Can personality dimensions influence entrepreneurial occupation preference? An exploratory study of dispositional influences on cognitive processes.

Brice, Jeff, Jr.

ABSTRACT

This study seeks to discern if there is a significant dispositional foundation for occupational preferences. Specifically, this paper seeks to determine if personality dimensions have any effect on an individual's cognitive expectancies (concerning perceived intrinsic and extrinsic occupational rewards) when considering an entrepreneurial career. Personality dimensions composing the Five-Factor Model of Personality are applied in this study and include Conscientious, Agreeableness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. Conscientiousness determines responsibility versus inconsistency, Agreeableness measures sociability versus detachment, Extraversion determines assertiveness versus timidity, Neuroticism measures self-assurance versus insecurity, and Openness to Experience involves uniformity versus self-determination. Each of these dimensions is related to occupational preference for an entrepreneurial career and examined utilizing the Valence Model of the Expectancy Theory. The model consists of two variables, Instrumentality and Valence. Instrumentality (I) concerns the belief that the attainment of work-related goals will lead to rewards; and, Valence (V) refers to the value of those rewards to the individual.

Results indicate that individuals who are highly Conscientious are significantly attracted to an entrepreneurial career due to the intrinsic rewards of independence and a satisfying way of life. Further, individuals who are highly Open also prefer an entrepreneurial career due to the perceived satisfying lifestyle.

INTRODUCTION

A key question in the study of entrepreneurship is what factors increase the likelihood that an individual will decide to pursue an entrepreneurial career given a multitude of more traditional alternatives. Even though entrepreneurship has been recognized as a complex, multidimensional construct that has avoided stable definition (Palich & Bagby, 1995), interest in entrepreneurship education has increased dramatically around the globe. The many new hordes of entrepreneurial-minded students seem to choose entrepreneurship as a major area of focus due to their perceptions about an entrepreneurial career and their estimated fitness for the craft of entrepreneurship. This study seeks to determine if there might be a dispositional basis (in the form of personality dimensions) to cognitions that form the preference for an entrepreneurial career (based on expected work rewards) and serves to influence prospective entrepreneurs.

Specifically, the purpose of this paper is to try to determine if there is a significant relationship between any of the personality dimensions in the Five-Factor Model of Personality and an individual's preference for an entrepreneurial career based on their cognitive estimation of perceived intrinsic and extrinsic rewards of the occupation. First, dispositional research in entrepreneurship is reviewed. Second, the Five-Factor Model of Personality is described. Next, cognitive process literature in entrepreneurship is reviewed and the expectancy theory and its possible relation to entrepreneurial career preferences is presented. Then, hypotheses are developed and the research methodology is described. Last, results are discussed and conclusions are elaborated.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This section addresses a number of the major studies contributing to the entrepreneur literature on personality traits and cognitive processes. Specifically, it will detail how the Five-Factor Model of Personality and expectancy cognitions may result in significant relations to entrepreneurial occupational preferences. To be succinct, it scrutinizes those topics that will be key variables in this study.

Personality Dimensions and Entrepreneurship

Personality traits have routinely been studied as possible differentiators of entrepreneurs from other individuals. The most common include a high need for achievement (McClelland, 1961), internal locus of control (Brockhaus & Nord, 1979), and risk taking propensity (Brockhaus, 1980; Sexton & Bowman, 1985). Unfortunately, the inconsistent results of trait-oriented research did not lead us to an authoritative conclusion of what encourages individuals to initiate entrepreneurial behavior (Shaver & Scott, 1991; Ripsas, 1998). However, the psychology literature has identified over 18,000 individual personality traits that can be used to explain human expression (Cattell, 1947). Over time this massive list has been compiled and reduced through the use of assumptions, factor analysis, and cluster analysis to as few as three higher-order personality dimensions (Buss & Finn, 1987). Personality dimensions represent distinct groupings of individual personality traits that network with each other and are expressed by repetitive patterns of human behavior. This study applies the Five-Factor Model of Personality (Fiske, 1949) as a basis for examination because it is the most broadly endorsed model in personality research (Barrick & Mount, 1991).

The Five-Factor Model of Personality

The Five-Factor Model of Personality (commonly called the Big Five) is a descriptive representation (typology) of the five major dispositional dimensions that encompass human personality. It has been used extensively in industrial psychology as a basis to measure job-related attitudes, person-organization fit, and other human resource inquiries. The personality factors comprising the Big Five are (1) Extraversion, which represents the inclination to be sociable, assertive, dynamic, and directive, (2) Agreeableness, representing the tendency to be friendly, cheerful, accommodating, and supportive, (3) Conscientiousness, comprised of two major subfactors, achievement and dependability, (4) Neuroticism, (also called Emotional Stability) which is the tendency to exhibit poor emotional adjustment and experience disparaging effects such as fear, anxiety, and rashness, and (5) Openness to Experience, which is the propensity to be inquisitive, creative, nonconforming and independent (Judge & Cable, 1997). Each dimension is scaled from high to low with high scores being representative of the most positive aspects of the dimension's characterization while low scores signify the reverse.

The origin of personality typing can be traced back to Galen's observations of Greek society in the Second Century A.D.. He framed his personality type designations on what was termed the four humors which were described as (1) Sanguine types (cheerful and upbeat), (2) Choleric types (hot-tempered and dramatic), (3) Melancholic types (fretful and worrying), and (4) Phlegmatic types (stolid and unflappable)(Hogan, 1990). While Galen's metaphors were advanced to suggest that personality types were stable and identifiable within ancient Greek culture, modern research on personality dispositions further generalizes this application to include individuals in all cultures. Staw & Ross (1985) and Staw, Bell, & Clausen (1986) performed several landmark longitudinal experiments and found that stable individual personality disposition is formed by the age of adolescence and, thereby, makes it possible to predict future behavior and attitudes in spite of key situational changes. More concisely, Staw, Bell, & Clausen (1986) showed that dispositional measures of personality significantly and reliably predicted occupational attitudes and employment behavior over a span of fifty years. The pattern of dispositional decay indicated that adolescent-stage dispositions set in motion a consistent set of behaviors and choices that later produced important consequences for the individual. Thus, it has been demonstrated that personality dimensions (traits) may be stable across time and this evidence should allow us to apply the Five-Factor Model of Personality to identify enduring occupational preferences for groups of individuals within the populous.

Cognitive Process Approach

Due to the inconclusive results in the individual personality trait-oriented research, scholars turned to studying the potential role of cognitive factors in stimulating entrepreneurship (Baron, 1998). The basic premise is that entrepreneurs differ from others based on how they think and that these differences can be modeled empirically (Das & Teng, 1997). In studying entrepreneurship, those taking this approach attempt to understand how perceptions (Cooper, Woo, & Dunkleberg, 1988), cognitive and decision-making styles (Kaish & Gilad, 1991), heuristics (Manimala, 1992), biases (Busenitz & Barney, 1997), and intentions (Bird, 1988) of entrepreneurs affect their behavior. Indeed, Shaver & Scott (1991) assert that any psychological approach to entrepreneurship must include the cognitive processes that occur within the individual entrepreneur.

The cognitive process approach allows researchers to gain insight into such inquiries as "How do entrepreneurs recognize opportunities in the market" and "What are the cognitive mechanisms that motivate entrepreneurs to pursue market opportunities?" (Baron, 1998). While both the personality-oriented and cognitive process approaches attempt to reveal something important about individual entrepreneurs, the cognitive process approach is currently much more popular in academic research (Das & Teng, 1997; Stewart, Watson, Carland, & Carland, 1998).

Contribution of the Cognitive Process View

The presence of appropriate personality dimensions that render an individual intrinsically suited for venturing does not guarantee entrepreneurial behavior. Kirzner (1973) stressed that entrepreneurs are not only those that discover market opportunities, but also that they must act upon these prospects whenever possible. Accordingly, the purpose of the cognitive process view is to explain the mechanism of consideration that results in such action.

It can be reasoned that a defining factor for entrepreneurs is the desire to pursue opportunities once they are exposed. In this context, only those individuals who are motivated enough to pursue entrepreneurial careers, in deference to other possible choices (e.g., traditional employment), can be considered entrepreneurs. The problem, however, is that there exists no consistent explanation of the mechanism of motivation for the exploitation of these tenuous opportunities (Ripsas, 1998). Therefore, this study advances the idea that a possible contributing explanation for entrepreneurial motivation is the occupational preference for an entrepreneurial career as specified by the valence model component of the expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964).

Expectancy Theory and Occupational Preference

According to the expectancy theory of motivation, individuals are rational, they understand the possible consequences of their actions, and make selections among options based on a merger of the value of the outcomes and the probability that the outcomes will be achieved (Gatewood, 1993). It is proposed, in this study, that the cognitive process of forming occupational preferences outlined by the valence model of Vroom's (1966) expectancy theory of motivation most closely identifies that which is practiced by prospective entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs make rational assessments, based on the satisfaction of their needs and potential outcomes of their efforts, which result in a decision whether, or not, to initiate entrepreneurial behavior or to seek safer, more traditional employment means.

Expectancy theory is divided into a multiplicative model containing four different constructs: effort-performance expectancy, performance-outcome expectancy, valence, and instrumentality (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976; Lawler, 1973; Nadler & Lawler, 1979). Effort-performance expectancy ([E.sub.1]) refers to the individual's perception of the amount of effort required for successful task completion. Performance-outcome expectancy ([E.sub.2]) refers to the belief that successful task completion will lead to desired outcomes. Instrumentality (I) is the belief that the attainment of outcomes will lead to other desired outcomes. Valence (V) refers to the value of the outcome(s) to the individual.

Self-efficacy is often compared with [E.sub.1] and [E.sub.2] of the expectancy theory because, at first glance, they seem to describe the same constructs. However, this is not the case. [E.sub.1] is concerned with the probability that reasonable effort will result in acceptable performance and [E.sub.2] is concerned with the probability that acceptable performance will lead to desired outcomes. Self-efficacy differs from both of these because it is a cognitive estimation; not of effort, performance, and outcomes, but of whether one has the required cognitive and emotional abilities to mobilize the effort that the expectancy theory takes for granted (Bandura, 1984). Therefore, low self-efficacy would signify that an individual may perceive that he or she cannot perform a task at any level while low expectancy would be interpreted as either the individual not being able to reach an acceptable performance-level for the effort expended ([E.sub.1]) or not getting desired outcomes once the performance-level is reached ([E.sub.2]). Clearly, these are different concerns but both are necessary for entrepreneurs to act on discovered opportunities.

Expectancy theory and parts of the expectancy model have a long history of having been used to explain the occupational preferences of individuals (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1970; Lawler & Suttle, 1973; Mitchell, 1974; Wanous, Keon, & Latack, 1983; Baker, Ravichandran, & Ramarathnam, 1989; Van Eerde, & Thierry, 1996). As one of the two major initial expectancy model divisions presented by Vroom (1964), the valence model was described as being useful for the prediction of an individual's attraction (valence) for specified outcomes, which were identified as occupational preference and job satisfaction (Mitchell, 1974). As such, it is the part of the full expectancy model that revolves around a person's attractiveness for possible occupational outcomes and the perceived likelihood that one can attain these outcomes in the applicable occupation. As it relates to this study, preference for an entrepreneurial career is defined as the attractiveness of the possible rewards of entrepreneurship and the magnitude of one's belief that these rewards can be obtained (Vroom, 1964; Mitchell, 1974). Therefore, the valence model (summation VI) is a multiplicative function of the valence of possible entrepreneurial outcomes and the instrumentality that the occupational choice (entrepreneurship) will lead to these valuable outcomes.

Relevance of Occupational Valences to Entrepreneurship

While it has been demonstrated that the expectancy theory is a useful tool to measure situational motivation, it has never been used, empirically, to gauge the level of occupational preference (valence) for a sample of prospective entrepreneurs. This is curious considering the potential utility of the valence model for entrepreneurs. Olsen and Bosserman (1984) introduced the concept of expectancy theory to the field of entrepreneurship by stating that other approaches (hierarchy of needs and need for achievement theories) were too specific to be able to explain the motivating mechanisms for every entrepreneur. In their application of the expectancy theory, individuals were assumed to differ regarding needs and goals and people were expected to determine the course of their behavior based on satisfying those needs and desires. Since expected outcomes are considered when weighing choices about alternative career plans, individuals will be inclined to expend effort on those behaviors that are expected to result in the attainment of need-satisfying outcomes. What can be assumed, in a general context, is that an individual, who is attracted to the perceived outcomes of an entrepreneurial career, will be motivated to initiate entrepreneurial behavior if such effort is reasonably expected to result in their acquiring these valuable second-order rewards.

In this conception, the expectancy theory (valence model) is posited to be general enough to apply to all entrepreneurs. It does not attempt to delineate all of the specific needs that influence behavior because of the differences of each individual. It does, however, identify universal categories of considerations (valences and instrumentalities) that are cognitively processed to determine individual behavior over the course of time.

Generally, there are three potential reward categories that are posited to influence individuals to pursue entrepreneurial careers-the rewards of profit, independence, and a satisfying way of life (Longenecker, Moore & Petty, 2000). First, the reward of profit is the entrepreneur's expectation of earning a yield that will recompense them for the time and capital that they have devoted as well as for the risks and initiative they take in running the business. This reward is the primary basis for initiating any profit-making enterprise. Without the hope of profit, there exists no entrepreneurial opportunity (Kirzner, 1973). Second, the reward of independence is the expectation of freedom from supervision, rules, and bureaucracy (Longenecker, Moore, & Petty, 2000). This reward is symptomatic of an entrepreneur's desire to be one's own boss and experience the autonomy of pursuing whatever course holds personal interest. The reward for independence is attained and sustained as a result of profitable venturing. Lastly, the reward of a satisfying way of life is the expectation of freedom from a routine, boring, and unchallenging job and lifestyle (Longenecker, Moore, & Petty, 2000). This expectation is characteristic of entrepreneurs who view their businesses as tools of pleasure instead of work. This is a common sentiment among entrepreneurs who use their businesses as an instrument for self-expression and self-actualization (Scarbourough & Zimmerer, 2000) by using profits and products to contribute to important societal causes while making a good living. Thus, it is proposed that these three categories of rewards are the active agents of expectancy theory (valence) cognitions within potential and actual entrepreneurs.

Personality Dimensions (Five-Factor Model) and Their Relationship to Extrinsic Work Rewards

While an individual's perception of the reward of profit may be a primary basis for initiating a profit-making enterprise (Longenecker, Moore, & Petty, 2000), the personal desire for profit or an individual's opinion about the ability of an entrepreneur to earn profits are clearly extrinsic considerations. Past research concerning the viability of utilizing, inherently intrinsic, personality dimensions to predict the attraction for extrinsic work rewards has not been fruitful (Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989). While it has been demonstrated that Conscientiousness may positively, and Neuroticism negatively, predict extrinsic career success (income and occupational status) (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999), these results do not address the preferences that individuals hold for these work-related rewards. Nevertheless, Judge & Cable (1997) examined an individual's attraction for extrinsic rewards-oriented work cultures based on the Five-Factor Model personality dimensions. It is surmised that one's attraction for a work environment that stresses high pay for good performance and advanced career opportunities is indicative of a preference for these rewards (Judge & Cable, 1997). However, after an analysis of self-reported and peer-group surveys, it was determined that none of the Five-Factor Model dimensions could predict personal attraction for any extrinsic work-related reward oriented cultures. Accordingly, it is not theorized in this study that any of the personality dimensions will, positively or negatively, predict the preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the extrinsic reward of profit. Thus,

Hypothesis 1: There will be no significant relationship between any
 of the Five-Factor Personality dimensions and
 Preference for an Entrepreneurial Career based on the
 extrinsic occupational reward of profit.

Personality Traits (Five-Factor Model) and Their Relationship to Preference for an Entrepreneurial Career Based on Intrinsic Work Rewards

As a basis for this study, attitudes about intrinsic work-related outcomes, which may be driven by psychological dimensions (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999), are proposed to influence, significantly, entrepreneurial career preferences. The Five-Factor Model of Personality is a descriptive representation (typology) of the five major dispositional dimensions that encompass human personality. Personality researchers since Allport (1937) have maintained that individuals seek out situations that correspond with their personalities, and empirical research supports this contention (Judge & Cable, 1997). Consequently, the argument for any of the Five-Factor personality dimensions to predict preference for an entrepreneurial career is based upon the correspondence of the characteristics of the intrinsic work-related rewards being considered to the characteristics of the personality dimensions that may be detected within the individual. Since personality dimensions have previously been used to predict the attitudes and behavior of humans (Barrick & Mount, 1991), it should be possible to forecast how they may contribute to individual preference for an entrepreneurial career.

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness is comprised of three main lower-order facets (achievement orientation, dependability, and orderliness) and is indicative of persistence, responsibility, and self-control (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999). Therefore, it follows that individuals who are highly conscientious may be attracted to entrepreneurship based on the intrinsic reward of independence. In short, due to heightened performance abilities and tendencies for self-control, Conscientious individuals are likely competent and confident enough not to require, or desire, constant supervision.

In addition to being good performers, Conscientious individuals are also cautious and risk averse (Goldberg, 1990). Hence, conscientious individuals may be attracted to occupations that require prudent, detail-oriented individuals. It has been shown that prospective entrepreneurs attempt to mitigate the riskiness of new enterprises by business planning, market analysis, and meticulously estimating potential profits (Gatewood, Shaver, & Gartner, 1995), among other things. Since these tasks can be categorized as challenging and non-routine, Conscientious individuals may be attracted to an entrepreneurial occupation based on the reward of a satisfying way of life. As such, it is the desire and ability to perform these types of complex analyses accurately that is expected to have a positive influence on the decision to pursue entrepreneurship as a primary vocational occupation. Thus,

Hypothesis 2: Conscientiousness is positively related to the
 Preference for an Entrepreneurial Career based on the
 intrinsic occupational reward perceptions of (a)
 Independence and (b) a Satisfying Way of Life.

Agreeableness

Agreeable individuals are warm, generous, trusting, and selfless (Costa & McCrae, 1992b) people who place a premium on sociable interaction as a way of life (McManus & Kelly, 1999). This tendency manifests itself as a desire to cooperate, seek consensus and conformity, and to avoid conflict (Judge & Cable, 1997). As such, high agreeableness is associated with passivity, dependence, and tradition (Costa & McCrae, 1992b; Goldberg, 1992). Therefore, it follows that agreeable individuals may not be attracted to an entrepreneurial career based on the rewards of independence or a satisfying way of life. Since tradition and conformity is suggestive of a lifestyle that respects conventional routines (Costa & McCrae, 1992b), there is inadequate conceptual bases from which to argue that Agreeable individuals might appreciate the reward of a satisfying way of life. Further, entrepreneurs are taken to be unconventional, risk takers (Begley & Boyd, 1987a; Chen, Greene, & Crick, 1998) who assertively use their abilities to pursue market opportunities that others either don't notice or choose to ignore (Kirzner, 1973; Chandler & Jansen, 1992). Because agreeable individuals are highly likely to reject the type of autonomous initiative that this market function suggests, it is also just as highly likely that they may be repelled by an entrepreneurial career based on the intrinsic reward of independence. Thus,

Hypothesis 3: Agreeableness is negatively related to the Preference
 for an Entrepreneurial Career based on the intrinsic
 occupational reward perceptions of (a) Independence and
 (b) a Satisfying Way of Life.

Extraversion

Entrepreneurs must be energetic, outgoing, and sociable (extroversive) when they forecast venture performance to prospective investors in ambiguous situations (Knight, 1921) or recruit and manage support personnel to see their venture to fruition (Chandler & Jansen, 1992) as opposed to being shy, unassertive and withdrawn (introversive). It is this characteristic of social leadership that is most distinctive of Extraverts (Judge & Bono, 2000). Further, individuals who score high for Extraversion tend to be bold, forceful, and surgent (Goldberg, 1990), which is in line with most traditional descriptions of the outgoing demeanor of the entrepreneur (Sexton & Bowman, 1985). It is, therefore, conceivable that Extraverts may prefer an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of independence, which personifies autonomous, directive propensities.

In addition to the tendency to become social leaders, Extraverts are attracted to excitement and stimulation (Costa & McCrae, 1992b), which may be associated with the preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of a satisfying way of life. Also, past research has demonstrated the Extraversion is strongly correlated with interest in enterprising occupations (Costa, McCrae, & Holland, 1984), such as entrepreneurship. Thus,

Hypothesis 4: Extraversion is positively related to the Preference
 for an Entrepreneurial Career based on the intrinsic
 occupational reward perceptions of (a) Independence and
 (b) a Satisfying Way of Life.

Neuroticism

Individuals who score high on Neuroticism lack self-confidence and self-esteem (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991). As such, it is a personality dimension that is wholly opposite to the orientation of entrepreneurs, as confidence has been argued to be a core characteristic (Knight, 1921). Neurotic individuals are prone to anxiety, making those high on it fearful of novel situations and susceptible to feelings of helplessness (Wiggins, 1996). The vocation of entrepreneurship requires individuals to develop the independent ability to seek innovative opportunities in the environment and develop them for personal gain (Kirzner, 1973), which is distinctive in society. Part of this ability requires prospective entrepreneurs to venture into unknown territory by taking calculated risks, making decisions under ambiguous circumstances, and adapting to a changing state of affairs (Chandler & Jansen, 1992; Chen, Greene, & Crick, 1998). As such, it is not likely that highly neurotic individuals will develop an attraction for entrepreneurial work based on the rewards of independence or a satisfying way of life. Thus,

Hypothesis 5: Neuroticism is negatively related to the Preference for
 an Entrepreneurial Career based on the intrinsic
 occupational reward perceptions of (a) Independence and
 (b) a Satisfying Way of Life.

Openness To Experience

Openness to Experience is expected to be a valid differentiator of entrepreneurs from others. This dimension assesses personal characteristics such as curiosity, broadmindedness, intelligence (Judge & Cable, 1997) and independence of thought (Costa & McCrae, 1992b), which are reflected in an entrepreneur's venturesome spirit (Knight, 1921). Further, Open individuals are willing to entertain novel ideas and unconventional values (Costa & McCrae, 1992b) and may desire situations that are challenging in order to stimulate creativity. Because Open individuals are also nonconforming and autonomous (Goldberg, 1990), they should be less attracted to traditional employee roles and conventional organizational careers. Thus, it is likely that Open individuals will be attracted to entrepreneurial vocations more strongly than others based on the rewards of independence and a satisfying way of life. Thus,

Hypothesis 6: Openness to Experience is positively related to the
 Preference for an Entrepreneurial Career based on the
 intrinsic occupational reward perceptions of (a)
 Independence and (b) a Satisfying Way of Life.

METHODOLOGY

Sample Description and Data Collection

Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud (2000) find that studies comprising samples of upper-division college students can uncover occupational inclinations at a time when respondents are wrestling with important career decisions. Such samples undoubtedly include subjects with a wide range of intentions and attitudes toward entrepreneurship. Due to the sensitivity of intentional processes to initial conditions (Kim & Hunter, 1993), it is important for researchers to study the onset of entrepreneurial phenomena before they occur. More precisely, study samples should include individuals who have not yet made a conscious decision to initiate new ventures. The sampling of only successful, current, or openly prospective entrepreneurs (e.g., college students majoring in entrepreneurship) introduces biases that subjugate data unpredictably, especially for rare phenomena (Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000). While the exact details of a business may have not yet come together in the minds of most general upper-level college students, global career intentions should have (Scherer, Adams, Carley, & Weibe, 1989). Therefore, it is acceptable and appropriate to investigate entrepreneurial intent utilizing a sample of upper-level college students.

Approximately 404 students from a large southeastern university participated in this study on a voluntary basis utilizing an online, self-report data collection methodology. Subjects consisted of upper-level business undergraduates and Master of Business Administration (MBA) students in the concentrations of marketing, management, and accounting and professional-degree students from the College of Veterinary Medicine (CVM).

Upper-level undergraduate students in business, along with those pursuing the MBA, were appropriate primarily because their academic concentration implied that they had serious interest in pursuing a business career. Also, they were likely to offer a more informed range of interest in terms of business careers than students majoring in the sciences, liberal arts, humanities, or education. Since the intent to become an entrepreneur is a business career-related decision process, these upper-level business students offered a sample that was currently involved in such a process.

Veterinary students were appropriate for this study because the nature of their intended profession lends itself easily to the practice of entrepreneurship. In fact, the norm for success in the field of veterinary medicine is the ownership of a private practice. A recent report compiled by the three major veterinary associations in the United States demonstrates that of the approximately 64,000 veterinarians employed in the year 1997, 82% worked in private practice (Brown & Silverman, 1999). Thus, the tendency for veterinarians to become independent business owners is well established.

The procedure for garnering participation in the study was that of offering financial incentives coupled with unobtrusive cooperation. The researcher contacted students directly via mass targeted e-mail messages originating from the office of their academic major department. A website was developed so that the students could complete the survey on-line. In all scenarios, the students were informed that if they participated in the study, they were included in a sweepstakes drawing for a number of cash prizes. The chance of winning a prize at any level was approximately one in ten. Each questionnaire contained an informed consent statement along with sufficient contact information (e-mail and phone number) for the researcher to be able to inform students of their prize winnings. There was no personal identifying information gathered on the survey instrument itself. E-mail addresses were gathered on the survey only as an option for those students wanting to participate in the random cash drawing (100%). Each questionnaire was designed to collect data on all of the proposed variables in the research model.

After exclusion of subjects with duplicate submissions and those whose survey questionnaires were only partially completed, the final sample totaled 351 individuals. This sample was equally represented between the genders, consisting of 175 (49.8%) males and 176 (50.2%) females. Subjects were primarily graduating undergraduate business seniors (71.2%) and 21 to 23 years old (71.1%). In fact, there were more CVM students (16%) than MBA students (12.8%). The majority of subjects were Caucasian (White) (83.7%) with the next significant representation being Black (11.4%), which is in accordance with national population percentage demographics.

Measures

Five Factor Model of Personality.

Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience was assessed with the 60-item measure of the NEO Five Factor Personality Inventory-Form S (NEO-FFI-S) (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991). The NEO-FFI-S was developed to evaluate the five major dimensions of normal personality: Conscientiousness (C), Agreeableness (A), Extraversion (E), Neuroticism (N), and Openness (0). Participants respond to sixty items on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (0) to strongly agree (4). The NEO-FFI-S was developed as a short version of the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1995) by selecting the twelve items from the longer listing with the highest positive or negative factor loadings on each of the five resultant factors. Cronbach's alpha reliability estimates of .81, .72, .77, .86, and .73 were reported for the C, A, E, N, and O scales, respectively, for a sample of 1,539 adults (Costa & McCrae, 1992a). Construct validity of the NEO-FFI-S is indicated by correlations with self-report adjective factors of the Five-Factor Model (see Costa & McCrae, 1992b). Internal consistency reliability for personality dimensions in this study was measured as .83, .72, .77, .83, and .73 for the C, A, E, N, and O scales, respectively, which is consistent with prior research (Defruyt & Mervielde, 1999).

Preference for an Entrepreneurial Career.

Preference for an entrepreneurial career is defined in this study as the attractiveness of the possible rewards of entrepreneurship and the magnitude of one's belief that these rewards can be obtained as an entrepreneur. As such, this multidimensional construct is represented by the extrinsic reward of profit, and the intrinsic rewards of independence and a satisfying way of life. These perceptions are envisioned within the valence model of the expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964; Mitchell, 1974), which has been validated for use to discern occupational preferences. It is a multiplicative function of the valence of entrepreneurial outcomes and the instrumentality that the occupational choice (entrepreneurship) will lead to second-level outcomes.

[V.sup.n.sub.j] = summation([V.sub.k][I.sub.jk]) k = 1 to n

where

[V.sub.j] = the valence of outcome j (occupation j is a first-level outcome);

[I.sub.jk] = the perceived instrumentality of outcome j for the attainment of second-level outcome k;

[V.sub.k] = valence of outcome k. This outcome, which is the result of obtaining first-level outcome j, is defined as a second-level outcome;

n = number of outcomes.

The three scales that represent the multidimensional construct were examined in a pilot study that was conducted prior to the main analysis. Since the scales were developed from new measures, there exist no historical reliability indices to report. However, the pilot study demonstrated that the Cronbach's alpha reliability estimates of .78, .76, and .83 were reported for the rewards of profit, independence, and a satisfying way of life, respectively, for an unrelated sample of 349 business school students.

Valence of Outcomes.

Second-level outcome valence is defined as the strength of the individual's affective orientation (positive or negative) toward the outcome (Mitchell, 1974). Using scaling procedures adapted from Teas (1981) and Bartol (1976), eleven potential rewards (second-level outcomes) of an entrepreneurial career were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from extremely undesirable (-2) to extremely desirable (+2). The list of potential second-level outcomes was adapted from previous research (Teas, 1981; Bartol, 1976) and theory (Longenecker, Moore, & Petty, 2000).

Instrumentality.

Instrumentality pertains to the degree to which the occupational choice alternative is instrumental in leading to, or detracting from, a second-level outcome. According to Vroom (1964) this variable can range from fully negative to fully positive. Consequently, this variable was measured by eleven items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from extremely unlikely (-2) to extremely likely (+2).

Demographic and Background Information.

Information pertaining to each respondent's age, gender, ethnicity, and class was obtained to use as control variables in the analysis. Each of these control variables was recorded as noncontinuous, categorical predictors.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Correlation Matrix

An examination of the correlation matrix reveals that although some variables are significantly correlated, no correlation coefficient is greater than .371. A contribution to the construct validity of items in this study is that some of the measures are correlated significantly, but not highly enough to signify that any of them are measuring the same constructs (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Significant simple correlations demonstrated that Conscientiousness and Extraversion were positively, and Neuroticism was negatively, related to the intrinsic occupational reward perception of a Satisfying Way of Life. Furthermore, Conscientiousness was positively, and Neuroticism negatively, related to the extrinsic occupational reward of profit. Last, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Openness to Experience were positively correlated to the intrinsic occupational reward of independence.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis

Hierarchical regression was the principal technique of analysis used to assess the hypotheses in the investigation. All relevant variables were standardized prior to regression analyses. Cohen & Cohen (1983) suggest this method is most important when independent variables possess a theoretically based casual priority, as in this study.

The hierarchical regression procedure was used to test the research model in three separate phases (Table 1). The first phase concerned the relationship between the dimensions of the Five-Factor Model of personality and preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the extrinsic reward of profit. The second phase included the relationship between the dimensions of the Five-Factor Model of personality and preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the intrinsic reward of independence. The final phase specified the relationship between the dimensions of the Five-Factor Model of personality and preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the intrinsic reward of a satisfying way of life. In all phases, gender, race, class, and age were included as the first step in the procedure to control for any effects they may have had on the proposed relationships. Principally, it was expected that some of the Five-Factor personality dimensions would predict an individuals affection for the intrinsic occupational rewards of independence and a satisfying way of life and none would predict an individuals preference for the extrinsic reward of profit.

Results of the Phase One Analysis

The result of the Phase One analysis is presented in Table 2. Hypothesis H1 predicted that none of the Five-Factor personality dimensions would predict preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the extrinsic occupational reward of profit. The hypothesis was tested in Phase One of the analysis using two steps. In step one, the control variables of gender, race, educational classification, and age were regressed on preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of independence. As exhibited in Table 2, the F statistic of 0.952 was not significant indicating that gender, race, educational classification, and age do not have a significant relation to entrepreneurial career preference based on the reward of profit.

Next, the Five-Factor Model of Personality dimensions were added to the previous equation step 2). Again, the resultant model was not significant (F = 1.476, p > .05) and produced no significant change in [R.sub.2] (change in [R.sub.2] = .27, p. > .05). These results provide support for H1 by demonstrating that personality dimensions have no relation to an individual's preference for the extrinsic reward of profit.

Results of the Phase Two Analysis

The result of the Phase Two analysis is presented in Table 3. Hypotheses H2(a), H4(a), and H6(a) predicted that Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Openness to experience are positively and significantly associated with the preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of independence. Specifically, the more that an individual is reliable, assertive and focused, and open to learn new things, the more he or she may prefer an entrepreneurial career based on the autonomy that it offers. Conversely, hypotheses H3(a) and H5(a) suggest that agreeable and neurotic individuals will be negatively associated with the preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of independence. In other words, poorly emotionally adjusted and traditional individuals will not desire entrepreneurial careers because they are expected to be repelled at the idea of working independent of authority. These hypotheses were tested in Phase Two of the analysis using two steps. In step one, the control variables of gender, race, educational classification, and age were regressed on preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of independence. As exhibited in Table 3 the F statistic of 1.138 was not significant indicating that gender, race, educational classification, and age do not have a significant relation to entrepreneurial career preference based on the reward of independence.

Next, the Five-Factor Model of personality dimensions were added to the previous equation (step 2). The model was significant (F = 2.989, p < .01) and produced a significant change in [R.sub.2] (change in [R.sub.2] = .06, p. < .001). Results provide support for the proposed positive relation between Conscientiousness and preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of independence (beta = .178; p < .01)(H2(a)). Results also supported the positive relationship between Openness to Experience and preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of independence (beta = .125; p < .05) (H6(a)). However, the hypothesized positive relation between Extraversion (beta = .063; p > .05) and preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of independence was not supported (H4(a)). Neither were the proposed negative relationships involving Agreeableness (beta = -.088; p > .05)(H3(a)) nor Neuroticism (beta = -.020; p > .05)(H5(a)) with entrepreneurial career preference (independence).

Overall, the results of Phase Two tests indicated that individuals who are highly reliable performers (Conscientious) and those who appreciate new experiences (Open) are attracted to entrepreneurship as a plausible career choice because they, most likely, don't want to be bound by the limitations imposed on them while working in subordinate occupations. It is possible that Conscientious individuals don't believe that they need supervising and Open individuals probably prefer to be free to make their own decisions, including making potential mistakes, as part of the learning process.

Results of the Phase Three Analysis

The results of the Phase Three analysis are presented in Table 4. Hypotheses H2(b), H4(b), and H6(b) suggested that Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Openness to Experience are positively and significantly associated with the preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of a satisfying way of life. Specifically, the more that an individual is a reliable performer, assertive and focused, and open to learn new things, the more he or she will prefer an entrepreneurial career based on his or her perception of the exciting, challenging, and non-repetitive lifestyle that it promises. Conversely, hypotheses H3(b) and H5(b) suggests that Agreeable and Neurotic individuals will be negatively associated with the preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of a satisfying way of life. In other words, individuals with Neurotic tendencies and those who would rather conform to tradition instead of doing something more creative (Agreeable) will not prefer an entrepreneurial career because they are possibly not well-suited for the originality (Kirzner, 1973) or innovativeness (Schumpeter, 1934) required of entrepreneurs.

The hypotheses were tested in Phase Three of the analysis utilizing two steps. In step one, the control variables of gender, race, educational classification, and age were regressed on preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of a satisfying way of life. As exhibited in Table 4, the F statistic of .471 was not significant indicating that gender, race, educational classification, and age do not have a significant relation to entrepreneurial career preference based on the reward of a satisfying way of life.

Next, all of the Five-Factor Model of personality dimensions were added to the previous equation (step 2). Although the model was highly significant (F = 3.493, p < .001) and produced a significant change in [R.sub.2] (change in [R.sub.2] =.079, p. < .001), the results only provide support for the proposed positive relation between Conscientiousness and preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of a satisfying way of life (beta = .198; p < .001)(H2(b)). The results do not support the proposed positive relationships between Extraversion (beta = .049; p > .05) (H4(b)) or Openness to Experience (beta = .084; p > .05) (H6(b)) and preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of a satisfying way of life. Also, the hypothesized negative relationships between Agreeableness (beta = .014; p > .05)(H3(b)) and Neuroticism (beta = -.090; p > .05)(H5(b)) and preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of a satisfying way of life were, similarly, not supported.

Overall, the results of Phase Three tests indicated that individuals who are highly Conscientious are attracted to entrepreneurship as a probable career choice because of the perceived exciting and challenging lifestyle. Since Conscientious individuals are strong performers, they would likely be discouraged performing remedial or monotonous day-to-day tasks.

DISCUSSION

In summary, the current research examined the association of personality dimensions (as embedded in the Five-Factor Model of personality) to preference for an entrepreneurial career based on intrinsic and extrinsic occupational rewards. As stated in hypothesis 1, it was expected that there would be no relation between an individual's personality dimensions and affection for the extrinsic reward of entrepreneurial profit. In fact, there was no justifying literature that would convince one to forecast this relationship. So, it is not surprising that no relationship was found.

In hypothesis 2, it was anticipated that Conscientiousness would be positively associated with preference for an entrepreneurial career (based on (1) the reward of independence and (2) the reward of a satisfying way of life) and (3) entrepreneurial intentions (direct effect). Basically, it was posited that individuals who are reliable, achievement oriented, purposeful, and strong-willed (Conscientious), would be more likely to prefer an entrepreneurial career, for the autonomy (independence) and challenge (satisfying lifestyle) that entrepreneurship offers. Both of the proposed relationships to the entrepreneurial career preference considerations (H2a-b)) were supported in this study.

There exist a few previous empirical inquiries that might shed some insight on the observed relationships. Judge & Cable (1997) demonstrated that Conscientiousness is negatively related to team-oriented work cultures. As such, the researchers determined that Conscientious people prefer individualism as opposed to collectivism. Hence, it follows that the current study would find that Conscientiousness is positively related to preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of independence. Since Conscientious individuals value high achievement, reliability, and order (Costa & McCrae, 1992b), it appears that they would rather not have their performance diminished by forced reliance on others. Consequently, the idea of a vocation, like entrepreneurship, where Conscientious individuals can excel independent of, or at least in control of, others is appealing to them and is consistent with the findings of Judge & Cable (1997).

This study also found a significant relationship between Conscientiousness and preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of a satisfying way of life. More specifically, the study found that Conscientious individuals are more likely to prefer entrepreneurial occupations because they value professional lifestyles of excitement, challenge, and stimulation as opposed to remediation, monotony, and boredom (Costa & McCrae, 1992b). This finding is similar to that found in Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick (1999), which demonstrated that Conscientiousness was able to predict intrinsic job satisfaction, a construct similar in some characteristics to entrepreneurial preference based on the reward of a satisfying way of life. In their study, the observed positive effect of Conscientiousness on intrinsic job satisfaction was significant even after the investigators controlled for the contribution of general mental ability, another performance predictor. The researchers concluded that knowledge about one's personality proved to be an effective predictor about subjective and objective career success (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999). All things considered, it is apparent that Conscientious people are attracted to livelihoods that offer them opportunities to test their abilities and confront their limitations.

Based on hypothesis 3, it was predicted that Agreeableness would be negatively associated with preference for an entrepreneurial career (based on (a) the rewards of independence and (b) a satisfying way of life). That is, it was expected that individuals who are highly trusting and dependent (Agreeable) would be repelled by the task requirements involving personal challenge, forcefulness, and independent activity that entrepreneurs must execute in the course of founding and developing new ventures (Chandler & Jansen, 1992).

The results of the current study did not support the envisioned negative associations between Agreeableness and preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of independence (H3(a)) or the reward of a satisfying way of life (H3(b)). A possible explanation for this finding might be since Agreeable individuals value support, cooperation, and conflict avoidance whenever possible (Costa & McCrae, 1992b), they may be unconcerned with the expected rewards related to entrepreneurial careers. Being that they might not want to be viewed as untraditional, it is wholly plausible that highly Agreeable individuals may be fundamentally repulsed by the idea of entrepreneurship as a career option so they do not bother to form opinions about the specifics of the vocation at all. This is consistent with the findings of Judge & Cable (1997). The researchers found that job seekers who scored high on the dimension of Agreeableness were significantly less attracted to aggressive, outcome-oriented, and decisive organizational environments. Since entrepreneurial careers have been described as requiring achievement oriented (McClelland, 1961), independent thinking (Kirzner, 1973), self-starters (Knight, 1921), it is a reasonable suggestion that highly conforming (Agreeable) individuals may not significantly consider the rewards of a vocation that they find distasteful.

According to hypotheses 4 and 5, it was anticipated that there would be significant associations for extraversion (positive associations) and neuroticism (negative associations) with entrepreneurial career preferences based on intrinsic entrepreneurial work rewards. However, none of the hypothesized relationships were supported in this study.

The fact that there were no significant findings between Extraversion and any other study variables was unanticipated. However, these non-findings are not unique due to the inconsistent evidence involving Extraversion and occupational variables in previous research. While Extraversion has been strongly correlated with interest in enterprising occupations (Costa, McCrae, & Holland, 1984), some researchers have noted (after regression analysis) that Extraversion displays no significance for favoring enterprising jobs (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999) like that of entrepreneurship. Accordingly, both of these previous findings are consistent with the results in this study. In the current examination, Extraversion was highly correlated with entrepreneurial career preferences based on independence and a satisfying way of life. However, regression analysis demonstrated that the dimension is not significantly related to preference for an entrepreneurial career based on either of the intrinsic entrepreneurial career rewards. Thus, the results of this study are consistent with previous findings.

Similar to Extraversion, Neuroticism also was not found to hold any significant relation to any of the variables of interest in this study. Neuroticism was expected to relate negatively to entrepreneurial career preferences based on the rewards of independence (H5(a)) and a satisfying way of life (H5(b)). It was predicted that since Neurotic individuals are anxiety-driven, fearful of novel situations, and vulnerable to feelings of helplessness (Wiggins, 1996), they would neither value the independence nor the challenge of an entrepreneurial career and, thus, refrain from forming entrepreneurial career preferences. While Neuroticism has been termed the most pervasive domain of all personality scales (Costa and McCrae, 1992b: page 14), it has failed to register significance for occupational preferences in previous studies (De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1999; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999).

Since both Extraversion and Neuroticism have failed to significantly explain vocational preferences and attraction for differing types of occupational environments in past research, the findings of nonsignificance in this study are not inconsistent. However, correlational support for Extraversion's positive relation to preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the rewards of independence (H4(a)) and a satisfying way of life (H4(b)); and, Neuroticism's negative relation to entrepreneurial career preference based on the reward of a satisfying way of life, does offer hope that these associations will be corroborated in future research.

In hypothesis 6, it was posited that Openness to Experience would prove to be a valid predictor of preference for an entrepreneurial career (based on the rewards of (a) independence and (b) a satisfying way of life). In fact, it was suggested that this personality dimension might, possibly, be the most significant predictor of entrepreneurial career preference. Principally, it was predicted that individuals who are willing to entertain novel ideas and unconventional values (Costa & McCrae, 1992a), nonconforming and autonomous (Goldberg, 1990), inquisitive, open-minded, and intelligent (Judge & Cable, 1997) would appreciate the intrinsic rewards of an entrepreneurial career significantly more than others. The findings of this study affirm the hypothesis that Open individuals significantly value the entrepreneurial career reward of independence, resulting in a preference for an entrepreneurial career. Not supported in this study was the projected positive relation of Openness to Experience to preference for an entrepreneurial career based on a satisfying way of life.

The fact that Open individuals were attracted to an entrepreneurial career because of the perceived independence that the vocation of entrepreneurship affords is consistent with prior research. Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, (1999) empirically determined that Open individuals are negatively related to conventional occupations. As such, it appears that an Open individual's abhorrence of conformity and desire for self-reliance makes him or her an ideal match for autonomous entrepreneurial work (Knight, 2001; Kirzner, 1973). In addition, the finding that Openness is positively and directly related to entrepreneurial intentions affirms several previous investigations. Judge and Cable (1997) found that Open individuals are strongly attracted to innovative and detail oriented organizational cultures. Since entrepreneurial occupations revolve around innovative (Schumpeter, 1934) and detail-oriented (Gatewood, Shaver, & Gartner, 1995) activity, the findings of the current study are consistent. Further, Openness to Experience has been found to significantly predict whether, or not, individuals choose to become employed in enterprising occupations (De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1999) like entrepreneurship. Taken together, these studies provide additional support for the results of the current examination.

The lack of a significant relation between Openness to Experience and the preference for an entrepreneurial career based on the reward of a satisfying way of life is curious. The reward of a satisfying way of life was described in this study as freedom from a non-challenging, routine, and boring occupational lifestyle (Longenecker, Moore, & Petty, 2000). Since Open individuals are known for independence of thought, intellect, curiosity, and creativity (Costa & McCrae, 1992b; Judge & Cable, 1997), it was expected that the challenge and excitement of an entrepreneurial career would be appealing. However, this expectation was not affirmed. A possible explanation for this finding may exist in the possible perception that Open individuals may hold concerning their assessment of the reward of a satisfying way of life. Since there exists many other occupations, in addition to entrepreneurship, that consist of challenging and non-routine job characteristics, it is possible that a career that assures a satisfying way of life is too conventional (common) to appeal, in particular, to, highly unconventional (Costa & McCrae, 1992b), Open individuals. In other words, there is nothing unique, in itself, about a career that may be considered exciting and challenging. Since Open individuals are attracted to uncommon work situations as opposed to the ordinary (Judge & Cable, 1997), it is feasible that people who score high for Openness to Experience may not be swayed to prefer entrepreneurial careers based, solely, on the reward of a satisfying way of life. Further research is warranted to determine if this variable serves as a mediator of some other relationship.

CONCLUSION

The results of the current study provide practitioners, such as entrepreneurs, vocational educators, and public policy administrators, a number of practical implications that may assist in the expansion of the entrepreneurship agenda. By discerning how entrepreneurial career preferences are formed, policy makers may be able to form programs that take advantage of robust interest in entrepreneurial rewards to help promote new business creation initiatives.

The current study demonstrated that the value that people designate to these potential rewards was shown to be strongly influence by some of their personality dimensions. Better education to enhance knowledge about the likelihood of realistically attaining these rewards should provide valuable perspective from which to form career-related judgments. Essentially, the more that people understand that entrepreneurial work requires long hours and dedicated effort (Chandler & Jansen, 1992) instead of focusing, solely, on potential rewards and accolades should help to decrease the notoriously high failure rates of new ventures (Cromie, 1994) that are initiated by unsuspecting entrepreneur novices. For example, the results suggest that people who Conscientious and Open to Experience may attracted to the independence and challenges that are an entrepreneurial reality. Therefore, any entrepreneurial training that Conscientious or Open individuals receive should include in-depth analyses about which rewards may reasonably be attained and in what timeframes for particular types of businesses. In this manner, prospective entrepreneurs can develop realistic business plans based on pragmatic working lifestyles and realistic compensation expectations.

These indications suggest that one way to identify people who are compatible, and those who are incompatible, with the prospect of becoming entrepreneurs is to locate individuals who are open and conscientious. It is suspected that some may doubt the practical feasibility of utilizing personality tests to discriminate between potential, and improbable, entrepreneurs. This reservation is particularly understandable when one reasons that much of the past entrepreneurship research failed to find consistent relationships between personality and behavior (Gartner, 1988; Shaver & Scott, 1991; Ripsas, 1998). However, the results of this study may provide some new insights for the development of inventive approaches to vocational counseling. Given that personality dimensions are related to entrepreneurial career preference and potential entrepreneurial behavior, efforts in this direction are warranted.

REFERENCES

Allport G.W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Baker, D.D., Ravichandran, R., & Randall, D.M. (1989). Exploring contrasting formulations of expectancy theory. Decision Sciences, 20(1): 1-13.

Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8: 231-255.

Baron, R.A. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when entrepreneurs think differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4): 275-295.

Barrick M. & Mount M. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Bartol, K.M. (1976). Expectancy theory as a predictor of female occupational choice and attitude toward business. Academy of Management Journal, 19: 669-675.

Begley, T. & Boyd, D. (1987). Psychological characteristics associated with performance in entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses. Journal of Business Venturing, 2: 79-93.

Bird, B.J.(1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. The Academy Of Management Review, 13(3): 442-454.

Brockhaus, R. (1980). Risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy Of Management Journal, 23(3): 509

Brockhaus, R.H. & Nord, W.R. (1979). An exploration of the factors affecting the entrepreneurial decision: Personal characteristics versus environmental conditions. Academy of Management Proceedings, 364-368.

Brown, J. & Silverman, J. (1999). The current and future market for veterinarians and veterinary medical services in the United States. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 215, 2: 161-183.

Busenitz, L.W. & Barney, J.B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1): 9-31.

Buss, A. & Finn, S.E. (1987). Classification of personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(2): 432-444.

Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E., III & Weick, E., Jr. (1970). Managerial Behavior, Performance, & Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Campbell, J.P., & Pritchard. R.D. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.). Handbook of Industrial & Organizational Psychology: 63-130. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of personality factors. Psychometrika, 13: 197-220.

Chandler, G.N. & Jansen, E. (1992). The founder's self-assessed competence and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(3): 223-237.

Chen, C.C., Greene, P., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4): 295-317.

Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (Second Edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Cooper, A.C., Woo, C.Y., & Dunkelberg, W.C. (1988). Entrepreneurs' perceived chances for success. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(2): 97-109.

Costa P., & McCrae R. (1992a). Four ways five-factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13: 653-665.

Costa P., & McCrae R. (1992b). Professional manual for the NEO PI-R and NEO-FFI. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1995). Solid ground in the wetlands of personality: A reply to Block. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2): 216-221.

Costa P., McCrae R, & Dye D. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO personality inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12: 887-898.

Costa P., McCrae R, & Holland, J.L. (1984). Personality and vocational interests in an adult sample. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 390-400.

Cromie, S. (1994). Entrepreneurship: The role of the individual in small business development. IBAR, 15:62-76.

Das, T.K. & Teng, B. (1997). Time and entrepreneurial risk behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 22(2):69-89.

Davis-Blake, A. & Pfeffer, J. (1989) Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14(3): 385-400.

De Fruyt, F. & Mervielde, I. (1999). RIASEC types & big five traits as predictors of employment status & nature of employment. Personnel Psychology, 52(3): 701-727.

Fiske, D. (1949). Consistency in the factorial structure of personality ratings from different sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44: 329-366.

Gartner, W.B. (1988). 'Who is an entrepreneur?' Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4): 11-33.

Gatewood, E. (1993). The expectancies in public sector venture assistance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(2) 91-96.

Gatewood, E.J., Shaver, K.G., & Gartner, W.B. (1995). A longitudinal study of cognitive factors influencing start-up behaviors and success at venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(5): 371-392.

Goldberg L. (1990). An alternative "description of personality: The Big-Five-Factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 1216-1229.

Goldberg L. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five-Factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4: 26-42.

Hogan R.T. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In Dunnette M.D., Hough L.M. (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 873-919). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Judge, T. & Bono, S. (2000). Five-factor model of personality & transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5): 751-764.

Judge, T. & Cable, D. (1997) Applicant personality, organizational culture, & organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 2; 359-395.

Judge, T., Higgins, C., Thoresen, C., & Barrick, M. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52(3): 621-653.

Kaish, S. & Gilad, B. (1991). Characteristics of opportunities search of entrepreneurs vs. executives: Sources, interests, general alertness. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(1): 45-62.

Kim, M.S. & Hunter, J. (1993). Relationships among attitude, behavioral intentions, and behavior. Communication Research, 20: 331-364.

Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Knight, F.H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Krueger, N. Jr., Reilly, M.D., & Carsrud, A.L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5): 411-432.

Lawler, E.E., III. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Lawler, E.E., III., & Suttle, J.L. (1973). Expectancy theory and job behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9: 482-503.

Longenecker, J., Moore, C., & Petty, J (2000). Small business management: An entrepreneurial emphasis (Eleventh Edition.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

Manimala, M.J. (1992). Entrepreneurial heuristics: A comparison between high PI (pioneering-innovative) and low PI ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(6): 477-305.

McClelland, D. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

McManus, M.A., & Kelly, M.L. (1999). Personality measures and biodata: Evidence regarding their incremental predictive value in the life insurance industry. Personnel Psychology. 52(1): 137-148.

Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupational preference and effort: A theoretical, methodological, and empirical appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 81: 1053-1077.

Nadler, D.A. & Lawler, E.E. III. (1983). Motivation: A diagnostic approach. In J. R. Hackman, E.E. Lawler III, & L.W. Porter (eds.) Perspectives on Behavioral Organizations, pp. 67-78. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.

Nunnally, J.C. & Bernstein, LH. (1994). Psychometric theory, (Third Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Olson, P.D. & Bosserman, D.A. (1984). Attributes of the entrepreneurial type. Business Horizons, 27: 53-56.

Palich, L.E. & Bagby, D.R. (1995). Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-taking: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 425-439.

Ripsas, S. (1998). Towards an interdisciplinary theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 10(2): 103-116.

Scarbourough, N., & Zimmerer, T. (2000). Effective small business management (Sixth Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Scherer, R.F., Adams, J.S., Carley, S.S., & Wiebe, F.A. (1989). Role model performance effects on the development of entrepreneurial career preference. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(3): 53-71.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sexton, D.L. & Bowman, N. (1985). The entrepreneur: A capable executive and more. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1): 129-141.

Shaver, K.G. & Scott, L. (1991). Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2): 23-46.

Staw, B., Bell, N. & Clausen, J. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 56-77.

Staw, B., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 469-480.

Stewart, W.H. Jr., Watson, W.E., Carland, J.C., & Carland, J.W. (1998). A proclivity for entrepreneurship: A comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and corporate managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 14(2): 189-215.

Teas, R.K. (1981). An empirical test of models of sales persons' job expectancy and instrumentality perceptions. Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 209-226.

Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom's expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5): 575-587.

Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Vroom, V.H. (1966). Organizational choice: A study for pre- and post-decision processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1: 212-225.

Wanous, J.P., Keon, T.L., & Latack, J.C. (1983). Expectancy theory and occupational/organizational choices: A review and test. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32: 66-86.

Wiggins JS (Ed). (1996). The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford Press.

Jeff Brice, Jr., Texas Southern University

Table 1: Outline of Phases 1-3 of the Hierarchical Regression Analysis

Regression Dependent Variable Independent Variables
 Entered

All Phases
 Step 1 Preference for an Gender, Race, Class, Age
 Entrepreneurial Career

Phase 1
 Step 2 Preference for an CONSCI, AGREE, EXTRA
 Entrepreneurial Career NEURO, OPEN
 (Profit)

Phase 2
 Step 2 Preference for an CONSCI, AGREE, EXTRA
 Entrepreneurial Career NEURO, OPEN
 (Independence)

Phase 3
 Step 2 Preference for an CONSCI, AGREE, EXTRA
 Entrepreneurial Career NEURO, OPEN
 (Satisfying Way of Life)

CONSCI (Conscientiousness)
AGREE (Agreeableness)
EXTRA (Extraversion);
NEURO (Neuroticism)
OPEN (Openness to Experience)

Table 2: Phase One Analysis

Regression Dependent Independent Beta
 Variable Variables (Standardized)

Step 1 Preference for an Gender (.055)
 Entrepreneurial Race (.026)
 Career (Profit) Class (.014)
 Age (.079)

Step 2 Preference for an
 Entrepreneurial CONSCI (.067)
 Career (Profit) AGREE (.017)
 EXTRA (.036)
 NEURO (.091)
 OPEN (.072)

Regression Dependent Independent F [R.sup.2]
 Variable Variables

Step 1 Preference for an .952 .011
 Entrepreneurial Gender
 Career (Profit) Race
 Class
 Age

Step 2 Preference for an 1.476 .037
 Entrepreneurial CONSCI
 Career (Profit) AGREE
 EXTRA
 NEURO
 OPEN

Regression Dependent Independent [R.sup.2] Partial F
 Variable Variables (Change)

Step 1 Preference for an .011 0.952
 Entrepreneurial Gender
 Career (Profit) Race
 Class
 Age

Step 2 Preference for an .027 1.885
 Entrepreneurial CONSCI
 Career (Profit) AGREE
 EXTRA
 NEURO
 OPEN

N = 351

* p < .05

** p < .01

*** p < .001

( ) Negative relationships

CONSCI - Conscientiousness

AGREE - Agreeableness

EXTRA - Extraversion

NEURO - Neuroticism

OPEN - Openness to Experience

Table 3: Phase Two Analysis

 Dependent Independent Beta
Regression Variable Variables (Standardized)

Step 1 Preference for an Gender (.096)
 Entrepren-eurial Race (.016)
 Career Class (.027)
 (Independence) Age .039

Step 2 Preference for an
 Entrepreneurial
 Career CONSCI .178 **
 (Independence) AGREE (.088)
 EXTRA .063
 NEURO (.020)
 OPEN .125 *

 Dependent
Regression Variable F [R.sup.2]

Step 1 Preference for an 1.138 .013
 Entrepren-eurial
 Career
 (Independence)

Step 2 Preference for an 2.989 ** .073
 Entrepreneurial
 Career
 (Independence)

 Dependent [R.sup.2]
Regression Variable (Change) Partial F

Step 1 Preference for an .013 1.138
 Entrepren-eurial
 Career
 (Independence)

Step 2 Preference for an .060 .426 ***
 Entrepreneurial
 Career
 (Independence)

N = 351

* p < .05

** p < .01

*** p < .001

() Negative relationships

CONSCI - Conscientiousness

AGREE - Agreeableness

EXTRA - Extraversion

NEURO - Neuroticism

OPEN - Openness to Experience

Table 4: Phase Three Analysis

 Dependent Independent Beta
Regression Variable Variables (Standardized)

Step 1 Preference for an Gender .026
 Entrepreneurial Race .008
 Career Class .056
 (Satisfying Way Age (.041)
 of Life)

Step 2 Entrepreneurial
 Career CONSCI .198 ***
 (Satisfying Way AGREE .014
 of Life) EXTRA .049
 NEURO (.090)
 OPEN .084

 Dependent
Regression Variable F [R.sup.2]

Step 1 Preference for an .471 .005
 Entrepreneurial
 Career
 (Satisfying Way
 of Life)

Step 2 Entrepreneurial 3.493 *** .084
 Career

 (Satisfying Way
 of Life)

 Dependent [R.sup.2]
Regression Variable (Change) Partial F

Step 1 Preference for an .005 .471
 Entrepreneurial
 Career
 (Satisfying Way
 of Life)

Step 2 Entrepreneurial .079 5.885 ***
 Career

 (Satisfying Way
 of Life)

N = 351

* p < .05

** p < .01

*** p < .001

() Negative relationships

CONSCI - Conscientiousness

AGREE - Agreeableness

EXTRA - Extraversion

NEURO - Neuroticism

OPEN - Openness to Experience