The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm
JEIT
33,2
142
Received 25 August 2008
Revised 9 October 2008
Accepted 4 December 2008
Journal of European Industrial
Training
Vol. 33 No. 2, 2009
pp. 142-159
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0590
DOI 10.1108/03090590910939049
Which factors affect
entrepreneurial intention of
university students?
Duygu Turker
Vocational School, Yasar University, Izmir, Turkey, and
Senem Sonmez Selcuk
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Yasar University,
Izmir, Turkey
Abstract
Purpose – Fostering entrepreneurship needs a twofold policy that should focus on both the current
situation and future prospect of entrepreneurship. Although many scholars and policy makers devote
their attention to the first foci of issue, it is equally important to map out the future context of
entrepreneurship. The purpose of this paper is to fill this void by analysing the impacts of some
contextual factors on entrepreneurial intention of university students.
Design/methodology/approach – In the study, a model was proposed and empirically tested on a
sample of 300 university students in Turkey. The entrepreneurial support model (ESM) considers
predominantly the impact of contextual factors on entrepreneurial intention. In the model,
entrepreneurial intention is taken as a function of educational, relational, and structural supports.
Findings – The results of the survey showed that educational and structural support factors affect
the entrepreneurial intention of students.
Research limitations/implications – The paper contributes to the literature by theorizing and
empirically testing how some factors affect the entrepreneurial intention of university students.
Although the study is subject to some limitations, it is believed that these limitations can be overcome
with further studies.
Practical implications – The results of the study may have valuable implications for the policy
makers and educators.
Originality/value – Since today’s youth are the potential entrepreneurs of the future, understanding
their perception about contextual factors can be a contribution to the development of the literature and
an important step in designing a more effective policy mechanism.
Keywords Entrepreneurialism, Students, Universities
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Entrepreneurship has captured the attention of both scholars and policy makers during
the last decades. The main reason of this concern is the growing need for entrepreneurs
who accelerate economic development through generating new ideas and converting
them into profitable ventures. Entrepreneurial activities are not only the incubators of
technological innovation; they provide employment opportunity and increase
The authors are grateful to Professor M. Cengiz Pınar, Yasar University, for his valuable ideas
and Esra Turan and her students in Yasar University for their support and help during the data
collection process.
competitiveness also (Reynolds, 1987; Zahra, 1999). Since the encouragement of Entrepreneurial
entrepreneurship is essential to stimulate growth in “a growth-conscious world”, intention
“. . .we can try to learn how one can stimulate the volume and intensity of
entrepreneurial activity . . . ” (Baumol, 1968, p. 71). In such a learning process, both
policy makers and scholars should concentrate on the question of why some people
choose an entrepreneurial career and others do not.
The previous studies in the literature provide some alternative explanations for this 143
question. Some scholars primarily focus on the effect of personality characteristics on
decision making process (Bonnett and Furnham, 1991; Brockhaus, 1980; Johnson,
1990). Although the results vary across the studies, they often indicate a link between
entrepreneurial intention and some personality factors, such as self-confidence,
risk-taking ability, need to achievement, and locus of control. However, a person is
surrounded by an extended range of cultural, social, economical, political,
demographical, and technological factors. Therefore, personality traits cannot be
isolated from these contextual factors. In the literature, there are some studies that take
into account the role of these factors also. For instance, according to Hisrich (1990),
people can be pushed or pulled by the situational factors, which are related with their
personal backgrounds and present lives. From a broader point of view, the cultural and
institutional frameworks also affect entrepreneurship (Wennekers and Thurik, 1999).
The review of literature on entrepreneurship shows that most of the scholars have
focused on adult entrepreneurs. In these studies, adult entrepreneurs were examined
after choosing their entrepreneurial careers. Since people are likely to start a business
within the age range of 25 to 44 (Liles, 1974), it is also critical to focus on people who are
younger than 25 and understand which factors affect their intentions to start-up a
business in the future. As Henderson and Robertson (2000) also stated “. . . the future
working environment will depend on the creativity and individuality of the young.
However, indeed relatively little is known about young adult views on
entrepreneurship” (p.279).
The policy implications of Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM, 2001) indicated
that people with limited education are less likely to participate in entrepreneurial
initiatives. According to Garavan and O’Cinneide (1994), the different stories of
successful entrepreneurs stimulate the debate on the famous paradigm of “the
entrepreneurs are made or born”. Obviously, it is difficult to ignore the possible
impacts of genetics or personality traits. As it is discussed in the next section, the
literature provides many studies, which suggest the impacts of these factors. However,
in the social sciences, it is a more accurate way to explain every phenomenon with
taking into account the interactions of various factors, rather than considering the
impact of a single factor. Therefore, even if genetics or personality traits have some
impacts on entrepreneurial inclination, it might be better to consider the impact of
some contextual factors. It is clear that education and training are among the most
important elements in the development of human resources. The previous studies in
the literature also indicate a link between education and entrepreneurship (Galloway
and Brown, 2002; Gorman and Hanlon, 1997; Henderson and Robertson, 2000;
Kolvereid and Moen, 1997). Therefore, getting an adequate education may foster
entrepreneurial intention of a person. According to Garavan and O’Cinneide (1994, p. 3),
“. . .there is clearly a major role and need for entrepreneurship education and training”.
JEIT Since the education offered by a university mostly influences the career selection of
33,2 students, universities can be seen as potential sources of future entrepreneurs. Today,
most universities have spent significant amounts of money to design a viable
entrepreneurship education for their students. According to a wider conception,
entrepreneurship education is defined as “the whole set of education and training
activities – within the educational system or not – that try to develop in the
144 participants the intention to perform entrepreneurial behaviors, or some of the
elements that affect that intention, such as entrepreneurial knowledge, desirability of
the entrepreneurial activity, or its feasibility” (Liñán, 2004a, p.163, 2004b).
There is a great variety among universities on the nature, scope, and structure of
entrepreneurial education. Hills (1988) described it as an evolving field that was an
“embryonic stage” at the late 1980s and pointed out the variety of educational
objectives among universities. According to Garavan and O’Cinneide (1994, p. 4), the
lack of a clear consensus on the definition of an entrepreneur contributes to the
confusion and variety in the content of entrepreneurial education and training
programmes. As it is also indicated by Vesper and Gartner (1997, p. 407), there is a
diversity of views among academics about what constitutes “entrepreneurship
program” – such as “whether entrepreneurship must focus on organization creation,
growing firms, innovation, value creation, and ownership”. Harrison and Leitch (1994)
analysed the evolution of entrepreneurship education in a three-stage model.
According to this model, the first approach to entrepreneurial education is to view it as
a sub-set of general management education. As a reaction to this approach, the second
view differentiates entrepreneurial education from the managements of large-scale
organizations. The last stage provides a basis for the notion of the reintegration of
management education and entrepreneurship education (Harrison and Leitch, 1994).
Recently, the nature of discussion on entrepreneurial education shifts towards learning
for entrepreneurship, not about it (Cooper et al., 2004). Since it is difficult to find one
best model for all cases, the disagreement on the issue might continue in the future as
well. However, the concrete progress in the entrepreneurial education during the last
decades show that these discussions are important for shaping the future
understandings.
In parallel with the world, there is an increasing interest to entrepreneurship
education in Turkey as well. However, as it is indicated by Gürol and Atsan (2006), it is
far from being a national policy matter. The review of curricula of Turkish business
schools in 2006 demonstrated that 15 of 53 state universities have elective
entrepreneurship course, while 7 of 23 private universities offer entrepreneurship
provision and only one of them offers a major in entrepreneurship (Gürol and Atsan,
2006, p. 27). It is clear that the existing level of entrepreneurship education in Turkey is
quite insufficient to foster entrepreneurship. In fact, entrepreneurship is one of the
main strategies of industrial policy in Turkey towards the full membership to
European Union (EU). However, the lack of a comprehensive policy framework for
entrepreneurial education is a significant impediment to achieve a rapid progress.
Therefore, there is a need to focus on entrepreneurship education. Obviously,
understanding perceptions of students at higher education level is a necessary step in
this process. The purpose of the current study is to analyse the entrepreneurial
intention of university students in Turkey. In the study, a model that mainly focuses on
the impacts of some contextual factors was proposed and empirically tested on a
sample of 300 university students. Therefore, the study contributes to the literature by Entrepreneurial
theorizing and empirically testing how some factors affect entrepreneurial intention of intention
university students. It is believed that the results of study may have some significant
implications for the policy makers and educators.

2. Theoretical framework
2.1 The entrepreneurs of the future 145
In the literature, some scholars have investigated the entrepreneurial intention,
interest, or propensity of students (Ang and Hong, 2000; Autio et al., 1997; Begley et al.,
1997; Henderson and Robertson, 2000; Lee et al., 2005; Lüthje and Franke, 2003; Parnell
et al., 1995; Scott and Twomey, 1988; Turker et al., 2005; Veciana et al., 2005; Wang and
Wong, 2004). The approaches of these studies closely overlap with the general
mainstream of entrepreneurship literature. Some of them focus on personality
characteristics or personal background of respondents. In their study, Ang and Hong
(2000) compared entrepreneurial spirits of university students in Hong Kong and
Singapore. The study concentrated specifically on the role of some personality
characteristics (risk-taking propensity, tolerance for ambiguity, internal locus of
control, innovativeness, and independence) and motivational factors (love for money,
desire for security, and desire for status), rather than the differences in the contextual
factors. Wang and Wong (2004) explained entrepreneurial interest of students in
Singapore based on personal background. The study reveals that gender, family
business experience, and education level are significant factors in explaining
entrepreneurial interest. The study of Henderson and Robertson (2000) also provided a
useful insight into perception of young adult on entrepreneurship. The study shows
that the respondents perceived entrepreneurs mostly with their innate characteristics.
However, most of them thought that entrepreneurial traits should be nurtured by
external factors.
The literature provides some useful insights into the impact of contextual factors. In
an early work, Scott and Twomey (1988) analysed the ambitions of university students
and the results of the study identified parental influence and work experience as
significant factors. The study of Begley et al. (1997) compared the role of socio-cultural
factors in a four-dimensional model. The study indicated that only social status of
entrepreneurs might be predicted as a factor to start a business (Begley et al., 1997). In
their cross-cultural study, Lee et al. (2005) investigated the differences in the attitudes
of university students towards venture creation in four countries. The study revealed
that each country should provide a customized entrepreneurship education to foster
entrepreneurship considering their unique cultural contexts (Lee et al., 2005).
The studies of Autio et al. (1997) and Veciana et al.(2005) analysed the
entrepreneurship of university students through a process-based approach. The study
of Autio et al. (1997) checked the robustness of entrepreneurial intention in various
cultural contexts. The study indicated that the image of entrepreneurs and
encouragement from university environment affect the entrepreneurial conviction of
university students. The study of Veciana et al. (2005) tested the desirability, feasibility,
and intentionality for entrepreneurship according to gender and entrepreneurial history
of students in Catalonia and Puerto Rico. Although the participants had a favourable
perception of desirability towards entrepreneurship, their perceptions of feasibility were
not positive and so their intentions were relatively low.
JEIT The proposed model of Lüthje and Franke (2003) incorporated both personality
33,2 traits and contextual factors. The study revealed that the impact of attitude towards
self-employment might be linked to two personality traits (risk-taking propensity and
internal locus of control) and two contextual factors (perceived barriers and perceived
support). The study of Türker et al. (2005) also considered the impacts of both internal
factors (motivation and self-confidence) and external factors (perceived level of
146 education, opportunities, and support) on entrepreneurial propensity of university
students. The study found that two internal factors and perceived level of support were
statistically significant factors. In a cross-cultural study, Parnell et al. (1995) compared
the entrepreneurial propensity of American and Egyptian university students. In their
study, entrepreneurial propensity was taken as a function of self-confidence, perceived
level of education, and perceived opportunities. The study revealed that
entrepreneurial propensity of American students is greater than Egyptian students.

2.2 Structural model

In the light of previous studies, we proposed a structural model to analyse the
entrepreneurial intention of university students. Theory of Planned Behavior provides
a general framework to analyse the entrepreneurial intention of a person (Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen, 1987, 1991). According to Bird (1988), intentionality can be
defined as a state of mind directing a person’s attention, experience and action towards
a specific goal or a path to achieve something. Therefore, entrepreneurial action can be
also classified as an intentional behavior (Bird, 1988; Shapero, 1982) or intention is a
predictor of planned entrepreneurial behavior (Krueger, 1993). Shapero (1982) indicated
that the entrepreneurial intention stems from the perception of feasibility and
desirability of a person and this path is affected by the cultural and social context.
Based on the models of Shapero (1982) and Ajzen (1991), a process-based approach has
been widely used by the scholars in the literature (Krueger, 1993; Krueger and Brazeal,
1994; Krueger and Carsrud, 1993).
In the current study, entrepreneurial intentions of students were analysed from a
process-based approach also. Since the perceptions of students on their current context
are highly significant to understand their entrepreneurial intention, a model of Turker
et al. (2005) was modified and used in the study. The entrepreneurial support model
(ESM) considers predominantly the impact of contextual factors on entrepreneurial
intention. In the model, entrepreneurial intention is taken as a function of educational,
relational, and structural supports. However, the model also considers the impact of
one personality trait, self-confidence, as moderator variable.
The first dimension of model is educational support. It is obvious that professional
education in universities is an efficient way of obtaining necessary knowledge about
entrepreneurship. Although, in their study, Wang and Wong (2004, p. 170) mainly
focused on personality characteristics of students, they also pointed out the fact that
the entrepreneurial dreams of many students are hindered by inadequate preparation;
“. . .their business knowledge is insufficient, and more importantly, they are not
prepared to take risk to realize their dreams.”. Therefore, academic institutions might
have critical roles in the encouragement of young people to choose an entrepreneurial
career. However, they are sometimes accused of being too academic and encouraging
entrepreneurship insufficiently (Gibb, 1993, 1996). In order to overcome this
insufficiency, most universities have offered entrepreneurship courses or programs
at the undergraduate and graduate levels. In the literature, some studies analyse how Entrepreneurial
these entrepreneurial interests of universities affect entrepreneurial inclination of intention
students. The study of Gorman and Hanlon (1997) showed that entrepreneurial
attributes can be positively influenced by educational programmes. In their study,
Kolvereid and Moen (1997) also indicated a link between education in entrepreneurship
and entrepreneurial behavior. Similarly, the study of Galloway and Brown (2002)
analysed the impact of entrepreneurship electives and found that the return on 147
investment in the entrepreneurship education might be long-term rather than
immediate. It is clear that an effective education on entrepreneurship can be a factor to
push people towards an entrepreneurial career (Henderson and Robertson, 2000).
Based on the above discussion, it is hypothesized that:
H1. Entrepreneurial intention of university students positively relates with
perceived educational support.
However, the level of self-confidence that is generally defined as “believing in oneself”
may influence one’s perception as well. Self-confidence is widely accepted as a valuable
individual asset and a key to personal success. In their study, Bénabou and
Tirole(2002) explained why an optimistic self-view is seen as a good thing. According
to them, self-confidence is valuable because “it makes people happier”, “it makes it
easier to convince others (rightly or wrongly)” and improves “the individual’s
motivation to undertake projects and persevere in the pursuit of his goals” (p.877).
Based on this conceptualization, it might be expected that more self-confident people
may perceive their environment more favourably than others and have more optimistic
perspective about their future. Therefore, if a person has a high level of self-confidence,
the strength of the proposed link between educational support and entrepreneurial
intention may also increase. Based on this proposition, it is hypothesized that:
H2. The strength of the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and
perceived educational support is affected by the level of self-confidence.
The second factor in the model is structural support. As it is indicated in the previous
section, we are living in a broader context of social, cultural, economical, political and
technological factors. The current context of entrepreneurship is mainly shaped by
economical and political mechanisms, which are governed by the actors in the public,
private, and non-governmental sectors. In such a system, there can be some
opportunities or threats for entrepreneurs. For instance, if there are some barriers to
entry into the market, people might show a lower tendency for entrepreneurship.
However, if they find the given conditions adequate and favourable, it might be
expected that they are more likely to start a business. Thus, it is hypothesized that:
H3. Entrepreneurial intention relates with perceived structural support.
However, as explained previously, this relation can be affected by the level of
self-confident as well. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H4. The strength of the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and
perceived structural support is affected by the level of self-confidence.
In the previous studies, family background is also taken into account as a factor
affecting entrepreneurial intention. For instance, the study of Henderson and
JEIT Robertson (2000) showed that family was the second factor influencing career choice of
33,2 respondents – after their personal experience. Therefore, the support of family and
friends is likely to affect one’s career selection. In the current study, this relational
support mainly indicates the sentimental and monetary supports of family and friends.
If someone knows that there will be such type of support when s/he starts a business,
s/he might be encouraged to choose an entrepreneurial career. Therefore, based on the
148 above discussion, it is hypothesized that:
H5. The entrepreneurial intention positively relates to perceived relational support.
However, this relation can be also affected by the level of self-confident. Therefore, it is
hypothesized that:
H6. The strength of the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and
perceived relational support is affected by the level of self-confidence.
The previous studies show that some variables might also affect entrepreneurial
intention. For example, it is traditionally assumed that women have lower inclination
to self-employment than men. The underlying argument of this assumption has been
the greater number of male entrepreneurs, when comparing their female counterparts.
However, especially during the recent years, entrepreneurship has been increasingly
popular among women as well. Since there is still a debate on the impact of gender, it
was taken as a control variable in the current study. Additionally, birth rank and work
experience were also considered as control variables.

3. Research methodology
3.1 Questionnaire design
The scale used in the current study is a slightly modified version of the scale of Turker
et al. (2005). Turker et al. (2005) developed their scale based on the scale of Parnell et al.
(1995), which was used to measure the impacts of self-confidence, perceived level of
education, and perceived opportunities on entrepreneurial propensity. In their study,
Turker et al. (2005) modified some items of this existing scale and added two new
dimensions. In the current study, first some items of scale were modified in order to
measure three dimensions of ESM. Then, some new items, which were derived from the
scale of Lüthje and Franke (2003), were added to the scale. Therefore, a scale with nine
items was obtained to measure three dimensions of ESM.
In the study, entrepreneurial intention was measured through a statement of “I plan to
establish my own business in the foreseeable future after graduation”. By this way, it can
be possible to see the immediate effect of educational support factor. The level of
self-confidence was measured through two statements: “I am sure that I can accomplish
every task successfully” and “I believe that I can manage a company successfully”. As it
can be noticed, the former measures one’s present level of self-confidence, while the latter,
which was derived from the scale of Parnell et al. (1995), measures the possibility of
managing a company in the future. In the questionnaire, all responses were obtained on a
5-point Likert-type scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

3.2 Data collection and descriptive statistics

The population consisted of students in two state and two private universities in
Turkey. In the study, 300 respondents were randomly selected according to the
proportions of these four universities. During the data collection process, the Entrepreneurial
self-administered questionnaire, including a cover letter, was delivered to the intention
respondents through the pollsters. The collected data were analysed through SPSS and
Minitab. According to the results, approximately the half of respondents was female
(49 percent) and mean value of age was 21.27. Table I presents some background
information about the respondents. Approximately 40 percent of respondents had an
entrepreneur father and 14 percent of them had both entrepreneur father and mother. 149

3.3 Results of analyses

3.3.1 Factor analysis and reliability analysis. In the study, exploratory factor analysis
was performed to determine the underlying factorial structure of the scale. The result
of the analysis revealed three distinct factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0
(Table II). These subscales were labelled as perceived educational support (PES),
perceived structural support (PSS), and perceived relational support (PRS).
The internal consistencies of scale were assessed through computing Cronbach’s
alpha. Although generally agreed upon lower limit for Cronbach’s alpha is 0.70, the
decisions were taken based on the number of items, number of dimensions, and
average inter-item correlations (Cortina, 1993). In the scale, the inter-item correlation is
0.28, and the scale includes 9 items in three dimensions. As there is 9 items in the scale,
the suggested alpha level should be between 0.28 (r ¼ 0:30=6 items/3 dimensions) and
0.52 (r ¼ 0:30=12 items/3 dimensions) (Cortina, 1993). The Cronbach’s alpha of the
scale (0.50) is close to the upper limit.
3.3.2 Hierarchical regression analysis. Table III presents the correlations coefficient
of dependent, independent, and moderating variables. The results indicated that the
correlations coefficient between dependent and independent variables of PES, PSS, and
PRS are 0.21, 0.15, and 0.06, respectively. The highest positive correlation was obtained
between PRS and moderator variable.
A three-stage hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test hypotheses.
Both the changes in R 2 and the levels of significance in the regression equations were
used to determine the existence and strength of relations in the model. The results for
H1 are shown in Table IV. In the first step, the control variables were entered into the
prediction model and none of them emerged as significant factors.
In the second step, the moderator variable and PES were entered into the model.
Table IV shows that the adjusted R 2 explains 5 percent of the variance on the
entrepreneurial intention and the R 2 change is 5.3 percent. Although the moderator
variable is statistically insignificant, PES (b ¼ 0:210) is significant at the 0.01 level.
Hence, H1 is supported.

Entrepreneurial history % Type of education % Year of education %

Father 40.3 Natural sciences 37.5 Freshmen 20.3

Mother 3.3 Social sciences 50.5 Sophomore 35.2
Brothers/sisters 4.7 Senior 9.3
Other 2.7 Type of university Work experience Table I.
Nobody 33.0 Public university 66.4 Yes 39.5 Information about
Missing 1.7 Private university 33.2 No 60.2 respondents
JEIT
Factor
33,2 Items 1 2 3 Communalities

Perceived Educational Support (PES)

The education in university encourages me to develop
creative ideas for being an entrepreneur 0.786 0.096 0.052 0.630
150 My university provides the necessary knowledge about
entrepreneurship 0.762 0.079 20.013 0.587
My university develops my entrepreneurial skills and
abilities 0.721 0.136 20.132 0.556
Perceived Relational Support (PRS)
If I decided to be an entrepreneur, my family members
support me 0.179 0.837 20.030 0.733
If I decided to be an entrepreneur, my friends support me 0.082 0.825 0.096 0.696
Perceived Structural Support (PSS)
In Turkey, entrepreneurs are encouraged by a structural
system including private, public, and non-governmental
organizations 2 0.165 0.017 0.670 0.476
Turkish economy provides many opportunities for
entrepreneurs 0.276 20.175 0.624 0.496
Taking loans from banks is quite difficult for
entrepreneurs in Turkey 2 0.196 0.004 0.615 0.417
State laws (rules and regulations) are adverse to running
a business 0.078 0.195 0.480 0.274
Total
Sum of squares (eigenvalues) 2.164 1.495 1.207 4.866
Percentage of trace 24.044 16.616 13.412 54.072
Table II.
Total variance explained Note: Factor loadings less than 0.40 have not been printed and items have been sorted by loadings on
and rotated factor loading each factor; Extraction method: principal component analysis/rotation method; Varimax with Kaiser
matrix (VARIMAX) normalization

Variables 1 2 3 4

Dependent variable 1 EI
Independent variables 2 PES 0.218 * *
3 PSS 0.150 * 0.000
4 PRS 0.064 0.000 0.000
Moderator variable 5 SLF 0.146 * 0.226 * * 20.054 0.263 * *
Table III.
Correlation matrix Notes: * Correlation is significant at p , 0.05; * * Correlation is significant at p , 0.01

The impact of moderator was tested by calculating interaction terms between PES and
self-confidence. To determine this interaction effect, the joint effects of their scores
(PES £ SLF) were entered into the model in the third step. However, the interaction
variable is statistically insignificant and H2 is not supported.
The same hierarchical regression procedure was conducted in the tests of the third
and fourth hypotheses (Table V). After the application of first step, PSS and self
confidence were entered into the model. The adjusted R 2 explains 4.4 percent of the
variance on the entrepreneurial intention and the R 2 change is 4.6 percent.
 Unstandardized Standardized
Model Variable Adjusted R 2 R 2 Change F change coefficients coefficients t

1 Step 1 0.006 0.031 1.221

Gender 2 0.042 20.019 2 0.280
Year of education 2 0.033 20.027 2 0.381
Type of education 2 0.127 20.058 2 0.744
Type of university 2 0.229 20.086 2 1.072
Work experience 2 0.160 20.072 2 1.029
Entrepreneurial history 0.346 0.149 2.198 *
2 Step 2 0.052 0.053 * * 6.516 * *
Gender 2 0.077 20.035 2 0.522
Year of education 2 0.085 20.071 2 1.003
Type of education 2 0.133 20.060 2 0.791
Type of university 2 0.194 20.073 2 0.914
Work experience 2 0.242 20.109 2 1.574
Entrepreneurial history 0.331 0.142 2.146 *
SLF 0.81 0.072 1.077
PES 0.233 0.210 3.097 * *
3 Step 3 0.049 0.001 0.217
Gender 2 0.084 20.039 2 0.565
Year of education 2 0.087 20.072 2 1.018
Type of education 2 0.116 20.053 2 0.676
Type of university 2 0.186 20.070 2 0.868
Work experience 2 0.252 20.114 2 1.623
Entrepreneurial history 0.338 0.145 2.178 *
SLF 0.079 0.070 1.042
PES 0.238 0.215 3.126 * *
PES £ SLF 2 0.034 20.031 2 0.466
Notes: * Significant at p , 0.05; * * Significant at p , 0.01
Entrepreneurial
intention

hierarchical regression
analysis for H1 and H2
The results of
151

Table IV.
 33,2

152
JEIT

Table V.
The results of
hierarchical regression
analysis for H3 and H4
Unstandardized Standardized
Model Variable Adjusted R 2 R 2 change F change coefficients coefficients t

1 Step 1 20.006 0.031 1.221

2 Step 2 0.044 0.046 * * 5.571 * *
Gender 2 0.080 2 0.037 2 0.537 *
Year of education 2 0.035 2 0.029 2 0.412
Type of education 2 0.149 2 0.068 2 0.884
Type of university 2 0.260 2 0.098 2 1.228
Work experience 2 0.109 2 0.049 2 0.711
Entrepreneurial history 0.334 0.143 2.155 *
SLF 0.149 0.132 2.019 *
PSS 0.207 0.183 2.779 * *
3 Step 3 0.049 0.009 2.125
Gender 2 0.080 2 0.037 2 0.540
Year of education 2 0.036 2 0.029 2 0.418
Type of education 2 0.145 2 0.066 2 0.862
Type of university 2 0.255 2 0.096 2 1.205
Work experience 2 0.131 2 0.059 2 0.851
Entrepreneurial history 0.342 0.147 2.216
SLF 0.146 0.130 1.991 *
PSS 0.206 0.182 2.775 * *
PSS £ SLF 0.104 0.094 1.458
Notes: * Significant at p , 0.05; * * Significant at p , 0.01
Additionally, the moderator variable (b ¼ 0:132) is significant at the 0.05 level. PSS Entrepreneurial
(b ¼ 0:183) is also significant at the 0.05 level and this result provides support to H3. intention
In the third step, the interaction variable of PSS and SLF (PSS £ SLF) was
calculated and entered into the model. It is significant at 0.05 level and this result
provides a support to H4. However, the slight difference in R 2 between the second and
third steps indicates that the interaction variable explains only a small percentage of
the variation on entrepreneurial intention. 153
Table VI shows the results of hierarchical regression analyses for the fifth and sixth
hypotheses. In the second step, PRS and the level of self confidence were entered into
the model. However, both of them are statistically insignificant. Therefore, H5 is not
supported. In the third step, the interaction variable of PRS and self-confidence (PRS
£ SLF) was entered into the model. Since this variable is also statistically
insignificant, H6 is not confirmed by the analysis.

4. Limitations
The current study is subject to some limitations. Firstly, similar to the previous studies
in the literature, the study focuses on the intentionality. It is clear that intentions may
not turn into actual behaviors in the future. Therefore, even if one respondent stated a
high entrepreneurial intention in the survey, s/he might choose a completely different
career path in the future. In fact, it has been a common problem for almost all study in
the literature and currently there is no other accurate way to measure the tendency for
entrepreneurship. Therefore, the statements of respondents about their entrepreneurial
intention were taken as a reliable source of information. However, it might be more
useful to measure this variable through multiple items in order to reduce measurement
error in the further studies.
Since the collected data was based on the perceptions of the students, a second
limitation might appear on a possible difference between “perceptions” and “reality”.
Obviously, there is always a risk that the perceptions of students on outside world
might be different than the reality. The studies that aim to show such realities may
indicate that, for instance, the universities are successful to stimulate entrepreneurship
or financial system are supporting entrepreneurs sufficiently etc. These types of
studies are highly valuable to take a picture of entrepreneurial environment. However,
it is equally important to analyse how these given conditions are perceived by
entrepreneurs or potential entrepreneurs – even if they have limited knowledge of
outside world. The current study aims to understand the perceptions of students on the
context.
Another limitation is that some factors in the model were broadly defined and so
broadly measured in the survey. For instance, educational support factor were
measured through three broad statements, which assess the education support for
stimulating “creative ideas”, providing “knowledge about entrepreneurship”, and
developing “entrepreneurial skills and abilities”. The main reason of such broadness is
to increase the generalizability of the model and make it available for the use of new
studies in different contexts. When considering the variety of entrepreneurship
education in all around the world, it might be more reasonable to analyse the general
nature of entrepreneurship education, rather than focusing on a specific context. As it
is mentioned previously, there is a great variety among universities on the
entrepreneurial education – even in the same country (Gürol and Atsan, 2006, p. 27).
 33,2

154
JEIT

Table VI.
The results of
hierarchical regression
analysis for H5 and H6
Unstandardized Standardized
Model Variable Adjusted R 2 R 2 change F change coefficients coefficients t

1 Step 1 2 0.006 0.031 1.221

2 Step 2 0.011 0.014 1.652
Gender 20.039 20.018 2 0.256
Year of education 20.054 20.045 2 0.627
Type of education 20.152 20.069 2 0.884
Type of university 20.286 20.107 2 1.329
Work experience 20.168 20.076 2 1.081
Entrepreneurial history 0.358 0.154 2.276 *
SLF 0.135 0.120 1.750
PRS 0.002 0.002 0.032
3 Step 3 0.009 0.002 0.523
Gender 20.039 20.018 2 0.261
Year of education 20.054 20.045 2 0.629
Type of education 20.168 20.076 2 0.968
Type of university 20.286 20.107 2 1.325
Work experience 20.179 20.081 2 1.146
Entrepreneurial history 0.351 0.151 2.224 *
SLF 0.137 0.121 1.763
PRS 20.009 20.008 2 0.121
PRS £ SLF 20.056 20.049 2 0.723
Notes: * Significant at p , 0.05; * * Significant at p , 0.01
Since the data were collected from a sample which was drawn from only one country, Entrepreneurial
the results can be generalised only in this country. However, this limitation can be intention
overcome with further studies. In particular, studies conducted in different countries
may provide some cross-cultural differences and create new research questions.

5. Conclusions
The results of survey revealed that only two subsets of proposed model were 155
significant predictors of entrepreneurial intention. The first factor is educational
support that indicates mainly a supportive university environment. According to the
results, if a university provides adequate knowledge and inspiration for
entrepreneurship, the possibility of choosing an entrepreneurial career might
increase among young people. It is obvious that this result confirms the key role of
education in the development of entrepreneurial intention. Therefore, in the light of the
current study, it might be stated that entrepreneurship can be fostered as a result of a
learning process. This result is not only interesting from the theoretical point of view,
but it is also a challenge for the educators and policy-makers. Since entrepreneurial
activities are becoming vital to the economic development of a country, both of these
groups might focus on the design of more effective educational policies. Although there
is no consensus on the content and structure of entrepreneurship education, the
findings of current study showed that universities should, at least, “encourage the
development of creative ideas for being an entrepreneur”, “provide the necessary
knowledge about entrepreneurship”, and “develop the entrepreneurial skills”.
However, the strength of the link between educational support and entrepreneurial
intention was not affected by the level of self-confidence.
Second factor, which also emerged significant in the survey, is structural support. It
is obvious that fostering entrepreneurship requires a more comprehensive support
including the collaboration of all sectors in the society. Despite its weak explanatory
power, the analysis also showed that this type of structural support might affect
entrepreneurial intention of university students. One of the interesting results in the
study is the impact of moderating variable on the proposed link between perceived
structural support and entrepreneurial intention. The hypothesis test confirmed that
self-confident respondents perceive structural support more favourable than others. In
this case, the level of self-confidence might affect one’s perception on external
environment. Although the structural conditions are similar for everyone living in the
same context, the perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors might vary. Therefore, the
structural support for entrepreneurship is very significant to stimulate people to be an
entrepreneur.
Another interesting result of survey appears when comparing the explanatory
powers of educational and structural supports; the former has slightly higher beta
coefficient than the latter. In this case, educational support was perceived more
important than structural support. The possible reason for this result might be the
timing differences between these two support factors. It is clear that the main focus of
structural support is existing entrepreneurs in the economy. Although students are
currently aware of this support, they might think that this type of large scale supports
will affect them in the future. On the other hand, educational support might be
perceived as an immediate factor. Therefore, it is logical that the impact of educational
support was higher than structural support.
JEIT The third factor of model is perceived relational support. However, the result of
33,2 analysis indicated that entrepreneurial intention was not associated with this
dimension. In fact, this result is quite surprising for two reasons. Firstly, it might be
expected that social ties are significant for a person living in a collectivist culture, like
Turkey. Since people are more integrated into society, a career selection decision of a
young person might be influenced by family members and friends. Secondly, the
156 insufficient level of structural support in Turkey, when comparing with other
developed countries, might be also expected to increase the importance of relational
support – especially on the financial matters. However, the result of survey showed
that entrepreneurial intention of respondents was not affected by the support of their
family and friends. Therefore, there is a need for further studies to clarify that point of
the current study.
In the current study, only family and friends are considered in the context of
relational support. However, the growing literature on the mentoring emphasises the
effective roles and supports of professional people in many areas. As it is indicated by
Gregson (1994, p. 26), “mentoring is an attempt to transfer experience and expertise
from experienced individuals in an organization to the less experienced”. Since it is
quite difficult to find an entrepreneurship mentoring programme in Turkish
universities, which are in the infancy stage in entrepreneurial education, the peer and
mentoring supports were not considered in the current study. However, these relational
supports can be also effective ways of developing human resources at the higher
education (Jowett and Stead, 1994; Steward and Knowles, 2003). Therefore, it is
strongly suggested to consider such factors in the further studies. In concluding, policy
makers should give highest priority to the educational and structural supports to
generate the entrepreneurs of future. However, based on the discussion above, the
shortcomings of relational support might be overcome by designing and implementing
new teaching methods like entrepreneurship mentoring programmes as well.

References
Ajzen, I. (1987), “Attitudes, traits, and actions: dispositional prediction of behavior in personality
and social psychology”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 20, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-56.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Ang, S.H. and Hong, D.G.P. (2000), “Entrepreneurial spirit among East Asian Chinese”,
Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 285-309.
Autio, E., Keeley, R.H., Klofsten, M. and Ulfstedt, T. (1997), “Entrepreneurial intent among
students: testing an intent model in Asia, Scandinavia and USA”, Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, Babson Conference Proceedings, available at: www.babson.
edu/entrep/fer
Baumol, W.J. (1968), “Entrepreneurship in economic theory”, The American Economic Review,
Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 64-71.
Begley, T.M., Tan, W.L., Larasati, A.B., Rab, A. and Zamora, E. (1997), “The relationship
between socio-cultural dimensions and interest in starting a business: a multi-country
 study”, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson Conference Proceedings, available Entrepreneurial
at: www.babson.edu/entrep/fer/papers97/begley/beg.htm
intention
Bénabou, R. and Tirole, J. (2002), “Self-confidence and personal motivation”, The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, Vol. 117 No. 3, pp. 871-915.
Bird, B. (1988), “Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 442-53.
Bonnett, C. and Furnham, A. (1991), “Who wants to be an entrepreneur? A study of adolescents 157
interested in a young enterprise scheme”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 12,
pp. 465-78.
Brockhaus, R.H. (1980), “Risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 509-20.
Cooper, S., Bottomley, C. and Gordon, J. (2004), “Stepping out of the classroom and up the ladder
of learning: an experimental learning approach to entrepreneurship education”, Industry
and Higher Learning, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 11-22.
Cortina, J.M. (1993), “What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 98-104.
Galloway, L. and Brown, W. (2002), “Entrepreneurship education at university: a driver in the
creation of high growth firms?”, Education þ Training, Vol. 44 Nos 8/9, pp. 398-405.
Garavan, T.N. and O’Cinneide, B. (1994), “Entrepreneurship education and training programmes:
a review and evaluation – Part 1”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 18 No. 8,
pp. 3-12.
Gibb, A.A. (1993), “The enterprise culture and education: understanding enterprise education
and its links with small business, entrepreneurship and wider educational goals”,
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 11-34.
Gibb, A.A. (1996), “Entrepreneurship and small business management: can we afford to neglect
them in the twenty-first century business school?”, British Academy of Management,
Vol. 7, pp. 309-21.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) (2001), Executive Report, GEM, London Business
School, London.
Gorman, G. and Hanlon, D. (1997), “Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education,
enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten-year literature
review”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 56-78.
Gregson, K. (1994), “Mentoring”, Employee Counselling Today, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 26-7.
Gürol, Y. and Atsan, N. (2006), “Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students:
some insights for entrepreneurship education and training in Turkey”, Education þ
Training, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 25-38.
Harrison, R.T. and Leitch, C.M. (1994), “Entrepreneurship and leadership: the implications for
education and development”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 6,
pp. 111-215.
Henderson, R. and Robertson, M. (2000), “Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult
attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career”, Career Development International, Vol. 5 No. 6,
pp. 279-87.
Hills, G.E. (1988), “Variations in university entrepreneurship education: an empirical study of an
evolving field”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 3, pp. 109-22.
Hisrich, R.D. (1990), “Entrepreneurship/intrapreneurship”, American Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2,
pp. 209-22.
JEIT Johnson, B.R. (1990), “Toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: the case of
achievement motivation and the entrepreneur”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
33,2 Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 39-54.
Jowett, V. and Stead, R. (1994), “Mentoring students in higher education”, Education þ Training,
Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 20-6.
Kolvereid, L. and Moen, Ø. (1997), “Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in
158 entrepreneurship make a difference?”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 21
No. 4, pp. 154-60.
Krueger, N. (1993), “The impact of prior exposure to entrepreneurship on perceived new venture
feasibility and desirability”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 5-21.
Krueger, N. and Brazeal, D. (1994), “Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 91-104.
Krueger, N.J. and Carsrud, A. (1993), “Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned
behaviour”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 5, pp. 315-30.
Lee, S.M., Chang, D. and Lim, S. (2005), “Impact of entrepreneurship education: a comparative
study of the US and Korea”, The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
Vol. 1, pp. 27-43.
Liles, P.R. (1974), New Business Venture and the Entrepreneur, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Liñán, F. (2004a), “Educación empresarial y modelo de intenciones. Formación para un
empresariado de calidad”, PhD dissertation, Dpto. Economı́a Aplicada I, Universidad de
Sevilla, Sevilla.
Liñán, F. (2004b), “Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education”, Piccolla
Impresa/Small Business, No. 3, pp. 11-35.
Lüthje, C. and Franke, N. (2003), “The making of an entrepreneur: testing a model of
entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT”, R&D Management, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 135-47.
Parnell, J.A., Crandall, W.R. and Menefee, M. (1995), “Examining the impact of culture on
entrepreneurial propensity: an empirical study of prospective American and Egyptian
entrepreneurs”, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 39-52.
Reynolds, P.D. (1987), “New firms’ societal contribution versus survival potential”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 2, pp. 231-46.
Scott, M. and Twomey, D. (1988), “Long-term supply of entrepreneurs: student career aspirations
in relation to entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 5-13.
Shapero, A. (1982), Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. NJ.
Steward, J. and Knowles, V. (2003), “Mentoring in undergraduate business management
programmes”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 27 Nos 2/3/4, pp. 147-59.
Turker, D., Onvural, B., Kursunluoglu, E. and Pinar, C. (2005), “Entrepreneurial propensity: a field
study on the Turkish university students”, International Journal of Business, Economics
and Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 15-27.
Veciana, J.M., Aponte, M. and Urbano, D. (2005), “University attitudes to entrepreneurship: a two
countries comparison”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Management, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 165-82.
Vesper, K.H. and Gartner, W.B. (1997), “Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12, pp. 403-21.
Wang, C.K. and Wong, P.K. (2004), “Entrepreneurial interest of university students in Entrepreneurial
Singapore”, Technovation, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 163-72.
Wennekers, A.R.M. and Thurik, A.R. (1999), “Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth”,
intention
Small Business Economics, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 27-55.
Zahra, S.A. (1999), “The challenging rules of global competitiveness in the 21st century”,
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 36-42.
159
About the authors
Duygu Turker has an M.Sc degree in Environmental Sciences from Ankara University and an
MBA degree from Dokuz Eylul University. She is currently a lecturer at Yasar University and a
PhD candidate in Public Administration at Dokuz Eylul University. During the 2007-2008
academic year, she was a guest researcher at the University of Oslo and studied on a research
project with the support of the Research Council of Norway. Her research interests include
corporate social responsibility, business ethics, environmental management, and
entrepreneurship. Duygu Turker is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
duygu.turker@yasar.edu.tr and turkerduy@yahoo.com
Senem Sönmez Selcuk has a BSc degree in 2001 and MSc degree in 2004, from the Department
of Public Administration of Dokuz Eylul University. She is currently a PhD student in the
Department of Public Administration of Dokuz Eylul University. She is, also, a lecturer at Yasar
University. Her research interests include political sociology, identity, ethnic studies and
minority, and women entrepreneurship.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints