The Influence of Big Five Personality Traits and Self-efficacy on Entrepreneurial Intention: The Role of Gender

Abstract

This study attempts to investigate the influence of the Big Five personality traits and self-efficacy (SE) on entrepreneurial intentions. It also aims to find out whether the influence of a set of personality traits and SE on entrepreneurial intention differs across gender. The target population of this study was students enrolled in Bachelor of Technology (BTech). The results offer support for the relation of openness, neuroticism, conscientiousness and agreeableness, and SE with entrepreneurial intention—except on the relation of extraversion and entrepreneurial intention. Based on the findings, the study argues that the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and Big Five personality traits is moderated, at least partially, by gender.

Keywords

Gender Big Five personality traits entrepreneurial intention self-efficacy

Introduction

Sondari (2014) and Guerrero, Rialp and Urbano (2008) defined that entrepreneurial intention is a state of mind that people wish to create their own business and as an intention to start a new business. The current study refers to the students’ intentions of becoming self-employed either by way of setting up their own firm or taking over an existing one (Thompson, 2009). Personality traits which are partly developed by innate nurturing, socialisation, education and, also, formed values/beliefs held play an important role in driving entrepreneurial decision-making. Previous studies have examined numerous personality constructs in the field of entrepreneurship, and various personality traits have been linked to business intention (Olakitan, 2014). Most studies involving the relationship between personality traits on entrepreneurship yielded inconclusive finding (Abu Elanain, 2008; Ong & Ismail, 2008). Researchers who found a strong relationship between entrepreneurial intention and personality traits found need for achievement, locus of control, innovativeness and risk-taking propensity as the most popular attributes influencing entrepreneurial intention (Begley & Boyd 1987; Johnson, 1990; Lee & Tsang, 2001 as cited by Akanbi, 2013). Other personality attributes found by other researchers in relation to entrepreneurial intention include overconfidence, optimism, tenacity and passion (Busenitz, 1999; Cooper, Woo & Dunkelberg, 1988; Gartner, Gatewood & Shaver, 1991; Locke, 1993). Very few research experts have used the measure of personality traits (Big Five personality taxonomy dimensions which include extraversion [EXTRAV], neuroticism [NEURO], agreeableness [AGREE], conscientiousness [CONSC] and openness [OPEN]) to predict entrepreneurial intention and the results are also inconclusive at best (Akanbi, 2013). The current study, which uses the Big Five personality as a measure of personality trait, attempts to fill this lacuna in studies investigating the influence of the Big Five personality traits on entrepreneurial intentions.

Ryan (1970) states that self-efficacy (SE) also determines intention to become an entrepreneur. Bandura, (1982) States that self-efficacy is the conviction, closest to action or action intentionality, which is required to produce an outcome. Its perceptions are pivotal to self-employment (Scherer, F.R., et. al. 1989), which can be used to predict and study the entrepreneur’s intention. Several studies reported the significant role played by SE as an important antecedent in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions (Wilson, Kickul, & Marlino, 2007) and found SE to be a key determinant of entrepreneurial intentions and/or activity (Fitzsimmons & Douglas, 2011).

In conceiving personality as a complex system (Caprara & Cervone, 2000), one may view at personality traits and at SE as both crucial to account for entrepreneurial intention (Caprara, Vecchione, Alessandri, Gerbino, & Barbaranelli, 2011). The contribution of personality traits and SE in the prediction of entrepreneurial intention of students is conspicuously absent within the literature. Studies analysing the composite contribution of personality traits and SE to the prediction of entrepreneurial intention of the participants is seldom found in the literature (Akanbi, 2013). This study, therefore, fills this lacuna by aiming at exploring the influence of personality traits and SE in the prediction of entrepreneurial intention among students, which forms the first research question of this study.

There is general agreement in a previous research that personality traits and SE are key factors on entrepreneurial intentions and in that gender also seems to play a key role (Díaz-García & Jiménez, 2010). With the growing interest in research that has focused on women’s entrepreneurship (Lerner & Malach-Pines, 2010), there exists several studies that assessed that individuals’ gender plays a fundamental role in assessing entrepreneurial intentions (Van Der Zwan, 2012 as cited by Robledo, Aran, Martin-Sanchez, & Molina, 2015). Despite various studies that includes gender, the literature still lacks a deeper fine-grained analysis of students’ gender effect on entrepreneurial intentions looking at the moderator influence (Robledo et al., 2015). Therefore, our second aim is to establish whether the influence of personality traits and SE on entrepreneurial intentions differs across gender, enhancing our understanding of different entrepreneurship prevalence rates between men and women and it becomes the second research question of the study.

Literature Review

Why do people become entrepreneurs? A recent research has indicated that some of the variance in who becomes an entrepreneur is accounted for by genetic factors (Nicolaou, Shane, Cherkas, Hunkin, & Spector, 2008). Unfortunately, till date research says little about how genetic factors might influence this tendency. Because we are unlikely to have specific genes for entrepreneurship, the influence of genetic factors on the likelihood of becoming an entrepreneur probably operates through mediating mechanism. One plausible mechanism is through personality. Because of the centrality of the person, entrepreneur, to entrepreneurship, different personal characteristics of an entrepreneur have been investigated in the past research (Antoncic, Bratkovic, Singh, & De Noble, 2008). Newer reviews and evaluations of entrepreneurship personality research suggest that personality traits of entrepreneurs may be important for entrepreneurship. However, insufficient research attention has been given to the general personality traits, such as the Big Five personality factors (Antoncic et al., 2008). Rauch and Frese (2007) have distinguished two sets of personality traits: broad (general) personality traits (EXTRAV,CONSC) and specific personality traits (need for achievement, risk taking, innovativeness, autonomy, locus of control and SE); both can be related to venture success. In this research, the focus is on general personality traits—the Big Five personality traits. The Big Five personality factors can be described as follows (Carducci, 1998): (O) OPEN, originality, open-mindedness [traits, e.g., artistic (+), insightful (+), intelligent (+), commonplace (–), narrow interest (–) and shallow (–)]; (C) CONSC, control, constraint (traits, e.g., deliberate (+), efficient (+), precise (+), careless (–), frivolous (–) and irresponsible (–); (E) EXTRAV, energy, enthusiasm (traits, e.g., adventurous (+), assertive (+), dominant (+), sociable (+), quiet (–) reserved (–), retiring (–) and shy (–); (A) AGREE, altruism, affection (traits e.g., cooperative (+), generous (+), sympathetic (+), cruel (–), quarrelsome (–) and unfriendly (–); and (N) NEURO, negative affectivity, nervousness (traits, e.g., anxious (+) self-pitying (+), temperamental (+), calm (–), contented (–) and stable (–). Research on the relationship between entrepreneurship and personality found OPEN a significant factor (Antoncic et al., 2008). Howard and Howard (1995) suggested strongly that CONSC and EXTRAV can be characteristics of the entrepreneur. AGREE traits may be related to entrepreneurship in two opposite (positive and negative) directions, depending on the trait group (Antoncic et al., 2008). Some AGREE traits from Goldberg (1990) may form one group, such as cooperative, helpful, patient, cordial, friendly, trustful and diplomatic, whereas traits such as combative, harsh, bossy, demanding domineering, manipulative, rude and ruthless may form the other group. The first group may be important for establishing good supportive relationship for technological innovativeness (Antoncic & Prodan, 2008), whereas the second group may be also important for fast implementation of technology development plans. NEURO (the reverse of emotional stability) may be negatively related to entrepreneurship activities and orientations (Singh & Noble, 2003). Autonomy or independence may be important motivators for entrepreneurship. Table 1 summarises the definitions and conceptual source of Big Five.

The predominant intention models, widely used to study entrepreneurship, are Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and Shapero’s model of the entrepreneurial event (1982). In the Ajzen model there are three sets of cognitive variables, ‘antecedents’, which exert their influence on intention. They are ‘subjective norms’, the ‘perceived behavioural control’ and ‘attitude towards entrepreneurship’. This study adopts only SE (perceived behavioural control). Entrepreneurship theorists have proposed that SE also plays an instrumental role in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions (Sequeira, Mueller, & Mcgee, 2007).

Boyd and Vozikis (1994), for example, proposed that SE influences the development of entrepreneurial intentions; hence, the probability of venture creation. Ventura & Quero, (2013) in his application of the TPB to predict employment status choice, concluded that gender influences self-employment intentions indirectly through their effect on perceived behavioural control. Robledo et al. (2015), in their study on ‘The moderating role of gender on entrepreneurial intentions: A TPB perspective’, revealed the moderating effect of gender. Lippa, (2010) found gender differences in Big Five traits tend to moderate, although it is very small. Therefore, the research model for this study focuses on Big Five personality traits and SE, with gender being the central role that may relate to entrepreneurial behaviour through the formation of entrepreneurial intention.

Table 1.

Constructs, Definitions and Conceptual Source

Construct	Definition	Conceptual Source
Extraversion	The degree to which an individual is talkative, full of energy and emotionally expressive	John & Srivastava (1999)
Agreeableness	The degree to which an individual is helpful and unselfish with others, has a forgiving nature and is generally trusting	John & Srivastava (1999)
Conscientiousness	The degree to which an individual does a thorough job, is reliable and perseveres until a job is finished	John & Srivastava (1999)
Neuroticism	The degree to which an individual is tense, worries more than others and is moody	John & Srivastava (1999)
Openness	The degree to which an individual is original, curious about many things and inventive	John & Srivastava (1999)

Source: John & Srivastava (1999).

A conceptual model which includes all these hypotheses is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Source: Authors’ own.

Framing of Hypotheses

Researchers who found a strong relationship between entrepreneurial intention and personality traits found the need for achievement, locus of control, innovativeness and risk-taking propensity as the most popular attributes influencing entrepreneurial aspiration of people (Lee & Tsang, 2001). Other personality attributes found by other researchers in relation to entrepreneurial intention include overconfidence, optimism, tenacity and passion (Busenitz, 1999). Other research experts have used the recent measure of personality traits (Big Five personality taxonomy) to predict entrepreneurial intention. These personality dimensions include EXTRAV, NEURO, AGREE, CONSC and OPEN to experience. Using the scale of Big Five personality traits, Chem, Jing and Sung (2012) found AGREE, OPEN to experience, EXTRAV and CONSC to significantly and positively influence entrepreneurship, while NEURO also had a significant but negative influence on entrepreneurship. The current study also uses the Big Five personality as a measure of personality trait.

Openness (OPEN)

Individual who are high on the OPEN dimension are not afraid of new challenges; they are versatile, imaginative and often display high degree of creativity (Yong, 2007). Entrepreneurs have been found to have greater OPEN compared to administrative personnel due to their need to be creative (Nordvik & Brovold, 1998). OPEN to experience is the personality dimension that is expected to be the most indicative of those who form stronger entrepreneurial intentions than others (Brice, 2002).

H1: OPEN is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions.

Extraversion (EXTRAV)

EXTRAV contributes towards the proactive personality required in fuelling the instinct and driving the charismatic vision of the entrepreneur (Crant, 1996); EXTRAV also creates a positive perceived locus of control as they are driven to fulfil their risk-taking propensity and need for achievement (McCarthy, 2003). Entrepreneurs have been found to possess higher EXTRAV than administrative worker (Nordvik & Brovold, 1998), and this assertiveness positively influences entrepreneurial success (Caliendo & Kritikos, 2008). EXTRAV is hypothesised to have a positive and direct relationship with the formation of entrepreneurial intentions since it has been demonstrated to strongly correlate with interest in enterprising occupations (Brice, 2002).

H2: EXTRAV is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions.

Agreeableness (AGREE)

AGREE concerns the ability to foster social consensus while upholding mutual understanding and trust (Llewellyn & Wilson, 2003; Yong, 2007). AGREE in interpersonal relationships includes the ability to be good listeners, be patient, to empathise and promote harmony in social interactions (Caliendo & Kritikos, 2008). Trusting and cooperative environments establish good rapport in alliances which facilitate exchange of technologies and raising capital for growth (Ciavarella, Buchholtz, Riodan, Gatewood, & Stokes, 2004). Nonetheless, overly agreeable individual characteristics may lead to compromise to gain acceptance of others and lower risk-taking propensity for unpopular venture. The following hypothesis is posited.

H3: AGREE is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions.

Conscientiousness (CONSC)

The CONSC trait relates to an individual’s meticulousness, conformance with rules/procedures and the incessant obsession in maintaining high standards of performance (Llewellyn & Wilson, 2003; Yong, 2007). Conscientious individuals are driven by a strong sense of responsibility, industriousness and need for achievement, which promote their dependability at work. CONSC has also been positively linked to long-term survival of a business venture (Ciavarella et al., 2004). As such, the following hypothesis is posited.

H4: CONSC is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions.

Neuroticism (NEURO)

NEURO is the degree of emotional stability of the individual (Llewellyn & Wilson, 2003; Yong, 2007). Individuals who are highly neurotic often display mood swings, impulsiveness, self-consciousness, low self-esteem and depression (Costa & McCrae, 1992). As such, low NEURO scores are expected. Thus, the following hypothesis is posited.

H5: NEURO is negatively related to entrepreneurial intentions.

Self-efficacy

Available studies demonstrated that people with higher SE have higher entrepreneurial intentions (Wang, Wong, & Lu, 2002). Further, Boyd and Vozikis (1994) explained that individuals with higher degrees of SE in the early stages of career development will have higher entrepreneurial intentions, and those with both higher SE and higher intentions will have a higher probability of being involved in entrepreneurial activities, later in life.

H6: A higher perception of SE is related positively with entrepreneurial intention.

Since the purpose of this study is to take into account different mechanisms in which gender can exert an effect on performance, the studies which serve as a basis for hypothesis’ development give gender a central role.

Gender’s Role in Traits

Sex differences in personality traits do appear to be larger and more robust than sex differences in other domains such as cognitive ability, attribution style and self-esteem (else adult or a college-aged man or woman whom they knew well and to rate that person’s personality traits, using the NEO-PI_R (McCrae, Terracciano, & 78 Members of the personality profiles of Cultures Project, 2005). Therefore, it is proposed that

H7: Women will report higher score in NEURO, AGREE, EXTRAV, OPEN and CONSC than men.

H8: Gender moderates the relationship between Big Five personality traits and entrepreneurial intentions.

Gender’s Role in Self-efficacy

Women shy away from entrepreneurial activity more frequently than men due to a lower perception of SE in carrying out entrepreneurial tasks (Kwong, Brooksbank, Jones-Evans, & Thompson, 2006; Wilson, Marlino, & Kickul, 2004). Besides, women less frequently perceive themselves as entrepreneurs (Verheul, Uhlaner, & Thurik, 2010). Focusing on youth, young females perceive themselves as having a lower level of SE in stereotypically male areas, which also is related to entrepreneurship (Marlino & Wilson, 2003), and, therefore, embark on entrepreneurial ventures to a far lesser extent (Wilson et al., 2007). However, gender might also have a moderating effect on the impact of perceived SE on entrepreneurial intention. Hence, it is proposed that

H9: Women have a less optimistic perception of SE.

H10: Gender moderates the relationship between SE and entrepreneurial intention.

Entrepreneurial Intention

The results of several studies reveal that men, in comparison with women, consider entrepreneurship more desirable than other careers (Veciana, Aponte, & Urbano, 2005), have a higher perception of personal efficacy for the task and a higher preference for firm creation (Zhao, Seibert, & Hills, 2005). Other studies observe that the number of men involved in starting businesses is significantly larger than women (Davidsson, 2006). Therefore, it is suggested that

H11: Male students have higher entrepreneurial intention than female students.

Methodology

Participants

The sample for this study is made up of students (a convenient sample and a dynamic segment in the digital era and represent a main source of entrepreneurial talent and did not differ in a significant way from business owners in variables like conformity, energy level, interpersonal affect, social ability and risk aversion—Sexton & Bowman, 1986; Veciana et al., 2005), since they increasingly see the founding of a company as an attractive alternative to wage employment (Guerrero et al., 2008), and little is known about what young people perceive or think about entrepreneurial activity (Kourilsky & Walstad, 1998). Moreover, it is believed that long-term solutions to reduce gender differential in entrepreneurship have to begin in the education system. The target population of this study was students enrolled in BTech (fourth year) degree in the academic year of 2008– 2009 in the university of National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli (southern India). The students enrolled in these courses have taken two subjects related to business management, which are required to complete their degree. The total population was 667 students; the breakdown of students according to sex was men (65 per cent) and women (35 per cent). The questionnaire was completed by the students who were in class on the day it was handed out and participation was voluntary. After reviewing the questionnaires, 248 students (who actually completed the survey) were usable for the study giving a response rate of 37.18 per cent with a sample error of –5 per cent at confidence level of 95 per cent (p = q = 0.5). The proportion of men to women in the sample was 60.1 per cent men and 39.9 per cent women.

Measures

Big Five Personality Traits

The Big Five personality factors were measured by Saucier’s Mini Markers inventory (also used and tested in entrepreneurship by Singh and De Noble (2003)), which includes eight adjectives for each personality factor: (a) OPEN adjectives: creative, imaginative philosophical, intellectual, complex, deep, uncreative and unintellectual; (b) CONSC adjectives: organised, efficient, systematic, practical, disorganised, sloppy, inefficient and careless; (c) EXTRAV adjectives: talkative, extraverted, bold, energetic, shy, quiet, bashful and withdrawn; (d) agreeable adjectives: sympathetic, warm, kind, cooperative, cold, unsympathetic, rude and harsh; and (e) NEURO adjectives: unanimous, relaxed, moody, jealous, temperamental, envious, touchy and fretful. Respondents personally reported the accuracy of the forty adjectives with respect to themselves on the 5-point Likert-type scale with anchors from very untrue to very true. Reliability or internal consistency of the items within each construct of this study is assessed by observing the Cronbach’s alpha (Cavana, Delahaye, & Sekaran, 2000).

Self-efficacy

Sequeira et al. (2007) identified 75 entrepreneurial tasks from which they developed a 60 item Likert-type scale for measuring SE. To streamline the survey administration process, the author reduced the number of items to 20. The respondents were asked to assess their SE with regard to each of the 20 entrepreneurial tasks. They were given the following general instructions: ‘Envision that you have an opportunity to start your own business. Using the following scale, please rate yourself on your level of confidence in completing the tasks listed below.’ The scale was anchored by 1 = ‘ I have no confidence in my ability to …’ and 5 = ‘I have complete confidence in my ability to …’.

Following Mueller and Goic (2003), the author assigned each of the 20 items to one of the four categories, representing a related set of entrepreneurial tasks associated with each phase of the new venture creation process. The first set of tasks (searching) was associated with idea generation and the search for opportunities. The second set of tasks (planning) involved the development of a comprehensive business plan that included a detailed market, financial and operational analysis. The third set of tasks (marshalling) related to the acquisition of resources needed to launch the business successfully. The tasks in the fourth set (implementing) were managerial tasks such as directing organisational activities and decision-making. Factor analysis and reliability analysis (Cronbach’s alpha) were conducted to confirm the validity of the four-factor SE model. The analysis revealed that two items related to estimating market size were ambiguous and did not clearly load on any one of the factors. These two items were removed leaving 18 items across the four factors. Table 2 shows factor loading and Cronbach’s alpha reliability score for each item.

Table 2.

Pattern Matrix Self-efficacy Scales

Item	Searching	Planning	Marshalling	Implementing
Identify the need for a new product or service	0.835
Recognise a business opportunity before others do	0.804
Invent a new product or service	0.759
Develop ways to improve a product or service	0.645
Investigate the market for a new product or service	0.599
Organise and maintain the financial records of my business		0.853
Accurately estimate the necessary revenues and cost associated with my business		0.820
Prepare projected (pro forma) financial statements such as balance sheets, income statements and cash flows business		0.831
Accurately estimate the amount of start-up funds and working capital necessary to start my business		0.762
Persuade professional investors (e.g., venture capitalists) to invest in my business			0.860
Find individuals with the necessary capital to fund my business			0.765
Gain the confidence and trust of people who do not know me very well			0.689
Persuade formal leading institutions (e.g., banks) to loan money to my business			0.654
Persuade friends or family members to invest in my business			0.701
Supervise employees				0.803
Recruit and hire employees				0.809
Inspire, encourage and motivate my employees				0.798
Manage the business without guidance or advice from others				0.642
Eigen value	3.39	2.59	2.20	1.99
Percentage of explained variance	22.40	12.24	9.00	8.02
Cumulative percentage of explained variance	22.40	35.61	38.15	39.05
Cronbach	0.818	0.853	0.849	0.819
Scale mean	14.55	3.59	1.79	2.68
Scale standard deviation	2.24	0.59	1.79	2.69

Source: Authors’ own.

Notes: KMO measure of sampling adequacy = 0.79; Bartlett’s test of sphericity chi-sqare = 1,374; df = 256; p = 0.01.

Personal Attributes of the Successful Entrepreneur

Personal attributes questionnaire (PAQI): Two scales ‘instrumental’ and ‘expressive’ characteristics traditionally ascribed to men and to women, respectively, by Spence and Helmreich (1978) were used to find masculine and feminine attributes of the stereotypical perception of the successful business owner of the participants.

Entrepreneurial Intention

Previous studies had used either a one-year (Autio, Keeley, Klofsten, Parker, & Hay, 2001) or a five-year measure (Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000). For this investigation, the study used both measures: the stated likelihood, on a scale of 1 through 5, of starting a business within one year or five years.

Gender was operationalised as 1 for females and 0 for males.

Data were analysed using d statistic, student t-test and a multinomial logistic regression.

Results

Based on Table 3, the final pattern matrix for the Big Five personality factors was 0.77 for AGREE and EXTRAV, 0.70 for NEURO, 0.72 for OPEN and 0.75 for CONSC. Since the Cronbach values were between 0.60 and 0.70 with less than 10 items constituting each of the constructs, the reliability of the scale has been established (Hair, William, Barry, Rolph, & Ronald, 2006); the Kaise–Meyer–Olkin test (KMO) shows a figure of 0.77 and Bartett’s test returns a chi-squared value of 1,364 (df = 253; p = 0.01), indicating that good sampling adequacy and the assumption of non-identity matrix have not been violated. The Egen values for each of the five personality trait components were also greater than one (1), indicating that they constitute valid and important explanatory variables (Field, 2009). The cumulative percentage of the explained variance was 60.69 per cent.

Table 3.

Pattern Matrix—Big Five Personality Traits

Personality Factors	Adjectives	Components
Personality Factors	Adjectives	Agree	Extro	Neuro	Open	Consc
Openness	Creative	0.78
	Imaginative	0.79
	Philosophical	0.73
	Intellectual	0.64
	Complex	0.78
	Deep	0.77
	Uncreative	0.62
	Unintelleutal	0.66
Conscientiousness	Organised		–0.72
	Efficient		–0.67
	Systematic		–0.71
	Practical		–0.66
	Disorganised		–0.59
	Sloppy		–0.57
	Inefficient		–0.61
	Careless			0.78
Extraversion	Talkative			0.79
	Extraverted			0.77
	Bold			0.60
	Energetic			0.68
	Shy			0.70
	Quiet			0.68
	Bashful			0.70
	Withdrawn			0.68
Agreeableness	Kind				0.71
	Cooperative				0.74
	Cold				0.66
	Unsympathetic				0.69
	Rude				0.70
	Harsh				0.71
	Sympathetic				0.69
Neuroticism	Unenvious					0.80
	Relaxed					0.67
	Moody					0.66
	Jealous					0.56
	Temperamental					0.56
	Envious					0.59
	Touchy					0.60
	Fretful					0.57
Eigen value		5.32	2.57	1.98	1.73	1.40
Percentage of explained variance		23.35	11.25	8.89	7.89	7.06
Cumulative percentage of explained variance		23.35	33.34	40.15	6.90	54.70
Cronbach		0.77	0.78	0.70	0.69	0.70
Scale mean		15.40	20.90	8.01	19.34	7.90
Scale standard deviation		2.24	2.89	2.00	2.66	2.04

Source: Authors’ own.

Notes: KMO measure of sampling adequacy = 0.77; Bartlett’s test of sphericity chi-square = 1,364; df = 253; p = 0.01.

The Magnitude of Sex Differences in Personality Traits

Overall, the magnitudes of sex differences (expressed in terms of the d statistic, in which the mean score of one gender is subtracted from the mean score of the other and is then divided by the pooled standard deviation¹

The d statistic is usually computed to identify sex differences in personality traits. Cohen (1988) defines sex differences in terms of d. It is large if d is greater than .80, moderate if it is between .50 and .80 and small if it is between .20 and .50. Other studies on sex differences in personality traits (Costa et al., 2001) have computed d statistic, a positive value indicates that women have scored more on a particular trait, and this convention has been used to increase the comparability of the current findings with previous studies.

) is given Table 4. Women reported significantly higher score levels of NEURO, AGREE, EXTRAV and CONSC than men reported. Sex differences were most pronounced on the NEURO dimension. On an average, the magnitude of sex differences in personality traits was the largest for NEURO (d.40); next largest for AGREE (d.15) followed by CONSC (d.12) and EXTRAV (d.10). As shown in Table 4, NEURO showed the strongest and the most reliable sex differences. These results were also observed by Nga and Shamuganathan (2010); therefore, hypothesis 7 is supported.

Table 4.

Mean z Score Differences (d) between Women and Men on Big Five

Score	n	GSDI	Mean z Score Differences					SD
Score	n	GSDI	N	E	O	A	C
Average	248	0.19	0.40	0.10	–0.05	0.15	0.12	8.99

Source: Authors’ own.

As a result of factor analysis, four factors were extracted and used to measure the effects of SE (Table 5). With respect to these factors, women perceive themselves as significantly less capable of carrying out tasks related with marshalling (t = 3.183; sig = 0.0020, which is assumed to be important for entrepreneurial decisions (Zhao et al., 2005). Therefore, hypothesis 9 is rejected. While the earlier study by Scherer, Brodzinski and Wiebe (1990) found men have higher entrepreneurial SE than women, the more recent studies (Sequeira et al., 2007) did not support the findings. On the other hand, women perceive themselves as having greater capabilities for planning and implementing, although these differences do not reach statistical significance. Similarly, it can be observed that individuals of both genders perceive the same profile of attributes of the successful entrepreneurs (Figure 2).

Table 5.

Multinomial Logistic Regressiona

Intention Category		B	Std. Error	Wald	Sig
Intention to start business—1Yr	Intercept	18.886	14.567	1.974	0.189
	Sex (man)	98.145	53.089	3.990	0.078
	Masculine scale of attributes	3.690	3.990	0.989	0.410
	Feminine scale of attributes	–9.675	4.779	4.004	0.045
	Openness	5.344	2.677	3.990	0.056
	Extraversion	–0.689	0.998	0.486	0.489
	Neuroticism	–3.343	1.746	2.984	0.091
	Agreeableness	9.003	3.998	4.009	0.098
	Conscientiousness	2.999	1.999	2.998	0.091
	Searching	1.989	1.908	2.197	0.123
	Marshalling	–2.669	1.398	2.998	0.079
	Planning	2.897	1.798	2.598	0.134
	Implementing	0.464	0.712	0.229	0.74
	Sex masculine scale	–22.889	11.789	3.467	0.089
	Sex SE	–0.456	1.432	0.191	0.698
Intention to start business—5 Yrs	Intercept	7.987	14.678	0.300	0.499
	Sex (man)	101.49	52.277	3.645	0.076
	Masculine scale of attributes	4.980	4.001	1.786	0.199
	Feminine scale of attributes	–9.876	4.989	3.998	0.034
	Openness	4.679	2.765	1.990	0.089
	Extraversion	–0.006	1.089	0.001	0.099
	Neuroticism	–2.398	1.989	1.943	0.198
	Agreeableness	7.981	3.987	2.989	0.076
	Conscientiousness	3.109	2.432	2.090	0.143
	Searching	1.999	1.099	4.001	0.090
	Marshalling	–2.589	1.943	2.934	0.098
	Planning	1.761	1.987	0.987	0.477
	Implementing	0.478	0.678	0.501	0.781
	Sex masculine scale	–23.099	13.871	3.765	0.065
	Sex SE	1.009	1.908	0.765	0.621
Intention to start—Never	Intercept	22.238	15.165	2.098	0.147
	Sex (man)	80.498	54.532	2.501	0.115
	Masculine scale of attributes	3.885	3.962	0.950	0.299
	Feminine scale of attributes	–9.365	4.773	4.710	0.030
	Openness	4.992	2.567	3.172	0.079
	Extraversion	–0.823	1.009	0.698	0.404
	Neuroticism	–2.869	1.496	3.668	0.059
	Agreeableness	7.557	4.269	5.012	0.299
	Conscientiousness	2.989	1.832	2.753	0.098
	Searching	2.074	1.089	3.666	0.057
	Marshalling	–2.867	1.493	3.669	0.059
	Planning	3.039	1.831	2.752	0.097
	Implementing	0.263	0.736	0.102	0.742
	Sex × masculine scale	–20.019	11.128	2.663	0.099
	Sex × SE	–0.779	1.594	0.219	0.645

Source: Authors’ own.

Notes:

Model fitting information: likelihood ratio test chi-sqaure = 106.142; sig. = 0.000; goodness of fit Pearson chi-square = 279.384; sig. = 1.000; deviance chi-square = 210.846; sig. = 1.000; pseudo R-square Nagerkerke = 0.629; percentage correctly classified = 69.9 per cent.

a With respect to the significance of the Wald test for the parameters, the subtle semantic difference among the response categories 3, 4, and 5 might explain why the majority of the explanatory variables are only significant to a 0.10 level.

The students’ valuation of the stereotypical masculine characteristics, according to PAQ the right semicircle, is greater (4.57 on an average) than the valuation given to the feminine characteristics (3.67 on an average). These results are in line with those by Gupta, Turban, Wasti and Sikdar (2009) since they found that entrepreneurs are still perceived to have predominantly masculine characteristics. There is only one significant difference since women perceive less gentleness in the traits of successful entrepreneurs than their male counterparts (t = 20.26; sig = 0.045). However, they also observe that women perceive a greater congruence between feminine and entrepreneurial characteristics. Following these analyses, a multinomial logistic regression was performed with entrepreneurial intention being the dependent variable (the reference category being: ‘Yes, I have the firm intention to start in one year’). The independent variables are demographic: the OPEN, EXTRAV, CONSC, NEURO, AGREE and SE. A personalised model was implemented in which these variables were entered as forced entry terms and the interaction terms with gender were entered as stepwise forward entry terms. Table 5 shows a summary of the model, showing those measures that allow us to affirm that the final model has a good fit to the data, since the pseudo R2 of Nagelkerke indicates that 62.9 per cent of the variation is explained by the model. It can also be observed that the significance of the likelihood ratio test is small, which means that the effects contribute to the model. With respect to the goodness of fit tests, it can be pointed out that their significance is high, which confirms that the model fits well to the data. The final model correctly predicts 69.9 per cent of the responses; this regression allows us to observe that two variables differentiate those who have a firm entrepreneurial intention to start business in 1 year from individuals who have intention to start in 5 years: the former has more SE in marshalling scoreless in OPEN. Also, those who are determined to create their own firm in 1 year have more SE in searching, with respect to those who have thought about creating their own firm in 5 years. Also, those who are determined to create their own firm have more SE in searching, with respect to those who have never thought about creating their own firm. Additionally, the other variables that characterise those individuals who have a firm entrepreneurial intention to start business in 1 year in comparison with those who have intention to start in 5 years are OPEN, NEURO, CONSC and AGREE.

Figure 2.

Source: Authors’ own.

These results offer support for hypotheses 1 and 6 on the relation of OPEN, NEURO, CONSC, AGREE and SE with entrepreneurial intention, and partial support for hypothesis 2, on the relation of EXTRAV and entrepreneurial intention. These findings are in line with those of the previous researches (Brice, 2002; Nga & Shamuganathan, 2010). Another finding of this study is that men are more likely to have thought about the intention of creating a firm than of being determined to do it. However, of those men, the ones who perceive higher congruence between masculine and entrepreneurial characteristics are more likely to have a firm entrepreneurial intention in 2 years. This may be related with men’s tendency to hold stronger views on gender role stereotypes (Miller & Budd, 1999). Therefore, it can be argued that the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and Big Five personality traits is moderated, at least partially, by gender; a finding which supports hypothesis 8. However, the evidence does not support hypothesis 10, on the moderating effect of gender in the relationship between SE and entrepreneurial intention. This suggests that the perception of having the necessary skills and training is an important factor in determining actual entrepreneurial participation, independent from other contextual variables, including gender.

Taking into account the estimated time needed to create a firm, it seems that women are less prone to do it without having acquired a certain experience in the labour market or having increased their educational background. It may be that women do not consider the entrepreneurial option as a way to achieve a higher socio-economic level in the first years of labour activity. However, these gender differences are not significant with respect to having the intention (t = 1.690; sig = 0.114) or the estimated time to create the firm (t = 0.706; sig = 0.520). These results could be due to the sample being composed by young, educated and inexperienced individuals. Hence, hypothesis 11 is not supported. The specific and complete explanation for all hypotheses framed is presented in Table 6.

Table 6.

Results of Hypotheses

Hypotheses No.	Hypotheses	Analysis with statistical Report	Results
1	OPEN is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions.	Two variables differentiate those who have a firm entrepreneurial intention to start business in 1 year from individuals who have intention to start in 5 years: the former have more SE in marshalling scoreless in OPEN.Also, those who are determined to create their own firm in 1 year have more SE in searching with respect to those who have thought about creating their own firm in 5 years.Also, those who are determined to create their own firm have more SE in searching with respect to those who have never thought about creating their own firm.The variables that characterise those individuals who have a firm entrepreneurial intention to start business in 1 year in comparison with those who have intention to start in 5 years are OPEN, NEURO, CONSC and AGREE (Table 6).	Supported
3	AGREE is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions.
4	Conscientious is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions.
5	NEURO is negatively related to entrepreneurial intentions.
6	A higher perception of SE is related positively with entrepreneurial intention.
2	EXTRAV is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions.		Partially supported
7	Women will report higher score in NEURO, AGREE, EXTRAV, OPEN and CONSC than men.	On an average, the magnitude of sex differences in personality traits was the largest for NEURO (d.40); next largest for AGREE (d.15) followed by CONSC (d.12) and EXTRAV (d.10). As shown in Table 3, NEURO showed the strongest and most reliable sex differences (Table 4).	Supported
8	Gender moderates the relationship between Big Five personality traits and entrepreneurial intentions.	Men are more likely to have thought about the intention of creating a firm than of being determined to do it. However of those men, the ones who perceive higher congruence between masculine and entrepreneurial characteristics are more likely to have a firm entrepreneurial intention in 2 years. This may be related with men’s tendency to hold stronger views on gender role stereotypes.	Partially supported
9	Women have a less optimistic perception of SE	As a result of factor analysis, four factors were extracted and used to measure the effects of SE (Table5). With respect to these factors, women perceive themselves significantly less capable of carrying out tasks related with marshalling (t = 3.183; sig = 0.0020), which is assumed to be important for entrepreneurial decisions.	Not supported
10	Gender moderates the relationship between SE and entrepreneurial intention.	The evidence given for hypothesis does not support hypothesis 10 on the moderating effect of gender in the relationship between SE and entrepreneurial intention.	Not supported
11	Male students have higher entrepreneurial intention than female students.	Gender differences are not significant with respect to having the intention (t = 1.690; sig = 0.114) or the estimated time to create the firm (t = 0.706; sig = 0.520).	Not supported

Source: Authors’ own.

Discussion

In the entrepreneurship literature, entrepreneurial intention is considered as the first step of the long-term process of venture creation (Krueger et al., 2000; Lee & Wong, 2004; Ranwala & Dissanayake, 2016). Many scholars have paid attention on the personality traits when describing entrepreneurial intention. Five factor model has been commonly used in those studies to assess the personality (Ranwala & Dissanayake, 2016). Similarly, scholars have paid attention on the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and SE (Zhang et al., 2009). At the same time, scholars have paid attention on the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and demographic variables, especially the gender (Urban, 2006). Due to the empirical background the present research used Big Five model and SE, and aimed to investigate the influence of the Big Five personality traits and SE on entrepreneurial intentions. It also aimed to find out whether the influence of a set of personality traits and SE on entrepreneurial intention differs across gender. The findings of this study is also in agreement with the studies of Crant (1996) and Zhao and Seibert (2005), who found that entrepreneurial intention is determined by different personality attributes. The relationship between SE and entrepreneurial intention is also high. This is in consonance with the findings of Boyd and Vozikis (1994), Krueger et al. (2000) and Wang et al. (2002) who found that people with high sense of SE have higher entrepreneurial aspiration. The reason could be linked to the fact that belief in one’s ability to be successful in a course of action is what a potential entrepreneur needs to be successful in his course of action (Akanbi, 2013). In case of SE, this study adopts perceived behaviour control of Ajzen’s TPB. The empirical results show that students’ SE towards creating a new firm indeed exerts positive influences on entrepreneurial intentions, and gender does not seem to influence entrepreneurial intentions in a different way in our case. These results are consistent with studies of Robledo et al. (2015). While the earlier study by Scherer et al. (1990) found men to have higher entrepreneurial SE than women, more recent studies (Zhao et al., 2005) did not support the findings. The results of this study confirm these more recent findings. Although not particularly surprising or remarkable, this research’s finding of ‘no difference’ between men and women in SE is an important evidence in support of the argument that times are changing. Today, one’s gender (male or female) is no longer a reliable predictor of entrepreneurial SE. These results could be indicating that old stereotypes that portray entrepreneurial and self-employment career choice intentions as a male-oriented domain may be disappearing, except for the larger influence of the perceived social pressure women feel (Robledo et al., 2015).

Personality traits play an important role in influencing the number of would-be entrepreneurs (Rauch & Frese, 2007). Successful entrepreneurs must be agreeable, open, conscientious, confident, creative and possess strong judgement to adapt to the changing scenario in the current business world (Van Der Zwan, 2012). Personality traits, often pre-cursor to one’s beliefs, and attitudes known to predict entrepreneurial success can provide guidance for young adults interested in entrepreneurship. Our empirical study demonstrates the positive relationship between OPEN, NEURO, CONSC, AGREE and SE with entrepreneurial intention. It indicates that people who are exceptionally open or conscientious, highly agreeable and neurotic will potentially form stronger entrepreneurial intentions more than others. In regards to gender, some interesting findings emerged. Our study shows that women report significantly higher score levels of NEURO, AGREE, EXTRAV and CONSC than men report. Although past research has shown that women may be less confident in their entrepreneurial skills and generally less likely to actually start a business (Sequeira et al., 2007), hopefully change is on the way. Our findings reinforce Brush’s point (1998).

Implications

The study has implications for research and entrepreneurial practice. Entrepreneurship scholars may like to consider using the entrepreneur’s general personality variables as crucial elements of entrepreneurial intention, particularly the Big Five personality factors. In addition, entrepreneurship policymakers may consider promoting and enhancing some personality factors (particularly OPEN and emotional stability) in the educational system among children, who may still have the potential for alterations in their general personality factors. The results of this study also have implications in the practice of small business consulting. By clearly identifying the fundamental skills that are needed during each phase of the venture creation process, entrepreneurship training, education programmes and consulting services can be targeted towards improvement in these skills to effectively inculcate SE in both men and women.

Finally, female students who believe that entrepreneurial success is based on the existence of male stereotypical traits perceive barriers to personal entrepreneurial action. Educators have to foster a feminine vision of entrepreneurial success, especially among women, since many traits (such as relationship-oriented, nurturing and caring) regarded by experts to be important for entrepreneurship success are stereotypically feminine. Therefore, it is important to have ‘gender sensitive programming’ to satisfy the need of both genders.

Limitations and Future Research

The study acknowledges that the students sample may not be a representative of the total population. In future researches, the representativeness of the sample should be improved. Future studies, using a broader and more diverse sample in terms of age, education, ethnicity and social–economic background may reveal greater SE between men and women that was found in engineering students. Data have been analysed using d statistic, student t-tests and multinomial logistic regression; however, alternative techniques, such as structural equations models, could be used to confirm or reject the obtained. Finally, we were able to obtain completed survey instruments only from 247 out of 667.

References

Abu

(2008). An investigation of relationship of openness to experience and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of American Academy of Business , 13(1), 72–78.

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 50(20), 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749–5978(91)90020-T

Akanbi

S.T.

(2013). Familial factors, personality traits and self-efficacy as determinants of entrepreneurial intention among vocational based college of education students in OYA state, Nigeria. The African Symposium: An Online Journal of the African Educational Research Network , 13(2), 66–76.

Antoncic

Bratkovic

Singh

De Noble

A.F.

(2008). The big five personality factors, gender, and entrepreneurship: Evidence from Slovenia. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting at the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA, 80–81.

Antoncic

Prodan

(2008). Alliances, technological entrepreneurship and firm performance: Testing a model on manufacturing firms. Technovation , 28(5), 257–265.

Autio

Keeley

R.H.

Klofsten

Parker

G.G.C.

Hay

(2001). Entrepreneurial intent among students in Scandinavia and in the USA. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies , 2(2), 145–160.

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist , 37(2), 122– 147.

Begley

T.M.

Boyd

D.B.

(1987). Psychological characteristics associated with performance in entrepreneurial firms and small business. Journal of Business Venturing , 2(1), 79–93.

Boyd

Vozikis

(1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 18(4), 63–90.

10.

Brice

(2002). The role of personality dimensions on the formation of entrepreneurial intentions . Hempstead, NY: Hofstra University.

11.

Brush

C.G.

(1998). A resource perspective on women’s entrepreneurship: Research, relevance, and recognition. Proceedings of the OECD Conference on Women Entrepreneurs in Small and Medium Enterprises: A Major Force in Innovation and Job Creation, Paris, France (pp. 155–168).

12.

Busenitz

(1999). Entrepreneurial risk and strategic decision-making. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science , 35(3), 325–340.

13.

Caliendo

Kritikos

A.S.

(2008). Is entrepreneurial success predictable? An ex-ante analysis of the character-based approach. Kyklos , 61(2), 189–214.

14.

Caprara

G.V.

Cervone

(2000). Personality, determinants, dynamics, and potentials . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Caprara

G.V.

Vecchione

Alessandri

Gerbino

Barbaranelli

, (2011). The contribution of personality traits and self-efficacy beliefs to academic achievement: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 81(1), 78–96.

16.

Carducci

B.J.

(1998). The psychology of personality: Viewpoints, research, and applications (6th ed.). Pacific Grove, Calif: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

17.

Cavana

R.Y.

Delahaye

B.L.

Sekaran

(2000). Applied business research: Quantitative and qualitative methods . Australia: John Wiley & Sons.

18.

Chem

S.C.

Jing

L.L.

Sung

(2012). University students personality traits and entrepreneurial intention: Using entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial attitude as mediating variable. International Journal of Economic Research , 3(3) 76–82.

19.

Ciavarella

M.A.

Buchholtz

A.K.

Riodan

C.M.

Gatewood

R.D.

Stokes

G.S.

(2004). The big five and venture capital survival. Journal of Business Venturing , 19(4), 465–483.

20.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

21.

Cooper

Woo

Dunkelberg

(1988). Entrepreneurs’ perceived chances for success. Journal of Business Venturing , 3(2), 97–108.

22.

Costa

P.T.

McCrae

R.R.

(1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

23.

Costa

Terracciano

McCrae

R.R.

(2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 81(2), 322–331.

24.

Crant

J.M.

(1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management , 34(1), 42–49.

25.

Davidsson

(2006). Nascent entrepreneurship: Empirical studies and development. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship , 2(1), 1–76. doi:10.1561/0300000005

26.

Díaz-García

M.C.

Jiménez-Moreno

(2010). Entrepreneurial intention: The role of gender. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , 6(3), 261–283.

27.

Field

(2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: SAGE Publication.

28.

Fitzsimmons

J.R.

Douglas

E.J.

(2011). Interaction between feasibility and desirability in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing , 26(4), 431–440.

29.

Gartner

W.B.

Gatewood

Shaver

K.G.

(1991). Reasons for starting a business: Not-so-simple answers to simple questions. In G.E.

Hills

R. W.

LaForge

, Research at the marketing/entrepreneurship interface (pp. 90–101). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago.

30.

Goldberg

L.R.

(1990). An alternative ‘description of personality’: The big five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 59(6), 1216–1229.

31.

Guerrero

Rialp

Urbano

(2008). The impact of desirability and feasibility on entrepreneurial intentions: A structural equation model. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , 4(1), 35–50. doi:10.1007/s11365–006–0032-x

32.

Gupta

V.K.

Turban

Wasti

S.A.

Sikdar

(2009). The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice , 33(2), 397–417.

33.

Hair

Black

W.C.

Babin

B.J.

Anderson

R.E.

Tatham

R.L.

(2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

34.

Howard

P.J.

Howard

J.M.

(1995). The big five quick start: An introduction to the five factor model of personality for human resource professionals . Charlotte, NC: Center for Applied Cognitive Studies.

35.

John

O.P.

Srivastava

(1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L.A.

Pervin

O.P.

John

, Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.

36.

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.

37.

Kourilsky

M.L.

Walstad

W.B.

(1998). Entrepreneurship and female youth: Knowledge, attitudes, gender differences and educational practices. Journal of Business Venturing , 13(1), 77–88.

38.

Krueger

N.F.

Reilly

M.D.

Carsrud

A.L.

(2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intensions. Journal of Business Venturing , 15(5), 411–432.

39.

Kwong

Brooksbank

Jones-Evans

Thompson

(2006). Female entrepreneurship: An exploration of activity and attitudes across the UK . Paper presented at the ISBA Conference, Cardiff.

40.

Lee

Tsang

(2001). The effects of entrepreneurial personality, background and network activities on venture growth. Journal of Management Studies , 38(4), 583–602.

41.

Lee

S.H.

Wong

P.K.

(2004). An exploratory study of technopreneurial intentions: A career anchor perspective. Journal of Business Venturing , 19(1), 7–28.

42.

Lerner

Malach-Pines

(2010). Gender and culture in family business: A ten-nation study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management , 11(2), 113–131.

43.

Lippa

R.A.

(2010). Gender differences in personality and interests: When, where, and why? Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 4(11), 1098–1110. doi:10.1111/j.1751–9004.2010.00320.x

44.

Llewellyn

D.J.

Wilson

K.M.

(2003). The controversial role of personality traits in entrepreneurial psychology. Education+Training , 45(6), 341–345.

45.

Locke

E.A.

(1993). The traits of American business heroes . Unpublished manuscript. Maryland, US: University of Maryland.

46.

Marlino

Wilson

(2003). Teen girls on business: Are they being empowered ? Boston, MA and Chicago, IL: Simmons School of Management and the Committee of 200.

47.

McCarthy

(2003). Strategy is personality driven, strategy is crisis driven: Insights from entrepreneurial firms. Management Decisions , 41(4), 327–339.

48.

McCrae

R.R.

Terracciano

(2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 88(3), 547.

49.

Miller

Budd

(1999). The development of occupational sex–role stereotypes, occupational preferences and academic subject preferences in children at ages 8, 12 and 16. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology , 19(1), 17–35.

50.

Mueller

S.L.

Goic

(2003). East–West differences in entrepreneurial self-efficacy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education , 1(4), 613–632.

51.

Nga

J.K.H.

Shamuganathan

(2010). The influence of personality traits and demographic factors on social entrepreneurship start up intentions. Journal of Business Ethics , 95(2), 259–282.

52.

Nicolaou

Shane

Cherkas

Hunkin

Spector

(2008). Is the tendency to engage in entrepreneurship genetic? Management Science , 54(1), 167–179.

53.

Nordvik

Brovold

(1998). Personality traits in leadership tasks. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology , 39(2), 61–64.

54.

Olakitan

O.O.

(2014). The influence of some personality factors on entrepreneurial intentions. International Journal of Business and Social Science , 5(1), 278–284.

55.

Ong

J.W.

Ismail

(2008). Revisiting personality traits in entrepreneurship study from a resource based perspective. Business Renaissance Quarterly , 3(1), 97–114.

56.

Ranwala

R.S.

Dissanayake

D.M.N.S.W.

(2016). Big five personality traits and entrepreneurial inclination: A study based on Sri Lankan undergraduates. Social and Basic Science Review , 4(4), 84–98.

57.

Rauch

Frese

(2007). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta analysis on the research between business owners’ personality traits, business creation and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 16(4), 353–385.

58.

Robledo

J.L.R.

Aran

M.A.

Martin-Sanchez

Molina

M.A.R.

(2015). The moderating role of gender on entrepreneurial intentions: ATPB perspective. Intangible Capital , 11(1), 92–117.

59.

Ryan

T.R.

(1970). Intentional behavior: An approach to human motivation . New York, NY: The Ronald Press Company.

60.

Scherer

Adams

Carley

Wiebe

(1989). Role model performance effects on development of entrepreneurial career preference. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice , 13(3), 53–71.

61.

Scherer

Brodzinski

Wiebe

(1990). Entrepreneurial career selection and gender: A socialization approach. Journal of Small Business Management , 28(2), 37.

62.

Sequeira

Mueller

S.L.

Mcgee

J.E.

(2007). The influence of social ties and self-efficacy in forming entrepreneurial intentions and motivating nascent behaviour. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship , 12(3), 275– 291.

63.

Shapero

(1982). Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship. In C.

Kent

Sexton

Vesper

The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship (pp. 72–90). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

64.

Sexton

L.D.

Bowman

N.B.

(1986). Comparative psychological characteristics analysis of female entrepreneurs, managers, entrepreneurship students and business students. In Ronstadt

Hornaday

J.A.

Peterson

Vesper

K.H.

Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 40–51). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

65.

Singh

De Noble

A.F.

(2003). Views on self-employment and personality: An exploratory study. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship , 8(3), 265–281.

66.

Sondari

M.C.

(2014). Is entrepreneurship education really needed? Examining the antecedent of entrepreneurial career intention. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences , 115, 44–53.

67.

Spence

J.T.

Helmreich

R.L.

(1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates and antecedents . Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

68.

Thompson

E.R.

(2009, May). Individual entrepreneurial intent: Construct clarification and development of an internationally reliable metric. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 669–694. doi: org/10.1111/j.1540–6520.2009.00321.x

69.

Urban

(2006). Entrepreneurship in the rainbow nation: Intentions and entrepreneurial self-efficacy across cultural groups. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship , 11(3), 71–88.

70.

Van Der Zwan

(2012). Explaining preferences and actual involvement in self-employment: Gender and the entrepreneurial personality. Journal of Economic Psychology , 33(2), 325–341. doi: org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.02.009

71.

Veciana

J.M.

Aponte

Urbano

(2005). University student’s attitudes towards entrepreneurship: A two countries comparison. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , 1(2), 165–182. doi:10.1007/s11365–005–1127–5

72.

Ventura

Quero

M.J.

(2013). Factors explaining the intention of undertaking the woman aspects differentials in that population according to gender variable. Journal of Management , 13(1), 127–149. doi: org/10.5295/cdg.100271rv

73.

Verheul

Uhlaner

Thurik

(2010). Business accomplishments, gender and entrepreneurial self-image. Journal of Business Venturing , 20(4), 483–518.

74.

Wang

Wong

(2002). Tertiary education and entrepreneurial intentions. In P.

Phan

, Technological entrepreneurship (pp. 55–82). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

75.

Wilson

Kickul

Marlino

(2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 13(3), 387–406.

76.

Wilson

Marlino

Kickul

(2004). Our entrepreneurial future: Examining the diverse attitudes and motivations of teens across gender and ethnic identity. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship , 9(3), 177–198.

77.

Yong

(2007). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: Leonard personality inventory (LPI) Profiling . Malaysia: Leonard Personality Incorporated

78.

Zhang

Zyphur

M. J.

Narayanan

Arvey

R.D.

Chaturvedi

Avolio

B.J.

Lichtenstein

& Larsson

(2009). The genetic basis of entrepreneurship: Effects of gender and personality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 110(2), 93–107.

79.

Zhao

Seibert

S.E.

Hills

G.E.

(2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. The Journal of Applied Psychology , 90(6), 1265–1272. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.90.6.1265