Next Article in Journal
Synthesis and Feature Selection-Supported Validation of Multidimensional Driving Cycles
Next Article in Special Issue
Sustainable Entrepreneurship: Good Deeds, Business, Social and Environmental Responsibility in a Market Experiment
Previous Article in Journal
Resource-Efficient Characterisation of Pit Latrine Sludge for Use in Agriculture
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Exit Strategy for the Definitional Elusiveness: A Three-Dimensional Framework for Social Entrepreneurship
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/su13094693
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Entrepreneurial Intention: A Gender Study in Business and Economics Students from Chile

by
Nicolás Contreras-Barraza
1,
Juan Felipe Espinosa-Cristia
1,
Guido Salazar-Sepulveda
2 and
Alejandro Vega-Muñoz
3,*
1
Facultad de Economía y Negocios, Universidad Andres Bello, 2531015 Viña del Mar, Chile
2
Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial–Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, 4090541 Concepción, Chile
3
Public Policy Observatory, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, 7500912 Santiago, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(9), 4693; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094693
Submission received: 31 March 2021 / Revised: 19 April 2021 / Accepted: 20 April 2021 / Published: 22 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social Entrepreneurship, Hybrid Organizations and Sustainability)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The study of entrepreneurial intention sheds new light on the complex dynamics of entrepreneurial behavior. This research contributes to the academic debate by examining the gap in studies on entrepreneurial intention in Latin America, considering the importance of gender differences and their effects on entrepreneurial intention. Thus, this study is a contribution to research on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) related to social equity, in the areas of quality education (SDG 4), gender equality (SDG 5), and inequalities reduction (SDG 10). To study gender entrepreneurial intention phenomena differences, researchers have taken refuge in the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and focused their analysis on a group of economics and business students from a coastal campus of a Chilean University. In a two-step methodological process, the authors verified the applicability of the entrepreneurial intention questionnaire (CIE) with the selected sample and then calculated entrepreneurial intention using the CIE instrument. Contrary to general literature results, the study shows that there are no significant gender differences in entrepreneurial intention levels. Furthermore, there is neither evidence for gender differences in any of the three entrepreneurial intention factors, i.e., (a) attitudes, (b) subjective norms, and (c) control of perceived behavior.

1. Introduction

Recent research on entrepreneurship education underscores the need for a better understanding of the complexity and dynamics of the entrepreneurial learning process. This research stream maintains that, in addition to understanding cognitive processes, the interaction between affective and conative constructs is essential to analyze entrepreneurial behavior [1,2,3,4,5]. The entrepreneurship phenomenon and the interest to know more about entrepreneurial characteristics have led researchers around the world to increase scientific production that tries to understand the factors and different dimensions of entrepreneurship [6,7] Among them, a fertile line of studies related to entrepreneurial intention. Literature defines entrepreneurial intention (EI) as the identification of the conviction to create a business and conscious planning for its realization in a future time [8].
Starting a business requires individuals to do planned work. Besides the individual’s value system, their culture, social, family, and educational environment can shape the desire to create or not create their own company [8]. However, given that the creation of companies involves the planning of behavior on the part of the individual, the literature has shown that the behavioral intention models; considering aspects about culture, social, educational, and family environment; are robust in this field of research on entrepreneurial intention [9]. In particular, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) [10,11], had been widely used in various areas to predict different types of behavioral intentions [12,13,14,15,16]. As many authors claim, TPB constitutes the most widely used model in the study of EI in different countries [17,18,19,20,21].
EI literature had been systematically measuring how individuals’ self-efficacy, subjective norm, and attitude explain entrepreneurial behavior. The present study inquiry is about one EI dimension related to EI, which is gender. There is countless research that has indicated the interest in studying the effect of gender on the entrepreneur intention [22,23,24,25,26]. Literature shows controversial results about the differences between male and female EI measures. The issue of gender EI differences had been tested for a variety of groups and individuals. Some studies indicate that there are gender differences in the propensity towards entrepreneurial activity and business initiatives [27,28]. For example, Tsui [29] demonstrates that women perceive a higher degree of fear of failure and a lower degree of self-efficacy than males in the USA and Belgium. Other studies, such as Wilson, Kickul, and Marlino [30] find gender effects on entrepreneurial self-efficacy examining in two sample groups of adolescents and adult Master of Business Administration (MBA) students [30], explain that the females present a higher level of self-efficacy that leads to a higher degree of EI.
Further, literature on entrepreneurship considers that university students conform to a community with high entrepreneurial potential [31]. Additionally, student samples are a good way to represent aspects of society’s potential entrepreneurial activities [32]. Considering differences in gender EI and the university student entrepreneurial potential, this study revisits the controversy about the effect that gender has on IE, measuring the result in the university community. Accordingly, this study seeks to answer the possible gender differences in entrepreneurial intention in a population of administration and economics students in Chile.
The study presents a case about a university coastal campus. This city, Viña del Mar, is well known for its level of tourism and entrepreneurship related to leisure in the summer seasons. Researchers applied an instrument developed by Rueda, Moriano, and Liñán [33]. This instrument measures IE using an entrepreneurial intention questionnaire (CIE). The sample surveyed corresponds to 435 economics and administration students in the city of Viña del Mar, belonging to a population of 867, with a response rate for the applied instrument of 50.17% undergraduate students of that study program at the headquarters of Andres Bello National University (UNAB). This university is a secular and private institution created in 1988 and which is characterized by admitting students of all creeds and diverse disciplines. The university has been classified as a massive university, oriented to undergraduate training, whose students come mainly from emerging social sectors [34,35,36]. It is important to mention that the administration and economics program has a national femininity index distributed by 45% of women and 55% of men [37,38].
Results show that there are no significant gender differences in entrepreneurial intention levels. Furthermore, there is no evidence for gender differences within any of three entrepreneurial intention factors, i.e., (a) attitudes, (b) subjective norms, and (c) control of perceived behavior.

2. Entrepreneurial Intention and Gender

2.1. Entrepreneurial Intention

The importance of IE lies in the fact that it is considered a prerequisite to entrepreneurial action [39]. The first model of entrepreneurial intentions within the framework of the entrepreneurship literature was the Entrepreneurial Event Model (EEM). Shapero and Sokol [40] proposed that there are a group of factors that need to be studied together with individual entrepreneur traits to understand the whole complexity of any intentional behavior. In their model, these authors propose that the desirability and feasibility with which an individual perceives the entrepreneurial event will impact their decision to start up. The model presents high importance to the desirability and feasibility of entrepreneurial action. If one perceives that the creation of a company is unfeasible, one can conclude that it is undesirable. In the same vein, by intuiting that it is undesirable, anyone may never come to consider it as a viable possibility. According to the authors, family, peer, educational, and professional contexts conditions desirability.
Some years later, Ajzen [10] proposed the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Since the TPB entrepreneurship, scholars have been using TPB widely and extensively [10]. According to the TPB, there are three elements: attitude towards behavior, subjective norms, and perception of control of behavior that shapes the intention. Both the EEM and the TPB have been empirically tested on numerous occasions and show significant power of prediction for entrepreneurial behavior [18]. TPB’s foundational idea is that humans plan their behavior, and such human behavior is preceded by individual intentions. Consequently, the intention is an accurate predictor of planned behavior [10].
Krueger and Carsrud [41] were pioneers in applying Azjen’s TPB in the field of entrepreneurship, which postulates that education and training can influence the perception and intentions of students towards entrepreneurship [10]. According to Krueger et al. [18], any individual entrepreneurial activity can be more accurately predicted by studying entrepreneurial intention (EI), rather than personality traits, demographic characteristics, or situational factors of entrepreneurs. EI is a psychological construction that precedes a behavior given at the individual level. The central factor in Azjen’s [10] model explains the level of intention that an individual presents to become an entrepreneur. The TPB holds that intentions are a function of three sets of factors: (a) attitudes, (b) subjective norms, and (c) control of perceived behavior. The attitude towards the behavior is a personal factor. Such attitude concerns the favorable or adverse evolution of the individual in the performance of the behavior. It refers to a person’s judgment as to whether performing a particular behavior is good or bad, or whether one is for or against it. Subjective norms or perceived social norms are individual’s perceptions about values, beliefs, and norms that people have whom they respect or consider essential, and the desire of individuals to comply with those norms [10,11]. Additionally, control over perceived behavior is the perception of the ability to perform some behavior. Control over perceived behavior also refers to the resources or opportunities available to a person, which, to some degree, should dictate the probability of achievement in the behavior.
Veciana [42] recognizes those different elements of the context that impact intention model variables. Expanding on the model of Krueger and Brazeal [43], Veciana [42] considers that environmental variables impact the individuals’ attitudes, and at the same time, play a moderating role in the influence of the potential intention of individuals that decide to create a company. The author concludes that such factors could be personal motivations, such as the desire for independence and personal fulfillment. Furthermore, some trigger events, already proposed by Shapero and Sokol [40], such as a dismissal or lack of promotion within a company can be environmental variables that influence intentions to create companies.

2.2. Entrepreneurial Intention and Entrepreneur Education

Entrepreneurship education (EE) is gaining recognition as a form of formal teaching within business and management studies [44]. In addition, there is a high interest in investigating its characteristics and nature [45,46]. While some studies indicate that EE is still in an initial stage as a field of research [47], others show a great interest in the research community to deepen its knowledge [45]. The main reason for considering EE as an incipient field of research is the significant heterogeneity of the definitions of entrepreneurship within the field of pedagogical sciences, without detracting from the relevance and importance of its study [7,45,46].
Furthermore, EE presents various curricular contents and different pedagogical ways of teaching entrepreneurship in university programs and courses [48,49]. Such heterogeneity in ways of teaching and the uses of different conceptualizations puts a challenge for research activity [44].
Additionally, EE is continuously evolving [50] and trying to generate knowledge about which are the best practices or the most effective teaching approaches for learning entrepreneurial skills. All in all, there is some consensus about the need for a rigorous and robust EE research program [51]. Relationships between educators, their beliefs, their students, and pedagogical actions used need further investigation [5,52]. Some argue that understanding EE philosophies, rather than focusing exclusively on pedagogical approaches appears to be highly relevant if one is looking for impact in the field [53]. In the same way, teaching intentions and actions are the results of the underlying beliefs that this group has about the philosophical paradigms about education [54], and the relevant theories of the disciplines they teach [55]. Consequently, the form in which researchers define entrepreneurship affects what educators teach in entrepreneurship workshops and courses [44,56].
Finally, the authors suggest that some educational variables in EE, such as pedagogical methods, teaching approaches, and the type of learning outcomes, can affect entrepreneurial intention [52]. In this vein, a research group in a German university tries to measure whether compulsory entrepreneurship courses affect entrepreneurial intention. Then, researchers used the responses of the ex-ante and ex-post surveys of the students using a questionnaire, finding that these courses positively and significantly affected their entrepreneurial intention [57]. Additionally, Krueger and Carsrud [41] and Fayolle and Liñán [58] highlighted that the TPB could be used to analyze how the different types of pedagogies (active and passive methodologies) in EE classes affect the level of business student intentions. Specifically, educational variables such as pedagogies and learning objectives in EE deserve more research on the effects of entrepreneurial intention and its antecedents on the student level [44].

2.3. Gender

The research focused on women entrepreneurs and their entrepreneurial development has increased in recent years as it is considered a potential source of sustainable development in economic and social matters [59]. There is a high stream of research that has indicated an interest in studying the effect of gender on EI [22,23,24,25,26]. Gender is a fundamental dimension of the sociocultural environment and can therefore be a possible determinant of EI and entrepreneurship more broadly. Despite the increase in the number of women entrepreneurs [60,61], some studies indicate that females present a lower propensity towards entrepreneurial activity and the start-up of new companies [27,28]. Some studies directly associate entrepreneurial intention with masculine traits [23,62,63]. Furthermore, some authors claim that female entrepreneurial intention is significantly lower than male entrepreneurship intention [64].
Reasons for the gender business and entrepreneurship gap are still not clearly understood [65]. A critical factor in such a gap could be individual perceptions, propensities, and entrepreneurial intentions [66]. Therefore, studying gender differences in entrepreneurial intentions and behavior could help researchers and policymakers to foresee reasons for that kind of lower entrepreneurship activities [67]. There may be discrepancies in different types of academic programs, whether business or not [68,69,70]. However, most of the research about entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurship presents a bias because it is based on cases in developed western countries, such as the US and the UK [71]. Likewise, a female stereotype that is far removed from the entrepreneurial spirit can be a major barrier to planning a venture in a developing country [72], and research that the training of female university students is very important for their entrepreneurial spirit [73]. Stereotypes and social perceptions of gender in each culture may not consider female entrepreneurship appropriate, this may cause female entrepreneurship to be less profitable, smaller, and less growth-oriented than those managed by men, as could be seen in the case of Chile and the United Arab Emirates [74,75,76,77,78].
Thus, according to the considerations previously presented by Gupta et al. [23], Wilson et al. [30], Rueda et al. [33], Krueger et al. [43], Norton et al. [54], Fayolle et al. [58], Sahinidis et al. [68], Ferri et al. [70], and Díaz-García et al. [77], it is possible for us to formulate the following hypothesis:
Hypotheses 1(H1).
There is no significant difference between male and female students of economics and management schools in the Entrepreneurial Intention.
On the other hand, as indicated by Krueger et al. [41], Ajzen [11], Wilson et al. [30], Rueda et al. [33], Gupta et al. [23], Norton et al. [54], Sahinidis et al. [68], Ferri et al. [70], and Yordanova et al. [78] allows us to formulate It allows us to formulate the hypothesis:
Hypotheses 2(H2).
There is no significant difference between male and female students of economics and administration schools in the Self-Efficacy.
In turn, what is pointed out by the authors Krueger et al. [41], Ajzen [11], Wilson et al. [30], Rueda et al. [33], Gupta et al. [23], Norton et al. [54], Sahinidis et al. [68], Ferri et al. [70] and Pincay et al. [79] make it possible to formulate the hypothesis:
Hypotheses 3(H3).
There is no significant difference between male and female students at the schools of economics and administration in the Attitude towards Entrepreneurship.
Finally, what is pointed out by Krueger et al. [41], Ajzen [11], Wilson et al. [30], Rueda et al. [33], Gupta et al. [23], Norton et al. [54], Sahinidis et al. [68], Ferri et al. [70] and Tarapuez et al. [80] allow us to formulate the following hypothesis:
Hypotheses 4(H4).
There is no significant difference between male and female students of economics and management schools in the Subjective Norm.

3. Methodology

Authors use the entrepreneurial intention questionnaire (CIE) to measure EI. Rueda, Moriano and Liñán [33] developed this EI measurement instrument [81] and validated their questionnaire for the Latin American context. Similarly, Laguía et al. [81] commented that CIE is widely used in various LA IE contemporary studies [82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89] (The complete questionnaire is in Appendix A). The authors applied the survey to 435 economic and business students in the city of Viña del Mar. Those students belong to a population of 867 undergraduate students from Andres Bello University located at Viña del Mar city.
The authors used SPSS 23 (IBM, New York, NY, USA) to analyze the 15-item CIE questionnaire. To measure confidence levels, the authors applied the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO). Moreover, the authors used Bartlett’s test of sphericity to identify items belonging to the three (3) factors within the scale as a form of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with extraction method, unweighted least squares (ULS), and rotation method, Oblimin with Kaiser normalization [90]. Then the authors analyzed the CIE factors utilizing a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with FACTOR software (see Appendix C) [91]. The authors used the Hull method for selecting the number of common factors [92], considering a dispersion matrix with polychoric correlations. Such polychoric correlations are a method for factor extraction unweighted least squares (ULS) and a rotation to achieve Normalized Direct Oblimin simplicity factor [93,94]. Before the measurement of normalized direct Oblimin simplicity factor, the authors calculated KMO and Bartlett’s test on the resulting factors [95,96]. The expected mean value of RMSR (root mean square residual) is equal to 0.0481 under Kelley’s criterion, it is acceptable for the model [96] (p. 146). Results were weighted by the set of eigenvalues, accounting for the entrepreneurial intention of the group of students analyzed [97] (p. 44). Authors compared each factor by gender differences.
Researchers produced a data set through the CIE survey and then analyzed it with cross tables, given the high presence of ordinal or categorical variables. Researchers used a non-parametric correlation coefficient tau-b (τb) of Kendall. Researchers use τb to measure the strength and direction with which two variables of these characteristics are associated. That is to measure the ordered range correlation without defining any sense of causality between those variables. Researchers selected a non-parametric alternative to Pearson’s correlation studies and Spearman’s rank-order non-parametric correlation coefficient [98]. The Tau-b test was applied, whose correlation is significant for a p-value at the 0.01 level -in 2 tails, statistically demonstrating an effect [99].

4. Results

After the exploratory factor analysis of the original 15 variables data set, researchers run an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The authors preserved 12 variables from their EFA. Authors use SPSS 23 to obtain a KMO of 0.816 and Bartlett’s test with a Chi-square of 1983.926 with 66 degrees of freedom and a significance level of 0.000 for the three factors CIE instrument. The authors achieved a 54.096% explained variance proportion (see Appendix B).
Additionally, the authors satisfactorily adapted the 12 variables analyzed data set for 12 variables to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with the use of the FACTOR software. The CFA obtained a KMO-Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin-equal to 0.82195 (>0.8) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity with a Chi-Square 2905.2 with 66 degrees of freedom and a significance level of 0.000010. Those results are significant and good enough to present the adequacy of the polychoric correlation matrix.
The Hull method for selecting the number of common factors, implemented with a goodness-of-fit index (GFI) with common part accounted for (CAF) and a method for dimensions’ extraction (ULS) where the cumulative percentage of variance explained by the three factors of 71.811%, a GFI = 0.997, Bentler’s simplicity index (S) = 0.99956, Loading simplicity index (LS) = 0.81608, Root Mean Square of Residuals (RMSR) = 0.0287.
The authors reduced the CIE questionnaire according to its latent variables in three factors. Those factors weighted by the set of eigenvalues account for the entrepreneurial intention of the group of students analyzed. Researchers compared each of these three factors by gender, Intention Entrepreneurship (see Table 1), Entrepreneurship Self-Efficacy (see Table 2), Attitude towards Entrepreneurship (see Table 3), and Subjective Norm (see Table 4).
Each subscript letter denotes a subset of gender categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level. An asymptotic standardized error of 0.046 implies not assuming the null hypothesis. Approximate T −0.540 using the asymptotic standard error implies assuming the null hypothesis. The approximate significance is 0.589.
Each subscript letter denotes a subset of gender categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level. An asymptotic standardized error of 0.045 implies not assuming the null hypothesis. Approximate T −0.921 using the asymptotic standard error implies assuming the null hypothesis. The approximate significance is 0.357.
Each subscript letter denotes a subset of gender categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level. An asymptotic standardized error of 0.047 implies not assuming the null hypothesis. Approximate T 0.297 using the asymptotic standard error implies assuming the null hypothesis. The approximate significance is 0.766.
Each subscript letter denotes a subset of gender categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level. The asymptotic standardized error is 0.046, therefore, not assuming the null hypothesis. Approximate T −1.338 using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. The approximate significance is 0.181.

5. Discussion

Entrepreneurial behavior, and more generally entrepreneurship, has long been a theoretical concern among economists and business scholars [100]. As Krueger et al. [18] argue, business intentions are one of the most important predictors of the new business behavior of individuals of both genders. The present research shows that there are no significant differences regarding gender entrepreneurial intention. Besides, there are no differences in the variables of self-efficacy, subjective norm, and entrepreneurial attitude, when measured by each gender. These findings reinforce some similar results in the literature on entrepreneurial intention [101,102,103,104].
Contrary to some literature findings, which have shown gender differences in entrepreneurial intentions for different countries and continents, this research presents non-significant differences. Studies have shown that EI in the US presents a positive orientation in men [105]. On the other hand, some studies in Asia and Africa have indicated that self-efficacy [106,107] presents a greater female entrepreneurial intention than in males. Furthermore, this study presents research results that are in contrast with those obtained from the GEM study, which has shown that the self-efficacy dimension presents higher levels in the case of the female gender within the measurement of entrepreneurial intention [42,108], showing progress in sustainable development linked to gender equality (SDG 5).
All in all, the analyzed data set show a higher entrepreneurial intention. The sample presents over 50% of EI for both genders. Such a result makes it possible to conjecture that education for entrepreneurship is an element that positively affects the level of entrepreneurial intention, as shown in the literature [5,109]. This effect may be related to the sample type, a sample that researchers selected in a business school. Furthermore, entrepreneurship classes could be affecting the level of business student intentions [41,57,58]. Authors agree with Fayolle [44] that research on educational variables such as pedagogies and learning objectives and their effects on gender differences with EI measures could be a fertile place for future research, deepening the effects of quality education (SDG 4) that improves gender equality (SDG 5) and, in general, allows for the reduction of inequalities (SDG 10).

6. Conclusions

The article contributes in three aspects, first, guided by the literature, it improves understanding of gender and its effects on Intention Entrepreneurship (see Table 1), Entrepreneurship Self-Efficacy (see Table 2), Attitude towards Entrepreneurship (see Table 3), and Subjective Norm (see Table 4). In which, it was found that there is neither evidence for gender differences in any of three entrepreneurial intention factors IE, attitudes, subjective norms, and control of perceived behavior, in economics and administration students from a Latin American country. Second, a political point of view, since in Latin America due to the different sociocultural influences, the role of women in society continues to evolve in people’s consciousness and where this study provides us with elements that put men on equal footing to the promotion and support of women in entrepreneurship. Finally, from a practical point of view, this study contributes to greater social sustainability, being able to be used as an argumentative basis for the creation of quality programs in entrepreneurial education (SDG 4) that achieves equal opportunities for men and women (SDG 5), eliminating gender differences in their entrepreneurship intention, and reinforcing equal access to opportunities generated by entrepreneurship in massive educational contexts that are oriented to socioeconomically emerging sectors (SDG 10).
In terms of limitations, the study shows a limited case and further research must be done to generalize researchers’ findings. Additionally, this paper’s results open further possibilities to raise questions about cultural factors that could explain differences between the case of this economics and business students and previous literature reports on gender IE differences in Latin American contexts and compare with other academic programs in different disciplines of knowledge and in various university contexts.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su13094693/s1, Table S1: IE_UNAB_VL.xlsx.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.C.-B. and G.S.-S.; methodology, A.V.-M. and J.F.E.-C.; software, A.V.-M.; validation, N.C.-B. and J.F.E.-C.; formal analysis, A.V.-M. and J.F.E.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, N.C.-B. and G.S.-S.; writing—review and editing, A.V.-M. and J.F.E.-C.; supervision, J.F.E.-C.; project administration, N.C.-B.; funding acquisition, G.S.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was partially funded by Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, but has not been submitted to an Institutional Review Board.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data Availability with Supplementary materials, according MDPI Research Data Policies.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Intention Entrepreunership Questionnaire.
Table A1. Intention Entrepreunership Questionnaire.
SpanishEnglish TranslationVariables
A. Crear una nueva empresa (ser emprendedor) para Ud. Significaría…A. To create a new company -being an entrepreneur- would mean
Enfrentarme a nuevos retos.Face new challengesV01: Attitude_towards_Entrep_1
Crear empleo para otras personas.Create employment for other people.V02: Attitude_towards_Entrep_2
Ser creativo e innovarBe creative and innovateV03: Attitude_towards_Entrep_3
Tener altos ingresos económicos.To earn a high economic income.V04: Attitude_towards_Entrep_4
Asumir riesgos calculados.Take calculated risks.V05: Attitude_towards_Entrep_5
Ser mi propio jefe (independencia).Be my own boss (economic independence).V06: Attitude_towards_Entrep_6
B. Por favor, indique hasta qué punto sería Ud. capaz de realizar eficazmente las siguientes tareas:B. Please indicate the extent to which you would be able to effectively perform the following tasks:
Definir mi idea de negocio y la estrategia de una nueva empresa.Define my business idea and the strategy of a new company.V07 Entrep_Self_Effic_1
Mantener bajo control el proceso de creación de una nueva empresaKeep the process of creating a new company under controlV08 Entrep_Self_Effic_2
Negociar y mantener relaciones favorables con potenciales inversores y bancos.Negotiate and maintain favorable relationships with potential investors and banks.V09 Entrep_Self_Effic_3
Reconocer oportunidades en el mercado para nuevos productos y/o servicios.Recognize opportunities in the market for new products and/or services.V10 Entrep_Self_Effic_4
Relacionarme con personas clave para obtener capital para crear una nueva empresa.Connect with key people to obtain capital to create a new company.V11 Entrep_Self_Effic_5
Crear y poner en funcionamiento una nueva empresa.Create and start a new company.V12 Entrep_Self_Effic_6
C. Por favor, piense ahora en sus familiares y amigos más cercanos. ¿En qué grado se mostrarían de acuerdo si decide emprender y crear su propia empresa?C. Please think about your closest family and friends now. To what degree would they agree if you decide to start and create your own business?
Mi familia directa (padres y hermanos).My direct family (parents and siblings).V13 Subjective_Norm_1
La de mis amigos íntimos.My close friends V14 Subjective_Norm_2
La de mis compañeros o colegas.My colleaguesV15 Subjective_Norm_3

Appendix B

Table
Table A2. Exploratory Factor Analysis.
Table A2. Exploratory Factor Analysis.
KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy0.816
Bartlett’s Test of SphericityApprox. Chi-Square1,983,926
df66
Sig0.000
Pattern Matrix a
Factor 1Factor 2Factor 3
Entrep_Self_Effic_20.798
Entrep_Self_Effic_30.768
Entrep_Self_Effic_60.735
Entrep_Self_Effic_40.729
Entrep_Self_Effic_50.692
Entrep_Self_Effic_10.610
Subjective_Norm_2 1.022
Subjective_Norm_1 0.644
Subjective_Norm_3 0.561
Attitude_towards_Entrep_1 0.791
Attitude_towards_Entrep_3 0.710
Attitude_towards_Entrep_2 0.589
Eigenvalues3.7351.8070.950
% of Variance31.12515.0567.915
Cumulative %31.12546.18154.096
Factor Correlation Matrix b
Factor123
110000.1710.379
20.17110000.351
30.3790.3511.000
a. Extraction Method: Unweighted Least Squares. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 4 iterations. b. Extraction Method: Unweighted Least Squares. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.

Appendix C

Adequacy of The Polychoric Correlation Matrix.
Determinant of the matrix = 0.001130355385301.
Bartlett’s statistic = 2905.2 (df = 66; P = 0.000010).
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test = 0.82195 (good).
Rotated Loading Matrix (loadings lower than absolute 0.300 omitted).
Table
Table A3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Table A3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
VariableF1F2F3
V01 0.825
V02 0.738
V03 0.758
V070.665
V080.823
V090.809
V100.771
V110.723
V120.773
V13 0.769
V14 0.995
V15 0.714
Eigenvalues4.9422.3441.331
% of Variance41.1919.5411.09
Cumulative %41.1960.7271.81
Inter-Factors Correlation Matrix
FactorF1F2F3
11.000
20.2261.000
30.4200.4301.000

References

  1. Collins, L.A.; Smith, A.J.; Hannon, P.D. Applying a Synergistic Learning Approach in Entrepreneurship Education. Manag. Learn. 2006, 37, 335–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gibb, A. In Pursuit of a New Entrepreneurial Paradigm for Learning: Creative Destruction, New Values, New Ways of Doing Things and New Combination of Knowledge. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2002, 4, 233–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Krueger, N.F. What lies beneath? The experiential essence of entrepreneurial thinking. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2007, 31, 123–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mitchell, R.K.; Busenitz, L.; Bird, B.; Gaglio, C.; McMullen, J.; Morse, E.; Smith, J. The central question in entrepreneurial cognition research. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2007, 31, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pittaway, L.; Cope, J. Entrepreneurship Education A Systematic Review of the Evidence. Int. Small Bus. J. 2007, 25, 479–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Global Report 2017/2018; Global Entrepreneurship Research Association and London Business School: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  7. Contreras-Barraza, N.; Espinosa-Cristia, J.F.; Salazar-Sepulveda, G.; Vega-Muñoz, A.; Ariza-Montes, A. A Scientometric Systematic Review of Entrepreneurial Wellbeing Knowledge Production. Front. Psychol. Rev. 2021, 12, 641465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Soria-Barreto, K.; Zuniga-Jara, S.; Ruiz-Campo, S. Educación e Intención Emprendedora en Estudiantes Universitarios: Un Caso de Estudio. Form. Univ. 2016, 9, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Lortie, J.; Castogiovanni, G. The theory of planned behavior in entrepreneurship research: What we know and future directions. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2015, 11, 935–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ajzen, I. Theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychol. Health 2011, 26, 1113–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Furdui, A.; Lupu-Dima, L.; Edelhauser, E. Implications of Entrepreneurial Intentions of Romanian Secondary Education Students, over the Romanian Business Market Development. Processes 2021, 9, 665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Peng, H.; Li, B.; Zhou, C.; Sadowski, B.M. How Does the Appeal of Environmental Values Influence Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intention? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ruzzier, M.; Douglas, E.J.; Ruzzier, M.K.; Hojnik, J. International Entrepreneurial Orientation and the Intention to Internationalize. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Müller, J.; Acevedo-Duque, Á.; Müller, S.; Kalia, P.; Mehmood, K. Predictive Sustainability Model Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior Incorporating Ecological Conscience and Moral Obligation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Armitage, C.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Meta-Analytic Review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 40, 471–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Autio, E.; Keeley, R.H.; Klofsten, M.; Parker, G.G.C.; Hay, M. Entrepreneurial intent among students in Scandinavia and in the USA. Enterp. Innov. Manag. Stud. 2001, 2, 145–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Krueger, N.F.; Reilly, M.D.; Carsrud, A.L. Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. J. Bus. Ventur. 2000, 15, 411–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liñán, F.; Fayolle, A. A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: Citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2015, 11, 907–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Moriano, J.A.; Gorgievski, M.; Laguna, M.; Stephan, U.; Zarafshani, K. A cross-cultural approach to understanding entrepreneurial intention. J. Career Dev. 2012, 39, 162–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Thompson, E.R. Individual Entrepreneurial Intent: Construct Clarification and Development of an Internationally Reliable Metric. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2009, 33, 669–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ruiz-Navarro, J.; Camelo, C.; Coduras, A. Mujer y desafío emprendedor en España. Características y determinantes. Econ. Ind. 2012, 383, 13–22. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gupta, V.K.; Turban, D.B.; Arzu Wasti, S.; Sikdar, A. The Role of Gender Stereotypes in Perceptions of Entrepreneurs and Intentions to Become an Entrepreneur. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2009, 33, 397–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Reynolds, P.; Bosma, N.; Autio, E.; Hunt, S.; De Bono, N.; Servais, I.; Lopez-Garcia, P.; Chin, N. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Data Collection Design and Implementation 1998–2003. Small Bus. Econ. 2005, 24, 205–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gatewood, E.; Carter, N.M.; Brush, C.G.; Greene, P.G.; Hart, M.M. Women Entrepreneurs, Their Ventures, and the Venture Capital Industry: An Annotated Bibliography; Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  26. Brush, C.G. Women-owned businesses: Obstacles and opportunities. J. Dev. Entrep. 1997, 2, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  27. García-Aramayo, A.; Contreras-Espinosa, R.S. Mujeres empresarias en internet. 3C Empresa 2014, 3, 147–159. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ortiz-García, P. El discurso sobre el emprendimiento de la mujer desde una perspectiva de género. Vivat Acad. 2017, 140, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Tsui, M. Gender and mathematics achievement in China and the United States. Gend. Issues 2007, 24, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wilson, F.; Kickul, J.; Marlino, D. Gender, entrepreneurial self–efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2007, 31, 387–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sánchez, J.; Lanero, A.; Yurrebaso, A. Variables determinantes de la intención emprendedora en el contexto universitario. Rev. Psicol. Soc. Apli. 2005, 15, 37–60. [Google Scholar]
  32. Harrison, G.W.; List, J.A. Field experiments. J. Econ. Lit. 2004, 42, 1009–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rueda, S.; Moriano, J.A.; Liñán, F. Validating a Theory of Planned Behavior Questionnaire to Measure Entrepreneurial Intentions; Fayolle, A., Kyrö, P., Liñán, F., Eds.; Developing, Shaping and Growing Entrepreneurship; Edward Elgar: London, UK, 2015; pp. 60–78. [Google Scholar]
  34. Muñoz, M.; Blanco, C. Taxonomy of Chilean Universities. Calid. Educ. 2013, 181–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rodríguez-Ponce, E.; Gaete-Feres, H.; Pedraja-Rejas, L.; Araneda-Guirriman, C. An approach toward a classification of Chilean higher education institutions. Ingeniare Rev. Chil. Ing. 2015, 23, 328–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Fernández-Darraz, E. Public policy, market and institutional diversity: The complexity of classifying higher education institutions. The Chilean case. Innovar 2018, 28, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. National Education Council—Chile. Undergraduate (2005–2020) and Graduate (2005–2019) Database by Program. The File Contains Information on: Enrollment, Vacancies, Fees and University Selection Test (PSU). Available online: https://www.cned.cl/sites/default/files/baseindices_2005-2020.xlsx (accessed on 18 April 2021).
  38. Rodriguez-Garces, C.; Castillo-Riquelme, V. Professional stock, educational efficiency and segmentation: Process analysis of professional training in Chile. Civilizar 2015, 15, 183–196. Available online: http://ref.scielo.org/5vfs76 (accessed on 18 April 2021). [CrossRef]
  39. Elfving, J. Contextualizing Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Multiple Case Study on Entrepreneurial Cognition and Perception; Abo Akademi University Press: Turku, Finland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  40. Shapero, A.; Sokol, L. The social dimension of entrepreneurship. In Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship; Kent, C.A., Sexton, D.L., Vesper, K.H., Eds.; Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 1982; pp. 72–90. [Google Scholar]
  41. Krueger, N.; Carsrud, A.L. Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behaviour. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 1993, 5, 315–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Veciana, J.M. La Creación de Empresas: Un Enfoque Gerencial; La Caixa: Barcelona, Spain, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  43. Krueger, N.F.; Brazeal, D. Entrepreneurial Potential and Potential Entrepreneurs. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1994, 18, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fayolle, A. Personal Views on the Future of Entrepreneurship Education. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2013, 25, 692–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ratten, V.; Usmanij, P. Entrepreneurship education: Time for a change in research direction? Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2020, 19, 100367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sirelkhatim, F.; Gangi, Y. Entrepreneurship education: A systematic literature review of curricula contents and teaching methods. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2015, 2, 1052034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Haase, H.; Lautenschläger, A. The Teachability Dilemma of Entrepreneurship. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2011, 7, 145–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. McMullan, W.E.; Long, W.A. Entrepreneurship Education in the Nineties. J. Bus. Ventur. 1987, 2, 261–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Neck, H.M.; Greene, P.G. Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2011, 49, 55–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Maritz, A.; Brown, C. Illuminating the black box of entrepreneurship education programs. Educ. Train. 2013, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kyrö, P. A theoretical framework for teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Int. J. Bus. Global. 2008, 2, 39–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fayolle, A.; Benoît, G. From Craft to Science: Teaching Models and Learning Processes in Entrepreneurship Education. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 2008, 32, 569–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kember, D. A Reconceptualisation of the Research into University Academics Conceptions of Teaching. Learn Instr. 1997, 7, 255–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Norton, L.; Richardson, J.; Hartley, J.; Newstead, S.; Mayes, J. Teachers’ Beliefs and Intentions Concerning Teaching in Higher Education. High. Educ. 2005, 50, 537–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Béchard, J.P.; Grégoire, D. Entrepreneurship Education Research Revisited: The Case of Higher Education. Acad. Manag. Learn. Innov. 2005, 4, 22–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Matlay, H.; Hannon, P.D. Teaching pigeons to dance: Sense and meaning in entrepreneurship education. Educ. Train. 2006, 48, 296–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Von Graevenitz, G.; Weber, R.; Harhoff, D. The Effects of Entrepreneurship Education. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2010, 76, 90–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Fayolle, A.; Liñán, F. The Future of Research on Entrepreneurial Intentions. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 67, 663–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Akter, M.; Rahman, M.; Radicic, D. Women entrepreneurship in international trade: Bridging the gap by bringing feminist theories into entrepreneurship and internationalization theories. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. De Bruin, A.; Brush, C.G.; Welter, F. Introduction to the special issue: Towards building cumulative knowledge on women’s entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2006, 30, 585–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Thebaud, S. Gender and Entrepreneurship as a Career Choice: Do Self-Assessments of Ability Matter? Soc. Psychol. Quart. 2010, 73, 288–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Ahl, H. Why Research on Women Entrepreneurs Needs New Directions. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2006, 30, 595–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Lewis, P. The Quest for Invisibility: Female Entrepreneurs and the Masculine Norm of Entrepreneurship. Gend. Work. Organ. 2006, 13, 453–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Langowitz, N.; Minniti, M. The Entrepreneurial Propensity of Women. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2007, 31, 341–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Arenius, P.; Minniti, M. Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Bus. Econ. 2005, 24, 233–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Koellinger, P.; Minniti, M.; Schade, C. Gender Differences in Entrepreneurial Propensity. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 2011, 75, 213–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Ljunggren, E.; Kolvereid, L. New Business Formation: Does Gender Make a Difference? Women Manag. Rev. 1996, 11, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sahinidis, A.; Giovanis, A.; Sdrolias, L. The role of gender on entrepreneurial intention among students: An empirical test of the theory of planned behavior in a greek university. Int. J. Integr. Inf. Manag. 2012, 1, 61–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Van Ewijk, A.R.; Belghiti-Mahut, S. Context, gener and entrepreneurial education changes the equation. Int. J. Gend. Entrep. 2019, 11, 75–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ferri, L.; Ginesti, G.; Spanò, R.; Zampella, A. Exploring the Entrepreneurial Intention of Female Students in Italy. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex 2018, 4, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Ahl, H. The construction of the female entrepreneur as the other. In Casting the Other: The Production and Maintenance of Inequalities in Work Organizations; Czarniawska, B., Höpfl, H., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2002; pp. 52–67. [Google Scholar]
  72. Pandit, D.; Joshi, M.P.; Tiwari, S.R. Examining Entrepreneurial Intention in Higher Education: An Exploratoy Study of College Students in India. J. Entrep. 2018, 27, 25–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Azis, M.; Maulana Haeruddin, M.I.; Azis, F. Entreprenuership Education and Career Intention: The Perks of being a Woman Student. J. Entrep. Educ. 2018, 21, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  74. Naranjo, C. Gender Inequalities in Women’s Entrepreneurship and Business. Rev. Trab. Soc. 2019, 3–12. Available online: http://redae.uc.cl/index.php/RTS/article/view/2574 (accessed on 18 April 2021).
  75. Chen, C.C.; Greene, P.G.; Crick, A. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? J. Bus. Ventur. 1998, 13, 295–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chowdhury, S.; Endres, M. Gender Difference and the Formation of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy; 2005. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary;jsessionid=1F647A5DE6738C98DD24BE2506950893?doi=10.1.1.540.3341 (accessed on 18 April 2021).
  77. Díaz-García, M.C.; Jiménez-Moreno, J. Entrepreneurial intention: The role of gender. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2010, 6, 261–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Yordanova, D.; Tarrazon, M.A. Gender differences in entrepreneurial intentions: Evidence from Bulgaria. J. Dev. Entrep. 2010, 15, 245–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pincay-Gonzalez, J.B.; Peñarreta-Barrera, E.E. Análisis de la Intención Emprendedora en Jóvenes y Determinantes del Entorno Económico y Social para la Creación de Emprendimientos Exitosos en Guayaquil-Ecuador al año 2018. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universidad de Guayaquil, Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  80. Tarapuez-Chamorro, E.; Parra-Hernández, R.; Gil-Giraldo, A. Social Norms and Entrepreneurial Intention in University Researchers in Colombia. Cuad. Adm. 2020, 36, 118–131. [Google Scholar]
  81. Laguía, A.; Moriano, J.A.; Molero, F.; Gámez, J.A. Validación del Cuestionario de Intención Emprendedora en una muestra de estudiantes universitarios de Colombia. Univ. Psychol. 2017, 16, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Gálvez-Albarracín, E.J.; Guauña-Aguilar, R.A.; Pérez-Uribe, R.I. Impacto de la norma social subjetiva en la intención de emprendimiento sostenible: Un caso de estudio con estudiantes colombianos. Rev. Esc. Adm. Neg. 2018, 57–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Restrepo, J.; Gálvez-Albarracín, E.J.; Guauña-Aguilar, R.A. Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intention: Case Study in an Intermediate City of Colombia. Int. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 18, 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Siles-Nates, M.M. Análisis de los Factores de Intención Emprendedora, Propuesta de Modelo; Postgrado. Universidad Peruana Unión: Lima, Perú, 2020. Available online: http://repositorio.upeu.edu.pe/handle/UPEU/3255 (accessed on 18 April 2021).
  85. Galleguillos-Cortés, C.; Escobar-Burgos, B.; Hurtado-Cailly, R. Predictores de la Intención Emprendedora en Alumnos de Pregrado: Un Modelo Basado en Ecuaciones Estructurales. Form. Univ. 2019, 12, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Escobar-Quinteros, M.M. La Inteligencia Emocional y su Influencia en la Intención de Emprendimiento en los Estudiantes de la Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales de la Universidad Privada de Tacna, Periodo 2018. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universidad Privada de Tacna, Tacna, Peru, 2019. Available online: http://repositorio.upt.edu.pe/handle/UPT/835 (accessed on 18 April 2021).
  87. Espinoza-Alcívar, E.I.; Jimber-Del-Río, J.A.; Casas-del-Rosal, J.C.; Ceular-Villamandos, N. Análisis de la intención emprendedora en estudiantes universitarios: Validación de la teoría de acción planificada. Rev. Cient. Ecocienc. 2019, 6, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Cortez, P.; Filho, N. Instrumentos de Evaluación de Intención Emprendedora: Una Revisión de Literatura. Cuad. Lat. Adm. 2020, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Gálvez-Albarracín, É.J.; Guauña-Aguilar, R.A.; Ravina-Ripoll, R. Actitud e intención emprendedora en estudiantes de administración de empresas y de contaduría pública. Rev. Univ. Empresa 2020, 22, 79–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Lloret-Segura, S.; Ferreres-Traver, A.; Hernández-Baeza, A.; Tomás-Marco, I. Exploratory Item Factor Analysis: A practical guide revised and up-dated. An. Psicol. 2014, 30, 1151–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ferrando, P.J.; Lorenzo-Seva, U. Program FACTOR at 10: Origins, development and future directions. Psicothema 2017, 29, 236–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Lorenzo-Seva, U.; Timmerman, M.E.; Kiers, H.A.L. The Hull method for selecting the number of common factors. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2011, 46, 340–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Bentler, P.M. Factor simplicity index and transformations. Psychometrika 1977, 59, 567–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lorenzo-Seva, U. A factor simplicity index. Psychometrika 2003, 68, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Harman, H.H. Modern Factor Analysis, 2nd ed.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1962. [Google Scholar]
  96. Kelley, T.L. Essential Traits of Mental Life. Harv. Stud. Educ. 1935, 26, 146. [Google Scholar]
  97. Véliz-Capuñay, C. Analisis Multivariante: Métodos Estadísticos Multivariantes para la Investigación, 1st ed.; Cengage Learning: Cuidad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2016; p. 208. [Google Scholar]
  98. Hernández-Sampieri, R.; Fernández-Collado, C.; Baptista-Lucio, P. Metodología de la Investigación, 6th ed.; McGraw-Hill: México D.F, Mexico, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  99. Romero-Suárez, N. La revolución en la toma de decisiones estadísticas: El p-valor. Telos 2012, 14, 439–446. [Google Scholar]
  100. Sullivan, D.; Meek, W. Gender and entrepreneurship: A review and process model. J. Manag. Psychol. 2012, 27, 428–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. BarNir, A.; Watson, W.E.; Hutchins, H.M. Mediation and Moderated Mediation in the Relationship among Role Models, Self-Efficacy, Entrepreneurial Career Intention, and Gender. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 41, 270–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Carr, J.C.; Sequeira, J.M. Prior Family Business Exposure as Intergenerational Influence and Entrepreneurial Intent: A Theory of Planned Behavior Approach. J. Bus. Res. 2007, 60, 1090–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Fernandez, J.; Linan, F.; Santos, F.J. Cognitive Aspects of Potential Entrepreneurs in Southern and Northern Europe: An Analysis Using Gem-Data. Rev. Econ. Mund. 2009, 23, 151–178. [Google Scholar]
  104. Zellweger, T.; Sieger, P.; Halter, F. Should I Stay or Should I Go? Career Choice Intentions of Students with Family Business Background. J. Bus. Vent. 2011, 26, 521–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Özarallı, N.; Rivenburgh, N. Entrepreneurial intention: Antecedents to entrepreneurial behavior in the U.S.A. and Turkey. J. Glob. Entrep. Res. 2016, 6, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Ephrem, A.N.; Namatovu, R.; Basalirwa, E.M. Perceived social norms, psychological capital and entrepreneurial intention among undergraduate students in Bukavu. Educ. Train. 2013, 61, 963–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Botha, M.; Bignotti, A. Exploring moderators in the relationship between cognitive adaptability and entrepreneurial intention: Findings from South Africa. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2017, 13, 1069–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Wannamakok, W.; Chang, Y.Y. Understanding nascent women entrepreneurs: An exploratory investigation into their entrepreneurial intentions. Gend. Manag. Int. J. 2020, 35, 553–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Martin, B.C.; Mcnally, J.J.; Kay, M.J. Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. J. Bus. Ventur. 2013, 28, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Crosstab Scale IE and Gender.
Table 1. Crosstab Scale IE and Gender.
Scale_IEGenderTotal
MaleFemale
High_IECount140 a87 a227
Expected Count143.084.0227.0
% within Gender51.1%54.0%52.2%
Medium_IECount59 a33 a92
Expected Count57.934.192.0
% within Gender21.5%20.5%21.1%
Low_IECount75 a41 a116
Expected Count73.142.9116.0
% within Gender27.4%25.5%26.7%
TotalCount274161435
Expected Count274.0161.0435.0
% within Gender100.0%100.0%100.0%
a. denotes a subset of Gender categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level.
Table
Table 2. Crosstab Scale ESE and Gender.
Table 2. Crosstab Scale ESE and Gender.
Scale_ESEGenderTotal
MaleFemale
High_ESECount137 a85 a222
Expected Count139.882.2222.0
% within Gender50.0%52.8%51.0%
Medium_ESECount71 a33 a104
Expected Count65.538.5104.0
% within Gender25.9%20.5%23.9%
Low_ESECount66 a43 a109
Expected Count68.740.3109.0
% within Gender24.1%26.7%25.1%
TotalCount274161435
Expected Count274.0161.0435.0
% within Gender100.0%100.0%100.0%
a. denotes a subset of Gender categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level.
Table
Table 3. Crosstab Scale AtE and Gender.
Table 3. Crosstab Scale AtE and Gender.
SchemeGenderTotal
MaleFemale
High_AtECount125 a78 a203
Expected Count127.975.1203.0
% within Gender45.6%48.4%46.7%
Low_AtECount99 a42 b141
Expected Count88.852.2141.0
% within Gender36.1%26.1%32.4%
Medium_AtECount50 a41 a91
Expected Count57.333.791.0
% within Gender18.2%25.5%20.9%
TotalCount274161435
Expected Count274.0161.0435.0
% within Gender100.0%100.0%100.0%
a. denotes a subset of Gender categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Table
Table 4. Crosstab Scale SN and Gender.
Table 4. Crosstab Scale SN and Gender.
Scale_SNGenderTotal
MaleFemale
High_SNCount105 a76 a181
Expected Count114.067.0181.0
% within Gender38.3%47.2%41.6%
Low_SNCount100 a46 a146
Expected Count92.054.0146.0
% within Gender36.5%28.6%33.6%
Medium_SNCount69 a39 a108
Expected Count68.040.0108.0
% within Gender25.2%24.2%24.8%
TotalCount274161435
Expected Count274.0161.0435.0
% within Gender100.0%100.0%100.0%
a. denotes a subset of Gender categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Contreras-Barraza, N.; Espinosa-Cristia, J.F.; Salazar-Sepulveda, G.; Vega-Muñoz, A. Entrepreneurial Intention: A Gender Study in Business and Economics Students from Chile. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094693

AMA Style

Contreras-Barraza N, Espinosa-Cristia JF, Salazar-Sepulveda G, Vega-Muñoz A. Entrepreneurial Intention: A Gender Study in Business and Economics Students from Chile. Sustainability. 2021; 13(9):4693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094693

Chicago/Turabian Style

Contreras-Barraza, Nicolás, Juan Felipe Espinosa-Cristia, Guido Salazar-Sepulveda, and Alejandro Vega-Muñoz. 2021. "Entrepreneurial Intention: A Gender Study in Business and Economics Students from Chile" Sustainability 13, no. 9: 4693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094693

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop