The contribution of yoga to the entrepreneurial
potential of university students: a SEM approach
Carla Susana Marques & João Ferreira &
Ricardo Gouveia Rodrigues & Mariza Ferreira
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract The literature suggests that all entrepreneurs share certain psychological
and cognitive characteristics. Yoga is currently experiencing a surge in popularity
due to both the physical and psychological benefits gained by yogi (practitioners of
yoga). Irrespective of its more philosophical dimension, changes attributable to yoga
have been identified in individuals’ psychological and behavioural patterns. It is in
this context that this study analyses the characteristics associated both with
entrepreneurs and yogis, seeking to specifically understand the respective personal
attributes or the psychological and cognitive predispositions of both groups. The
results of this study demonstrate that students who do engage in yoga show a
propensity towards or strengthening of the psychological and cognitive attributes
that are commonly associated with an entrepreneurial profile. Thus the study
suggests that if entrepreneurial behaviour is a priority, then yoga should be
integrated as a compulsory subject into general education from the primary school
onwards.
Keywords Entrepreneurial propensity . Psychological attributes . Cognitive
attributes . Yoga . SEM approach
Int Entrep Manag J
DOI 10.1007/s11365-010-0157-9
C. S. Marques
Department of Economic, Sociology and Management, Research Unit CETRAD,
University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
e-mail: smarques@utad.pt
J. Ferreira (*) : R. G. Rodrigues
Department of Business and Economics, Research Unit NECE, University of Beira Interior,
Covilhã, Portugal
e-mail: jjmf@ubi.pt
R. G. Rodrigues
e-mail: rgrodrigues@ubi.pt
M. Ferreira
University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
e-mail: mariza1973@gmail.com

Introduction
There is much recognition of the importance of the entrepreneurial spirit for the
development of a national economy, as evidenced by a corresponding growth in the
provision of courses on entrepreneurship (Koh 1996). The entrepreneur is considered
an individual able to innovate, identify and create opportunities while deploying
resources so as to extract the maximum benefits from such innovations (Gartner and
Shane 1995). According to various researchers (e.g. Koh 1996; McClelland 1961;
Green et al. 1996), entrepreneurs share certain personal attributes, among the most
prominent being the need for achievement, self-control, the propensity to take risk,
tolerance of ambiguity, self-confidence and innovation.
A study carried out Shaver (1995) on psychological and cognitive characteristics
indicated that such attitudes, interpersonal skills and cognitive processes could be
acquired throughout life (“learned in the broadest sense of the word”), most
specifically through training and education. As such, the question of education has
been of particular relevance to various researchers given its undeniable importance
to individual development and its consequences for overall social and economic
development. The specific contribution of education lies in the identification and
creation of entrepreneurial potential throughout the educational process so as to
produce long term economic benefits (Rasheed 2000).
Furthermore, there is evidence that we need to shift the emphasis from traditional
teaching and evaluation methods towards less conventional approaches to
entrepreneurial education, including the adoption of such practices as yoga, for
example (Winslow et al. 1999). Yoga brings not only physical but also psychological
benefits to its practitioners (Schell et al. 1994), and studies carried out on the effects
of yoga (e.g. Lamb 2004) have concluded that there are clear psychological and
cognitive advantages including increased memory capacity, better concentration,
improved learning abilities and personal development as well as lower anxiety
levels. Yoga has gained recognition among leading members of the business
community: by way of examples (1) Dave Jakubowski, Vice-President of Business
Development for the internet service provider United Online advocates yoga as a
means of maximising the mental capacities and workplace efficiency of company
employees (Der Hovanesian 2003); (2) kapalabhati, a yoga breathing exercise
involving the abdominal muscles, boosts mental activity and induces a state of
alertness and calm conducive to more effective decision making (Stancak et al.
1991); (3) yoga promotes self-confidence (Malathi and Damodaran 1999), self-
realisation (Satyananda 1980) and self-esteem, all core components in the construction
and consolidation of individual and, it could be argued, collective wellbeing
(Diener et al. 1984).
Taking into consideration the personal and cognitive attributes of entrepreneurs as
identified by various authors (e.g. McClelland 1961; Kourilsky 1980; Bygrave 1989;
Brandstatter 1997; Mueller and Thomas 2000; Begley 1995; Van Praag and Cramer
2001; Stewart and Roth 1991; Hisrich and Peters 2004) and the positive
psychological and cognitive effects conferred by yoga as confirmed by various
studies (e.g. Baron 1998; Mitchell 1994; Mitchell et al. 2000, 2002b), two research
questions are posited: (1) does the practice of yoga positively contribute towards the
strengthening/learning of some of the psychological attributes of entrepreneurs? And
Int Entrep Manag J

(2) does the practice of yoga positively contribute towards the strengthening/learning
of entrepreneurial cognitive processes?
The importance of these issues derives from the increasingly persuasive
arguments in favour of introducing yoga into secondary and university teaching as
an extra-curricular activity with the purpose of promoting the nurturing of some of
the psychological characteristics and cognitive attributes related to the profile of
potential entrepreneurs.
The objectives of this study are: (1) to analyse whether the psychological and
cognitive characteristics induced by the practice of yoga do, in fact, contribute
towards promoting the psychological and cognitive attributes associated with
potential entrepreneurs (as represented by university students) and, (2) to verify
whether other factors, beyond the psychological and cognitive characteristics, such
as level of education and type of degree and the perception held by the university
student regarding his/her own professional future influences the propensity for
graduates to set up companies.
It should further be highlighted that, in academic and scientific terms, this study is
unprecedented as, to the best of our knowledge, there has thus far been no prior
research, nationally or internationally, into the practice of yoga as a motor driving
some of the psychological and cognitive attributes associated with potential
entrepreneurs, in this case university students.
The paper is structured as follows. Following an introductory section, there is a
theoretical discussion of entrepreneurs’ psychological and cognitive attributes and
the relationship of the latter to the practice of yoga; the paper then proceeds in the
conventional fashion: method, results, discussion and conclusions. The research’s
main limitations and some avenues for future investigation, as well as implications
for management practice, are also explored.
Entrepreneurs and their psychological and cognitive attributes
A range of authors, from different academic fields (e.g. Mitchell et al. 2000; Baron
2004), have carried out research on the profile of entrepreneurs based on traits,
characteristics or behaviours. There are theories seeking to identify differences
between entrepreneurial individuals and the rest of the population, based on certain
characteristics of their personality such as the need for achievement, independence,
and power of control or their non-aversion to risk. These characteristics are inherent
to the psychological (e.g. Begley and Boyd 1987; Green et al. 1996) and/or
motivational or behavioural (e.g. McClelland 1961; Hannan and Freeman 1989;
Delacroix and Rao 1993) theories. Various psychological characteristics have been
proposed (Hornaday and Aboud 1971; Bygrave 1989; Koh 1996) as bearing good
predicative capacities as regards entrepreneurial behaviour.
As regards the literature on entrepreneurial attributes, it may be assumed that
the entrepreneur does, above all, display a series of psychological predis-
positions that include among others: autonomy (e.g. McClelland 1961; Douglas
1999), need for achievement (McClelland 1961; Bygrave 1989; Kourilsky 1980;
Hisrich and Peters 2004), self-control (e.g. Brockhaus 1982), self-confidence (e.g.
Kourilsky 1980; Hisrich and Peters 2004), self-esteem (e.g. Hisrich and Peters
Int Entrep Manag J

2004), tolerance to risk (e.g. McClelland 1961; Kourilsky 1980; Bygrave 1989;
Brandstatter 1997; Mueller and Thomas 2000; Begley 1995; Van Praag and Cramer
2001; Stewart and Roth 1991; Hisrich and Peters 2004) tolerance to ambiguity (e.g.
Koh 1996), internal locus of control (e.g. Kourilsky 1980; Bygrave 1989),
innovation (e.g. McClelland 1961; Miner et al. 1989; Koh 1996; Hisrich and Peters
2004), creativity (e.g. Baird 1972; Kourilsky 1980; Hisrich and Peters 2004),
optimism (e.g. Hisrich and Peters 2004), organisational and leadership skills (e.g
Hornaday and Aboud, 1971; Hisrich and Peters 2004), motivation, energy and
commitment, persistence (e.g. Kourilsky 1980), extrovert attitudes and the
enjoyment of social recognition (e.g. Brandstatter 1997).
However, psychological attributes in themselves have proven unable to
effectively differentiate between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs, mainly due
to the prevailing lack of consensus around such characteristics. Hence, cognitive
factors provide a welcome support to the study of the characteristics inherent to
entrepreneurship. The mutual complementarity between psychological attributes and
cognitive factors produces individual behaviour that is the result of an individual’s
decision based upon both his/her objectives and patterns of thought (Cielo 2001).
From this perspective, the objective remains to differentiate between entrepreneurs
and non-entrepreneurs.
Over the last 35 years, the entrepreneurial personality has been classified as a core
component for the setting up of new businesses (Coulton and Udell 1976;
McClelland 1961). The cognitive approach provides the researcher with a means
of clearly understanding how the entrepreneur thinks and the “whys” underpinning
his/her actions, as well as providing a theoretical basis for such distinctive
behaviours and means of testing their strength and incidence (Mitchell et al. 2002a).
In the 1990s, the terms entrepreneurs’ cognitions (Bird 1992) and entrepreneurial
cognition (Busenitz and Lau 1996) began to be heard in the management research
field. The first studies carried out focused on cognitive biases, the heuristics of
strategic decisions (Busenitz 1992), operational capacities, and perception and self-
efficiency (Krueger 1993; Krueger and Dickson 1994). Mitchell (1994) for the first
time deployed cognitive psychology to differentiate between entrepreneurs and non-
entrepreneurs. Baron (1998) looked at various cognitive mechanisms such as
counterfactual thinking, planning fallacy and the illusion of control as potentially
relevant to any explanation of entrepreneurial behaviour, concluding that the
cognitive approach to this phenomenon should be seen as a contribution
complementary to those of economics and sociology.
One of the first concepts to take into account when analysing entrepreneurship
from the perspective of cognitive theory is alertness, as defined by Kirzner (1982),
who summarised it as the ability to find without looking. The same author
maintained that the interpretation and mental representation of entrepreneurs differs
from that of the rest of the population, because the former are guided by entrepreneur
alertness (EA), seen as a distinct pattern of information-processing and perception
and as a cognitive tool utilised in the identification of opportunities.
Gaglio and Katz (2001) raise the hypothesis that some individuals display this
type of mental schema and demonstrate a tendency to seek out and identify market
imbalances because they are able to understand information that does not fit in with
their prevailing mental schema and to adapt it so as to incorporate the new
Int Entrep Manag J

information. Thus EA can be thought of as a specific mental schema that enables the
individual to be alert to new opportunities and respond accordingly. The concept of
EA is associated with psychological and cognitive properties because these in turn
relate to the concepts of veridical perception and veridical interpretation, the former
being associated with the way the entrepreneur perceives and understands the
market, while the latter deals with the way he/she identifies the driving forces and
critical factors behind market factors and shifts, and is able to create dynamic
relationships between them (Gaglio and Katz 2001).
Gaglio and Katz (2001) demonstrate how the decision-making and performance
of both specialists in particular and young people in general is related to the different
contents of their respective mental schemas. Similarly, Baron (2004) finds that
individuals with EA strive to be precise and hold more complex mental perspectives
on their respective industries and surrounding environments than people without
such alertness. Due to the complexity and adaptability of EA mental schemas, those
endowed with them are rendered more able to think ‘speculatively’ i.e. beyond the
norm and “outside the box” than the less alert (Baron 2004).
From the perspective of risk perception theory, in general entrepreneurs should
display substantial confidence with regard to the success of their undertakings, and
research has shown that their confidence levels are indeed higher than the statistical
average. Compared with other individuals, entrepreneurs underestimate the risks
involved in launching start-ups and this tendency derives from their characteristic
cognitive tendencies—the so-called illusion of control: they evaluate prevailing risks
on a lower scale than the rest of the population (Baron 2004).
According to Mitchell et al. (2002a) entrepreneurial cognitions are the knowledge
structures that people use to make assessments, judgments, or decisions involving
the evaluation of opportunities, the creation of new ventures, and the generation of
growth. The cognitive perspective addresses the role of the mental processes that
result in specific behaviours, in particular the processes related to individual
decision-making in pursuit of specific objectives. In other words, the use of a
cognitive methodology in this context seeks to understand how the mental models
with which entrepreneurs are endowed enable them to put together pieces of
information that, ab inicio, do not seem to have any type of interconnection, with a
view to facilitating the establishment of new businesses.
The corollary of identifying how entrepreneurs think is differentiating between
entrepreneurial cognition and the cogitative processes that everyone else deploys.
Previous research has suggested that cognitive indicators do have a role to play in
differentiating between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs (Baron 1998; Mitchell
1994; Mitchell et al. 2000; Mitchell et al. 2002b). Research conducted by Mitchell et
al. (2002b) found that the cognitions of individuals with ‘professional entrepreneur-
ial cognitions’ are indeed distinct from those of business non-entrepreneurs.
Elsewhere (Mitchell et al. 2004) the same authors argue that, in addition to the
initiative that entrepreneurs need to launch their initiatives and the competences and
capacities they require to run their businesses successfully, they also possess a
mental map that assists them in evaluating the potential success of a business venture
before it is launched.
We can summarise the key entrepreneurial cognitive factors as follows: perception of
success (e.g. Baron, 2004), perception of risk/susceptibility to cognitive biases/
Int Entrep Manag J

distortion (e.g. Baron 2004), accurateness, entrepreneur alertness/business “opportun-
ism” (e.g. Kirzner 1982; Tang et al. 2007; Gaglio and Katz 2001).
Teaching entrepreneurship: new didactic forms
In general, a large majority of researchers, working on the assumption that
entrepreneurial attitudes are latent across the population, agree that the corresponding
behaviours can be stimulated, influenced or even learned in the formal sense of the term.
There is indeed growing recognition that psychological and cognitive processes may
result in a more thorough understanding of the variables impacting on entrepreneurial
behaviour.
McClelland (1961) and Timmons et al. (1985) argue that, in some cases, the
psychological characteristics of entrepreneurs set out above can indeed be learned
and/or strengthened. Hood and Young (1993) emphasise that the success of
educational courses in entrepreneurship depends significantly on being able to teach
these psychological characteristics. Though Kourilsky and Walstad (1998), among
others, have affirmed that stimulating entrepreneurial characteristics from a young
age may encourage entrepreneurship as a career option, so far no empirical testing of
their opinion has been undertaken.
Notwithstanding this lack of evidence, the European Commission (2003) green
paper on entrepreneurship stated that education with a view to promoting the
entrepreneurial spirit should favour the development of a series of useful capacities
and personality traits: curiosity, openness to continuous learning, a proactive
attitude, self-confidence and creativity. The same document also targeted other
business capacities such as problem solving, critical thinking and inter-personal
skills, adding that these educators should begin working on these competencies in
primary school and provide ongoing support throughout the academic process.
Certainly, much effort has been put into nurturing entrepreneurship and driving it
forward. This trend has been worldwide, but such has been its incidence in Europe
and the United States of America that a significant proportion of universities have
established dedicated entrepreneurship centres (Koh 1996). However, research has
shown that it is technical competencies—highly focused on drafting business
plans, organisational financial management and the marketing of products and
services—that dominate the curricula of entrepreneurship courses (Gibb 2002).
Such being the case, the current content these courses still does not yet extend to
the core component of entrepreneurship—the entrepreneur him/herself—and as yet
does not promote individual self-development of, for example, the propensity to
take calculated risks, display greater autonomy or demonstrate enhanced
effectiveness.
Clearly, the cognitive perspective on entrepreneurship calls for new forms of
learning to be deployed so as to assist the student in becoming an entrepreneur. The
starting point adopted by the authors of the present paper is that this new learning
process should include yoga. Correspondingly, the study reported on here aimed to
verify whether the stimulation of the psychological and cognitive characteristics
associated with entrepreneurs may be acquired, fostered and intensified through the
practice of yoga.
Int Entrep Manag J

Yoga and its psychological and cognitive contributions
Yoga, the result of the millennia-long development of a rich and varied tradition, is
both a philosophy of life and an integral part of Indian culture (Meaux 2002).
According to yoga philosophy, one should strive to be happy and to be in command
of one’s own process of development. The great yoga masters established various
systems (paths) for achieving equilibrium: yoga is the collective name for these
systems. In accordance with the characteristic emphases of each of the yoga systems,
each branch of yoga has its own specific name (Yesudian and Haich 2002); however,
the various yoga systems differ only in their point of departure, and their essence and
final goal are always the same: perfect self-awareness (Meaux 2002). In order to
achieve this objective, unconditional self-discipline is needed. Correspondingly, the
majority of yoga systems firstly teach self-control. However, there are yoga systems
that begin with the mind, others with feelings while still others start with control of
the body, but all follow the natural trends of the student.
Nowadays, yoga is sought out not only as a philosophy of life but also for the
psychological benefits it brings. In the business world, according to Der Hovanesian
(2003), various prominent CEOs regularly engage in one or other form of yoga,
including for example William H. Gross of Newport Beach and Dave Jakubowski,
vice-president of business development for Internet service provider United Online.
Jakubowski1 states: It’s amazing, I’m able to sort through work challenges in this
state of calm much faster than trying to fight through it. And I make fewer mistakes.
Similarly, Nancy Wolfson2 details not only how various companies such as Nike,
HBO, Forbes and Apple provide employees with yoga classes but adds that these
and other leading Fortune 500 companies (e.g. NYNEX e IBM) consider yoga
relevant to the point of providing these classes free.
Yoga is one of the most commonly used body-mind therapeutic methods (Cohen
et al. 2004). The body and mind are intimately interlinked (Parshad 2004) and if the
mind is relaxed then the body’s muscles are also relaxed. Yoga postures and their
pranayamas (breathing techniques) improve the stretching of muscles, flexibility,
blood circulation and hormonal workings. According to Brown and Gerbarg (2005),
yoga breathing techniques (Ujjayi, Bhastrika and Sudarshan Krya) offset symptoms
of depression, anxiety and stress. In addition to contributing towards a state of “calm
alertness”, due to a mechanism that activates the parasympathetic system and
increases the release of hormones by the endocrine system, yoga increases self-
confidence (Malathi and Damodaran 1999), self-realisation (Satyananda 1980) as
well as self-esteem, an essential component to the construction of wellbeing (Diener
et al. 1984).
The Yoga Nidra relaxation method has provided theoretical grounds for the
discussion of how self-esteem may be strengthened (Benson et al. 1994). The
response to relaxation is associated with feelings of calm, control and the reduction
of negative psychological symptoms (Benson 1976). These changes are connected to
a rise in the level of self-esteem and the internal locus of control (Benson et al.
1 http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_30/b3843076.htm, consulted on December 15,
2008.
2 http://www.yogajournal.com/lifestyle/294?page=2, consulted on December 15, 2008.
Int Entrep Manag J

1994). In a study by Benson et al. (1994) a group of students undertaking such
relaxation techniques was found to display a significantly stronger internal locus of
control: when questioned as to the effects of these techniques, many made reference
to their profound sensations of self-control, strength/vitality and self-awareness.
In summary, according to Janowiak (1993), meditation is recognised as a
technique that fosters the ego, self-esteem, self-actualization,3 self-control, self-
awareness, personal growth and wellbeing (self-realisation). We can therefore
conclude that not only is there evidence of a range of psychological and cognitive
benefits to be gained from the practice of yoga but that these benefits overlap
substantially with the personal attributes that characterise entrepreneurs. Accepting
the premise that it is possible to mould certain inherent psychological and cognitive
characteristics, most notably through education and training, Yoga can be seen as a
technique that is able to modify individual behaviour. Figure 1, based on this thesis,
proposes that certain determinant entrepreneurial behavioural characteristics, as
described above, may be nurtured by the practice of yoga.
The main objective of this study is to examine the synergies exist between the
practice of yoga and the acquisition of patterns of entrepreneurial behaviour that are
generated by psychological and cognitive factors. More specifically, the aim was to
investigate the extent to which the practicing of yoga may contribute towards the
establishment of a more effective approach to the inculcating key entrepreneurial
competencies. Indeed, the authors propose that yoga may serve as a model for better
and more sustained learning of these competencies through the introduction of
clearer practices that help to unify the theoretical/practical mental schema, and raise
awareness of the impact of positive behaviours on society. Furthermore, it is argued
that the application of a developmentalist approach to entrepreneurship, in which
progress is facilitated over the various phases of an entrepreneur’s development, may
not only help promote the creation of more businesses, but also ensure the more
sustainable development of those already created.
Based upon the literature review presented above and in line with the aims of this
research, we now set out (in Fig. 2) the research model adopted.
Due to the fact that the study aimed to pay particular attention to the
psychological attributes and cognitive psychology of entrepreneurs, in defining the
scope of the research, we opted not to go into further detail regarding other
entrepreneurial facets mentioned in the literature review on entrepreneurial profiles
such as, for example, family and cultural context. However, given that the target
population of this study consisted of university students, in addition to the
psychological and cognitive factors that might be expected to impact on the
propensity to engage in entrepreneurial initiatives, we did decided to add two further
dimensions to the research model: the type of degree being studied (education) and
student perceptions of their future careers (professional future). The empirical
research was conducted on the basis of the above conceptual model, and the
respective research questions and objectives.
3 Self-actualization satisfies most of the basic needs for safety, love, belongingness, capacity for
spontaneous behaviour and respect. It’s also an active process of being and becoming increasingly inner-
directed and integrated at the levels of thinking, feeling and bodily response.
Int Entrep Manag J

Methodology
The method chosen for data gathering was the questionnaire, completed by students
at three Portuguese universities: the University of Porto (UP), the University of Trás-
os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), and the University of Beira Interior (UBI). Before
drafting the questionnaire used in the present study, a critical assessment was made
of other questionnaires deployed in comparable research and based on similar
theoretical contributions. The questionnaire, tested and administered in the second
quarter of 2008, was structured into four sections,. The first contains a group of
questions referring to personal data (socio demographic characteristics), while the
second poses a set of questions designed to collect information on the respondent’s
perceptions of his/her professional future. Answers to questions in the third and
fourth sections generated data on the student’s psychological and cognitive profiles,
respectively.
The sample was determined in accordance with the student population that at the
time of data collecting were enrolled in degree courses at the UP (65.3%), UBI
(14.3%) and UTAD (20.4%). These universities were selected taking into account
studies of student entrepreneurship previously carried out at these institutions,
namely those by Teixeira (2007) at UP; Raposo et al. (2008) at UBI; Gerry et al.
(2008) at UTAD.
To answer the main research question of the study, students were asked Do you
practice yoga? so as to provide the foundation for comparing the propensity for
Psychological
Factors
Professional
Future
Education
(Degree)
Cognitive
Factors
Practice
Yoga? PROPENSITY TO
START UP A
BUSINESS
Fig. 2 Proposed conceptual model
Psychological
Factors
Cognitive
Factors
Fig. 1 Interaction between yoga, individual psychological factors and cognitive factors
Int Entrep Manag J

entrepreneurial behaviour among those who engage in yoga and those who do not.
In order to evaluate the propensity for entrepreneurial behaviour, the variable
dependent to be analysed was generated by answers to the question: Have you ever
thought about setting up your own company?, henceforth referred to as ‘Think-
CreatComp’. Respondents were offered seven possible answers along a Likert scale
of 1 to 7, with 1 = never, and 7 = decidedly yes. The same question had already been
used in the Raposo et al. (2008) study. Table 1 provides details of the independent
variables used in this study.
Students were contacted by e-mail at the UP Faculties of Engineering and
Economics and personally in the other Faculties of the UP and in the other two
universities. 500 questionnaires were handed out: 250 in UP, 125 in UTAD and 125
in UBI. A total of 171 valid questionnaires were handed in at UP (a 76% response
rate), 54 at UTAD (a 43.2% response rate) with 38 returned at UBI (a 30.4%
response rate). The sample is thus made up of 263 valid questionnaires with 26.4%
of respondents practicing yoga and 73.6% not doing so.
In line with the results of the literature review, the study objectives and the research
questions set out, the research hypotheses can be summarised as follows (Table 2):
Results
In order to identify any change towards the professional future, the psychological
and cognitive factors of university student respondents, we undertook exploratory
factorial analysis of the respective questionnaire. The objective of applying factorial
technical analysis was to obtain a reduced number of factors enabling the
identification of structural relations between the variables that allocate importance
to the psychological and cognitive factors of student respondents. The method
deployed for extracting the factors to be applied was the main component method,
through the Varimax approach. The common factors retained were those that
registered an eigenvalue greater than 1, in accordance with the Scree Plot and the
retained variance percentage, based on the conclusion reached by Hair et al. (2005)
that the utilisation of a single criteria may lead to the retention of more/less factors
than those actually relevant to describing the latent structure. In order to evaluate the
validity of this exploratory factorial analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) criteria
Table 1 Independent variables used
Dimension Variable/indicators
Psychological factors Self-esteem/self-confidence, Self-realisation, Autonomy,
Creativity/Innovation, Self-control, Tolerance of risk.
Cognitive factors Identification of new opportunities, Valuation of opportunity,
Entrepreneur alertness, Effective problem solving rigour, Lessened
perception of risk, Greater perception of success than failure.
Future professional motivation Perspective on employment type, Critical motives determining future
professional options.
Education Course of study chosen by student
Int Entrep Manag J

were adopted alongside the classification criteria defined in Hair et al. (2005). The
scores of each subject under analysis across each of the retained factors were
obtained by the Bartlett method, that is, the pondered square minimum method.
Table 3 sets out the factors for each dimension under study, the actual values of
each factor, the explained variance percentage and the internal consistency of each
factor based on Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.
Analysis of the internal consistency of each factor reached acceptable (Cronbach’s
alpha > 0.60) for the following factors: economically and socially stable career,
entrepreneurial career, autonomy; creativity/innovation, self-control, self-esteem/self-
confidence, alertness to external business opportunities, precision, perception of risk,
and professional and personal self-realisation. This being the case, these factors were
adopted in the research model set out in the following section.
Structural equation models
In order to analyse the validity of theoretical models, recourse was made to the AMOS
16.0 structural equation models (SEM) with a statistical methodology able to establish a
confirmatory approach to the analysis of theoretical structures. SEM include a set of
statistical techniques enabling the evaluation of causal relations between latent variables
(not directly observable) through a set of observed variables. According to Byrne
(1994), the advantages of this technique outweigh the alternatives available, given that
it (1) highlights that the variance is unstable over time, (2) enables the calculation of
measurement errors (observed variables) and (3) enables swift calculation of the
statistical significance of each causal effect and the (4) the consequent global
adjustment of the hypothetical model. The relationships or effects presented in the
model are approved through an appropriate global adjustment.
Table 2 Research hypotheses
Dimension Research hypotheses Studies
Psychological
factors
H1: The practice of yoga positively
contributes towards a strengthening
of student capacity to acquire some
of the psychological attributes of
potential entrepreneurs
(university students).
Bygrave (1989), Douglas (1999),
Luchsinger and Bagby (1987),
Hisrich and Peters (2004), Malathi
and Damodaran (1999),
McClelland (1961), Satyananda
(1980).
Cognitive factors H2: The practice of yoga positively
contributes towards a strengthening
of student capacity to acquire some
of the cognitive attributes of potential
entrepreneurs (university students).
Tang et al. (2007), Gaglio and Katz
(2001), Baron (2004), Kirzner
(1982), Stancak et al. (1991),
Janowiak (1993).
Future professional
motivation
H3: The way in which the university
student perceives his/her professional
future influences the respective
propensity for entrepreneurship.
Raposo et al. (2008), Gerry
et al (2008).
Education H4: The type of degree studied influences
the student’s propensity to set up
his/her own business.
Filion (1994), Teixeira (2007).
Int Entrep Manag J

It should be stressed that in the calculation of these models, there was the need to
reduce the sample to 230, so as to offset the impact of non-valid answers. Following
the factorial analysis and the respective validation of the factors (by recourse to
Cronbach’s alpha), the final selection of factors was made based on the average of
the variables belonging to each factor. The indicators for the latent variables were
considered to be reflexive.
The evaluation of the models was then carried out using global and local
adjustment measures. The global adjustment of the model ensures evaluation of
whether the model in question fits the data covariance matrix. The measures
enabling decision taking were, specifically: χ2; χ2/gl; GFI; AGFI; CFI and RMSEA
(Byrne 2001; Schreiber et al. 2006).
Initial model (inclusion of the latent variable education/degree)
In this first model, entrepreneurship is influenced by four factors: Professional
Future, Education/Degree, Cognitive Factors and Psychological Factors and also by
Table 3 Principal components analysis
Dimensions Factors Exp. Variance (%) Cronbach’s α
consistency
KMO
Professional
future
Economically and socially
stable career
24.018 0.776 KMO=0.761 and
Bartlett’s sphericity
test = 836,158*Entrepreneurial career 19.244 0.656
Professional career in an
organisation with social
prestige
15.412 0.549
Psychological
factors
Autonomy 14.864 0.776 KMO=0.887 and
Bartlett’s sphericity
test = 1646,519*
Creativity/innovation 14.431 0.773
Self-control 14.219 0.726
Self-esteem/self-confidence 12.656 0.771
Proactiveness 7.598 0.408
Cognitive
factors
Alertness to external business
opportunities
11.076 0.831 KMO=0.775 and
Bartlett’s sphericity
test = 2358,586*accurateness 9.561 0.768
Risk perception 8.009 0.749
Professional and personal
self-realisation
7.614 0.677
Perception of success 5.944 0.461
Generation of a business idea 5.655 0.552
Alertness to internal business
opportunities
5.227 0.498
Self-realisation through social
recognition
4.983 0.579
Perception of risk (“slanting”
of reality)
4.884 0.574
* p<.000
Int Entrep Manag J

the Practice of Yoga (which in turn is influenced by the Cognitive and Psychological
Factors). With regard to the variables included in the model between exogenous and
endogenous and between observed and non-observed (Fig. 3, Tables 4 and 5).
The model presents the following adjustment indexes: χ2=818,509 (gl=150,
p=0.00); χ2/gl=5.457; GFI=.776; AGFI=.717; CFI=.468; RMSEA=.140. Given
χ
2 is an overly demanding criterion, where there are many sources of variability
(Byrne 2001; Jöreskog and Sörbom 1993), the evaluation of the model is achieved
based on favourable/unfavourable adjustment measures. The results obtained
demonstrate that the global fit of the model is not particularly robust.
In evaluating the quality of the local fit of the model, by recourse to analysis of
the parameters (standardised and non-standardised values, estimation error and level
of significance), we find that only Cognitive factors in ‘ThinkCreatComp’ is
statistically significant (P=0.000). Given that the Degree studied is the factor that
least influences entrepreneurship (based on the comparison of the standardised
values), this factor was withdrawn, rendering the model simpler. This result leads to
the rejection of research hypothesis H4.
,48
Ever thought of setting up a business?
,01
Cognitive
factors
e2
,16
Alert to external business
opportunities
,28
Precision
,08
Perception of risk
,40
,52
,28
ec1
ec2
ec3
,31
Professional and
personal self-realisation
ec4
,56
,08
Psychological
factors
,47
Self-esteem /
self-confidence
ep4
,69
,39
Self-control
ep3
,62,59
Creativity/
innovation
ep2
,72
Autonomy
ep1
Professional future
motivations
,95
Entrepreneurial
career
epf2
,97
,18
Economically and
socially stable
career
efp1 ,42
,09
Practice Yoga?
Degree
6,93
Sports
Sciences ed1
2,63
,03
Health
Sciences ed2
-,17 ,00
Arts ed3-,03
,03
Engineering ed4
-,19
,04
Business
Sciences ed5
-,21
,01
Social
Sciences ed6
-,07
,01
Media Studies ed7
-,08
,67 ,01-,04
,85
,77
,12
,29
f2
f1
,08
Fig. 3 Model 1 including the latent variable Education/Degree (standardised values)
Int Entrep Manag J

Model without the education/degree latent variable
As explained above, having removed the factor ‘Degree’, the model was re-specified
on the basis of the following factors: Professional Future, Education, Cognitive and
Psychological Factors as well as the Practice of Yoga.
The greater simplicity of the re-specified model is reflected in the degrees of freedom
and, in comparison with the previous model, there is a generalised improvement in the
fit measures, particularly in: χ2=437,178 (gl=53, p=0.00). The remaining fit indexes
indicate an improvement in the overall robustness of the model: GFI=0.777, AGFI=
0.671, CFI=0.509 and RMSEA=0.178 and χ2/gl=8,249. The cognitive factor and
practice of yoga are the most notable variables within the scope of the estimated
parameters.
Analysis of this table (taking into account the calculated parameters for the
re-specified model) suggests that the impact of Future Professional Motivation
and Psychological Factors do not have a statistically significant relationship
with entrepreneurship. The remaining parameters display appropriate estimate
levels as can be seen from analysis of parameter significance (P), which
registers values lower than 0.05 for Cognitive Factors and for Practice of Yoga.
When the estimation error is taken into account, the values are less than 1, which is
reasonable.
Table 4 Summary of the non-standardised and standardised values, estimation errors and significance to
Model 1
Non-standardised
valuesa
Standardised
valuesb
Estimation
error
P
Professional future → ThinkCreat Comp 0.127 0.092 0.100 0.205
Practice of yoga → ThinkCreat Comp 0.259 0.083 0.222 0.244
Cognitive factors → ThinkCreat Comp 2.565 0.670 0.628 0.000
Degree → ThinkCreat Comp 0.016 0.012 0.016 0.321
Psychological factors → ThinkCreat Comp −0.076 −0.037 0.169 0.655
a If Cognitive factors increase by 1 unit, then ‘ThinkCreatComp’ rises by 2.565
b If Cognitive factors vary by one standardised measurement, then ‘ThinkCreatComp’ is increased by the
standardised deviation amount of 0.670
Table 5 Summary of the non-standardised and standardised values, estimation errors and significance for
Model 2
Non-standardised
Values1
Standardised
values2
Estimation
error
P
Professional future → ThinkCreat Comp 0.152 0.104 0.096 0.114
Practice of yoga → ThinkCreat Comp 0.461 0.139 0.191 0.016
Cognitive factors → ThinkCreat Comp 1.037 0.708 0.162 0.000
Psychological factors → ThinkCreat Comp −0.004 −0.003 0.134 0.974
Int Entrep Manag J

Taking a more detailed approach to analysis of Fig. 4, it should be emphasised
that the practice of yoga continues to have a positive impact on entrepreneurial
propensity (standardised value of 0.139), from which it can be concluded that yoga
contributes towards the construction of an entrepreneurial profile. This conclusion is
statistically supported by the fact that the calculated parameter of this relationship is
statistically significant (see the previous table). Cognitive Factors and Psychological
Factors prove to have opposite effects: while that of Cognitive Factors is positive
(standardised value of 0.708), that of Psychological Factors is negative (standardised
value of −0.003), even if not statistically significant. Correspondingly, Cognitive Factors
attains the greatest influence over entrepreneurship. As regards the effect of practicing
yoga on Cognitive and Psychological Factors, we find that once again there is a
positive effect in both cases, with Psychological Factors having a greater impact
(standardised value of 0.235) than Cognitive Factors (standardised value of 0.014).
,53
Ever thought of setting up a business?
,00
Cognitive
factors
e2
,61
Alert to external
business opportunities
,31
Precision
,08
Perception of risk
,78
,56
,28
ec1
ec2
ec3
,44
Professional and personal
self-realisation
ec4
,66
,06
Psychological
factors
,68
Self-esteem/
self-confidence
ep4
,82
,46
Self-control
ep3
,68,66
Creativity
innovation
ep2
,77
Autonomy
ep1
,00
Professional future
Motivations
,95
Entrepreneurial
career
epf2
,98
,17
Economically and
socially stable
career
efp1 ,42 ,10
,08
Practice Yoga?
,14,71 ,00
,88
,81
,24
,01
f3
f2
f1
Fig. 4 Model 2 re-specification (exclusion of education/degree), standardised values
Int Entrep Manag J

Multi-group analysis (practitioners and non-practitioners)
In the previous model (see Fig. 4), the practice of yoga was integrated directly into
the model and thus the effect of this activity on the entrepreneurial profile could be
evaluated. In the multi-group analysis, the variable relating to the practice of yoga is
removed and used to define two separate samples, allowing the analysis to focus
separately on two different groups: those who practice yoga and those who do not.
The objective is to ascertain whether there are any differences between those who do
and do not practice yoga with regard to the various facets of the entrepreneurial
profile. This means that the same model is applied to the two samples: yoga
practitioners and non-practitioners. Given that in the previous model, a statistically
significant contribution was found for yoga practice in the definition of the
entrepreneurial profile, it would be expected that the two samples would reveal
differentiated patterns.
Table 6 allows a comparison to be made between the adjustments that the three
models underwent: the initial model, with the degree factor included; the re-specified
model, with the degree factor stripped out; and finally the model applied to the two
independent samples (yoga practitioners and non-practitioners). The first model
demonstrates a slightly lower level of fit than the others. The alterations are more visible
at the χ2 level given that, with the degree factor excluded, the value of this statistic
drops considerably. With the subsequent separation by groups, an improvement in
some of the fit measures, essentially in RMSEA=0.133 and χ2/gl=5.04 is registered.
Figures 5 and 6 allow us to see changes in the model in accordance with the
respective standardised values, for each one of the samples.
The factor Future Professional Motivation has a negative effect on entrepreneurial
propensity, while Psychological and Cognitive Factors have a positive effect. It
should also be noted that the standardised coefficient of Cognitive Factors is slightly
higher than that for Psychological Factors.
From Table 7, we can see that there are differences between the two groups with
regard to all the factors. While, amongst practitioners, Psychological and Cognitive
Factors are to the fore, in the non-practitioner sample, Future Professional
Motivation is the leading factor.
The behaviour of the yoga practicing group, when compared with group of non-
practitioners is characterised by the fact that the Psychological and Cognitive Factors
influence entrepreneurial propensity positively and strongly. Analysis of the non-
practitioners shows that psychological and cognitive factors barely make any
difference. Furthermore, Future Professional Motivation is more influential in the
latter non-practitioner group.
Table 6 Comparison deriving from the fit of the three models
χ
2 gl χ2/gl GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA
Initial Model 818,509 150 5.46 0.776 0.717 0.468 0.140
Model without Education/Degree 437,677 53 8.249 0.777 0.671 0.509 0.178
Model by groups 473,368 94 5.04 0.766 0.671 0.499 0.133
Int Entrep Manag J

Though the initial model did not provide a satisfactory level of convergence, its
fit levels were somewhat improved by subsequent re-specifications. Removing the
educational factor made it possible to considerably reduce the χ2 value. The final
model clearly provides a better fit than the second. This means it is possible to
conclude that there are indeed differences between the two samples with regard to
the relationship between the factors and in relation to the factors and the
entrepreneurial spirit as portrayed by the ‘ThinkCreatComp’ variable. It could be
further concluded that the choice of degree was not a relevant aspect in
characterising entrepreneurial propensity. To this end, based on the last two
models, we may conclude that the practice of yoga is important in defining the
entrepreneurial profile. The better fit of the second model (without the degree
variable) showed that it was more appropriate to the observed data and that the
practice of yoga is statistically significant in the construction of the entrepreneurial
profile (model 2). The third model, including the multi-group analysis demonstrates
that, based on the different standardised values of the two samples, there are
statistically significant differences between those who do and do not practice yoga,
aq conclusion that is consistent with the preceding results.
Returning again to Table 7, this should be interpreted as follows: relating to the
group practicing yoga, the increase in the psychological factor’s standard-deviation
produces an increase in the variable ‘ThinkCreatComp’ of 0.404 of a standard-
deviation. Furthermore, as regards the group that does not practice yoga, the same
,56
Ever thought of setting
up a business?
Cognitive
factors
e2
,51
Alert to external business
opportunities
,14
Precision
,05
Perception of risk
,71
,37
,23
ec1
ec2
ec3
,62
Professional & personal
self-realisation
ec4
,79
,61
Psychological
factors
,60
Self-esteem/
self-confidenceep4
,78
,49
Self-controlep3
,70
,43
Creativity/
innovationep2
,66
,88
Autonomyep1
,94
,40
Professional future
motivation,44
Entrepreneurial
career
epf2
,67
,10
Economically and
socially stable
career
efp1
,32
-,17
-,10
Fig. 5 Model 3a with the respective standardised values (Practices Yoga)
Int Entrep Manag J

psychological factor leads to an increase of only 0.016 in the ‘ThinkCreatComp’
variable. This means that the two samples (yoga practitioners and non-practitioners)
display distinct behaviour concerning the influence of psychological factors on
entrepreneurship—there being a substantial positive relationship between the
psychological factors and entrepreneurship only in the yoga-practicing group. In
comparing the two samples, it is clear that the influence of cognitive and
Table 7 Structural model relationships for practitioners and non practitioners
Group Standardised Values
Practice of Yoga Cognitive Factors → ThinkCreatComp 0.607
Psychological Factors → ThinkCreatComp 0.404
Professional Future → ThinkCreatComp −0.171
No Practice of Yoga Cognitive Factors → ThinkCreatComp 0.017
Psychological Factors → ThinkCreatComp 0.016
Professional Future → ThinkCreatComp 0.682
,47
Ever thought of setting
up a business?
Cognitive
factors
e2
1,08
Alert to external business
opportunities
,06
Precision
,00
Perception of risk
1,04
,23
,03
ec1
ec2
ec3
1,44
Professional and
personal self-realisationec4
1,20
,02
Psychological
factors
,58
Self-esteem/
self-confidenceep4
,76
,41
Self-controlep3
,64
,70
Creativity/
innovation
ep2 ,84
,66
Autonomyep1
,81
,02
Professional future
motivation,44
Entrepreneurial
career
epf2
,67
,07
Economically and
socially stable
career
efp1
,26
,68
Fig. 6 Model 3b with the respective standardised values (Does Not Practice Yoga)
Int Entrep Manag J

psychological factors in entrepreneurship is greater in the yoga-practicing sample.
The Future Professional Motivation factor also behaves differentially in the two
samples, revealing an entirely different effect (negative for yoga practitioners and
positive for non-practitioners).
In accordance with the analysis carried out, Table 8 provides a summary of the
research results for the hypotheses set out in the Methodology section.
Conclusions
Academic interest in entrepreneurship has been responsible for a proliferation of
studies on this concept, in particular with approaches connected to psychological,
and more recently cognitive, factors (e.g. McClelland 1961; Douglas 1999; Hisrich
and Peters 2004; Tang et al. 2007; Gaglio and Katz 2001; Baron 2004). As a result
of these studies, diverse entrepreneurial profiles have been sketched, with the
identification of specific entrepreneurial attitudes set out and educational processes
able to nurture entrepreneurs suggested. It was in this context that we investigated
the relationship between the psychological and cognitive traits that underpin
entrepreneurial behaviour and the practice of yoga.
This research sought to focus on two theoretical facets that, due to their
complexity, have taken on increasing importance. Initially, we approached the
development of an entrepreneur from a psychological and cognitive perspective
Table 8 Summary of the research hypothesis results
Hypotheses Results by student type
Sample
(263 students)
Practices
Yoga
Does Not
Practice yoga
Psychological
factors
H1: The practice of yoga does
positively contribute towards a
strengthening of student capacity
to acquire some of the psychological
attributes of potential entrepreneurs
(university students).
Verified Verified Not Verified
Cognitive factors H2: The practice of yoga does
positively contribute towards a
strengthening of student capacity
to acquire some of the cognitive
attributes of potential entrepreneurs
(university students).
Verified Verified Not Verified
Future professional
motivation
H3: The way in which the university
student perceives his/her professional
future influences the respective
propensity for entrepreneurship.
Not Verified Not Verified Verified
Education H4: The type of degree studied
influences the student’s propensity
to set up his/her own business.
Not Verified Not Verified Not Verified
Int Entrep Manag J

before then considering the entrepreneur as a practitioner of yoga. It was exactly at
this point that we set out our two main research questions, which we are now in a
position to respond to:
1. Does the practice of yoga positively contribute towards the strengthening of
student capacity to acquire (“learn”) some of the psychological attributes of
entrepreneurs? According to the results of the empirical research reported on
here, the answer to this question is affirmative, allowing us to conclude that
yoga strengthens entrepreneurial psychological attributes as demonstrated by
models 1, 2 and 3.
2. Does the practice of yoga positively contribute towards the strengthening of
student capacity to acquire (“learn”) some of the cognitive processes employed
by entrepreneurs? The results obtained here (as evidenced by models 1, 2, and 3)
strongly suggest that the answer to this question is also positive i.e. the practice
of yoga strengthens entrepreneurial cognitive attributes.
Based on the statistical results obtained, it can be concluded that yoga has a
positive influence on students’ capacity to develop the psychological traits that are
associated with entrepreneurship. This result broadly supports the conclusions of the
studies presented in the literature review, more specifically those of the studies
undertaken on the effects of the practice of yoga (e.g Stancak et al. 1991; Janowiak
1993; Malathi and Damodaran 1999; Brown and Gerbarg 2005), as well as those
relating to the psychological characteristics of the entrepreneur profile (e.g. Mueller
and Thomas 2000; Ferreira 2010; Hisrich and Peters 2004).
From the cognitive perspective, the results were also positive and hence the
practice of yoga does strengthen the cognitive factors associated with entrepre-
neurship. It should be stressed that the cognitive profile studies (alertness to
business opportunities, accurateness, self-realisation, etc) are recent and hence this
research project serves at least to consolidate the existing literature on cognitive
entrepreneurial studies (e.g. Kirzner 1982; Gaglio and Katz 2001; Baron 2004;
Tang et al. 2007).
Regarding the role education, and of specific degree programmes, our research
points to this being the least influential factor, hence, not preponderant in any
explanation of entrepreneurial potential. While earlier studies have arrived at the
opposite conclusion (Teixeira 2007), the reason for our result being negative may be
due to the diversity of degree programmes characterising our student sample.
Finally, the future professional motivation factor did not show any impact on the
propensity to engage in entrepreneurial activities in models 1 and 2. While in model
3 the group not practicing yoga validates the theory (Raposo et al. 2008), it should
be stressed that in relation to the yoga practicing group, the motivation factor may
not have proven statistically significant due to the small scale of the sample making
up this group.
However, in overall terms, it may be stated that, despite the strikingly positive
results of the research undertaken, there is clearly much more to be done: in
particular, there is a need for future empirical research to focus on larger samples of
more specific categories of prospective entrepreneurs, as well as comparative studies
of more heterogeneous groups of potential entrepreneurs.
Int Entrep Manag J

Theoretical and managerial implications
In theoretical terms, yoga brings psychological and cognitive benefits that overlap
with some of the personal and cognitive attributes associated with entrepreneurs.
This research sought to verify whether the psychological and cognitive character-
istics of entrepreneurs could be strengthened (“learned” in the broadest sense of the
term) by university students through the practice of yoga. After gathering the data
and applying the AMOS model to test the proposed conceptual model, the results
obtained in terms of the entrepreneurial psychological profile prove the hypothesis
that yoga can strengthen the entrepreneurial profile of university students (e.g.
Benson et al. 1994; Malathi and Damodaran 1999; Harinath et al. 2004). Regarding
the cognitive factors, the results also support the theory that yoga can foster
university students’ entrepreneurial propensity and potential (e.g. Stancak et al.
1991; Brown and Gerbarg 2005).
The methodology used proved adequate to the aims of the research, though if
repeated, other types of sample should be selected (e.g. company owners, senior
managers) and/or larger samples should be constructed, so as to facilitate
comparisons between different types of entrepreneurs.
On this basis, it may be also be concluded that the practice of yoga should be
introduced as a compulsory/optional subject in teaching from primary school to
university, given that the results of this research demonstrate that yoga strengthens
entrepreneurial psychological and cognitive attributes.
Before concluding, some of the limitations encountered over the course of this
study should be mentioned, albeit briefly. One limitation quite clearly derives from
the scale of the samples under study (university students who do and do not practice
yoga). It should be highlighted that, while these samples were deemed reasonable for
satisfactorily undertaking what was effectively a pilot project, their scope could not
be considered ideal, given that they may not faithfully represent the broader
population. Hence, it is suggested that if similar research were to be repeated, an
effort should be made to assemble a larger sample with the number of university
students practicing yoga being equal to that of non-practitioners. A second restriction
relates to the delimitation of the object of study; as Lakatos and Marconi (1996)
point out, this means deciding on what to include and exclude from the scope of
study, and consequently defining the limits of the research. In this case, while the
universe (students) is very large, for practical reasons, the scope of the sample had to
be limited. Resulting from this decision, the sample was somewhat limited relative to
the student population as a whole, particularly in terms of students who practice
yoga. The third limitation is essentially associated with the fact that there is still very
little research on the connection between cognitive factors and entrepreneurship. The
fourth limitation relates to the fact that this research is unprecedented, precluding
comparisons with the results of earlier research. However, given the innovative focus
of this research, these limitations may be readily turned into opportunities for future
research. It is to be hoped that the ideas presented in this paper may lead to new and
interesting studies in the future.
In conclusion, we set out three proposals for future research. The first calls for the
replication of this study with the introduction of more variables in accordance with
Int Entrep Manag J

the diversity of entrepreneurial studies and new research that may be published in
the meantime. The second is for other researchers to apply the suggested means of
measurement to a larger scale sample with an equal percentage of yoga-practitioners
and non-practitioners, if possible comparison between different units of analysis,
whether national or international. Correspondingly, this would enable analysis of the
psychological factors and especially the cognitive facet among different university
students. Finally, it is suggested that this questionnaire be applied to another type of
group or sample (e.g. business owners) as it would be highly relevant to compare the
respective group results (students versus business owners, prospective versus
experienced entrepreneurs).
References
Baird, L. (1972). Review of the Torrance tests of creativity thinking, In O. Buros (Ed.), The seventh
mental measurements yearbook. Vol. 1, Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press.
Baron, R. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: why and when entrepreneurs think
differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 275–294.
Baron, R. (2004). The cognitive perspective: a valuable tool for answering entrepreneurship´s basic “why”
questions. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 221–239.
Begley, T. (1995). Using founder status, age of firm, and company growth rate as the basis of
distinguishing entrepreneurs from managers of smaller business. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(3),
249–263.
Begley, T., & Boyd, D. (1987). Psychological characteristics associated with performance in
entrepreneurial firms and small businesses. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 79–93.
Benson, H. (1976). The relaxation response. New York: Avon Books.
Benson, H., Kornhaber, A., Kornhaber, C., & LeChanu, M. (1994). Increases in positive psychological
characteristics with the new relaxation response curriculum in high school students. Journal for
Research and Development in Education, 27, 226–231.
Bird, B. (1992). The operation of intentions in time: the emergence of the new venture. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 17(1), 11–20.
Brandstatter, H. (1997). Becoming an entrepreneur—a question of personality structure? Journal of
Economic Psychology, 18, 157–177.
Brockhaus, R. (1982). A psychology of the entrepreneur. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. W. Vesper
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 41–56). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Brown, R. P., & Gerbarg, P. L. (2005). Sudarshan kriya yogic breathing in the treatment of stress, anxiety,
and depression: part I-neurophysiologic model. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine,
11(1), 189–201.
Busenitz, L. W. (1992). Cognitive biases in strategic decision-making: Heuristics as a differentiator
between managers in large organizations and entrepreneurs. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Texas A&M University.
Busenitz, L. W., & Lau, C. (1996). A cross-cultural cognitive model of new venture creation.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(4), 25–39.
Bygrave, W. D. (1989). The entrepreneurship paradigm (I): a philosophical look at its research
methodologies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14, 7–26.
Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modelling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts,
applications and programming. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS—basic concepts, applications, and
programming. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cielo, I. D. (2001). Perfil do pequeno empreendedor: Uma investigação das características
empreendedoras nas empresas de pequena dimensão. Dissertation (Master’s in Production
Engineering)-Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil.
Cohen, L., Warneke, C., Fouladi, R. T, Rodriguez, M. A, & Chaoul-Reich, A. (2004). Psychological
adjustment and sleep quality in a randomized trial of the effects of a Tibetan yoga intervention in
patients with lymphoma. American Cancer Society, 100(10), 2253–2260.
Int Entrep Manag J

Coulton, R. M., & Udell, G. G. (1976). The national science foundation’s innovation center—an experiment
in training potential entrepreneurs and innovators. Journal of Small Business Management (pre-1986),
14(2), 11–20.
Delacroix, J., & Rao, M. (1993). Externalities and ecological theory: Unbundling density dependence. In
J. Singh & J. Baum (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations (pp. 255–268). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Der Hovanesian, M. (2003). Zen and the art of corporate productivity. More companies are battling
employee stress with meditation. Business Week, (3843), 56. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/
content/03_30/b3843076.htm. Accessed 15 December 2007.
Diener, E., Suhe, M., & Lucas, R. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.
Douglas, E. (1999). Entrepreneurship as a career choice: Attitudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and utility
maximization. In P. Reynolds, W. Bygrave, S. Manigart, C. Mason, C. Mason, G. Meyer, H. Sapienza, &
K. Shaver (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 152–166). Babson Park: Babson College.
European Commission (2003). Green Paper: Entrepreneurial Spirit in Europe. Commission of the European
Communities. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise /entrepreneurship/green_paper/green_paper_final_pt.pdf,
consulted on 10/07/2008.
Ferreira, J. (2010). Corporate entrepreneurship and small firms growth. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business (forthcoming paper).
Filion, L. J. (1994). Tem steps to entrepreneurial teaching. Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, 11(3), 68–78.
Gaglio, C. M., & Katz, J. A. (2001). The psychological basis of opportunity identification: entrepreneurial
alertness. Journal Small Business Economics, 16, 95–111.
Gartner, W. B., & Shane, S. A. (1995). Measuring entrepreneurship over time. Journal of Business
Venturing, 10(4), 283–301.
Gerry, C., Marques, C. S., & Nogueira, F. (2008). Tracking student entrepreneurial potential: personal
attributes and the propensity for business start-ups graduation in a Portuguese University. Journal
Problems and Perspectives in Management, 6(4), 45–53.
Gibb, A. (2002). In pursuit of a new “enterprise” and “entrepreneurship” paradigm for learning: creative
destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 4(3), 233–269.
Green, R., David, R., & Dent, M. (1996). The Russian entrepreneur: a study of psychological
characteristics. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior, 2(1), 49–58.
Hair, J., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2005). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Harinath, K., Malhotra, A. S., Pal, K., Prasad, R., Kumar, R., Kain, C. T., et al. (2004). Effects of hatha
yoga and omkar meditation on cardiorespiratory performance, psychologic profile, and melatonin
secretion. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 10(2), 261–268.
Hisrich, R. D., & Peters, M. P. (2004). Empreendedorismo. Tradução Lene Belon Ribeiro (5th ed.). Porto
Alegre: Bookman.
Hood, J. N., & Young, H. E. (1993). Entrepreneurship’s requisite areas of development: a survey of top
executives in successful entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 115–135.
Hornaday, J. A., & Aboud, J. (1971). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. Personal Psychology,
24(2), 141–153.
Janowiak, J. J. (1993). Theoretical foundations of yoga meditation: A contribution to self-actualization
and stress management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED364786).
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL—8 user’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software.
Kirzner, I.M. (1982). The theory of entrepreneurship in economic growth. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, &K. H.
Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 272–276). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Koh, H. C. (1996). Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics: A study of Hong Kong MBA
student. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(3), 12–26.
Kourilsky, M. L. (1980). Predictors of entrepreneurship in a simulated economy. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 14(3), 175–199.
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.
Krueger, N. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility
and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(1), 5–21.
Krueger, N., Jr., & Dickson, P. R. (1994). How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: perceived self-
efficacy and opportunity recognition. Decision Sciences, 25(3), 385–400.
Int Entrep Manag J

Lakatos, E., & Marconi, M. (1996). Fundamentos de metodologia científica (3rd ed.). São Paulo: Editora
Atlas.
Lamb, T. (2004). Health benefits of yoga. http://www.philmilgrom.com/pdf/BenefitsYoga.pdf. Accessed
25 October 2007.
Luchsinger, V., & Bagby, R. (1987). Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship: Behaviors, comparisons, and
contrasts. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 52(3), 10–14.
Malathi, A., & Damodaran, A. (1999). Stress due to exams in medical students-role of yoga. Indian
Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 43(2), 218–24.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton: Van Nostrand.
Meaux, K. (2002). Yoga dinâmico. Porto: Editora Civilização.
Miner, J. B., Smith, N. R., & Bracker, J. S. (1989). Role of entrepreneurial task motivation in the growth
of technologically innovative firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 554–560.
Mitchell, R. K. (1994). The composition, classification, and creation of new venture formation expertise.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Management Department, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Mitchell, R., Smith, B., Seawright, K., & Morse, E. (2000). Cross-cultural cognitions and the venture
creation decision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 974–993.
Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., & Smit, J. B., et al. (2002a).
Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 93–105.
Mitchell, R. K., Smith, J. B., Morse, E. A., Seawright, K. W., Peredo, A. M., & McKenzie, B. (2002b).
Are entrepreneurial cognitions universal? Assessing entrepreneurial cognitions across cultures.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 26(4), 9–32.
Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., & Smith J. B. (2004). The
distinctive and inclusive domain of entrepreneurial cognition research. Entrepreneurship: Theory &
Practice, 28(6), 505–518.
Mueller, S. L., & Thomas, A. S. (2000). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a nine country study of
locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 51–75.
Parshad, O. (2004). Role of yoga in stress management. West Indian Medical Journal, 53(3), 191–194.
Raposo, M., Ferreira, J., Paço, A., & Rodrigues, R. G. (2008). Propensity to firm creation: empirical
research using structural equations. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4, 485–
504.
Rasheed, H. S. (2000). Developing entrepreneurial potential in youth: The effects of entrepreneurial
education and venture creation. Florida: University of South Florida.
Satyananda, S. S. (1980). Sure ways to self realization. Munger (India): Bihar School of Yoga.
Schell, F. J., Allolio, B., & Schonecke, O. W. (1994). Physiological and psychological effects of
HathaYoga exercise in healthy women. International Journal of Psychosomatics, 41(1–4), 46–52.
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation
modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99
(6), 323–337.
Shaver, K. G. (1995). The entrepreneurial personality myth. Business & Economic Review, 41(3), 20–23.
Stancak, A., Jr., Kuna, M., Srinivasan, D. C., & Vishnudevananda, S. (1991). Yogic cleansing exercise. II.
EEG topography analysis. Homeostasis in Health and Disease, 33(3), 182–189.
Stewart, A., & Roth, S. (1991). A prospectus on the anthropology of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 16(2), 71–91.
Tang, J., Tang, Z., & Lohrke, F. (2007). Developing an entrepreneurial typology: the roles of
entrepreneurial alertness and attributional style. International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, 4(3), 273–294.
Teixeira, A. C. (2007). Beyond economics and engineering: The hidden entrepreneurial potential. Mimeo,
Faculty of Economics, University of Porto, FEP Working Paper December.
Timmons, J. A., Smollen, L. E., & Dingee, A. L. M. (1985). New venture creation. Homewood: Richard
D. Irwin.
Van Praag, C., & Cramer, J. (2001). The roots of entrepreneurship an labour demand: individual ability
and low risk aversion. Economica, 68(269), 45–62.
Winslow, E. K., Solomon, G. T., & Tarabishy, A. (1999). Empirical investigation into entrepreneurship
education in the United States: Some results of the 1997 national survey of entrepreneurial education.
In United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (USASBE) annual national
conference proceedings.
Yesudian, S., & Haich, E. (2002). Ioga e Saúde. São Paulo: Editora Cultrix.
Int Entrep Manag J