Behaviours and entrepreneurial intention: Empirical
findings about secondary students
Arminda M. Finisterra do Paço &
João Matos Ferreira & Mário Raposo &
Ricardo Gouveia Rodrigues & Anabela Dinis
Published online: 7 January 2011
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract This paper aims to identify some factors that may be explaining differences
among secondary students in start-up intentions. For that, the study develops an
entrepreneurial intention model sustained by the use of Azjen’s Theory of Planned
Behaviour (TBP). Using a sample of students aged between 14 and 15 years old, a
questionnaire based on the Liñán and Chen’s Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire
was administrated. The purpose is to test a model of entrepreneurial intention using
structural equations. The findings point that TPB is an appropriate tool to model the
development of entrepreneurial intention through pedagogical processes and learning
contexts. The education and training should centre itself much more in changing
personal attitudes than in knowledge. Moreover, it is desirable that an entrepreneur-
ship educational programme could contribute to the development of competences
related to entrepreneurship, social and civic skills, and cultural awareness.
Keywords Entrepreneurial intention . Entrepreneurship education . Secondary students
Introduction
The number of schools offering entrepreneurship courses in last years has risen in
many Western countries (Vesper and Gartner 1999). This trend was particularly
J Int Entrep (2011) 9:20–38
DOI 10.1007/s10843-010-0071-9
A. M. F. do Paço (*) : J. M. Ferreira : M. Raposo : R. G. Rodrigues : A. Dinis
Department of Business and Economics, Research Unit NECE, University of Beira Interior,
Estrada do Sineiro, 6200-209 Covilhã, Portugal
e-mail: apaco@ubi.pt
J. M. Ferreira
e-mail: jjmf@ubi.pt
M. Raposo
e-mail: mraposo@ubi.pt
R. G. Rodrigues
e-mail: rgrodrigues@ubi.pt
A. Dinis
e-mail: adinis@ubi.pt

notorious in the nineties in some universities in the USA, Canada and France (Kyrö
2006). In North America, it seems that the traditional pedagogical methods, such as
the writing up a business plan, case studies, lessons or guest entrepreneurs, are still
predominant (Solomon et al. 2002). In turn, Europe has been developing several
innovative pedagogical initiatives in the last years (Gasse and Tremblay 2006).
In 2002, a European Commission’s report indicated significant differences
between countries, related to the situation of entrepreneurship education in national
educational systems. For instance, “only Finland has extensively included it in the
curriculum of primary and secondary school, as well as in initial vocational
training” (Kyrö 2006:95). In Great Britain, Spain and Netherlands there is a
relatively broad range of activities related with the entrepreneurship education. Other
countries such as Germany, Austria and Switzerland have begun significant efforts in
order to establish entrepreneurship education.
Rushing (1990) defends that entrepreneurship education can enhance and develop
traits that are associated with entrepreneurial success and provide skills that
entrepreneurs will need latter. He also states that entrepreneurship education should
be integrated and continued throughout all formal education.
Some investigations have come to support the idea that the psychological
attributes, related to entrepreneurship can be culturally acquired (Gibb and Ritchie
1982). To this extent, it seems pertinent to conduct an analysis concerning the
contribution of education to foment entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship education
based on a theory of solid learning can contribute to increase the knowledge
management and to promote the psychological attributes associated with
entrepreneurs. In this sense, Lee et al. (2006) conclude that the school and the
education system play a pivotal role in predicting and developing entrepreneurial
traits.
As the Green Paper on Entrepreneurship in Europe states, education plays a
critical role on the development of enterprising citizens. It is believed that since the
very early years of school, education and entrepreneurship should not be dissociated
in order to develop entrepreneurial characteristics on a broad part of population.
The identification and study of students’ entrepreneurial characteristics assumes
special relevance for the development of adequate educational programmes related
with entrepreneurship and business creation. Therefore, given the high regard in
which entrepreneurship is held by society (Miller et al. 2009) investigating what
factors determine the entrepreneurial intention (EI) is a crucial issue in the
entrepreneurship research
EI has been described as a conscious state of mind that directs attention (and
therefore experience and action) toward a specific object (goal) or pathway to
achieve it (means) (Bird 1989). Researchers typically draw EI to three general
factors (Krueger et al. 2000): (1) person’s attitude towards the behaviour, (2)
perceived social norms, and (3) person’s self-efficacy will influence intentions.
Additionally, Crant (1996) defines EI as one’s judgments about the likelihood of
owning one’s own business.
In previous research, personal and environment-based determinants of EI, such as
personality traits, attitudes toward entrepreneurship, or social environment have been
extensively discussed (Schwarz, et al. 2006; Liñán and Chen 2009; Raposo et al.
2008a; Guerrero et al. 2008). For instance, Raposo et al. (2008b) found that
Behaviours and entrepreneurial intention 21

individuals who evidence more propensity for start-ups creation seem to possess
more self-confidence and leadership capacity.
EI has proven to be a primary predictor of future entrepreneurial behaviour (Krueger
et al. 2000; Schwarz et al. 2006). Nevertheless, there are just a limited number of
studies addressing influence factors for EI at pre-university levels of education (Wang
and Wong 2004). From this, we establish as a central question - what factors
determine EI among secondary students? Accordingly, the aim of this paper is to
understand what factors influence entrepreneurial intention of secondary students.
Traditional educational methodologies are likely to privilege predictability, well-
defined rules, planning and stability in the classroom. These characteristics may
lessen creative learning and behaviour. Understand if traditional educational
methodologies of study promote EI is important in order to propose alternative
methodologies which raise the students’ entrepreneurial propensity (Oosterbeek et
al. 2007). Also, understand what factors influence and shape students’ intention
towards starting a business is vital for developing the programmes and policies to
promote entrepreneurial behaviour (Barkovic and Kruzic 2010). The present study is
a cross-sectional study that focus on the intensity and the propensity for
entrepreneurship in secondary students not exposed to an entrepreneurial curricula.
However, we assume that it is difficult to predict if the entrepreneurship intention
detected in a certain moment of the individual´s life will accomplish him during the
next years. This only could be accessed through a longitudinal study.
This study follows a cognitive approach which explores the conditions that lead
to entrepreneurial behaviour. Its application is made through the application of an EI
model: the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) by Ajzen (1991). According to this,
individuals will stimulate their entrepreneurial potential if they accept as true they
have the ability, there are environmental possibilities and there is social support
(Kirby 2006).
The paper is structured as follows. First, we present some theoretical background
and state our hypotheses. This is followed by a description of our research
conceptual model, including the sample, the measures and the analysis. Next, our
findings are stated and discussed. The paper ends with final remarks referring
important implications for researcher, practitioners and educators.
Literature review
The importance of entrepreneurship education
Entrepreneurship is studied and taught by a very heterogeneous group of academics.
Scholars still do not share a single common paradigm and integrative framework as
the basis of their work (Fayolle et al. 2006; Raposo et al. 2008a; Verduyn et al. 2007).
Miller et al. (2009) refer that entrepreneurship is an important part of the
economic scenery, providing opportunities and jobs for substantial numbers of
people. Policy makers believe that increased levels of entrepreneurship can be
attained through education (European Commission 2006) and particularly entrepre-
neurship education. However, there are some differences in the terms used to in the
entrepreneurship’s field of knowledge. The term “entrepreneurship education” is
22 A.M.F. do Paço et al.

familiar in USA and Canada, but the term “enterprise education” is more used in
United Kingdom (Kyrö 2006). In this latter case, the focus is more on enterprise
creation (and then in education to be a “business man”), whereas the first is more
centred in the development of an entrepreneurial spirit.
Entrepreneurship education has been described as one of the most significant
achievements of the modern postsecondary educational system and a key factor in
economic progress and the creation of jobs (Miller et al. 2009). Katz (2007) argues that
entrepreneurship education cannot avoid failure but can diminish the risk of failure.
Basically, entrepreneurship education is about creating entrepreneurship competencies,
which include knowledge, skills, and abilities (Markman 2007; Miller et al. 2009).
A review of recent literature measuring the impact of general education on
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial activity suggests some possible generalisations.
Evidence suggesting a positive link between education and entrepreneurship is
robust. For example, Raposo et al. (2008a, 2008b) found that the most important
effect on the propensity to start-up a firm among students was education. Results
point out the importance of entrepreneurship education in the promotion of the EI.
These conclusions have support in others studies (Brice 2004; Hmieleski and Corbett
2006). Florin et al. (2007) stated that the students need to perceive that the
application of the skill is feasible and that an entrepreneurial approach is desirable
and a focus on developing a positive attitude toward entrepreneurial behaviour
appears to be central to entrepreneurship education.
Thus, there has been recently an increased interest from researchers about
entrepreneurship education programmes (Veciana et al. 2005; Fayolle et al. 2006;
Lee et al. 2006; Tang et al. 2007; Verduyn et al. 2007). The thematic is been studied
in several countries and contexts.
In his research, Johansen (2007) performed a quantitative study of former
participants in Junior Achievement-Young Enterprise (JA-YE) Europe pro-
grammes. Former studies of Company Programme participants from Norway and
Sweden have indicated the possible relationship of participation in entrepreneur-
ship education and later entrepreneurial activity. In Sweden, approximately 9% of
former students in entrepreneurship education programmes established their own
businesses. In Norway, 10% of former participants in JA-YE programmes have
subsequently set up a company.
Johansen (2007) found that the start-up rate was significantly higher among
participants with an “Enterprise-based” motivation (control group), so usually
participants in entrepreneurship education programmes are more likely to become
entrepreneurs. Former evaluations of entrepreneurship education programmes have
clearly shown these programmes’ usefulness in developing young peoples’
entrepreneurial competences.
Furthermore, some works advance the idea that early formal entrepreneurship
education affects the attitudes of students, influencing them in the direction of their
future career, and affect their propensity for entrepreneurship when they become
adults. For instance, Kourilsky and Walstad (1998) indicate that the very early
stimulus of entrepreneurial attitudes, even before high school, can encourage
entrepreneurship as a career option, although they have not tested this assertion
empirically. Lee et al. (2006) refer that pedagogical approach should encourage
children to make decisions and accept mistakes as part of the learning process. In
Behaviours and entrepreneurial intention 23

this sense, on the education level, active experimentation should be balanced with
abstract conceptualisation, contributing to infuse in the students a larger propensity
to entrepreneurship.
For example, in Latin America, Postigo et al. (2006) concluded that there is a
need for relevant changes in the education system in order to produce a change in the
culture and values necessary to promote entrepreneurship. The Argentinean
educational system usually does not promote or motivate the skills necessary for
developing entrepreneurs. Students are not shaped with an entrepreneurial attitude
because education and social aspiration are mostly oriented to working in big
enterprises. In the last decade, this trend has started to reverse, presenting changes
principally in the university education system.
Italy faces similar problems concerning entrepreneurship development and
education (Postigo et al. 2006). Nevertheless, according to several surveys, Italy
has one of the highest firm birth rates in European countries (Reynolds et al. 2000).
In fact, entrepreneurial rates are particularly high in the North-Eastern and Central
regions. In the field of entrepreneurial education, the situation in Italy is rather
atypical when compared with that of North American countries and even with that of
other European countries (Postigo et al. 2006).
In Portugal, the panorama is quite similar to the Spanish situation. The last
national Global Entrepreneurship Monitor project report about Portugal shows Total
Entrepreneurial Activity rates are especially low (round about 4%). This proportion
is significantly lower than the 7.1% documented in 2001, and ranks Portugal in the
last places of the EU countries in terms of entrepreneurship’s levels. But in
comparison to the Spanish, the option of undertaking a business is less rejected by
the Portuguese young people (Sanchez and Yurrebaso 2008).
The limited entrepreneurial spirit observed in Spain and Portugal significantly
contrasts with the outlook of other regions, such as Latin America. For example,
despite the legal barriers to new venture creation, Mexico is one of the more
entrepreneurial countries of the world. The results of Sanchez and Yurrebaso (2008)
suggest that the differences in entrepreneurial activity observed between countries
such as Mexico, Spain and Portugal tend to consolidate themselves from generation-
to-generation through mechanisms of social learning.
Since schools are one of the most important instruments for social learning, and
entrepreneurship is one main aspect in modern societies and economies, it is important
to understand how school’s curricula are adapted to develop enterprising citizens.
Model of entrepreneurial intention
Guerrero et al. (2008) identified the six main models about EI developed in this
field, and they are:
1. Entrepreneurial event model (Shapero 1982), that considers the business
creation as an event that can be explained with the interaction between
initiatives, abilities, management, relative autonomy and risk;
2. Theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen 1991) with the premise that any behaviour
requires a certain amount of planning and can be predicted by the intention to
adopt that behaviour;
24 A.M.F. do Paço et al.

3. Entrepreneurial attitude orientation (Robinson et al. 1991) that explains the
attitude prediction through four different sub-scales (achievement, self-esteem,
personal control, and innovation) and three types of reactions (affective,
cognitive or conative);
4. Intentional basic model (Krueger and Carsrud 1993) that examines the
relationship between attitudes and entrepreneurial intentions using a scale which
permits greater flexibility in the analysis of exogenous influences, attitudes and
intentions;
5. Entrepreneurial potential model (Krueger and Brazeal 1994), based on the
previous models of Shapero and Ajzen, supporting their evidence from the
corporate venture and enterprise development perspectives;
6. Davidsson model (Davidsson 1995) that states that intention can be influenced
by the conviction defined by general attitudes, domain attitudes and the current
situation.
This research does not explore all this EI models but only issues of
entrepreneurship intention within the context of the TPB (Ajzen and Fishbein
1980; Ajzen 1985; Ajzen 1991). The TBP has been used by several researchers as a
framework to explore attitudes towards EI (Liñán and Chen 2009; North 1990;
Kirby 2006; Miller et al. 2009; Schwarz et al. 2009; Turker and Selcuk 2008).
There is a relation between the TPB and the Theory of Reasoned Action. The
latter is a theory of attitude–behaviour relationships which links attitudes, subjective
norms, behavioural intentions and behaviours in a causal sequence (Ajzen and
Fishbein 1980). Behaviour is a direct function of intention, which in turn is a
function of attitude and subjective norm. Attitude is further deemed to be the product
of the individuals’ beliefs and their evaluation of those beliefs. The subjective
perception of normative influences is considered to be a “product of individuals’
beliefs that important others think they should or should not perform the behaviour
in question, and their motivation to comply with these others” (Shaw and Shiu
2003:1487). Later, Ajzen (1985) extended the model to add a measure of “perceived
behavioural control” forming the TPB. This concept is a direct measure that results
from antecedents in the form of control beliefs.
The Ajzen (1991) TPB is considered as a relevant tool to model the development
of EI through pedagogical processes and learning contexts (Fayolle et al. 2006).
Ajzen (1991) considers that intentions toward target behaviour depend on a set of
underlying attitudes. Particularly, intentions to take a certain course of action depend
on the perceptions of participants regarding personal and social desirability of the
behaviour and the perceptions of participants of whether they can successfully
perform such action. TPB belongs to a larger family of international models that
have been used to explain the manifestation of entrepreneurial behaviour and
assumes that human social behaviour is reasoned, controlled or planned since it takes
into account the likely consequences of the considered behaviour (Ajzen 1991).
According to the TPB, behaviour that entails planning can be predicted by the
intention to adopt that behaviour. The TPB includes three components that predict
behavioural intentions (Miller et al. 2009): (1) attitude or desire toward the proposed
behaviour, as well as global positive or negative evaluations of performing a
particular behaviour; (2) social and subjective norms which take into account other
Behaviours and entrepreneurial intention 25

people’s opinions of the proposed behaviour; and (3) perceived control or feasibility
of the proposed behaviour. Schwarz et al. (2009) add that according to TPB,
individual’s attitudes have an impact on behaviour via intention. These authors
define, in particular, three fundamental attitudinal antecedents of intent: (1) personal
attitude toward outcomes of the behaviour; (2) perceived social norm; and (3)
perceived behavioural control (self-efficacy).
According to Segal et al. (2005), this theory has extensive approval in many
behavioural science disciplines and has been used empirically in a diversity of
sceneries to predict and understand behavioural intentions. It offers a significant
opportunity to amplify our capacity to understand and predict entrepreneurial activity.
Furthermore, understanding intentions also helps researchers and policy makers to
understand entrepreneurship-related phenomena (Barkovic and Kruzic 2010).
For Liñán and Chen (2009), it could be argued that perceptions regarding general
society and external values have an influence on motivational factors determining
the EI. Accordingly, Fig. 1 presents the model that will be explored in this research
and that describes the attitudinal dimensions as latent variables of EI. Our
contribution is the inclusion of new paths in the original model in order to improve
it and to adapt it to the current problem. Circles represent the constructs in the
model, and arrows represent the hypothesised relationships between two constructs.
Founded in the literature, and in the results of other studies referred in the
theoretical review, the model above was created, together with a set of research
hypotheses, as we can see below:
H1: Personal attitude positively influences entrepreneurial intention [PA →+ EI]
H2: Perceived behavioural control positively influences entrepreneurial intention
[PBC →+ EI]
H1
H2
H3
H6
H4
H5
PA – Personal Attitude
SN – Subjective Norm
PBC – Perceived Behavioural Control
EI – Entrepreneurial Intention
Fig. 1 Entrepreneurial intention
model
26 A.M.F. do Paço et al.

H3: Subjective norm positively influences entrepreneurial intention [SN →+ EI]
H4: subjective norm positively influences personal attitude [SN →+ PA]
H5: Subjective norm positively influences perceived behavioural control [SN→+ PBC]
H6: Personal attitude positively influences perceived behavioural control [PA→+ PBC]
The evidences show that the first three hypotheses correspond to the traditional
intention model usually used. In what concerns to H4, H5 and H6, these could
contribute to the explanation of the internal antecedents.
The model presented considers a group of variables likely to influence the
entrepreneurial intention and it is composed of various constructs, each one being
measured by several indicators. At it can see the constructs personal attitude (PA),
subjective norm (SN) and perceived behavioural control (PBC) are included in the
model and, all together, will contribute to the EI. There is also a connexion between
the constructs PA and PBC.
In appendix A, we present the indicators for each construct. EI indicates the effort
that the person will make to carry out that entrepreneurial behaviour and includes six
indicators. PA refers to the degree to which the individual holds a positive or
negative personal valuation about being an entrepreneur and includes five indicators.
SN refers to the perceived social pressure to carry out (or not) entrepreneurial
behaviours (Ajzen 2001) and includes three indicators. PBC refers to the perception
of the ease or difficulty of becoming an entrepreneur. It should also include the
feeling of being able and the perception about controllability of the behaviour (Liñán
and Chen 2009). This construct includes six indicators.
Methodology
For this study, the model of data collection was a survey by self-administered
questionnaire with several groups of questions related to the demographic
characteristics, the personal attitudes, the subjective norms, the perceived behav-
ioural control and the entrepreneurial intention. The use of self-assessment to
determine students’ entrepreneurship attitudes represents well accepted practice in
field of entrepreneurship research.
Questionnaires were administered in class to two secondary student’s classes,
with permission of the school director. These groups were chosen by the school to
integrate an educational project—an entrepreneurial learning pilot experience1 which
would be implemented in the school that year. Once the authors were invited to help
in the implementation and coordination of that project, the preliminary collection of
data could be a good way of monitoring the results.
1 This educational experience will be based on an extensive network of “mini-companies” exchanging
information, catalogues and products. It will include all stages to the creation, development and
dissemination of a cooperative inside the school, where the students will have the opportunity to interact
with another national or foreign school. In this particular case, the Portuguese students had to interchange
ideas and commercialise their products with a Spanish school. So, this methodology will be based on a
practical experience where students will have the opportunity to display a wide array of social, personal
and business skills
Behaviours and entrepreneurial intention 27

After collection, the data was statistically analysed and interpreted using the
statistical software Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 16.0) and the
Partial Least Squares (Smart PLS) software.
Most of the studies utilising the TPB framework employed the regression analysis
technique. This technique, however, does not allow a full examination of model
measures in the explanation of behavioural intention and is constrained to using the
only direct measures. In light of the complexity of entrepreneurial intention, it may
be deemed more appropriate to use structural equation modelling.
Structural equation modelling techniques allow the evaluation of how effectively
a conceptual model, which includes observed variables and hypothetical constructs,
fits the obtained data (Hoyler and Smith 1994). The structural equation modelling
procedure seeks to explain the structure or pattern among a set of latent constructs,
which are measured by one or more indicators.
Table 1 shows the main methodological aspects related to the investigation.
Results
Questionnaires were administered to two secondary student’s classes, aged between
14 and 15 years old. 47.3% were female, and the average age was 14.3 years. None
of the questionnaires presented missing values.
We divided our analysis in three parts: the descriptive analysis, the reliability and
validity analysis and the structural analysis (PLS modelling).
Descriptive analysis
The descriptive statistics of the summated scales, as well as the results of one-sample
t test, are presented in Table 2.
The scales used to measure the phenomena were Likert scales (min 1, max 5),
where 3 is the indifference value. Values below 3 (the median point of the scale)
represent somewhat negative values in the scale, and above 3 are the positive values.
It should be noticed that EI has the lower mean of the four scales, but also the one
of the larger standard deviations, meaning that the group is heterogeneous in what
respects to EI. This scale has the largest range (3.33) along with SN. Subjective
norms have the largest mean value; nevertheless, as will be shown later, this
construct is not directly related to EI in this specific sample.
The scales PA, SN and PBC have scores significantly bigger than 3, although not
very far from that value, being all of them lesser than 4.
Time Basis Cross-section
Sampling unit Secondary students
Sample 74 individuals
Response rate 100%
Research method Self-administered questionnaire
Statistical analysis Bivariate, multivariate—PLS
Table 1 Synthesis of methodo-
logical aspects
28 A.M.F. do Paço et al.

Reliability and validity analysis
According to Nunnally (1978), reliability and validity are essential psychometrics to be
reported. The first step to evaluate those aspects was to use the Cronbach’s alpha and
the composite reliability to test reliability of the proposed scales. The usual threshold
level is 0.7 for newly developed measures (Nunnally 1978). Values range from 0.69 to
0.79 in the case of Cronbach’s alpha, and from 0.66 to 0.78 in the case of composite
reliability (Table 3). Therefore, these scales may be considered as reliable.
To access discriminant validity, we used correlations among indicators and
constructs. Items should have higher correlation with their own construct than with
any one other, signifying that they are perceived by respondents as fitting in that
theoretical construct (Messick 1988). According to the results presented in Table 4,
all indicators correlate higher with their own construct than with any other.
Structural analysis
The division of a model implies a measurement model and a structural model. The
measurement model refers to the indicators and/or sub-constructs that reflect the relevant
constructs, while the structural model addresses the relationships between constructs.
Due to the fact that entrepreneurial intention is not a directly observable variable, an
analysis based on structural equations is considered adequate. This modelling technique
allows incorporating not directly observable variables (latent variables or constructs) to
the models. The constructs may be measured by indicators or even by sub-constructs.
Firstly, the estimation of the model is performed by computing the latent variables
through an iterative procedure that requires the regression of the variables of the
outer and inner models, with the parameters of one part of the model being fixed
while estimating those of the other part. After this initial step, the relationships of the
outer and inner models are estimated through OLS non-iterative regression. The
quality of the model is determined by the observation of the R2, or by the Stone–
Table 2 Descriptives of summated scales and t-tests
Minimum Maximum Mean SD t Sig.
Entrepreneurial intention (EI) 1.167 4.500 2.824 0.614 −2.462 0.016
Personal attitude (PA) 2.000 4.600 3.278 0.577 4.150 0.000
Subjective norms (SN) 1.667 5.000 3.761 0.630 10.389 0.000
Perceived control behaviour (PBC) 1.833 4.667 3.131 0.505 2.225 0.029
Construct Composite reliability Cronbachs alpha
EI 0.78 0.79
PA 0.71 0.70
PBC 0.66 0.69
SN 0.66 0.79
Table 3 Reliability measures
Behaviours and entrepreneurial intention 29

Geisser test, and by the significance of the structural relationships using the
Jackknife and Bootstrap techniques (Chin 1998).
The measurement model is composed by twenty indicators which measure four
constructs. Constructs may be measured by reflective indicators and/or formative
indicators. In our model, all the indicators are of reflective nature, which mean that
they measure the same construct and represent the construct’s visible part.
To test the weights’ significance we used the bootstrapping technique, which
consists in generating a large number of sub-samples from the original sample
through the systematic deletion of observations. The model is recomputed for each
sub-sample, and the resulting weights are averaged. The resulting mean of weights is
compared with the original weight. In this case 1,000 valid sub-samples were
extracted. Results of the final model are shown in Table 5.
The paths SN→PBC and SN→EI were considered non significant and
successively excluded from the original model (see Appendix B).
According to Chin (1998), relationships between constructs with structural
coefficients bigger than 0.2 it should be considered as being robust. It should be
noted that the total effect of an independent variable over a dependent variable is
Table 4 Cross-loadings
EI PA PBC SN
EI1 0.551 0.351 0.250 0.029
EI2 0.547 0.414 0.204 0.085
EI3 0.521 0.408 0.379 0.258
EI4 0.629 0.550 0.358 0.177
EI5 0.636 0.421 0.305 0.078
EI6 0.763 0.522 0.394 0.340
PA1 0.326 0.394 0.338 0.261
PA2 0.252 0.438 0.251 0.144
PA3 0.539 0.774 0.301 0.299
PA4 0.557 0.716 0.389 0.235
PA5 0.400 0.517 0.206 0.052
PBC1 0.304 0.226 0.473 0.026
PBC2 0.184 0.242 0.491 0.150
PBC3 0.336 0.266 0.579 0.186
PBC4 0.130 0.071 0.432 −0.012
PBC5 0.308 0.308 0.639 0.198
PBC6 0.217 0.327 0.352 0.204
SN1 0.177 0.150 0.142 0.407
SN2 0.192 0.246 0.185 0.765
SN3 0.181 0.270 0.211 0.693
EI 1.000 0.737 0.524 0.281
PA 0.737 1.000 0.517 0.358
PBC 0.524 0.517 1.000 0.284
SN 0.281 0.358 0.284 1.000
30 A.M.F. do Paço et al.

bigger than the direct effect, because of the indirect effects. The direct, indirect and
total effects on the EI are shown in Table 6.
There are three structural coefficients (direct effects) with absolute value bigger
than 0.2—the effect of “Personal Attitude” on “Entrepreneurial Intention”, the effect
of “Subjective Norms” on “Personal Attitude” and the effect of “Personal Attitude”
on “Perceived Behavioural Control”.
The analysis of the total effects shows that “Subjective Norms” and “Personal
Attitude” have a total effect over “Entrepreneurial Intention” bigger than 0.2.
“Perceived Behavioural Control” has a total effect on “Entrepreneurial Intention”
very close to the threshold value of 0.2, and should not be neglected due to the
exploratory nature of the study.
Personal Attitude has the most important effect on EI (0.737), with a very
large positive value. Subjective norms, despite not having a direct effect on EI,
have an indirect effect over 0.2. As for perceived behaviour control, there is no
significant direct effect either, but total effect is very close to the threshold value
of 0.2.
In order to complete the model evaluation it is necessary to assess its explanatory
capacity, given by the proportion of the total variance of each endogenous variable
explained by the model, the R2 statistic (Table 7).
This model explains 57.1% of the variance in entrepreneurial intention based on
PA and PBC. According to Liñán and Chen (2009), this result is highly satisfactory,
since most previous research using linear models typically explain less than 40%.
The model also explains 12.8% of the variance in PA and 26.7% of PBC. These
results concur with the ones obtained by Liñán and Chen (2009) using a similar
model.
The significance of structural coefficients and the magnitude of direct effects
allow testing the research hypotheses. Results are as follow.
H1: PA →+ EI—supported
H2: PBC →+ EI—supported
H3: SN →+ EI—partially supported2
H4: SN →+ PA—supported
H5: SN →+ PBC—partially supported3
H6: PA →+ PBC—supported
Table 5 Bootstrapping results
Path Original sample Sample mean Standard deviation Standard error t Statistics Sig.
PA→EI 0.636 0.632 0.065 0.065 9.859 0.000
PA→PBC 0.517 0.533 0.079 0.079 6.513 0.000
PBC→EI 0.195 0.204 0.087 0.087 2.243 0.028
SN→PA 0.358 0.361 0.112 0.112 3.186 0.002
1,000 bootstrap samples
2 Structural coefficient non-significant, but total effect of 0.264
3 Structural coefficient non-significant, but total effect of 0.185
Behaviours and entrepreneurial intention 31

Figure 2 presents the final model. The unsupported relationships are not shown on
this final model. Next to the arrows (supported relationships) are direct effects
(Table 6) and explained variances of endogenous (dependent) constructs are shown
inside the circles.
Conclusions
In this study, we seek the answer to the research question related to what factors
determine entrepreneurial intention among secondary students. In order to obtain some
explanations for that, an entrepreneurial intention model based on the Azjen’s theory of
planned behaviour was applied. This theory was considered an appropriate tool to
model the development of EI through pedagogical processes and learning contexts.
Intention is considered the single best predictor of behaviour (Ajzen 1991). In
turn, the intention of carrying out entrepreneurial behaviours may be affected by
several factors, such as needs, values, wants and beliefs (Bird 1989; Liñán and Chen
2009), as well as the motivational “antecedents” (Ajzen 1991).
Although moving away from the traditional TPB structure as supported by the
literature, the adoption of a conceptually acceptable structure for this context has
resulted in a model which is better able to explain EI; although it must be noted that
one path—SN to EI—remains non-significant. Nevertheless, the total effect is 0.264.
Also, the introduction of the path SN to PBC in the original model presents a non
significant structural coefficient, but its total effect is 0.185.
Regarding the pattern of relationships showed in the model, one important concern is
the traditionally weak role of subjective norm in the TPB. However, in the area of
entrepreneurship, this weakness is not so clear. Some authors choose to simply omitted
Table 6 Effects
Path Direct Effect Indirect effect Total effect
SN→EI n.s 0.264 0.264
PA→EI 0.636 0.101 0.737
PBC→EI 0.195 – 0.195
SN→PA 0.358 – 0.358
SN→PBC n.s 0.185 0.185
PA→PBC 0.517 – 0.517
n.s. Non-significant with α=0.05
Endogenous constructs R2
EI 0.571
PA 0.128
PBC 0.267
Table 7 Explained variance
32 A.M.F. do Paço et al.

subjective norm (e.g. Veciana et al. 2005), while others found it to be non-significant
(e.g. Krueger et al. 2000). However, some studies found SN to significantly explain EI
(e.g. Kolvereid and Isaksen 2006). Although there is support for the idea that a direct
SN–EI relationship might be established, some controversy remains.
The results also confirmed that personal attitudes are very important to explain the
entrepreneurial intention. So the education and training should centre itself much
more in changing/stimulate personal attitudes than in provide technical knowledge
about businesses, because the effects could be more significant to the process of
business creation and to overcome the perceived barriers to entrepreneurship.
However, it is desirable that an entrepreneurship educational programme could
also contribute to the development of competences related to entrepreneurship,
social and civic skills, communication in a foreign language, mathematical and
accounting capacities, digital competences, creative and artistic skills, and
cultural awareness.
As it was possible to observe, the extracted variance is less than 0.5 in the two
exogenous constructs. This can be considered a limitation of the study, probably
associated to some problem of the measure model. In this sense, it is necessary to apply
this methodology to different samples. So, we recommend the test of the model here
presented in other populations, as well as the development of new indicators in order to
fully understand how entrepreneurial intention help determine start-up decisions.
Having in mind the invitation of Ajzen (1991)to consider additional model
variables to the traditional TPB structure, in future we could consider the addition of
other measures to this model, as the socio demographic and some psychological
variables.
For example, Frese (2000), after conducting a series of studies in Tanzania,
Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe and South Africa, concluded that some psychological
variables as innovativeness, autonomy and entrepreneurial orientation were found to
be relevant for successful entrepreneurship in Africa. Additionally, Hancock and
Fig. 2 Final structural model
Behaviours and entrepreneurial intention 33

Fitzsimons (2004), in their study, founded that in South Africa the formal education
system contributes a lot to the development of entrepreneurial traits. The authors
recommended the reorientation of the formal entrepreneurship education system in
order to encourage an enterprise culture.
The expansion of the present study to other countries could be also interesting, as
well as the creation of multicultural groups. For example, the study of
Dominguinhos et al. (2008) analysed the promotion of an education experience
through the creation of multicultural groups, including students from several
nationalities (Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland and Latvia). They
presented an experience developed and implemented in three different business
schools in Portugal, Belgium and Latvia. The results allow authors to say that
participants, from different countries, enhanced entrepreneurial competencies due
to their participation in active methodologies, where their potential was explored
and encouraged. These results are aligned with other studies that demand for
more experimental, problem solving and active learning activities in entrepre-
neurship education. The results are consistent across nationalities. Moreover,
students are open to these methodologies and recognise that their potential is well
explored.
Being this a cross-sectional study, and assuming the limitations of such results
concerning entrepreneurial action overtime, we also propose a longitudinal study for
futures research, concerning both the results after implementing an entrepreneurial
curriculum (1 year later) and after a long term period (for instance in the adult phase,
10 or 15 years later).
APPENDIX A—Variables
Personal attitude (PA)
Indicate your level of agreement with the following sentences from 1 (total
disagreement) to 7 (total agreement).
a.Being an entrepreneur implies more advantages than disadvantages to me
b.A career as entrepreneur is attractive for me
c.If I had the opportunity and resources, I’d like to start a firm
d.Being an entrepreneur would entail great satisfactions for me
e.Among various options, I would rather be an entrepreneur
Subjective norm (SN)
If you decided to create a firm, would people in your close environment approve
of that decision? Indicate from 1 (total disapproval) to 7 (total approval).
a.Your close family
b.Your friends
c.Your colleagues
34 A.M.F. do Paço et al.

Perceived behavioural control (PBC)
To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding your
entrepreneurial capacity? Value them from 1 (total disagreement) to 7 (total agreement).
a.To start a firm and keep it working would be easy for me
b.I am prepared to start a viable firm
c.I can control the creation process of a new firm
d.I know the necessary practical details to start a firm
e.I know how to develop an entrepreneurial project
f. If I tried to start a firm, I would have a high probability of succeeding
Entrepreneurial intention (EI)
Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements from 1 (total
disagreement) to 7 (total agreement)
a.I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur
b.My professional goal is to become an entrepreneur
c.I will make every effort to start and run my own firm
d.I am determined to create a firm in the future
e.I have very seriously thought of starting a firm
f. I have the firm intention to start a firm some day
APPENDIX B—Bootstrapping results
Model A
Path Original sample Sample mean Standard deviation Standard error t Statistics Sig.
PA≥EI 0.636 0.632 0.079 0.079 8.040 0.000
PA≥PBC 0.477 0.494 0.087 0.087 5.460 0.000
PBC≥EI 0.193 0.200 0.087 0.087 2.211 0.030
SN≥EI 0.003 0.010 0.093 0.093 0.031 0.975a
SN≥PA 0.357 0.364 0.117 0.117 3.047 0.003
SN≥PBC 0.119 0.110 0.111 0.111 1.069 0.288
aExcluded path
Model B
Path Original sample Sample mean Standard deviation Standard error t Statistics Sig.
PA≥EI 0.637 0.634 0.065 0.065 9.877 0.000
PA≥PBC 0.477 0.493 0.082 0.082 5.806 0.000
PBC≥EI 0.194 0.203 0.089 0.089 2.165 0.034
SN≥PA 0.358 0.362 0.119 0.119 3.006 0.004
SN≥PBC 0.118 0.111 0.111 0.111 1.061 0.292a
Behaviours and entrepreneurial intention 35

aExcluded path
Model C
Path Original sample Sample mean Standard deviation Standard error t Statistics Sig.
PA≥EI 0.636 0.632 0.065 0.065 9.859 0.000
PA≥PBC 0.517 0.533 0.079 0.079 6.513 0.000
PBC≥EI 0.195 0.204 0.087 0.087 2.243 0.028
SN≥PA 0.358 0.361 0.112 0.112 3.186 0.002
References
Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behaviour. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J (eds)
Action control: from cognition to behaviour. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 11–39
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211
Ajzen I (2001) Nature and operation of attitudes. Annu Rev Psychol 52:27–58
Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewoof Cliffs,
Prentice-Hall
Barkovic D, Kruzic D (2010) Students’ perceptions and intentions towards entrepreneurship: the empirical
findings from croatia. Bus Rev 14(2):209–215
Bird BJ (1989) Entrepreneurial behavior. Scott Foresman and Co, Glenview
Brice J (2004) The role of personality dimensions on the formation of entrepreneurial intentions, USASBE
Small Business Advancement National Center. University of Central Arkansas, USA
Chin W (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling. In: Marcoulides
GA (ed) Modern methods for business research. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp
295–336
Crant JM (1996) The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. J Small Bus
Manage 34(3):42–49
Davidsson P (1995) Culture, structure and regional levels of entrepreneurship. Entrep Reg Dev 7
(1):41–62
Dominguinhos, P., Carvalho, L. and Costa, T. (2008), Entrepreneurship in higher education: an empirical
study applied in Europe, RENT XXII—Research in Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Covilhã,
Portugal, November 20–21.
European Commission (2006) Entrepreneurship education in Europe: Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets
through education and learning, Final Proceedings of the Conference on Entrepreneurship Education
in Oslo.
Fayolle A, Gally B, Lassas-Clerc N (2006) Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education
programmes: a new methodology. J Eur Ind Train 30(9):701–720
Florin J, Karri R, Rossiter N (2007) Fostering entrepreneurial drive in business education: an attitudinal
approach. J Manag Educ 31(1):17–42
Frese M (ed) (2000) Success and failure of microbusiness owners in Africa: a psychological analysis.
Greenwood Publications, Westport
Gasse Y, Tremblay M (2006) Entrepreneurship education among students at a Canadian university: an
extensive empirical study of students’ entrepreneurial preferences and intentions. In: Fayolle A,
Klandt H (eds) International entrepreneurship education, issues and newness. Edward Elgar
Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, pp 241–262
Gibb A, Ritchie J (1982) Understanding the process of starting small business. Eur Small Bus J 1(1):26–45
Guerrero M, Rialp J, Urbano D (2008) The impact of desirability and feasibility on entrepreneurial
intentions: a structural equation model. Int Entrep Manage J 4(1):35–50
Hancock M, Fitzsimons P (2004) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2004, National and Regional
Summaries, Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation,
Kansas City
Hmieleski K, Corbett C (2006) Proclivity for improvisation as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. J
Small Bus Manage 44(1):45–63
36 A.M.F. do Paço et al.

Hoyler RH, Smith GT (1994) Formulating clinical research hypotheses as structural equation models: a
conceptual overview. J Consult Clin Psychol 62:429–440
Johansen, V. (2007), Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial activity, Proceedings of IntEnt 2007 –
17th Global Conference, Internationalizing Entrepreneurship Education and Training, Gdansk, Poland
Katz JA (2007) Education and training in entrepreneurship. In: Baum JR, Frese M, Baron RA (eds) The
psychology of entrepreneurship. Erlbaum, Mahway
Kirby D (2006) Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: applying entrepreneurship theory to
practice. J Technol Transf 31:599–603
Kolvereid L, Isaksen E (2006) New business start-up and subsequent entry into self-employment. J Bus
Venturing 21(6):866–885
Kourilsky ML, Walstad WB (1998) Entrepreneurship and female youth: knowledge, attitudes, gender
differences and educational practices. J Bus Venturing 13(1):7–8
Krueger NF, Carsrud AL (1993) Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned behavior.
Entrep Reg Dev 5(4):315–330
Krueger NF, Brazeal D (1994) Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrep Theory Pract
18(3):91–104
Krueger NF, Reilly MD, Carsrud A (2000) Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. J Bus
Venturing 15(5–6):411–432
Kyrö P (2006) The continental and Anglo-American approaches to entrepreneurship education—
differences and bridges. In: Fayolle A, Klandt H (eds) International entrepreneurship education,
issues and newness. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, pp 93–111
Lee S, Lim S, Pathank R (2006) Influences on students attitudes toward entrepreneurship: a multi-country
study. Int Entrep Manage J 2:351–366
Liñán F, Chen Y (2009) Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure
entrepreneurial intentions. Entrep Theor Prac 33(3):593–617
Markman GD (2007) Entrepreneurs’ competencies. In: Baum JR, Frese M, Baron RA (eds) The
psychology of entrepreneurship. Erlbaum, Mahway
Messick S (1988) Validity. In: Linn R (ed) Educational measurement, 3rd edn. Macmillan, New York
Miller B, Bell J, Palmer M, Gonzalez A, Petroleum P (2009) Predictors of entrepreneurial intentions: a
quasi-experiment comparing students enrolled in introductory management and entrepreneurship
classes. J Bus Entrep 21(2):39–62
North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economics performance. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York
Oosterbeek, H., van Praag M. and IJsselstein, A. (2007), The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on
Entrepreneurship Competencies and Intentions: An Evaluation of the Junior Achievement Student
Mini-Company Program, Jena Economic Research Papers, 2008-027, November.
Postigo S, Iacobucci D, Tamborini MF (2006) Undergraduate students as a source of potential
entrepreneurs: a comparative study between Italy and Argentina. In: Fayolle A, Klandt H (eds)
International entrepreneurship education, issues and newness. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,
Cheltenham, pp 218–240
Raposo M, Ferreira J, Paço A, Rodrigues R (2008a) Propensity to firm creation: empirical research using
structural equations. Int Entrep Manage J 4(4):485–504
Raposo M, Paço A, Ferreira J (2008b) Entrepreneur’s profile: a taxonomy of atributes and motivations of
university students. J Small Busi Ent Dev 15(2):405–418
Reynolds PD, Camp M, Autio E (2000) Global entrepreneurship monitor, 2000 executive report. Babson
College, Wellesley
Robinson PB, Stimpson D, Huefner JC, Hunt HK (1991) An attitude approach to the prediction of
entrepreneurship. Entrep Theory Pract 15(4):13–31
Rushing F (1990) Entrepreneurship and education. In: Kent C (ed) Entrepreneurship education—current
developments, future directions. Quoru Books, New York, pp 29–39
Sanchez, J. and Yurrebaso, A. (2008), Are young Mexicans more entrepreneurial than Spanish and
Portuguese? The role of the self-reinforcing property of entrepreneurship, RENT XXII—Research in
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Covilhã, Portugal, November 20–21.
Schwarz E, Almer-Jarz D, Wdowiak M (2006) A structural model of entrepreneurial intent among
students: findings from Austria, Inter-RENT Workshop, European Council for Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, 3rd edn. Inter-RENT Online Publication, Finland
Schwarz E, Wdowiak M, Breitenecker R (2009) The effects of attitudes and perceived environment
conditions on students’ entrepreneurial intent: an Austrian perspective. Ed Train 51(4):272–291
Behaviours and entrepreneurial intention 37

Segal G, Borgia D, Schoenfeld J (2005) The motivation to become an entrepreneur. Int J Entrep Behav
Res 11(1):42–57
Shapero A (1982) Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In: Kent CA et al (eds) The encyclopedia of
entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, pp 72–89
Shaw D, Shiu E (2003) Ethics in consumer choice: a multivariate modelling approach. Eur J Mark 37
(10):1485–1518
Solomon GT, Duffy S, Tarabishy A (2002) The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States: a
nationwide survey and analysis. Int J Entrep Ed 1(1):65–87
Tang J, Tang Z, Lohrke F (2007) Developing an entrepreneurial typology: the roles of entrepreneurial
alertness and attributional style. Int Ent Manage J 4(3):273–294
Turker D, Selcuk S (2008) Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students? J Eur Ind
Train 33(2):142–159
Veciana J, Aponte M, Urbano D (2005) University student’s attitudes towards entrepreneurship: a two
countries comparison. Int Ent Manage J 1:165–182
Verduyn K, Kleijn E, Wakkee I (2007) Filming entrepreneurship, Proceedings of IntEnt 2007—17th
Global Conference. Int Entrep Ed Train, Poland
Vesper, K. H. and Gartner, W.B. (1999), University Entrepreneurship Programmes 1999, Lloyd Greif
Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, University of Southern California
Wang CK, Wong PK (2004) Entrepreneurial interest of university students in Singapore. Technovation 24
(2):163–172
38 A.M.F. do Paço et al.