Factors influencing engineering students' intention to participate in on-campus entrepreneurial activities.

Leung, Kwok-Yiu ; Lo, Choi-Tung ; Sun, Hongyi 等

INTRODUCTION

Entrepreneurship is playing important roles in the long-term economical development and competitiveness of a region. Across the globe, growing numbers of universities are pursuing research in entrepreneurship and establishing education programs, courses, activities and services to promote entrepreneurial spirit and train entrepreneurs (Gray, 2006; Jones & English, 2004). The entrepreneurial activities/programs (business plan competitions, technology transfer and innovation projects, successful entrepreneur talks, and other entrepreneurship related activities) and services (innovation centers, entrepreneurship and consulting centers) implemented in campus are mainly directed to students as future entrepreneurs.

The idea of becoming an entrepreneur is increasingly attractive to students as it is considered as a valuable way of participating in the labor market without losing one's independence (Martinez, Mora, & Vila, 2007). Further, the desirability of self-employment is also related to the raising unemployment rate (Reynolds, Miller and Makai, 1995; Reynolds, Storey & Westhead, 1994) and public policies (e.g. providing good infrastructure for new ventures, tax benefits, and incubation programs) on encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation industries (Lee et al., 2006). Besides, increasing disappointment with traditional occupations in large companies (Kolvereid, 1996) is another reason for the entrepreneurial phenomenon (Jackson & Vitberg, 1987). The work values related to self-employment (independence, challenge and self-realization) have become increasingly desirable (Luthje & Franke, 2003).

In order to design effective programs/services that stimulate entrepreneurial activities, yet is attractive to students, policy makers and educators have to know what factors are decisive in influencing students' intention to participate in the entrepreneurial activities. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the factors that influence the students' intention to participate in entrepreneurial activities when they are studying on campus. This study will contribute to the design of entrepreneurship programs/services aiming at fostering and assisting potential student entrepreneurs to create their own ventures. It focuses on entrepreneurship related activities on campus. Participating in these activities, such as business plan competitions, entrepreneurship workshops or campus incubation programs, is a possible preparatory work a student entrepreneur may undertake before he/she goes for the real world business (Ames, 1989; Kahrs, 1995; Maitland, 1996). Such activities may be classified as activities of a typical nascent entrepreneur who plans, assembles resources and recruits people to incorporate the company (Katz & Gartner, 1988). Furthermore, campus entrepreneurial programs or activities are learning opportunities for students. Participation in campus entrepreneurial activities will improve their knowledge and skills with enhanced desirability and feasibility (Peterman & Kennedy, 2003) and subsequently increase their intention and likelihood to explore an entrepreneurial career (Souitaris et al., 2007).

INTENTION-BASED MODELS

Intention is defined as a state of mind directing a person's attention and action towards a behavior, such as behaviors related to entrepreneurship (Bird, 1988). Social psychology offers robust and parsimonious models of behavioral intentions with considerable proven predictive value for many behaviors. The meta-analyses of Kim and Hunter (1993) have shown that intentions are a good predictor of behaviors (with 30% of variance explained), and attitudes effectively predict intentions (with 50% of variance). Two intention-based models have been identified most popular in entrepreneurship literature. They are Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) and Entrepreneurial Event (SEE) Model (Shapero, 1982). Both models have been proved robust and valid in predicting intentions to engage in entrepreneurial activities (Krueger et al., 2000).

In TPB, intention is determined by three factors, namely, attitude toward behavior (how favorable an appraisal the person has of the behavior), subjective norm (perceived social pressure to perform the behavior), and perceived behavioral control (perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior) (Ajzen, 1991). In SEE, intention depends on perceived desirability (degree to which a person feels an attraction towards a given behavior), perceived feasibility (degree to which the person feels able to perform the behavior) and propensity to act (volitional aspects of intentions) (Shapero, 1982). The two models actually present a high level of mutual compatibility (Krueger et al., 2000). Perceived behavior control in TPB and perceived feasibility in SEE share a common concept associated with perceived self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986), which reflects the perceived ability to execute a target behavior (Ajzen, 1987). Moreover, TPB's other two attitude measures correspond to SEE's perceived desirability share the concept related to the willingness to carry out the behavior (e.g. entrepreneurship) (Krueger et al., 2000).

Considering their large compatibility, our work as shown in Figure 1, starts from an integration of these two models. The merits of the integration have been demonstrated in entrepreneurship studies. For example, Autio et al. (1997) and Henry, Hill, and Leitch (2003) studied the entrepreneurial intention of university students with their integrated models, combining TPB and SEE, as well as extending them to include other factors such as personal backgrounds. Their models were generally supported. Further, Linan (2004) developed a view of entrepreneurship education considering the integration of the two models and found supportive results. In the present study, the intention of students to participate in entrepreneurial activities in university is concerned. Behind this concern, students who join the entrepreneurial activities are assumed to be interested in entrepreneurship. That is, their intention toward entrepreneurship is intrinsically linked to their intention to participate entrepreneurial activities (e.g. business plan competition), which needs careful planning. It is hard to envision a planned behavior without intention to perform that behavior (Ajzen, 1975, 1991, 2005). Therefore, the intention models proved valid in predicting intentions to engage in entrepreneurial activities are suitable to be used in the present study to predict the intention of students to participate in entrepreneurial activities. This study confines the analysis to students' intention and behavior relating only to on-campus entrepreneurial activities (e.g. business plan competitions, entrepreneurship workshops/seminars, and incubation program, utilization of any university support for starting a business) which are typical preparation process of nascent entrepreneurs who assemble resources and recruit people to incorporate the company (Katz & Gartner, 1988).

HYPOTHESES AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL

The conceptual model of this study is shown in Figure 1. According to the intention-based models, participation in campus entrepreneurial activities is the result of a relevant intention (Ajzen, 1991; Bird, 1988). Attitude tends to take a big part of variance of behaviors (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen & Madden, 1986) and many researchers have recognized and proved the importance of domain-specific attitudes in understanding entrepreneurial decisions (Atio et al., 1997; Davidsson, 1995; Kolveried, 1996; Robinson et al., 1991). Attitude toward entrepreneurship, in the context of this study, reflects if the students have favorable or unfavorable perceptions about entrepreneurship (Ajze, 1991). If they have a positive attitude, they will show great interest in taking part in entrepreneurial activities in campus, which enables them to learn more about entrepreneurship and acquire practical experience. Perceived feasibility (perceived behavioral control) (Krueger, 1993; Krueger et al., 2000) is another important factor influencing the intention to engage in entrepreneurial activities (Krueger et al., 2000; Shapero, 1982). In this study, students who perceive high feasibility are more confident. They feel more capable to carry out entrepreneurial activities successfully and have strengthened intention to take part in these activities. Therefore, we have the following hypotheses:

H1 Participation of engineering students in the on-campus entrepreneurial activities is related to their participating intentions.

H2 The intention of engineering students to participate in the on-campus entrepreneurial activities is related to their attitude toward entrepreneurship.

H3 The intention of engineering students to participate in the on-campus entrepreneurial activities is related to their perceived feasibility to carry out the activities successfully.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Our conceptual model also extends the intention model to personal level factors, such as personality traits and background factors. In the domain of entrepreneurship studies, the personal factors have been found significantly influence entrepreneurial attitude (Autio et al., 1997; Davisson, 1995; Kolvereid, 1996; Luthje & Franke, 2003). Although personality traits have been criticized for their weak direct relationship with entrepreneurial intention (Gartner, 1989, 1990; Robinson et al., 1991), they are important to the entrepreneurial process and decisions (Brandstatter, 1997; Shaver & Scott, 1991). Certain personality traits have been well found to be important facilitators for entrepreneurial activities. They include need for achievement (Koh, 1996; Langan-Fox & Roth, 2005; McClelland, 1985), locus of control (Bonnett, 1991; Entrialgo et al., 2000; Rotter, 1966; Utsch & Rauch, 2000), risk-taking propensity (Brockhaus, 1980; Raab et al., 2005; Shaver & Scott, 1991; Stewart & Roth, 2001), innovativeness (Ho & Koh, 1992; Johnson, 1990; Koh, 1996), and social network (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986; Hills, Lumpkin, & Singh,1997). Luthje and Franke (2003) who analyzed the causes of entrepreneurial intention among 512 engineering students found that personality traits indirectly influenced entrepreneurial intention through their effect on attitude. Further, certain personal background factors have been found to have consistent relationships with entrepreneurship (Autio et al., 1997; Stanworth et al., 1989; Tkachev & Kolvereid, 1999). For example, gender (de Wit & van Winden, 1989; Matthews & Moser, 1995; Reynold, 1995), role models (Davidsson, 1995; de Wit & van Winden, 1989), and related experience (Davidsson, 1995) have been shown to be related to people's attitude toward entrepreneurship. Therefore, in this study, it is reasonable to assume that personality traits (need for achievement, locus of control, risk-taking propensity, innovativeness and social network) and background factors (gender, role model, start-up experience) are related to the attitude of students toward entrepreneurship.

H4a-e (a) Need for achievement; (b) Locus of control; (c) Risk-taking propensity; (d) Innovativeness; (e) Social network is related to the attitude of students toward entrepreneurship.

H5a-c (a) Gender; (b) Role model; (c) Start-up experience is related to the attitude of students toward entrepreneurship

In addition to personal factors, external factors (contextual factors or environmental factors) are highly concerned by recent research on entrepreneurial intention (Autio et al., 1997; Franke & Luthje, 2004; Luthje & Franke, 2003). The empirical study of Luthje and Franke (2003) has shown that perception of external factors (perceived contextual barriers and support) directly affect the entrepreneurial intention of students. Further, in another study of the two authors, they investigated the factors that lead to different levels of entrepreneurial intention across student populations and found that variance in the intentions is basically explained by the significantly different entrepreneurial environments the students perceived (Franke & Luthje, 2004). In the present study, the focus is the intention of students to participate in the on-campus entrepreneurial activities, which is intrinsically related to their entrepreneurial intention, and thus it is assumed that external factors also exert an impact on the student's participation intention of entrepreneurial activities on campus. Our conceptual model proposes a direct impact of external factors, such as perceived barriers, financing concern, and perceived opportunity cost on the intention of students toward participating in entrepreneurial activities on campus. Lack of business ideas and calibre (Fiet, 2001) and entrepreneurial skills and knowledge (Fiet, 2001; Hood and Young, 1993) are salient barriers to entrepreneurship perceived by students, especially engineering students who are usually short of business training and are less alert in their ability to create or respond to entrepreneurial opportunities (Craig & Johnson, 2006). Financing concern (Fiet, 2001) is one of the important factors determining the entrepreneurial intentions. Financing concern (Fiet, 2001) inherently influences the entrepreneurial decisions, as it determines the capital-"soft infrastructure" to support entrepreneurship and business formation (George & Prabhu, 2003). For on campus engineering students, this is particularly a big concern, such as how to obtain financial support, how to manage finance and cash issues, and whether they will earn money from the entrepreneurial endeavor. Thus, financing concern is considered as an important external factor that affects the students' intention to participate in the entrepreneurial activities. Lastly, opportunity cost is considered. For the students on campus, academic studies appear to be most important. The entrepreneurial activities (e.g. business plan competition) usually demand a lot of effort and time (e.g. several months) on careful planning and active participation. The students may worry that they need to sacrifice much time for study and other activities if they join the entrepreneurial activities. That relates to opportunity cost the students perceive. Taking into account the external factors, we formulate the following hypotheses:

H6 Intention of students to participate in the on-campus entrepreneurial activities is related to their perceived barriers in these activities.

H7 Intention of students to participate in the on-campus entrepreneurial activities is related to their financing concerns.

H8 Intention of students to participate in the on-campus entrepreneurial activities is related to their perceived opportunity costs for participating in these activities.

METHODS

Survey and Participants

A survey was conducted in a university in Hong Kong. An on-line questionnaire was designed and an invitation was sent to students in the engineering department. Students were asked to complete the survey within 10 days, during which 2 reminding emails were sent to follow up for reply. Incentives of lucky draw for a fashionable gadget "iPod Touch" for completed questionnaires were used. Totally 155 completed questionnaires were received with an 82% of usable response rate. Of the participants, 127 were male engineering students and 28 were females. About 25% of the participants reported that they had participated in the entrepreneurial activities, while 75% reported that they had not participated before. Sixty percent of the respondents were undergraduate students, while 40% were postgraduates. Most of the students (65%) were in year 1 or 2, while 35% were in their final year of study.

Design of the Questionnaire

The questionnaire, as shown in the Appendix, was developed based on the conceptual model in Figure 1. Eight sets of variables were developed: intention to participate in on-campus entrepreneurial activities, attitude toward entrepreneurship, perceived feasibility, perceived barriers, financing concern, perceived opportunity cost, personality traits (need for achievement, locus of control, risk-taking propensity, innovativeness, and social network), and background factors (gender, role model, and start-up experience). All variables, except for the background factors, were measured in a 7-point Likert Scale. Respondents were instructed to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement with 1 representing strongly disagree to 7 representing strongly agree.

The construct of intention in this study is different from the measure of entrepreneurial intention (Autio et al., 2001; Kolvereid, 1996). The statements were used to assess the intention of the engineering students to participate in on-campus entrepreneurial activities, which include business plan competitions, business incubation program, entrepreneurship training, workshops and utilization of university services to explore entrepreneurial activities. These activities are common preparation taken by a nascent student entrepreneur who wants to explore starting a business. The construct was thus based on 5 statements. The Cronbach's Alpha for this construct was 0.90 (n=155, standardized scores used), as shown in Table 1.

Attitude toward entrepreneurship was measured by 8 statements, which were developed based on the items used by Davisson (1995) with modifications to fit the purpose of this study. The statements cover topics like attitudes towards building a business, ideal career and the perceived image of a successful entrepreneur. The Cronbach's Alpha for this construct was 0.93 (n=155, standardized scores used).

Statements for the construct of perceived feasibility were developed based on the items used by Peterman and Kennedy (2003) with modification to assess the perceived capability of engineering students to perform the entrepreneurial activities. Eight construct statements were developed to measure how confident the students were in their skills, knowledge, and calibres in winning in a business plan competition, or making any success in exploring entrepreneurship on campus. The Cronbach's Alpha was 0.81.

Following the aim of this study, perceived barrier was defined specific to the barriers or difficulties perceived by the engineering students to participate in the campus entrepreneurial activities. Construct statements (9 items) were designed to reflect the degree to which the students perceived barriers to participate the activities, such as lack of skill or knowledge, lack of business idea, lack of partners, required time and effort, incompatible personal characters, and any perceived difficulties adverse to success. The Cronbach's Alpha for this construct was 0.88.

The construct of financing concern refers to the concerns of engineering students about their financing issues regarding initiating entrepreneurial activities. Six statements were developed to reflect the worries of the students about if they could obtain capital for a new business or if they could earn money finally while they had to support their family & their own living, or they needed to repay their student loans. These considerations are pragmatic to the students and may affect their intention to engage in entrepreneurial activities. The Cronbach's Alpha for this construct was 0.73.

Perceived opportunity cost, in this study, relates to the evaluation of the students regarding participation in the campus entrepreneurial activities which demands a lot of time and effort. Six statements for this construct were used to gauge the student's view on how entrepreneurial activities might affect their other activities, such as certain risk in academic score, graduation date, and time for other activities. The Cronbach's Alpha for this construct was 0.80.

Personality traits involve 5 variables. Need for achievement, locus of control, risk-taking propensity, and innovativeness were measured by 8 statements respectively. Social network was measured by 9 statements. Need for achievement was developed based on the items used by King (1985) and the Cronbach's Alpha was 0.91. Locus of control was developed based on Rotter's (1966) scale with a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.84. Items for risk taking propensity, innovativeness, and social network were developed based on the items used in Jackson Personality Inventory (Jackson, 1994). The values of Cronbach's Alpha for these three variables were 0.87, 0.89, and 0.93 respectively.

It can be seen from Table 1, factor analysis with principal components extraction showed that for each construct, the items were converged into one factor with high factorial weights (>0.5) explaining over 50 percent of variance. The values of Cronbach's alpha (greater than 0.7) also showed a good internal reliability of the constructs (Nunnaly, 1978). Thus, the variables used in this study were valid and reliable.

Background information was also collected. Referring to the items used in Davidsson (1995), the following background information was included: gender, role models, and start-up experience. In order to develop a more detailed profile to the students, additional background data were collected, such as degree the students were studying and time to graduation. All the background factors were measured in a nominal scale.

Finally, the actual participation of the students in the on-campus entrepreneurial activities was measured by 4 items. The students were asked if they had participated in business plan competitions, other entrepreneurship related training programs or activities, or making use of resources/supporting services offered by the institute. Such dichotomous measurement was commonly used in entrepreneurial literature and has been applied by the studies of Krueger et al. (2000), Peterman and Kennedy (2003) and Souitaris et al. (2007).

RESULTS

The proposed conceptual model was tested using SPSS 15.0. To test hypothesis 1 depicting the relationship between intention to participate the entrepreneurial activities and actual participation, the mean values of intention to participate in entrepreneurial activities on campus of two subgroups were compared. One group was the students who had never participated in any campus entrepreneurial activities and the other group was those who had participated in any one or more of the entrepreneurial activities. The ANOVA results show that the two subgroups were significantly different (F-value=6.19, df=1 , p<0.05). That is, intention to participate and actual participation is related. Thus, hypothesis 1 was accepted.

Hypothesis 2, 3, 6, 7, & 8 were tested by Pearson correlation analysis and the results are shown in Table 2. It can be seen that except financing concern, all variables were significantly related to participation intention of students to entrepreneurial activities on campus. That is, the intention of the students to join the campus entrepreneurial activities is related to their attitude toward entrepreneurship, perceived feasibility, barriers, and opportunity cost. Further, perceived barriers (-0.34, p<0.01) and opportunity cost (-0.35, p<0.01) respectively had a negative relation to participation intention. That is, the higher level of barrier or difficulty and opportunity cost or loss the engineering student perceived, the lower their intention to engage in entrepreneurial activities. Thus, Hypothesis 2, 3, 6, 7, & 8 were accepted. Hypothesis 7 was rejected indicating that financing concern was not a significant factor to influence the students' intention to participate the campus entrepreneurial activities.

The impact of personal level factors (personality traits and backgrounds) is shown in Table 3 and Table 4. It can be seen (in Table 3) that need for achievement, locus of control, risk-taking propensity, innovativeness and social network were significantly related to attitude toward entrepreneurship (p<0.01). Thus, Hypotheses 4a- 4e were accepted. The positive relations showed that the personality traits of the students facilitated their attitude toward entrepreneurship.

Table 4 shows the impact of background factors on attitude toward entrepreneurship. None of the background factors of the students was significantly related to their entrepreneurial attitude. That is, no significant difference between male and female students regarding their entrepreneurial attitude. Those who had entrepreneur family and who did not also had similar attitude toward entrepreneurship. In addition, the start-up experience of the students did not facilitate their entrepreneurial attitude. Thus, hypotheses H5a-5c were rejected.

In summary, the results of this study show that whether the engineering students will join the entrepreneurial activities offered by the institute depends on their intention to participate in these activities. Such participating intention is further related to the students' attitude toward entrepreneurship, their perceived feasibility, barriers, and opportunity cost. Moreover, the entrepreneurial attitude of the students is related to their personality traits such as need for achievement, locus of control, risk-taking propensity, innovativeness, and social network. Background factors of the students and their financing concern are not found significant in the conceptual model.

DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This study provides empirical evidence that the combined intention-based model successfully explains the actual behavior of participating in on-campus entrepreneurial activities. It shows that participation in the entrepreneurial activities is significantly related to the students' intention to participate, which is influenced by attitude toward entrepreneurship and perceived feasibility. These confirm the studies on intention models (Ajzen, 1991; Shapero, 1982) and are consistent with the findings of previous empirical studies on entrepreneurship (Kolveried, 1996; Krueger et al., 2000).

Different from the existing research on the intention of students to create a new business (Souitaris, et al., 2007; Tkachev & Kolvereid, 1999), this study focuses on the intention of students to participate in on-campus entrepreneurial activities and the consequent behavior of the intention, namely, the actual participation in these activities. Most researchers found it very difficult to correlate the intention model with the eventual behavior of pursuing an entrepreneurial career, as there is always time lag between intention and behavior. A nascent entrepreneur may spend a few years to prepare for his/her eventual launch of innovative business. The resources required for a longitudinal study and tracking of such cases are prohibitively large. This study adopted a less ambitious and pragmatic approach. The study was used to correlate the intention with campus behaviors. The time lag is short enough to be studied. It is understood that on-campus entrepreneurial activities may not confirm the student's entrepreneurial career choice. In the perspective of education in entrepreneurship, the measure of participation in on-campus entrepreneurial activities, to a certain extent, reflects the students' willingness to learn and explore more about entrepreneurship. As students experience and explore more about the subject risky career, their attitudes towards entrepreneurship may then be changed. In the perspective of picking a career choice, maintaining student's participation to take in knowledge of entrepreneurship is to prevent such career choice being circumscribed (Gottfredson, 2002) from their lists of feasible choices. In both perspectives, the entrepreneurial intention of students will be increased when they participate more in related campus activities.

Further, the results are also in line with the study by Luthje and Franke (2003) that personality traits (need for achievement, locus of control, risk-taking propensity, innovativeness, and social network) and perceived external factors (perceived barriers and opportunity cost) play a significant role in the entrepreneurial intention model of engineering students. The findings indicate that the decision of engineering students on engaging in the on-campus entrepreneurial activities is to some extent related to their personality traits. This study suggests that those who are in charge of the institute entrepreneurial programs or services may select the right students to join the programs and activities, particularly those with a high achievement motivation, an internal locus of control, a risk taking propensity, and those who are creative and sociable.

The perception of barriers (such as skills, knowledge and entrepreneurial ideas) and perceived opportunity cost (such as the influence on academic studies, graduation date and other activities) do influence students' intention to join the on-campus entrepreneurial activities. These perceptions can be changed by relevant education and training. Such training and education programs assist students to remove their perceived barriers and difficulties, which are adverse to participating in the entrepreneurial activities. In addition, the image of entrepreneurship as a carrier alternative as well as the entrepreneurial culture should be intensified and supported in the university environment. These approaches may motivate more students to join the on-campus entrepreneurial activities.

Next, attitude toward entrepreneurship had the highest relation (0.60, p<0.01) with the intention of engineering students to participate in the on-campus entrepreneurial activities. It indicates that entrepreneurial attitude is more important than other factors in forming the participation intention. In order to develop or enhance a favorable entrepreneurial attitude, those who are in charge of the entrepreneurial programs and activities may convey messages or information about the campus entrepreneurial activities to students through all possible channels, such as sharing forums by successful graduate entrepreneurs and student innovation workshops, not limited to formal entrepreneurship branded events (e.g. business plan competition). These activities are relatively casual, simple, and easy to attract students. These may catch more attention of students on the campus entrepreneurial activities and help to raise their interest in these activities.

It is noted that financing concern of the students was found insignificant to intention to participate in the entrepreneurial activities. One possible explanation for this is that the entrepreneurial programs and activities offered on campus are normally supported by the university and sponsored by the government. The students believed that sufficient funding or loan should be provided and thus they did not worry much. The financing factor, compared with other barriers (skills, knowledge & idea generation) and opportunity cost, was less important in making a decision on participating in the entrepreneurial activities. It may also be due to the fact that this study is only about on-campus entrepreneurial activities while previous are about future entrepreneurial behaviors. This needs more research to distinguish.

Finally, the background factors of gender, role model and start-up experience were found insignificant in the conceptual model. The result is different from the previous studies (Davidsson, 1995; Wang & Wong, 2004). This could be because of the limited data set of this study. For example, over 80% (127) of the respondents were male engineering students, less than 20% (28) were females. Bias could exist and affect the comparison results. Considering these limitations, further studies should be conducted to test the proposed model with a larger sample with males and females evenly distributed, in order to obtain more convincing results.

CONCLUSION

The present study investigates the relationship between students' entrepreneurial intention and participation in campus entrepreneurial activities. It is perhaps the first of this kind. It identifies the critical factors related to the students' decision on engaging in the campus entrepreneurial activities. The results provide important references for future research on entrepreneurial behaviors of students on campus and offer valuable advice on designing an effective entrepreneurship programs to nurture students' entrepreneurial intention by removing their perceived barriers and difficulties which are adverse to their entrepreneurial initiates. APPENDIX-QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Personal background 1.1. Gender: Male ___ Female ___ 1.2. Degree studying: undergrad ___ Master ___ Doctorate ___ Time to graduation: 1 ___ 2 ___ 3 ___ 4 ___ 5 ___ 6 ___ years Someone in my family is an entrepreneur ___ No one in my family is an entrepreneur ___ I have worked in a start-up company before. Yes ___ No ___ 2. Attitude toward entrepreneurship and personality Please let us know how you agree or disagree to the statements below. If you strongly agree, tick box 7; if you strongly disagree, tick box 1. How do you agree or disagree with the Strongly disagree-- statement? Strongly agree 2.1 I always want to set up and down a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 business. 2.2 I admire those who can build a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 successful business from innovative technologies. 2.3 To be an entrepreneur is my ideal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 career. 2.4 I do not want to work as an employee 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 following instructions of others. 2.5 The most satisfactory career is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 running one's own business. 2.6 Establishing my own business is one of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 my major personal goals. 2.7 I prefer working in a large 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 corporation with a steady job with good prospects.. 2.8 Run-my-own-business is a job I do not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 want to miss during my career life. 2.9 My aim in life is to make a long list 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 of successful achievements. 2.10 I like to do my best in whatever work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I undertake. 2.11 I frequently desire to do something of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 great significance. 2.12 I often desire to be successful in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 doing something very significant. 2.13 For pleasure and happiness one must 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 enrich the record of one's achievements. 2.14 I have a great need for performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 feedback. 2.15 I am happiest when I am successful in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 work. 2.16 Achievements motivate me more than 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 anything else. 2.17 I will sometimes stretch out on a limb 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to get the things I want. 2.18 I would enjoy trying every means to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 make my way into an exclusive club or private party. 2.19 If the possible reward will be very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 high, I would not hesitate putting my money into a new business that may fail. 2.20 People have told me that I seem to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 enjoy taking chances. 2.21 The thought of investing into stock 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 excites me. 2.22 I enjoy taking risks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2.23 Taking risks does not bother me if the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 gains involved are high. 2.24 I would enjoy the challenge of a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 project that could mean either a promotion or loss of job. 2.25 Whether or not I get to be a leader 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 depends mostly on my ability. 2.26 Whether or not I get into a car 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 accident depends mostly on how good a driver I am. 2.27 When I make plans, I am almost certain 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to make them work. 2.28 How many friends I have depends on how 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 nice I treat people. How do you agree or disagree with the Strongly disagree-- statement? Strongly agree 2.29 I can pretty much determine what will 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 happen in my life. 2.30 I am usually able to protect my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 personal interest. 2.31 When I get what I want, it is usually 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 because I work hard for it. 2.32 My life is determined by my own 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 action. 2.33 I prefer work that requires original 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 thinking. 2.34 I am always seeking new ways to look 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 at things. 2.35 Original ideas have occurred to me at 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 almost any time of the day. 2.36 I enjoy thinking of original plans on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 which to work. 2.37 I often surprise people with my novel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ideas. 2.38 People often ask me for help in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 creative activities. 2.39 I hope to develop new techniques in my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 field of work. 2.40 I like to experiment with various ways 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 of doing the same thing. 2.41 I have contacts with people in various 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 fields. 2.42 I can find people who can provide 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 various information I need. 2.43 I am able to talk intelligently to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 people in a wide variety of occupations. 2.44 I can strike up a conversation with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 someone if I want. 2.45 It is not difficult for me to state my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 opinion in front of a group. 2.46 I am pretty good at planning and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 organizing activities to achieve my goal. 2.47 I can find partners and work with them 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 for common goals. 2.48 When working with a group, I can 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 personally influence the results. 2.49 I can cheer people up even in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 situation of failures 3. Financing concern Please let us know how you agree or disagree to the statements below. If you strongly agree, tick box 7; if you strongly disagree, tick box 1. How do you agree or disagree with the Strongly disagree-- statement? Strongly agree 3.1. I can earn money from the campus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 entrepreneurial activities. 3.2. I need to support my family for the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 coming few years. 3.3. I do need income to support my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 university study. 3.4. I need to spare a lot of my time for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 part-time job in order to support my current living. 3.5. I need to earn savings for further 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 studies. 3.6. The capital for entrepreneurial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 activities is a burden to me. 4. Perceived opportunity cost Please let us know how you agree or disagree to the statements below. If you strongly agree, tick box 7; if you strongly disagree, tick box 1. How do you agree or disagree with the Strongly disagree-- statement? Strongly agree 4.1. The time effort required for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 entrepreneurial programs or activities is not too much. I can spare ample time to cover it without affecting my current campus activities. 4.2. I have a very busy schedule. I cannot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 participate in entrepreneurial activities without giving up some of my favourite or important activities (such as coursework, studying, sports, part-time, or making friends) 4.3. Entrepreneurial programs and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 activities are very demanding. I may have to delay my graduation date if I participate in a serious manner. 4.4. I am risking my academic score if I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 spend too much time on entrepreneurial program. 4.5. I can manage my time. Entrepreneurial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 activities will not affect my other campus activities. 4.6. It is easier for me to win in a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 business plan competition than to win in others, such as sports or academic awards. 5. Perceived barriers Please let us know how you agree or disagree to the statements below. If you strongly agree, tick box 7; if you strongly disagree, tick box 1. How do you agree or disagree with the Strongly disagree-- statement? Strongly agree 5.1. I do not have the skills and knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to participate in any entrepreneurial programs or activities. 5.2. I cannot identify any technology 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 opportunity that is worth pursing in campus. 5.3. I cannot assemble a complete team for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 entrepreneurial activities. All my friends are not knowledgeable in business. 5.4. Entrepreneurial programs and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 activities are very difficult for me. I do not think I can make any success out of them. 5.5. It will take a long time and great 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 effort before I can accomplish any significant result from entrepreneurial activities. 5.6. I do not have entrepreneurial ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5.7. I am not social enough to be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 successful in any entrepreneurial activity. 5.8. My presentation and communication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 skills are not good enough for the activities. 5.9. My character may not be suitable for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the program. 6. Perceived feasibility Please let us know how you agree or disagree to the statements below. If you strongly agree, tick box 7; if you strongly disagree, tick box 1. How do you agree or disagree with the Strongly disagree-- statement? Strongly agree 6.1. I am sure of myself in performing the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 on-campus entrepreneurial activities. 6.2. If I participate in the on-campus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 entrepreneurial activities, the chances of success would be very high. 6.3. It is easy for me to carry out the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 on-campus entrepreneurial activities. 6.4. I believe in myself in performing the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 on-campus entrepreneurial activities. 6.5. I can expand my social network to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 students in different faculties, and to the business community, if I participate in the entrepreneurial activities. 6.6. I know enough to participate in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 on-campus entrepreneurial activities. 6.7. If I participate in the on-campus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 entrepreneurial activities, I would be ready to work hard. 6.8. The support provided by the University 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 will be very useful for me to carry out the entrepreneurial activities successfully. 7. Intention to participate in campus entrepreneurial programs Please let us know how you agree or disagree to the statements below. If you strongly agree, tick box 7; if you strongly disagree, tick box 1. How do you agree or disagree with the Strongly disagree-- statement? Strongly agree 7.1. I like to participate in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 university-organized or public business plan competitions. 7.2. I like to attend the seminars, talks, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 workshops or mixer-parties relating to entrepreneurship. 7.3. I like to enrol in campus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 entrepreneurship training programs. 7.4. I want to seek university help to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 start my own business. 7.5. I like to contact university units to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 seek help in exploring founding my own business. 8. Participation in on-campus activities related to entrepreneurship Have you participated in any business plan competitions? Answer: YES ___ NO ___ Have you enrolled in an on-campus entrepreneurial training programs or activities (e.g. innovation projects, successful entrepreneur talks)? Answer: YES ___ NO ___ Have you make use of any university's help to start my own business? Answer: YES ___ NO ___ Have you contacted any university department for assistance in establishing or to explore the feasibility of establishing your own business? Answer: YES ___ NO ___

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in social psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 1-63.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-212.

Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior. England: Open University Press.

Ajzen, I. & M. Fishbein (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ajzen, I. & T.J. Madden (1986). Prediction of goal directed behavior: attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(50), 453-474.

Aldrich, H. & C. Zimmer (1986). Entrepreneurship through social networks. In D.L. Sexton, & R.W. Smilor, (Eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship (pp. 3-23). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Ames, C. B. (1989). How to devise a winning business plan. The Journal of Business Strategy, 10, 30-36.

Autio, E., R.H. Keeley, M. Klofsten & T. Ulfstedt (1997). Entrepreneurial intent amongst students: testing an intent model in Asia, Scandinavia and USA. Proceedings of the Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research.

Bandura, A. (1986). The Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Bird, B. J. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442-453.

Bonnett, C. & A. Furnham (1991). Who wants to be an entrepreneur? A study of adolescents interested in a young enterprise scheme. Journal of Economic Psychology, 12(3), 465-478.

Brandstatter, H. (1997). Becoming an entrepreneur-a question of personality structure? Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 157-177.

Brockhaus, R.H. (1980). Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 509-520.

Craig, J.B.L. & D. Johnson (2006). Establishing individual differences related to opportunity alertness and innovation dependent on academic-career training. The Journal of Management Development, 25(1), 28-39.

Davidsson, P. (1995). Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions. RENTIX Workshop in Entrepreneurial Research. Piacenza, Italy. Nov. 23-24.

de Wit, G. & F.A.A.M. van Winden (1989). An Empirical Analysis of Self-employment in the Netherlands. Small Business Economics, 1, 263-272.

Entrialgo, M., E. Fernandez & C. Vazquez (2000). Characters of managers as determinants of entrepreneurial orientation: some Spanish evidence. Enterprise and Creativity Management Studies, 1(2), 187-205.

Fiet, J. (2000). The Theoretical Side of Teaching Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 1-24.

Franke, N. & C. Luthje (2004). Entrepreneurial intentions of business students: A benchmarking study. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 1(3), 269-288.

Gartner, W. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 20, 11-32.

Gartner, W.(1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 15-28.

George, G. & G.N. Prabhu (2003). Developmental financial institutions as technology policy instruments: Implications for innovation and entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32, 89-108.

Gottfredson, L.S. (2002). Gottfredson's theory of circumscription, compromise, and self-creation. In D. Brown (Eds.), Career Choice and Development (pp. 85-148). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gray, P.B. (2006). Can entrepreneurship be taught? Fortune Small Business, 16(2), 34-43.

Henry, C., F. Hill, C. Leitch (2003). Entrepreneurship Education and Training. Ashgate: Aldershot.

Hills, G., G.T. Lumpkin & R.P. Singh (1997). Opportunity Recognition: perceptions and behaviors of entrepreneurs. Proceedings of the Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research.

Ho, T.S. & H.C. Koh (1992). Differences in psychological characters between entrepreneurially inclined and non- entrepreneurially inclined accounting graduates in Singapore. Entrepreneurship, Creativity and Change: An Internality Journal, 1, 243-254.

Hood, J.N. & J.E. Young (1993). Entrepreneurship's requisite areas of development: A survey of top executives in successful entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 115-135.

Jackson, D.N. (1994). Jackson personality index, sigma assessments. MI: Port Huron.

Jackson, T. & A. Vitberg (1987). Career development, Part I:Careers and entrepreneurship. Personnel, 64(2), 12-17.

Johnson, B.R. (1990). Toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: The case of achievement motivation and the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(3), 39-54.

Jones, C. & J. English (2004). A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education. Education & Training, 46(8/9).

Kahrs, K. (1995). Business plans handbook. Detroit, MI: International Thomson publishing company.

Katz, J. & W. Gartner (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review 13(3), 429-441

Kim, M. & J. Hunter (1993). Relationships amongst attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Communication Research, 20(3), 331-364.

King, A. (1985). Self-analysis and assessment of entrepreneurial potential. Simulation & Games, 16(4), 399-416.

Koh, H.C. (1996). Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characters: A study of Hong Kong MBA students. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(3), 12-25.

Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(3), 47-56.

Krueger, N. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(1), 5-21.

Krueger, N.F., M.D. Reilly & A.D. Carsrud (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5,6), 411-432.

Langan-Fox, J. & S. Roth (1995). Achievement motivation and female entrepreneurs. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 209-218.

Lee, S., S. Lim, R. Pathak, D. Chang & W. Li (2006). Influences on attitudes toward entrepreneurship: A multi country study. Entrepreneurship Management, 2, 351-366.

Linan, F. (2004). Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education. 14th Annual IntEnt Conference, University of Napoli Federico II (Italy), July 4-7.

Luthje, C. & N. Franke (2003). The 'making' of an entrepreneur: testing a model of entrepreneurial intent amongst engineering students at MIT. R & D Management, 33(2), 135-148.

Maitland, I. (1996). Successful business plans in a week. UK, Hodder & Stoughton: Oxon.

Martinez, D., J.G. Mora & L.Vila (2007). Entrepreneurs, the self-employed and employees amongst young European higher education graduates. European Journal of Education, 42(1), 99-117.

McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, ILL: Scott, Foresman.

Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Peterman, N.E. & J. Kennedy (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students' perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Winter, 129-144.

Raab, G., Y. Stedham & M. Neuner (2005). Entrepreneurial potential: An exploratory study of business students in the U.S. and Germany. Journal of Business and Management, 11(2), 71-88.

Reynolds, P., B. Miller & W.R. Maki (1995). Explaining regional variation in business births and deaths: U.S. 19761988. Small Business Economics, 7(5), 389-707.

Reynolds, P., D. J. Storey & P. Westhead (1994). Cross-national comparisons of the variation in new firm formation rates. Regional Studies, 28(4), 443-456.

Robinson, P.B., D.V. Stimpson, J.C. Huefner & K.H. Hunt (1991). An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(4), 13-31.

Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 80, Whole No. 609.

Shapero, A (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K.Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship (pp.72-90). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Shaver, K.G. & L.R. Scott (1991). Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 23-45.

Souitaris, V., S. Zerbinati & A. Al-Laham (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 566-591.

Stanworth, J., S. Blythe, B. Granger & C. Stanworth (1989). Who becomes an entrepreneur? International Small Business Journal, 8, 11-22.

Stewart, W.H. & P.L. Roth (2001). Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 145-153.

Tkachev, A. & L. Kolvereid (1999). Self-employment intentions among Russian students. Entrepreneurship & Regional development, 11, 269-280.

Utsch, A. & A. Rauch (2000). Innovativeness and initiative as mediators between achievement orientation and venture performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 45-62.

Wang, C. & P. Wong (2004). Entrepreneurial interest of university students in Singapore. Technovation, 24(2), 163-172

Kwok-Yiu Leung, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Choi-Tung Lo, City University of Hong Kong

Hongyi Sun, City University of Hong Kong

Kam-Fai Wong, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Table 1: Validity And Reliability Of The Constructs Item INT ATT PFE PBA FIN POC 1 0.78 0.90 (#) 0.73 0.71 0.74 2 0.80 0.65 0.84 0.68 0.79 0.77 3 0.87 0.91 0.84 0.64 (#) 0.57 4 0.86 0.77 (#) 0.81 0.72 0.79 5 0.89 0.89 0.73 0.55 (#) 0.84 6 -- 0.92 (#) 0.67 0.77 (#) 7 -- (#) 0.85 0.79 -- -- 8 -- 0.82 0.53 0.72 -- -- 9 -- -- -- 0.79 -- -- Total 3.54 4.95 2.93 4.56 2.23 2.81 % Variance 70.80 70.67 58.69 50.71 55.69 56.22 Cronbach's alpha 0.90 0.93 0.81 0.88 0.73 0.80 Item NACH LOC RT IN SN 1 0.68 0.54 0.59 0.66 0.78 2 0.75 (#) 0.54 0.80 0.81 3 0.82 0.71 0.78 0.82 0.86 4 0.79 0.68 0.74 0.80 0.84 5 0.82 0.79 0.72 0.79 0.80 6 0.78 0.78 0.80 0.77 0.78 7 0.81 0.76 0.79 0.70 0.71 8 0.81 0.77 0.81 0.64 0.74 9 -- -- -- -- 0.80 Total 4.89 3.67 4.23 4.50 5.64 % Variance 61.11 52.37 52.89 56.25 62.63 Cronbach's alpha 0.91 0.84 0.87 0.89 0.93 (#) deleted items INT: intention to participate in entrepreneurial activities; ATT: attitude toward entrepreneurship; PFE: perceived feasibility; PBA: perceived barriers; FIN: financing concern; POC: perceived opportunity cost; NACH: need for achievement; LOC: locus of control; RT: risk- taking propensity; IN: innovativeness; SN: social network Table 2: Effects of Attitude, Perceived Feasibility, Barriers, Financing Concern and Opportunity Cost on Participation Intention Hypotheses Variables Coefficients Result H2 Attitude 0.60(**) Accepted H3 Perceived feasibility 0.44(**) Accepted H6 Perceived barriers -0.34(**) Accepted H7 Financing concern 0.01 Rejected H8 Perceived opportunity cost -0.35(**) Accepted (**) Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Table 3: Effect of Personality Traits on Attitude toward Entrepreneurship Hypotheses Variables Coefficients Result H4a Need for achievement 0.51(**) Accepted H4b Locus of control 0.40(**) Accepted H4c Risk-taking propensity 0.48(**) Accepted H4d Innovativeness 0.48(**) Accepted H4e Social network 0.41(**) Accepted (**) Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Table 4: Effect of Background Factors on Attitude toward Entrepreneurship Hypothesis Variables Sum of Squares df H5a Gender 2.24 1 H5b Role model 0.15 1 H5c Start-up experience 1.32 1 Hypothesis Mean Square F Sig. Result H5a 2.24 2.26 0.14 Rejected H5b 0.15 0.15 0.70 Rejected H5c 1.32 1.32 0.25 Rejected