intention to become entrepreneur (e.g., Izedonmi and Okafor, 2010; Zain, Akram, and Ghani, 2010; Weber, von Graevenitz, and Harhoff, 2009; Veciana, Aponte, and Urbana, 2005; Krueger, Reilly, and Carsrud, 2000). This is because intentions have proven as the best predictor of planned behavior whereas entrepreneurship is the type of planned behavior (Krueger et al., 2000). Therefore, several studies apply the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to understand student intention to become entrepreneur (e.g., Brannback, Krueger, Carsrud, Kickul, and Elfving, 2007; Linan and Chen, 2006; Krueger et al., 2000). However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no empirical research have attempted on examining the theory of trying to predict student intention to become entrepreneur. Nevertheless the theory of trying is as a refinement of the TPB which final performance is assumed to be preceding by a series of attempt and trials (Brannback et al., 2007). Furthermore, Carsrud and Brannback (2011) pointed out that researches based on the theory of trying have been carried out to predict low-level goals such as loosing weight and using a piece of software. Therefore, there is a need to apply the theory to predict higher level goals such a becoming an entrepreneur (Carsrud and Brannback, 2011). This paper is organized as follows. First, justifications of the research are presented. Then, the literature review on about entrepreneur definition and entrepreneur intentions and the theory of trying are provided. The next section is research method followed by results of this research. Finally, this paper provides conclusions of this research. Justifications to the research This research can be justified on these two grounds as follows: (1) the need to test the theory of trying in different contexts and (2) potential contributions of the research for theory and practice. The need to test the theory of trying in different contexts. Theory of trying (hereafter TT) was developed by Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990). The objective of TT is to explain goaldirected behaviors. As stated above, Carsrud and Brannback (2011) pointed out that researches based on the theory of trying have been carried out to predict low-level goals such as loosing weight and using a piece of software. Therefore, there is a need to apply the theory to predict higher level goals such a becoming an entrepreneur. Furthermore,
the importance of theory testing is also pointed by Petty and Cacioppo (1996, p.6) as follows: Our advice is not to give up theory testing but to pursue theory testing thoughtfully with an eye toward understanding the many things that can be learned by failure of the theory and to be as critical of successes as of failures. Potential contributions for theory and practice. From a theoretical point of view, the results of this study give contributions to the understanding of students intention to become entrepreneurs. Since not many studies on students intention based on the theory of trying, it is hoped that the result of this research give contribution to the application of the theory of trying to predict students intention to become entrepreneur. In the specific, the findings of this research could give some insights to entrepreneurship literature in Indonesian context. From a practical point of view, this research gives insight to university about students intention to become entrepreneurs. Literature review Entrepreneur definitions The term of entrepreneur is derived from the French word entreprendre which means to undertake (Kuratko, 2008). There are many definitions about entrepreneur because there is no single definition of entrepreneur has been uniformly accepted in the literature (Kuratko, 2008). For example, Virtanen (1997) stated that an entrepreneur is a person who has entrepreneurial mind with a strong need for achievement. In a similar vein with Virtanen, Kao et al. (2002) defined entrepreneur as a person who undertakes a wealthcreating and value-adding process, through developing ideas, assembling resources and making things happen. Entrepreneurial intention Entrepreneurial intention is considered as the first step in becoming as entrepreneur (Lee and Wong, cited by Linan and Chen, 2006). Intention is defined as instructions people give to themselves to behave in certain ways (Triandis, 1983 cited by Bagozzi and Yi, 1989). Therefore, it can be stated that intentions represent people plans to perform their behavior. Intention is also as the immediate determinant of behavior (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). There are two theories that are widely used to predict behavioral intention. Those theories are the theory of reasoned action (TRA, Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) and the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1988). According to TRA that individuals action is influenced by behavioral intention. Behavioral intention, in return, is a function of attitude toward performing the behavior and subjective norm (Figure 1). Attitude toward performing the behavior is defined as a favorable or unfavorable evaluation of the behavior. Furthermore, subjective norm is defined as perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior.
Figure 1. Theory of Reasoned Action

Attitudes toward performing the
behavior
Behavioral Intention
Behavior
Subjective norms
Source: Ajzen and Fishbein (1980, p.8)
TRA is one of the theories that have achieved recognition as a fundamental theory to explain human behavior (Bagozzi, 1992). However, the theory also was criticized especially in understanding behavior. TRA is considered as a theory that can explain only volitional behavior, that is, behavior is assumed to be under ones control (Bagozzi, 1992; Ajzen, 1988). Furthermore, Bagozzi (1992) also pointed out that reasoned behaviors are not subject to performance impediments. On the other hand, impediments to perform behavior do exist. People may feel they have little power over their behavior. Therefore, Ajzen (1988) then added one variable (that is, perceived behavioral control) in TRA to overcome the main limitation of TRA. In the specific, perceived behavioral control is added in attempt to deal with situations in people may lack complete volitional control over the behavior of interest (Ajzen, 2002). Perceived behavioral control is defined as perceived capability to perform the behavior. Then, this newer theory was entitled as the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Theory of Planned Behavior
Attitudes toward the
Behavioral performing Intention
behavior
Behavioral Intention
Behavior
Subjective norms
Perceived behavioral control Source: Ajzen (1988,p.133)
Theory of Trying The theory of trying (TT) was developed by Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990) to predict goal directed behavior (Figure 3). The TT was developed by using the theory of reasoned action (TRA) as a theoretical basis. According to Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990) stated that TRA should be revised. This is because behavior can not be limited into volitional behavior (i.e., behavior is assumed to be under ones control) or non volitional control (as in the theory of planned behavior). However, behavior should be viewed as a process of trying to achieve a goal. Therefore, behavior in TT is viewed as a series of attempt and trials. Thus, Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990) suggested that effort or trying to achieve the goal should replace behavior as the dependent criterion. Therefore, the theory of trying can be stated as follows: trying to achieve a goal is determined by intention to try, which in turn is determined by attitude and social norm toward trying (Bagozzi and Warshaw, 1990). Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990) also pointed out the importance of past behavior as the determination of behavior. The consideration of past behavior can predict behavioral intention is also based on the assumption that people behavior is largely learned behavior (Hawkins and Mothersbaugh, 2010). Extensive research has shown that past behavior is a significant predictor of intention or behavior (e.g., Huang and Wu, 2011; Kim and Chung, 2011; Ewing, 2000; Gabler and Jones, 2000; Ouellette and Wood, 1998; Bagozzi et al., 1992). There are different conceptualization of attitude in TRA, TPB, and TT (Table 1). In TTA and TPB, attitude is conceptualized as a unidimension construct which attitude as affection. On the other hand, attitude was proposed by Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990) in their TT as multiple attitudes which contain three different forms of attitude. Those forms of attitude are attitude toward goal success, attitude toward goal failure, attitude toward process of pursuing a goal. Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990, p.135) also stated that the introduction of multiple attitude is a central feature of the model. Table 1. The differences between the Theory of Planned behavior and the theory of trying
Critical differences Behavior Theory of Planned Behavior Theory of Trying 2 types of behavior: 2 types of behavior: volitional and intended actions and nonvolitional. unintended actions Take final performance of Conceive of action as a actions as the dependent process or a striving. variable. Actions as a single Action as one attempt or performance of guided more, or as a sequence of bodily movement. attempts, to achieve a final performance. Unidimensional Multidimensional (3 components of attitude:
Attitude
attitude toward success, attitude toward failure, and attitude toward process). Perceived behavioral control The inclusion of perceived behavioral control in the theory. Intention and behavior are influences by past behavior through background factors.
Source: Bagozzi (1992), Bagozzi dan Warshaw (1990), Ajzen (1988)
The integration of expectations of success and failure. The inclusion of past behavior through frequency of past trying and recency of past trying.
Past behavior
Figure 3. Theory of Trying
Attitude toward success Frequency of past trying Expectation of success Recency of past trying
Attitude toward failure Attitude toward trying Expectation of failure Intention to try Trying
Attitude toward process
Subjective norm toward trying Source: Bagozzi (1992), Carsrud and Brannback (2011)
Research model and hypotheses Based on the theory of trying, six hypotheses can be stated as follows:
Attitude toward success Frequency of past trying
Expectation of success
H4a
Attitude toward failure
H3 H4b
Attitude toward trying
H1
Intention to try
Expectation of failure
H4c
Attitude toward process
Subjective norm toward trying
H2
H1: There is significant and positive relationship between attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur and intention to try becoming an entrepreneur. H2: There is significant and positive relationship between subjective norms toward becoming an entrepreneur and intention to try becoming an entrepreneur. H3: There is significant and positive relationship between frequency of past trying and intention to try becoming an entrepreneur. H4a: There is significant and positive relationship between attitude toward trying and succeeding and attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur. H4b: There is significant and positive relationship between attitude toward trying but failing and attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur. H4c: There is significant and positive relationship between attitude toward process and attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur.
Method Samples. Subjects were drawn from purposive sampling method of students which in business school in one private university in West Java. There are two major criteria guided the selection of the respondents. First, respondents are students from management department. The reason students from management department because the subject of entrepreneurship is given to management students but not to accounting students. Second, respondents should at least in their sixth semester. This is because in that semester almost students have completed their entrepreneurship subject. Furthermore, most students in their sixth semester will finish their course soon and think about their future. Instrument Development. There are two main steps in developing the research instrument. The first step is identifying salient beliefs of the target outcome. In the specific, this research applied the procedure that recommended by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) to identify salient beliefs of the target outcome, that is, becoming an entrepreneur. An exploratory study was conducted to identify salient beliefs of becoming an entrepreneur. In that study, respondents were asked to list the advantages, disadvantages, and anything else they associated separately with trying and succeeding, trying but failing, and trying per se to be an entrepreneur after graduation. Then, beliefs that most frequently mentioned outcome were chosen. In the specific, responses had to be mentioned by at least 20 percent of the sample (Bagozzi and Warshaw, 1990). The resulting salient beliefs are as follows. Salient beliefs for trying and succeeding are feel proud, feel happy, and feel satisfaction. Salient beliefs for trying but failing are feeling disappointed, feel unhappy, and feel bad. Salient beliefs for the process itself are feel happy, feel good, and feel glad. The second step is questionnaire development. There are 9 sections in the questionnaire. As suggested by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), this research questionnaire contained subheadings that identified constructs under considerations. For instance, the three indicators about trying and succeeding were accompanied by a bold notation that read attitude toward trying and succeeding. Five points Likert scale statements and semantic differential scale were applied in this research. The first section was subjective norms toward trying. Subjective norms toward trying are the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior (Bagozzi, 1992). Sample statement for this section was "Most people who are important to me think that I should try to be an entrepreneur. There were a total of three statements in this section. The second section of the instrument measures the students intention to try to become an entrepreneur. There were three statements in this section. A sample statement of students intention was my professional goal is to becoming an entrepreneur. The third to six sections of the questionnaire measured the students' attitudes toward trying to be an entrepreneur. There are 3 components of attitude toward trying: attitude toward trying and succeeding, attitude toward trying but failure, and attitude toward process. Sample statements for attitudes were All things considered, my trying to become an entrepreneur after graduation make me feel bad/good (attitude toward trying), My trying and succeeding at becoming an entrepreneur after graduation would make me feel not proud/proud (attitude toward trying and succeeding), My trying but
failing at becoming an entrepreneur after graduation would make me feel not disappointed/disappointed (attitude toward trying but failing), and My trying to becoming an entrepreneur after graduation, ignoring whether or not I actually succeed at becoming an entrepreneur, would make me feel sad/happy (attitude toward process). The seventh section of the instrument measures the students expectation of success. Only one indicator used to measure respondents expectation of success, that is, Assuming I try to become an entrepreneur after graduation, it is likely/unlikely that I actually would become an entrepreneur. The eight sections assess the students expectation of failure. One statement applied in this research, that is, Assuming I try to become an entrepreneur after graduation, it is likely/unlikely that I actually would fail become an entrepreneur to become an entrepreneur. The last section was about past behavior. Only one statement in this section regarding how often they try to become an entrepreneur in last 1 year. In developing this research questionnaire, this research followed suggestion from Beatson, Coote, and Rudd (2006) and Sekaran and Bougie (2010), that is, whenever possible and appropriate, the measures used in this questionnaire were adapted from existing scales drawn from marketing and management literature. Thus, all constructs indicators were adapted from Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990), Linan and Chen (2000), and Ariff et al. (2010). Pretesting. Malhotra (2010) pointed out that pretesting can be applied to identify and eliminate potential problems. Furthermore, Malhotra also pointed out that a questionnaire should not be used in the field survey without adequate pretesting. The questionnaire then was pretested on 33 students. This research applied Cronbach to assess the reliability of the instrument. Furthermore, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was applied to validate the instrument. The result showed that Cronbach was in the range from 0.783 to 0.952. Analysis Data. A structural equation modeling using AMOS 5 was conducted to test the relationship between constructs. For the overall fit of the model, this research several indices such as CMIN/DF, GFI, AGFI, and RMSEA. Results Response rate. Of the 200 questionnaires dropped to the respondents, 146 were returned and usable, giving 73 percent usable response rate. In terms of gender, 48.6 % were male and 51.4% were female. More than half (61.6%) of the sample were students from batch 2008. Statistic descriptive. The means, standard deviations, and correlations for subjective norms, attitude toward trying, intention to try, attitude toward trying and succeeding, attitude toward trying but failing, and attitude toward process is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Means, standard deviation and matrix correlations

Variable Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Subjective norms 4.24 0.58 Attitude toward trying 4.18 0.64 Intention to try 3.93 0.83 Attitude toward trying 4.53 0.59 and succeeding Attitude toward trying 3.84 0.88 but failing Attitude toward process 3.57 0.78
1 0.458** 1 0.505* 0.591** 1 0.375** 0.494** 0.289** 0.241** 0.119 0.205* 0.105 0.108 0.099
1 0.320** 0.145 1 0.061 1
**. Correlation is significant at the level 0.01 level (2-tailed) *. Correlation is significant at the level 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Reliability and validity. The first stage of the analysis is to assess the reliability and validity of the measures. The reliabilities (Cronbachs alpha) were range from 0.711 to 0.895, satisfying the criteria of 0.7 (Hair, Money, Samouel, and Page, 2007).This study also measures convergent validity and discriminant validity. Convergent validity was achieved as by applying a confirmative factor analysis (CFA) for the measurement model. The results indicated that all factor loadings were significant and varied from 0.58 to 0.90. Furthermore, the goodness-of-fit statistics were CMIN/DF = 1.509; GFI = 0.947; AGFI = 0.901; and RMSEA = 0.059. These results showed that the convergent validity was achieved. After examining convergent validity, discriminant validity was assessed by observing the correlations between constructs (Table 2). The result shows that no correlations between construct achieve higher value which could indicate that the indicators for a variable also measure another variable (Hair et al., 2007). This study also assessed a type of validity called nomological validity. According to Bagozzi et al. (2006), nomological validity can be assessed through a consistent pattern between criterion and predictors. In the specific, the research constructs are supposed to be theoretically related. In other words, in this research context, nomological validity would be demonstrated, for example, if the scores of the measure relationship between attitudes toward becoming an entrepreneur were positively and significantly correlated with intention to try. The results (Table 3) show that all of the scores of the measure relationship between variables were significant. Therefore, nomological validity was evidenced in this study.
Test of the hypotheses. Structural equation modeling was performed to test the relationship between constructs. This research applied the two-stage structural equation modeling procedure recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). In the specific, the measurement model was assessed in the first stage. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied in this step to test whether all constructs exhibited sufficient reliability and validity. The next step is the structural model. In this model, the hypothesized
10
relationships between constructs are tested. Table 3 show results of the structural equation model that most hypotheses (H2a, H2b, H3, H5a, and H5b) were supported.
Table 3. Parameter Estimates for Structural Paths Hypo -theses Path Standardized CR Absolute fit regression Weight H1 INT <-- ATT 0.557 5.499 GFI = 0.921 H2 INT <-- SN 0.265 2.844 AGFI = 0.864 H3 INT <-- FREQ 0.128 1.735* CMIN/DF = 1.692 H4a ATT <-- ASES 0.496 5.770 RMSEA = 0.069 H4b ATT <-- AFEF 0.003 0.038* H4c ATT <-- ATP 0.063 0.767* Legend INT : intention to try ATT : attitude toward trying SN : subjective norms FREQ : frequency of past trying ASES : attitude toward trying and succeeding x expectation of success AFEF : attitude toward trying but failing x expectation of failure ATP : attitude toward process * Hypotheses was not supported
Hypothesis 1 stated that there is significant and positive relationship between attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur and intention to try becoming an entrepreneur. This hypothesis was supported as the loading of INT ATT path was 0.557 (CR = 5.499). This research also supported hypothesis 2 which stated the relationship between subjective norms and intention to try (CR = 2.844). However, hypothesis 3 was not supported as the loading of INT FREQ was 0.063 (CR = 1.735). Attitude in the theory of trying is a multiple components. Therefore, hypothesis 4 (a, b,c) proposed that there is significant and positive relationship between each component of attitude and attitude toward trying. Table 1 shows hypothesis 4a which stated that the relationship between attitude toward success and expectation of success and attitude toward trying was supported (CR = 5.770). However, hypothesis 4b (the relationship between attitude toward failure and expectation of failure and attitude toward trying) and hypothesis 4c (attitude toward process and attitude toward trying) were not supported (the loading of ATT AFEF path was 0.003 and CR = 0.038 and the loading of ATT ATP path was 0.063 and CR = 0.767). Discussion What is really matter to be an entrepreneur? This research shows that attitude as the most important predictor of intention to try to become an entrepreneur. Attitude plays an important role in determining whether somebody can become an entrepreneur or not. When a person has a positive attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur, s (he) may more easily to achieve his or her goal to becoming an entrepreneur. On the other hand, when a person has a negative attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur, then s (he) may not become an entrepreneur. Myer (1999, p.130, emphasis added) pointed out how attitude
11
direct behavior by stating Attitudes as efficient way to size-up the world. When we have to respond quickly to something, how we feel about it can guide how we react. Several famous people that can inspire entrepreneurs are such as Colonel Sanders (the founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken) and Thomas Edison (electricity). In his life, Colonel Sanders maintain a positive attitude despite his many rejections and believe in himself and his secret chicken recipe. Thomas Edison also has positive attitude toward his goal. He attempted and failed several hundred times and then succeeds. This research shows that attitude toward trying but failing (AFEF) and attitude toward process (ATP) were not significant dimensions of attitude toward trying. A main reason for not significant relationship between AFEF and ATP toward attitude toward trying is the nature of the sample (students). In other words, becoming an entrepreneur is one major aim of students after completing their study. Therefore, they have positive attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur. They will keep faith that they will succeed but not fail. Therefore, this research shows significant relationship between attitude toward trying and succeeding and attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur. On the other hand, this study shows that there is no significant relationship between attitude toward trying but failing and attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur. The relationship between attitude toward process (ATP) and attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur was also not significant. Again, the nature of the sample can be a major reason for that insignificant relationship. In other words, students have desires and plans to eventually become an entrepreneur. When they still as students, they may have no attention toward process becoming an entrepreneur. Becoming an entrepreneur is a goal that some students may think later after completing their studies. Many students think that they have limited skill and experience to become an entrepreneur. Therefore, they may find some experiences before they really run their own business. This research also showed that the relationship between frequency past trying and intention to try was not significant. As stated above, the research sample (i.e., students) may become one factor for the insignificant relationship. Students usually have limited past experience to try to become an entrepreneur in the last 1 year (mean = 1.4). Conclusions and limitations In this paper, theory of trying is examined to predict students intention to try becoming entrepreneurs. The results show that attitude toward trying is as main predictor of intention to try becoming an entrepreneur. Furthermore, subjective norms toward trying are also a significant predictor of intention to try. This research also shows that only attitude toward trying and succeeding is a significant dimension of attitude toward trying. This research is not without limitations. First, this research applied non-probability design sampling (i.e., purposive sampling). Therefore, the results of the study limit the generalisability of the findings. Second, this study applied all variables in the theory of trying except recency of past trying and trying in order to fit with students conditions. However, this research still contributes to give a snapshot in examining the theory of trying in entrepreneurship context.
12
References Anonymous. 2011. Kesadaran baru di SMAN 79, Kompas, Sabtu, 7 Mei, hal.12 Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Ajzen, I. 2002. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665-683. Ariff, A.H.M., Bidin, Z., Sharif, Z. and Ahmad, A. 2010. Predicitng entrepeneurship intention among Malay University Accounting students in Malaysia. UNIFAR ejournal, 6, 1. Available at: http://ejournal.unirazak.edu.my/articles/Predicting_Entrepreneur_p16n1Jan10.pdf. Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. 1989. The degree of intention formation as a moderator of the attitude-behavior relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 4, 266-279. Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. 1990. Trying to consume. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 2, 127-140. Bagozzi, R.P. 1992. The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 2, 178-204. Bagozzi, R.P., Baumgartner, H. and Yi, Y. 1992. State versus action orientation and the theory of reasoned action: an application to coupon usage. The Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 4, 505-518. Bagozzi, R.P., Gurhan-Cali, Z. and Priester, J.R. 2009. The social psychology of consumer behaviour. UK: Open University Press. Beatson, A., Coote, L.V. and Rudd, J.M. 2006. Determining consumer satisfaction and commitment through self-service technology and personal service usage. Journal of Marketing Management, 22, 853-882. Bouncken, R.B., Zagvozdina, J., Golze, A. and Mrozewska, A. 2009. A comparative study of cultural influences on intentions to found a new venture in Germany and Poland. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 3, 1, 47-65. Brannback, M., Krueger, N., Carrsrud, A., Kickul, J. and Elfying, J. 2007. trying to be an entrepreneur? A goal-specific challenge to the intentions model. Available at: http://ssrn/com/abstract=1135224. Downloaded on 15 March 2011. Carsrud, A. and Brannback, M. 2011. Entrepreneurial motivations: what do we still need to know? Journal of Small Business Management, 49, 1, 9-26.
13
Chen, C.C., Greene, P.G. and Crick, A. 1998. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 4, 295316. Ewing, M.T. 2000. Brand and retailer loyalty: past behavior and future intentions. Journal of Product & Brand management, 9, 2, 120-127. Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. 2000. Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 411-432. Gabler, J. and Jones, M.Y. 2000. Behavior and behavioral intentions in a retail setting. ANZMAC 2000 Visionary Marketing for the 21st century: facing the challenge. Available at: http://www.wmib.vuw.ac.nz:8081/www/ANZMAC2000?CDsite/.../g/Gabler1.PDF. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R.L. 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th edition. NJ: Pearson Education. Hair, J.F., Money, A.H., Samouel, P. and Page, M. 2007. Research Methods for Business. England: John Wiley & Sons. Hawkins, D.I. and Mothersbaugh, D.L. 2010. Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing Strategy, 11th ed., NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Huang, Y. and Wu, Y.J. 2010. Decision making in online auctions. Management Decision, 49, 5, 1-25. Izedonmi, P.F. and Okafor, C. 2010. The effect of entrepreneurship education on studentse entrepreneurial intentions. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 10, 6, 49-60. Kao, R.W.Y. 1993. Entrepreneurship, a wealth creation and value adding process. Singapore: Prentice-Hall. Kao, R.W.Y., Kao, K.R., and Kao, R.R. 2002. Entrepreneurism: a philosophy and a sensible alternative for the market economy. London: Imperial College Press. Kim, H.Y. and Chung, J. 2011. Consumer purchase intention for organic personal care products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28, 1, 40-47. Kuratko, D.F. 2008. Entrepreneurship 8e: Theory, Process, Practice. Ohio: SouthWestern Cengage Learning. Lee, J. 1997. The motivation of women entrepreneurs in Singapore. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 3,2, 93-110.
14
Lim, S.F., Smith, K. and Bottomley, C. 2003. Successful graduate female entrepreneurs The Scottish experience. Paper presented at 16th Annual Conference on Small Enterprise Association of Australia and New Zealand, 28 Sept 1 Oct, Ballarat, Australia. Linan, F. and Chen, Y. 2006. Testing the entrepreneurial intention model on a twocountry sample. Document de Trball num.06/7. Department dEconomia de lEmpresa. Available at: http://selene.uab.es/dep-economi-empresa/.
Myers, M. 2000. Qualitative research and the generalizability question: standing firm with proteus. The Qualitative Report, 4, 3/4. Available at: http://www.nova.edu./ssss/QR/QR4-3/myers.html. Ouellette, J.A. and Wood, W. 1998. Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124,1, 54-74. Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R. and Wrightsman, L.S. 1991. Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. In Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press. Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. 2010. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. 4th ed., New York: John Wiley & Sons. Shane, S., Locke, E.E. and Collins, C.J. 2003. Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 257-279. Triandis, H.C. 1980. Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior, pp. 195-259 in Beliefs, attitudes, and values. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Edited by H.E.Howe and M.M. Page. Lincoln University of Nebraska Press. Urban, B., Van Vuuren, J. and Owen, R.H. 2008. Antecedents to entrepreneurial intentions: testing for measurement invariance for cultural values, attitudes and selfefficacy beliefs across ethnic groups. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 6, 1, 1-9. Veciana, J.M., Aponte, M. and Urbano, D. 2005. University students attitudes toward entrepreneurship.: a two countries comparison. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1, 165-182. Virtanen, M. 1997. The role of different theories in explaining entrepreneurship. Available at: http:///www.usasbe.org/knowledge/.../USABE1997proceedings-P109 Weber, R., von Graevenitz, G. and Harhoff, D. 2009. The effects of entrepreneurship education. Available at http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/.
15
Zain, Z.M., Akram, A.M. and Ghani, E.K. 2010. Entrepreneurship intention among Malaysian Business Students. Canadian Social Science, 6, 3, 34-44.
16

Sabrina Sihombing-Pelita Harapan

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Sabrina Sihombing-Pelita Harapan

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur?

An Examination of the Theory of Trying

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur? An Examination of the Theory of Trying

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur? An Examination of the Theory of Trying

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur? An Examination of the Theory of Trying

Figure 1. Theory of Reasoned Action

Source: Ajzen and Fishbein (1980, p.8)

Behavioral performing Intention

Perceived behavioral control Source: Ajzen (1988,p.133)

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur? An Examination of the Theory of Trying

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur? An Examination of the Theory of Trying

Figure 3. Theory of Trying

Attitude toward process

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur? An Examination of the Theory of Trying

Attitude toward success Frequency of past trying

Attitude toward failure

Subjective norm toward trying

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur? An Examination of the Theory of Trying

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur? An Examination of the Theory of Trying

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur? An Examination of the Theory of Trying

Table 2. Means, standard deviation and matrix correlations

1 0.320** 0.145 1 0.061 1

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur? An Examination of the Theory of Trying

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur? An Examination of the Theory of Trying

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur? An Examination of the Theory of Trying

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur? An Examination of the Theory of Trying

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur? An Examination of the Theory of Trying

What is Really Matter to be an Entrepreneur? An Examination of the Theory of Trying

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi