Keywords

Authoring tools and methods; computer-mediated communication; cross-cultural projects; interdisciplinary project, multimedia/hypermedia system.

Introduction

Although research on entrepreneurship education (EE) is burgeoning across the globe (e.g., Fayolle, Gailly & Lassas-Clerc, 2006; Souitaris, Zerbinati & Al-Laham, 2007), innovative contributions using multimedia (e.g., Béchard & Grégoire, 2005) and inspirational storytelling (e.g., Godsey & Sebora, 2009) have been relatively neglected in this field. While EE literature reviews by Lorz, Mueller & Volery (2013) and Mason and Siqueira (2014) have highlighted how the impact of different pedagogical instruments varies across studies on EE, evaluations of entrepreneurial educational initiatives remain inconsistent (Bae, Qian, Miao & Fiet, 2014; Lorz, Mueller & Volery, 2013; Rideout & Gray, 2013). Several such assessments have indicated the positive impact of EE courses (e.g., Fayolle, Gailly & Lassas-Clerc, 2006; Peterman & Kennedy, 2003; Souitaris, Zerbinati & Al-Laham, 2007), but other researchers such as Oosterbeek, van Praag, and Ijsselstein (2010) emphasize their lack of significant effects. For this reason, there is a need for more research concentrating on impactful pedagogical designs.

Narratives and storytelling can inspire, engage, and encourage through the articulation of knowledge and the cooperative sharing of and reflection on experiences between individuals. However, though research on EE literature has yet to consider the impact of entrepreneurs presenting their stories via multimedia. Few studies have addressed the use of narratives in EE (e.g., Fletcher & Watson, 2007; Godsey & Sebora, 2009; Harmeling & Sarasvathy, 2013). There is evidence that building an entrepreneurial identity is a key element in becoming a successful entrepreneur, and that this identity is developed through inspiration and engagement with peers (Falck, Heblich & Luedemann, 2012; Obschonka, Goethner, Silbereisen & Cantner, 2012). Engagement with entrepreneurs’ experiences improves legitimacy (Clarke, 2011; Essers & Benschop, 2007; Wry, Lounsbury & Glynn, 2011), and these experiences can be communicated in EE through a narrative or storytelling approach (Boje & Smith, 2010; Down & Warren, 2008; Fletcher & Watson, 2007; Johansson, 2004; Linstead & Hytti, 2005; Matlay & Harmeling, 2011; Rae, 2005). Verbal interaction and collaboration in the course of EE initiatives facilitates the development of an entrepreneurial identity (Donnellon, Ollila & Middleton, 2014). However, the impact of web-based multimedia entrepreneurial stories has not been evaluated, which is the primary aim of the present study.

More than ten years ago, Kuratko’s (2003, 2005) contributions on the development, trends, and challenges in EE stressed the importance of innovation-driven approaches and designs. Kuratko emphasized that progress in this area depended on continuously expanding the range of applied tactics and pedagogies. In line with the recommendations of Kuratko and other EE authors (e.g., Solomon, Duffy & Tarabishy, 2002; Lautenschläger & Haase, 2011), as well as the European Commission (2013), this study assesses the impact of promoting entrepreneurial stories using the narrative storytelling method, in which successful entrepreneurs, via multimedia, offer inspiring insights into their past and present.

Prior research has demonstrated that opinions and behaviors communicated by others can influence an individual’s (potential) entrepreneurial decisions (Ajzen, 1991; Akerlof & Kranton, 2000). Having a role model can significantly stimulate one’s career ambitions (Douglas & Shepherd, 2002; Krueger, Reilly & Carsrud, 2000; Scherer, Adams & Wiebe, 1989; Scherer, Adams, Carley & Wiebe, 1989). A role model is an individual who has the ability to inspire, stimulate, and encourage others to engage in a given activity in this case, entrepreneurship (Shapiro, 1987; Wright, Wong & Newill, 1997). Evidence suggests approximately 35%–70% of entrepreneurs were influenced by entrepreneurial role models when starting their ventures (Scherer, Adams & Wiebe, 1989). For present purposes, we build on two fundamental theories: the theory of planned behavior (TPB) as initially proposed by Ajzen (1991) and social learning theory (Bandura, 1977; 1986), emphasizing the impact of observing others on behavior. Thus, this study also builds on Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1977) theory of reasoned action, which was the predecessor to TPB.

For several decades, researchers in entrepreneurship have explored passion and its influence (Baum, Locke & Smith, 2001; 2004; Breugst, Domurath, Patzelt & Klaukien, 2012; Cardon, 2008; Cardon, Gregoire, Stevens & Patel, 2013; Cardon & Kirk, 2015; Shane, Locke & Collins, 2003), stressing the positive role of passion in higher-level entrepreneurial effort and growth (Baum, Locke & Smith, 2001; Drnovsek, Cardon & Patel, 2016; Murnieks, Mosakowski & Cardon, 2014). However, although the influence of entrepreneurial role models has been assumed, scholars such as Gibson (2004) and Bosma, Hessels, Schutjens, Van Praag, and Verheul (2012) have stressed the need for more research in this area. On that basis, the present study uses a pretest-posttest research design to explore whether and how multimedia, as an EE teaching device, can convey the contagious passion of entrepreneurial role models. Based on prior studies of the use of computers in EE (e.g., Chang & Lee, 2013; Drent & Meelissen, 2008; Ngai, 2007), we expect this new multimedia approach to prove itself an instrumental teaching tool, boosting entrepreneurial intention through transferred entrepreneurial passion. By evaluating this form of multimedia storytelling in three European countries (Austria, Finland, and Greece) we will contribute to the growing discussion of the value of entrepreneurial passion in EE. These innovative perspectives on the entrepreneurial spirit in different disciplines will illuminate and enrich the multi-faceted domain of EE. The following research question is addressed:

“Do entrepreneurial role models have a positive impact on entrepreneurial intention mediated by entrepreneurial passion in a web- and computer-based educational setting?”

This study centers on the impact of entrepreneurial role models on entrepreneurial passion, which also is expected to influence entrepreneurial intention. Based on 426 individuals, results reveal the significant direct and indirect effects of entrepreneurial role models on entrepreneurial intention, mediated by entrepreneurial passion. Drawing on the TPB and social learning theory, this study confirms both the positive impact of entrepreneurial role models and significant short-term effects of web-based multimedia in the context of EE. This narrative approach is shown to be an effective pedagogical instrument in enhancing individual orientation toward entrepreneurship to facilitate entrepreneurial intention. This study identifies the great potential of these pioneering methods and tools, both for further research in the academic community and for entrepreneurship educators who hope to promote entrepreneurial intention in aspiring entrepreneurs. The findings are also relevant for policy makers designing effective instruments to achieve long-term goals.

Following this research motivation, the theoretical background and developing hypotheses in relation to entrepreneurial role models, entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial intention are outlined. Next, we discuss the applied methodologies, research settings and sample characteristics, data reliability and validity, and control variables of the research model. Discussion of the results and analysis is followed by a summary of key findings, limitations, and implications, concluding with recommendations for future research.

Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

Entrepreneurial Role Model Exposure

Entrepreneurs can be characterized as individuals who discover and experience business opportunities (Baum & Locke, 2004). Within this multi-faceted, multi-functional, and multi-disciplinary context, entrepreneurial efforts are realized mainly in the creation of new ventures (Baron, 2008; Venkataraman, 1997). A role model is someone who sets an example and encourages others to make certain career path choices or to pursue certain objectives (Basow & Howe, 1980; Shapiro, Haseltine & Rowe, 1978). As such, role models play an influential role in guiding an individual’s career path, especially within occupational frameworks (Krumboltz, Mitchell & Jones, 1976) such as entrepreneurship. Parental role models for entrepreneurs have been intensively discussed (e.g., Chlosta, Patzelt, Klein & Dormann, 2012; McDougall, Robinson & DeNisi, 1992), as has the influence of networks (Fernández-Pérez, García-Morales & Pullés, 2016; Lerner, Brush & Hisrich, 1997) and peer groups (Falck, Heblich & Luedemann, 2012; Giannetti & Simonov, 2009; Koellinger, Minniti & Schade, 2007; Nanda & Sørensen, 2010; Stuart & Ding, 2006). Davidsson and Wiklund (1997) reported that an awareness of other entrepreneurs boosts entrepreneurial ambitions and activities. Yet although it is widely acknowledged that individual behavior tends to be influenced by identity (e.g., Ajzen, 1991; Akerlof & Kranton, 2000), Bosma, Hessels, Schutjens, Van Praag, and Verheul (2012) noted that empirical research on the specific characteristics and importance of entrepreneurial role models is relatively scarce.

Gibson (2004) connected role models to the theoretical constructs of role and willingness to identify with others, and to the modeling of mental skills and forms of behavior between two individuals, indicating that role models tend to be perceived as similar to oneself. The power of role models can also be illuminated by identification and social learning theory (Gibson, 2004). Identification with role models helps individuals to define their self-concept (Akerlof & Kranton, 2000), and according to social learning theory (Bandura, 1977; 1986), individuals are fascinated by role models who encourage their development (Gibson, 2004). In line with this argument, Nauta and Kokaly (2001) found that entrepreneurial role models provide both inspiration and guidance (e.g., Bosma, Hessels, Schutjens, Van Praag & Verheul, 2012). These studies build on the Penrosian resource-based view, linking entrepreneurship with human, financial, and social capital (Davidsson & Honig, 2003; Parker & Van Praag, 2006).

While research suggests a link between available role models and the choice of entrepreneurship as an attractive career path, in-depth relationships in the context of EE have not yet been studied. The precise nature of the impact of role models on entrepreneurial intention remains unclear, and a better understanding of this phenomenon is important in light of the potential of new ventures for economic growth and innovation (Van Praag & Versloot, 2007).

Synthesizing the theories of role identification, social learning and role models’ power as discussed by Gibson (2004) and Nauta and Kokaly (2001), the present study argues that entrepreneurial role models have the power to (1) directly transfer their entrepreneurial passion to nascent entrepreneurs within a web- and computer-based educational setting, which will (2) influence perceived entrepreneurial intention, and (3) result in greater direct and indirect effects underpinning the short-term effectiveness of entrepreneurial stories in the EE context. By exploiting multimedia entrepreneurial stories, the assumed interrelationship between entrepreneurial role models, entrepreneurial passion, and entrepreneurial intention is tested here using a pretest-posttest design structured around a series of hypotheses.

The Direct Effects of Entrepreneurial Role Models on Passion

“If you’re passionate about something and you work hard, then I think you will be successful.”

– Pierre Omidyar, founder and chairman of eBay

“If you just work on stuff that you like and you’re passionate about, you don’t have to have a master plan with how things will play out.”

– Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook

As these quotes suggest, many successful entrepreneurs are convinced that passion was a key ingredient in their business success. Vallerand (2010, p. 97) defined passion as “a strong inclination toward a self-defining activity that people love, find important, and in which they invest time and energy.” Passion can motivate someone to pursue an activity (Vallerand et al., 2003). While Vallerand et al. (2007, 2008) have investigated passion across various disciplines, entrepreneurship scholars have identified the role of passion in the entrepreneurial framework (Baum, Locke & Smith, 2001, 2004; Shane, Locke & Collins, 2003); in short, entrepreneurs’ hearts beat to the rhythm of their entrepreneurial passion.

Entrepreneurial stories offer new insights into the dynamics that foster entrepreneurship, as entrepreneurs embody entrepreneurial passion (Chen, Yao & Kotha, 2009). Early research in psychology defined passion as an element of intimate love (e.g., Baumeister & Bratslavsky, 1999; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989; Sternberg, 1986), or as a factor in achieving objectives (e.g., Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews & Kelly, 2007). Prior research suggests that passion is integral to important entrepreneurial personality traits such as persistence (Cardon, Gregoire, Stevens & Patel, 2013; Cardon & Kirk, 2015) and contagion of positive influence (Breugst, Domurath, Patzelt & Klaukien, 2012; Cardon, 2008). It has also been argued that passion facilitates creativity and the exploration and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities (Baron, 2008), attracts investors to finance businesses (Hsu, Haynie, Simmons & McKelvie, 2014; Mitteness, Sudek & Cardon, 2012), and drives entrepreneurial effort and growth (Baum, Locke & Smith, 2001; Drnovsek, Cardon & Patel, 2016; Murnieks, Mosakowski & Cardon, 2014). Following this line of argument, passion might be expected to impact positively on both before and after observing entrepreneurial role models in the pedagogical sphere.

In assessing the multimedia entrepreneurial storytelling platform, we assume that the impact of passion will be stronger after observing entrepreneurial stories than before. To compare pre and post direct effects, we propose the following hypotheses.

H1a Entrepreneurial role models have a positive impact on entrepreneurial passion before watching multimedia entrepreneurial stories.

H1b Entrepreneurial role models have a positive impact on entrepreneurial passion after watching multimedia entrepreneurial stories.

A further research question, concerning entrepreneurial passion as a prelude to entrepreneurial intention, has not yet been addressed in the literature. It is reasonable to ask whether entrepreneurial passion is in fact the key ingredient for future entrepreneurial intention. From a theoretical perspective, passion possess great power; in particular, it entails positive powerful drivers for actions that are vital to one's self-identity (Cardon, Wincent, Singh & Drnovsek, 2009; Farmer, Yao & Kung?Mcintyre, 2011; Fauchart & Gruber, 2011).

The TPB is the predominant theoretical framework grounding this formulation. The TPB holds that three separate attitudinal variables shape intention: attitude towards the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Attitude reflects the degree to which someone assesses a particular behavior as encouraging or not; a subjective norm is a perceived social pressure or expectation (Ajzen, 1988); and perceived behavioral control shapes awareness of one’s ability to successfully implement a behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Merging these three perceptions into one variable, entrepreneurial intention expresses the robust commitment of an individual to become an entrepreneur by launching a new venture (Krueger & Carsrud, 1993; Zapkau, Schwens, Steinmetz & Kabst, 2015).

Numerous studies have highlighted the power of entrepreneurial intention as a key milestone for entrepreneurial activities (Bird, 1988; Krueger & Carsrud, 1993), and the literature suggests that entrepreneurial intentions are the best predictor of planned behaviors such as launching a new venture (Bagozzi, Baumgartner & Yi, 1989; Kim & Hunter, 1993; Zapkau, Schwens, Steinmetz & Kabst, 2015). In general, entrepreneurial passion is believed to facilitate entrepreneurial intention—that is, the greater the passion for the entrepreneurial behavior, the stronger the individual's intention to achieve it. In the context of EE, an adequate teaching instrument would be expected to show the encouraging effects of entrepreneurial passion on entrepreneurial intention, especially after the instrument has been implemented. In assessing the multimedia entrepreneurial storytelling platform, we compare the pre and post direct effects by means of the following hypotheses, assuming that the post effects are stronger than the pre effects.

H2a Entrepreneurial passion has a positive impact on entrepreneurial intention before watching multimedia entrepreneurial stories.

H2b Entrepreneurial passion has a positive impact on entrepreneurial intention after watching multimedia entrepreneurial stories.

The Mediating Effect of Passion on Entrepreneurial Intention

Social learning theory, as originally proposed by Bandura (1977, 1986), emphasizes how observing others impacts on behavior attainment. Based on this theory, observational learning from entrepreneurial role models should have the power to influence an individual’s personality development (Bandura, 1977) through entrepreneurial passion, which can be expected to shape entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurial role models tend to be strong characters who are valuable to observe when revising behavior to achieve one’s goals. The investigations of Scherer, Adams, Carley, and Wiebe (1989) and Shapero and Sokol (1982) showed that children are subject to their relatives’ behaviors. These relatives appear to be important role models for the development of attitudes and values. There is evidence that a role model’s impact reflects their importance and credibility (Scherer, Adams, Carley & Wiebe, 1989; Shapero & Sokol, 1982). Therefore, one might expect that watching successful entrepreneurs will strengthen any intention that may have existed before watching them. In line with the evidence that children learn by watching their parents and adopting these behaviors, we would anticipate this effect in watching entrepreneurial stories via multimedia.

A number of well-known researchers (Bandura, 1986; Schröder & Schmitt-Rodermund, 2006), argue that observing others can affect an individual’s career choices and decisions. Offspring can be encouraged to choose a particular career path based on informal observations of their familial role models (Barling, Dupre & Hepburn, 1998; Krumboltz, Mitchell & Jones, 1976; Mitchell & Krumboltz, 1984). Therefore, we anticipate that multimedia access to entrepreneurial role models will be perceived as encouraging, with a positive attitudinal impact on those considering becoming entrepreneurs. This assumption is based on earlier studies (Krueger, 1993; Matthews & Moser, 1996; Zapkau, Schwens, Steinmetz & Kabst, 2015). It seems likely, then, that exposure to successful and passionate entrepreneurial role models will affect an individual’s intention to become an entrepreneur. According to Scherer, Adams, Carley, and Wiebe (1989), observation of role models enables individuals to learn specific skills, knowledge, and behaviors that are relevant and essential to embarking on a new venture. Earlier findings demonstrated that entrepreneurial parents can transfer informal business knowledge to their offspring (e.g., Holtz-Eakin, 2000; Scherer, Brodzinski & Wiebe, 1991); it is expected this will also hold true in the short term after exposure to entrepreneurial role models via multimedia, strengthening entrepreneurial intention.

In summary, an entrepreneurial role model watched online is expected to have a positive influence, boosting the desire to become an entrepreneur as argued in the literature on role models (Van Auken, Fry & Stephens, 2006). In other words, an entrepreneurial role model may be expected to have a positive influence on entrepreneurial intentions and ultimately on entrepreneurial activity (Krueger Jr, Reilly & Carsrud, 2000). It expected that individuals will return higher scores for entrepreneurial intention after watching entrepreneurial stories, and that this impact will be mediated by entrepreneurial passion. In assessing the multimedia entrepreneurial storytelling platform as an effective EE teaching instrument, we compare both pre and post direct and indirect effects by means of the following hypotheses.

H3a Entrepreneurial role models have a positive impact on entrepreneurial intention mediated by entrepreneurial passion before watching multimedia entrepreneurial stories.

H3a Entrepreneurial role models have a positive impact on entrepreneurial intention mediated by entrepreneurial passion after watching multimedia entrepreneurial stories.

Relating prior entrepreneurial exposure to Ajzen's (1991) TPB and to social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986), Figure 1 illustrates the comprehensive rationale for our hypotheses concerning how entrepreneurial role model exposure impacts on entrepreneurial intention, mediated by entrepreneurial passion.

Method

Research Settings and Sample Characteristics

This project adopts common standards and well-accepted methodologies in social science research. The online research platform provides a multimedia toolkit for EE, available free of charge online. The seven entrepreneurs are active globally in diverse sectors that include information and communication technology (ICT), energy, consulting, transportation, financing, and production. All are founders of small and medium-sized companies located in Austria, Germany, Spain, Finland, USA, and Australia. An introductory video presents all the entrepreneurs.

As recommended by other researchers (e.g., López, Valenzuela, Nussbaum & Tsai, 2015), an adequate sample was used to provide a robust foundation for this study. The subjects fall into the age range 18–24 years, and the gender distribution is representative of a three-country-average, with almost equal group sizes in each country. Before commencing data collection, a pre-testing phase was conducted from December 2015 to February 2016 with individuals from different target groups: three Finnish students, three Austrian students, three Austrian students from vocational schools, two Austrian educators, two Finnish professors, two German-speaking professors, and two Austrian individuals not enrolled in any course. Table 1 shows the total sample for this empirical study, which involved a questionnaire-based survey, conducted from February 2016 to July 2016 in Austria, Finland, and Greece.

Table-1 Sample Characteristics
Entrepreneur’s business sector	Venture Capitalist	ICT service provider	Transportation service provider	Energy producer	Tea producer and trader	Export advisor	Tax advisor
N	73	91	85	103	48	21	5
Age of experiment participants		<18	18-24	25-34	35-44	45-55	56<
	N	31	313	51	18	11	2
	in %	7.28%	73.47%	11.97%	4.23%	2.58%	0.47%
Nationality of experiment participants		Austria	Finland	Greece	Other
	N	160	128	103	35
Gender of participants			Female	Male	Total
Prior participation in EE			32	81	113
No prior participation in EE			127	186	313
N Total (in %)			159 (37.32 %)	267 (62.68 %)
Population by sex (%) Three-country average			45.85 %	51.7 %

Data Reliability and Validity

In this empirical investigation, several methods were applied to reduce risk of common method bias. First, anonymity and confidentiality were ensured (Reio, 2010). Intra-class correlations were employed for all items significant at the 0.001 level, indicating a strong level of interrater reliability (Jones, Johnson, Butler & Main, 1983; James, Demaree & Wolf, 1984). The applied measures are multi-item scales modified from previous studies. The five-item scale for inspiration/modeling of an entrepreneurial role model (see Table 7, Appendix) was adapted from Nauta and Kokaly (2001). Items related to entrepreneurial intention (see Table 8, Appendix) were taken from Liñán and Chen (2009) and from Kautonen, Gelderen, and Fink (2013). Items measuring entrepreneurial passion (see Table 9, Appendix) were adapted from the work of Cardon, Gregoire, Stevens, and Patel (2013) on conceptual foundations and scale validation. All measures of the three domains of inventing, founding, and developing have been merged for an overall entrepreneurial passion score. Participants indicated their level of agreement for each item from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

To strengthen the measuring instrument, a number of reliability and validity tests were applied at different levels (Letz & Gerr, 1995). As recommended by colleagues (e.g., López, Valenzuela, Nussbaum & Tsai, 2015), a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) underpins the study’s reliability and validity. The CFA resulted in an excellent overall model fit (see section 4.1 for more detail). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure (Dziuban & Shirkey, 1974) was used to test whether items delivered sufficient information. The KMO values are above 0.5 for all items (see Table 12, Appendix); according to Kaiser (1974), the values are all above 0.838, which indicates excellent reliability. All determinants of the correlation matrix of correlating item groups exceed the threshold of 0.00001, and all communalities are above 0.5. The model satisfactorily explains the total variance (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1995; Lattin, Carroll & Green, 2003; Smith, Caputi & Rawstorne, 2007). Furthermore, as indicated in Table 12, all Cronbach’s alpha values are above 0.858, indicating strong internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1995); no items were omitted to achieve these values. Construct validity is significant for all variables (t > 3.1; p < 0.001), as illustrated by the standardized factor loadings (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson & Tatham, 2010). All indicator reliabilities with values above 0.4 are sufficient, according to Bagozzi and Baumgartner (1994), and composite reliability is also acceptable, with values above 0.6 (Bagozzi 1988). Average variance extracted (AVE) for all variables is above 0.5 and therefore acceptable, as indicated by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Overall, these CFA results confirm the reliability of the research instrument.

As a final step, further validity tests were performed. In this framework, construct validity and content validity were successfully achieved (Murphy & Davidshofer, 1988; Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993). As indicated in the bivariate Pearson correlation in Appendix Tables 10 and 11, all correlations between items and variables are significant. These outcomes confirm that the questionnaire quantifies the concept it is intended to measure as established by Carmines and Zeller (1990). Because of a strong correlation between pre and post assessment, the variance inflation factor (VIF) for each independent variable was analyzed. The highest detected VIF is 1.468; because it is under 2.5 (Allison, 1999), multicollinearity is not an issue in this study. It can be concluded that common-method bias is not a critical issue in this work. The constructs are sufficiently valid and reliable. These outcomes also align with the goodness-of-fit of the model (see section 4.1).

Control Variables

To separate outcomes for independent variables, numerous control variables were built into the structural equation modeling (SEM), controlling for demographic and background variables such as age, gender, educational level, area of study, nationality, and viewed entrepreneur. First, we controlled for respondents’ age because the opportunity costs of entrepreneurship increase with age—in other words, the probability that younger people will engage entrepreneurially is higher than for older people (Levesque & Minniti, 2006). Next, we controlled for gender, as history indicates more ventures have been founded by males than by females (Brush, 1992; Goktan & Gupta, 2013; Kelley, Singer & Herrington, 2016). Because investment in human capital can improve the return on investment from entrepreneurship (Unger, Rauch, Frese & Rosenbusch, 2011), respondent education level was also embedded as a control variable. This study also entails controls at country level. Finally, we controlled for further role modelling effects in respect of the viewed entrepreneur, given that these individuals may differ in the level of inspiration they provide to observers (e.g., Arenius & Minniti, 2005; Wagner & Sternberg, 2004; Zampetakis, Lerakis, Kafetsios & Moustakis, 2015).

Results

Table 2 presents construct means, standard deviations (SD) and correlations. As none of the correlations exceeds 0.7, there is no significant risk of multicollinearity (Anderson, Sweeney, & Williams, 2002). As expected, there is a strong correlation above 0.7 between pre and post assessment; therefore, the VIF for each independent variable was analyzed. The highest detected VIF is 1.468; because it is under 2.5 (Allison, 1999), multicollinearity is not an issue.

Table-2 Construct Means, Standard Deviations (Sd), and Correlations Among Variables
		Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	PRE Entrepreneurial role model	4.02	1.31	1
2	POST Entrepreneurial role model	4.04	1.33	0.641**	1
3	PRE Entrepreneurial passion	4.82	1.15	0.406**	0.421**	1
4	POST Entrepreneurial passion	4.67	1.20	0.331**	0.507**	0.772**	1
5	PRE Entrepreneurial intention	3.40	1.42	0.305**	0.476**	0.468**	0.520**	1
6	POST Entrepreneurial intention	3.54	1.46	0.287**	0.487**	0.428**	0.565**	0.857**	1
Note: n = 426; Pearson correlation (bivariate); standard deviation (SD) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

As indicated in Tables 3a and 3b, paired samples testing indicates that in post assessment related to the various entrepreneurial role models presented via multimedia, there is no significant difference in perceptions (F = 1.642, n.s.). However, there is a significant difference between watched entrepreneurs at the 0.001 level at both assessment levels (pre and post) with regard to entrepreneurial intention (pre: F = 4.743, p < 0.001; post: F = 5.807, p < 0.001). Overall, while entrepreneurial passion tends to decrease after watching entrepreneurial stories, entrepreneurial intention increases on average. As indicated in Tables 3a and 3b, the ANOVA analysis indicates that this short-term fall in entrepreneurial passion is similar across watched entrepreneurs. In other words, on average, watching different entrepreneurial stories decreases entrepreneurial passion but increases entrepreneurial intention. This increase in entrepreneurial intention differs significantly across watched entrepreneurs. Because this difference in entrepreneurial intention is equally significant pre and post, it can be ignored when analyzing the direct and indirect effects on entrepreneurial intention in both assessments separately.

Table-3a Descriptives and Anova Analysis—Entrepreneurial Role Models (PRE-ASSESSMENT)
									ANOVA
PRE ASSESSMENT	RM 1	RM 2	RM 3	RM 4	RM 5	RM 6	RM 7	Total	Mean square between groups (within groups)
N	73	91	85	103	48	21	5	426
Mean
Entrepreneurial role model	4.24	3.84	3.80	4.17	4.10	3.74	5.04	4.02	3.34 (1.70)
Entrepreneurial passion	5.03	4.74	4.75	4.85	4.64	4.75	5.63	4.82	1.53 (1.31)
Entrepreneurial intention	3.53	2.87	3.75	3.46	3.34	3.25	5.20	3.40	9.05 (1.91)
SD									F
Entrepreneurial role model	1.06	1.31	1.51	1.18	1.34	1.43	2.12	1.31	1.959
Entrepreneurial passion	1.15	1.06	1.10	1.17	1.24	1.21	1.41	1.15	1.167
Entrepreneurial intention	1.49	1.29	1.41	1.29	1.57	1.14	1.71	1.42	4.743
S.E.									Sig.
Entrepreneurial role model	0.12	0.14	0.16	0.12	0.19	0.31	0.95	0.06	0.070*
Entrepreneurial passion	0.13	0.11	0.12	0.12	0.18	0.26	0.63	0.06	0.323
Entrepreneurial intention	0.17	0.13	0.15	0.13	0.23	0.25	0.76	0.07	0.000***
Notes: Role model (RM), standard deviation (SD), standard error (SE), significance codes: *** = p < 0.001, * = p < 0.1.

Table-3b Descriptives and Anova Analysis—Entrepreneurial Role Models (POST-ASSESSMENT)
									ANOVA
POST ASSESSMENT	RM 1	RM 2	RM 3	RM 4	RM 5	RM 6	RM 7	Total	Mean square between groups (within groups)
N	73	91	85	103	48	21	5	426
Mean
Entrepreneurial role model	4.06	3.72	4.13	4.14	4.06	4.30	5.00	4.04	2.875 (1.751)
Entrepreneurial passion	4.85	4.60	4.47	4.79	4.45	4.85	5.45	4.67	2.293 (1.435)
Entrepreneurial intention	3.57	2.97	3.96	3.59	3.70	3.06	5.49	3.54	11.649 (2.006)
SD									F
Entrepreneurial role model	1.23	1.36	1.40	1.20	1.46	1.16	2.20	1.33	1.642
Entrepreneurial passion	1.30	1.07	1.21	1.23	1.24	0.96	1.56	1.20	1.598
Entrepreneurial intention	1.49	1.33	1.43	1.43	1.46	1.18	1.68	1.46	5.807
S.E.									Sig.
Entrepreneurial role model	0.14	0.14	0.15	0.12	0.21	0.25	0.98	0.06	0.134
Entrepreneurial passion	0.15	0.11	0.13	0.12	0.18	0.21	0.70	0.06	0.146
Entrepreneurial intention	0.17	0.14	0.16	0.14	0.21	0.26	0.75	0.07	0.000***
Note: standard deviation (SD), standard error (SE), significance codes: *** = p < 0.001.

Following the recommendations of Anderson and Gerbing (1988), SEM was applied to test the hypotheses, and CFA was used to assess the validity and reliability of the constructs.

Goodness-of-Fit of the Measurement Model

In line with recommendations (e.g. López, Valenzuela, Nussbaum & Tsai, 2015), both the model tested and the fit indices are reported (Schreiber, Nora, Stage, Barlow & King, 2006). Table 4 indicates the criteria used to confirm acceptance of the model. Goodness-of-fit indices include chi-square, normed chi-square, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis coefficient (TLI), incremental fit index (IFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The chi-square value is 1355.28 for model pre (a) and 1332.71 for model post (b); chi-square/df is 2.818 for model pre (N = 426, df = 481, p-value = 0.00) and 2.782 for model post (N = 426, df = 479, p-value = 0.00). The value is between 2.0 and 5.0, indicating a moderately acceptable fit level (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson & Tatham, 2010). Moreover, GFI is above 0.8 (to be precise, 0.835 for model pre and 0.845 for model post), which also represents an acceptable fit. CFI values (0.916 for model pre and 0.927 for model post) are also adequate because they are higher than 0.90 (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Byrne, 1994). TLI values are 0.908 for model pre and 0.920 for model post. The IFI value of 0.916 for model pre and 0.928 for model post again indicate an acceptable fit (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Mulaik et al., 1989). Finally, RMSEA is 0.065 for both models (pre and post), which is less than 0.07 and is therefore considered acceptable (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Rigdon 1996). Overall, then, Table 4 validates the goodness-of-fit indices for the models.

Table-4 Summary of Goodness-Of-Fit Indices for the Model
Fit indices	X2	p-value	Chi-square/df	GFI	CFI	TLI	IFI	RMSEA
Model pre (a)	1355.28	0.00	2.818	0.835	0.916	0.908	0.916	0.065
Model post (b)	1332.71	0.00	2.782	0.845	0.927	0.920	0.928	0.065
Recommended values		>0.05	< 5	>0.80	>0.90	>0.90	>0.90	<0.07
Notes: GFI = Goodness of Fit Index, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, TLI = Tucker Lewis Index, IFI = Incremental Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Residual.

Structural Equation Modeling

The impact of exposure to entrepreneurial role models on entrepreneurial intention as mediated by entrepreneurial passion is tested by comparing models pre and post exposure to the entrepreneurial stories. As shown in Table 5, hypotheses 1a and 1b and hypotheses 2a and 2b are confirmed, with a positive significant impact of entrepreneurial role models on entrepreneurial intention via the mediating variable entrepreneurial passion. Hypothesis 1a (that entrepreneurial role models have an encouraging impact on entrepreneurial passion before watching multimedia entrepreneurial stories), is supported by a significant positive effect expressed by Standardized Regression Weights (SRW) (SRW = 0.449, p < 0.001). This study demonstrates the independent variable entrepreneurial role model explains 20.1% of the variation in entrepreneurial passion before watching multimedia entrepreneurial stories. Hypothesis 1b (that entrepreneurial role models have an encouraging impact on entrepreneurial passion after watching multimedia entrepreneurial stories) can also be accepted, as we have found a significant positive influence (SRW = 0.557, p < 0.001). In particular, the independent variable entrepreneurial role model explains 31.0% of the variation in entrepreneurial passion before watching multimedia entrepreneurial stories. The post effect is higher comparing pre and post effects, which supports the proposition that multimedia entrepreneurial stories represent an adequate instrument.

Table-5 Parameter Estimates for the Model
Parameters Standardized (n = 426)	SE	SRW	t-Value (p)
Model pre
H1a: Entrepreneurial role model → Entrepreneurial passion (pre)	0.043	0.449	8.021***
H2a: Entrepreneurial passion → Intention (pre)	0.071	0.543	9.437***
Model post
H1b: Entrepreneurial role model → Entrepreneurial passion (post)	0.041	0.557	10.207***
H2b: Entrepreneurial passion → Intention (post)	0.072	0.638	10.674***
Note: Standard error (SE), standardized regression weights (SRW), significance codes: *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.05, * = p < 0.01.

For hypothesis 2a (that entrepreneurial passion has a positive influence on entrepreneurial intention before watching multimedia entrepreneurial stories), a significant positive influence was detected (SRW = 0.543, p < 0.001). The independent variable entrepreneurial passion explains 34.4% of the variation of entrepreneurial intention before watching multimedia entrepreneurial stories. In addition, prior participation in EE has a significant positive influence on intention in the pre model (SRW = 0.179, p < 0.001). No other control variable shows a significant influence on intention. Additionally, hypothesis 2b (that entrepreneurial passion has a positive effect on entrepreneurial intention after watching multimedia entrepreneurial stories) shows a significant impact (SRW = 0.638, p < 0.001). In particular, the independent variable entrepreneurial passion explains 44.7% of the variation in entrepreneurial intention after watching multimedia entrepreneurial stories. Additionally, in the post model, prior participation in EE also has a significant positive influence on intention (SRW = 0.149, p < 0.001). This is confirmed by an independent t-test (F = 0.574, p < 0.01). Gender also plays a significant role (SRW = 0.109, p < 0.01). While there is no significant difference between females and male in relation to perceptions of entrepreneurial role models and passion, there is a significant difference in entrepreneurial intention (F = 0.262, p < 0.001), confirmed by an independent t-test. In general, males (mean = 3.732) show a higher perceived level of intention than females (mean = 3.211). These significant differences in both prior participation in EE and gender must be taken into account in the design of EE. Comparing the results of hypotheses 2a and 2b, the stronger impact in 2b underlines the multimedia tool’s adequacy as a pedagogical instrument for EE. However, based on perceived entrepreneurial intention, it appears that this tool is more effective for males than for females, and for individuals who have already participated in any form of EE.

Table 5 highlights the positive significant impact of entrepreneurial role models on entrepreneurial intention via the mediating variable entrepreneurial passion. According to SEM, there was significant support for hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b in the mediation analysis. As an essential prerequisite, both the entrepreneurial role model in the pre model (0.449, p < 0.001) and the entrepreneurial role model in the post model (0.557, p < 0.001) are positively linked to entrepreneurial passion, supporting H1a and H1b. Furthermore, entrepreneurial passion is positively associated with entrepreneurial intention both pre (0.543, p < 0.001) and post (0.638, p < 0.001) watching the entrepreneurial stories, which supports H2a and H2b. As evidenced by this study, the entrepreneurial role model is a significant antecedent of entrepreneurial intention via entrepreneurial passion in both models (pre and post). The effects are stronger after watching the entrepreneurial videos, confirming the effectiveness of the EE instrument. While the essential proposition—that entrepreneurial role models influence entrepreneurial passion—is confirmed, the positive influence of entrepreneurial passion on entrepreneurial intention is also significantly supported by both models. Additionally, the adjusted R squares explain the proportion of variance in the dependent variables by the impact of the independent variable including the control variables. As noted above, the adjusted R squares generally range between 20.1 % and 44.7 %, indicating strong predictive value. As evidenced by this study, there is sufficient support for both hypotheses 1 and 2.

Next, the results for direct and indirect effects are significant using Monte Carlo bootstrap analyses to expose the proposed mediation. Table 6 shows outcomes for the pre and post models, providing vital support for the mediating effect. In line with hypothesis 3, the indirect effect of the entrepreneurial role model on entrepreneurial intention via entrepreneurial passion in H3a is significant (0.233, p < 0.01) in the pre model. The indirect effect of the entrepreneurial role model on entrepreneurial intention in H3b is also significant (0.319, p < 0.01) in the post model. Overall, the total effects of entrepreneurial passion (0.346 and 0.673) in the pre model are lower than the total effects of entrepreneurial passion (0.414 and 0.770) in the post model. These results support our assumption that observing the entrepreneurial role models via multimedia entrepreneurial stories further increases entrepreneurial intention.

Table-6 Direct and Indirect Effects
Hypothesis	Direct effects	Indirect effects	Total effects	S.E.	Mean	p-value
Model pre (a)
H1a: Entrepreneurial role model → entrepreneurial passion (pre)	0.346	0	0.346
H2a: Entrepreneurial passion → intention (pre)	0.673	0	0.673
H3a: Entrepreneurial role model → intention (pre) (Mediator: entrepreneurial passion)	0	.233	0.233	0.044	0.231	0.233*
Model post (b)
H1b: Entrepreneurial role model → entrepreneurial passion (post)	0.414	0	0.414
H2b: Entrepreneurial passion → intention (post)	0.770	0	0.770
H3b: Entrepreneurial role model → intention (post) (Mediator: entrepreneurial passion)	0	0.319	0.319	0.049	0.313	0.319*
Note: Standard error (SE), significance codes: * = p < 0.01.

While the correlation analyses highlight the strong connection between variables, the SEM and Monte Carlo bootstrap analyses confirm the significant mediating role of entrepreneurial passion in both models. These analyses mirror the power of entrepreneurial passion as mediator pre and post watching entrepreneurial stories; overall, entrepreneurial role models show a strong positive impact on entrepreneurial intention in both models, which is even stronger following the experiment. Figure 2 illustrates these outcomes.

Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to unravel the impact of exposure to entrepreneurial role models on entrepreneurial intention mediated by entrepreneurial passion in a web- and computer-based educational setting. To this end, two models (pre and post exposure) were analyzed to explore these direct and indirect effects. The stability of the results across different entrepreneurial role models and target groups indicates the comprehensive generalizability of the findings.

The present study builds on previous work, including that of Kolvereid (1996) and Tkachev and Kolvereid (1999), which confirmed that TPB can explain entrepreneurial intention. Additionally, this study draws on social learning theory (Bandura, 1977; 1986) to establish that observing entrepreneurial role models has a significant impact on behavior. The findings provide empirical support for the significant positive influence of exposure to entrepreneurial role models on entrepreneurial intention mediated by entrepreneurial passion. This outcome aligns with the TPB (Ajzen 1991) which hypothesized that exogenous influences are mediated by attitudes and subjective norms (in this case, entrepreneurial passion).

In line with Bandura (1977) and Latham and Saari (1979), this study found that exposure to entrepreneurial role models using innovative techniques such as web-based channels exert a significant positive influence on entrepreneurial intention. This finding may explain why individuals experience entrepreneurial exposure as encouraging or discouraging, as discussed by Krueger (1993). While this exposure positively affects entrepreneurial intention, it has a negative influence on entrepreneurial passion. A possible explanation may be that the individual feels his or her own passion is lower compared with the passion of a successful entrepreneur. In summary, exposure to successful entrepreneurial role models positively influences entrepreneurial intention while its effect on entrepreneurial passion is more negative.

Contrary to the doubts expressed by Zapkau, Schwens, Steinmetz, and Kabst (2015), who argued that entrepreneurial role models do not lead to higher perceived behavioral control with regard to new venture creation, we found strong evidence that entrepreneurial role model exposure using multimedia techniques increases entrepreneurial intention. Our findings also support the positive influence of observational learning from role models as proposed by Scherer, Adams, Carley, and Wiebe (1989, 1989). However, we agree with Zapkau’s (2015) suggestion of a need to control for effects related to the industry specificity of role model relationships, especially where significant differences in entrepreneurial intention are detected before and after exposure to different entrepreneurs. There is evidence that the particular information transferred from entrepreneurial role models to potential entrepreneurs appears to be industry-specific (Kim, Aldrich & Keister, 2006; Zapkau, Schwens, Steinmetz & Kabst, 2015) therefore, it may not be equally useful or inspiring.

Conclusion

Given that role models are increasingly seen as key motivators, the exploration of role models’ passion and its influence on nascent entrepreneurs is expanding in both psychology and entrepreneurship but remains in its infancy in EE. To extend the entrepreneurship literature in this regard. The central aim of this study was to identify any direct and indirect effects of entrepreneurial role models on perceived entrepreneurial intention as mediated by entrepreneurial passion in an experimental web- and computer-based educational setting. In so doing, this study also assessed the importance of multimedia for EE. The findings offer a positive answer to the primary research question: Entrepreneurial role models have a significant positive impact on entrepreneurial intention via entrepreneurial passion in a web- and computer-based educational setting. Building on the TPB and social learning theory, these results suggest that showing entrepreneurial stories via multimedia in a classroom setting can strengthen the significant positive effects on entrepreneurial intention. As such, this study is a first attempt to unravel the value for EE of role models telling their entrepreneurial stories passionately through multimedia.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

This study’s findings contribute to both the present and future of EE in a myriad of ways. First, it takes an in-depth look at the connection between entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial intention created by entrepreneurial role models. Building on Ajzen’s (1991) TPB and Bandura’s (1977, 1986) social learning theory, the study extends current theory by discussing the direct and indirect impact of entrepreneurial role models on entrepreneurial passion and intention. The findings confirm that exposure to entrepreneurial stories via role models has a significant positive impact on entrepreneurial intention to start a business, and that multimedia techniques can be used to promote successful entrepreneurial role models in EE. This approach can potentially be exploited by policymakers to meet both the economic requirements of entrepreneurship and the needs of EE—an idea that has also been raised by Kolvereid and Isaksen (2006).

To empower entrepreneurial intentions, EE initiatives should also use entrepreneurial stories to stimulate entrepreneurial passion for starting a business. Entrepreneurial role model exposure can be used as a means of identifying promising entrepreneurs, and it may be useful for EE initiatives to incorporate entrepreneurial stories with other actions. In line with earlier recommendations (e.g., Van Auken, Fry & Stephens, 2006), the present findings confirm that innovative embedding of role models in EE using such techniques as multimedia storytelling can have a significant positive effect on those starting a business. However, when embedding entrepreneurial stories into the curriculum, factors such as the observed positive effects of prior participation in EE and the significant gender differences revealed by the post model have to be taken into account. Overall, it appears that multimedia observation of entrepreneurial role models has a greater effect on entrepreneurial intention among males than females and is more effective for individuals who have already participated in any form of EE. In addition, industry-specific effects of entrepreneurial role models must also be considered.

The results suggest that observation of entrepreneurial role models has a significant positive influence on entrepreneurial intention. This exposure also has the potential to influence entrepreneurial passion, in turn strengthening entrepreneurial intention. These findings also suggest that even without an entrepreneurial role model in close proximity, exposure via multimedia can positively and powerfully affect choice of entrepreneurship as a career. In this way, equal chances for a successful career path are promoted. However, entrepreneurial role model observation alone does not provide the necessary knowledge and skills to become a successful entrepreneur; instead, it serves as an additional ingredient to inspire a groundbreaking venture. These findings suggest a need for more real life elements in future EE, complemented by multimedia. In enhancing understanding of the impact of entrepreneurial role models on entrepreneurial passion and intention as potential drivers of entrepreneurship, this study will help in developing further ways to promote entrepreneurial actions and long-term outcomes, with particular regard to sustainability and effective implementation.

Limitations

As with all academic endeavors, this study is subject to certain limitations. First, and most importantly, deploying the construct of entrepreneurial intentions as a dependent variable imposes a major limitation related to the validity and persistence of the relationship between perceived intention and actual behavior, which can only be assessed by a longitudinal approach (Davidsson & Honig, 2003). Nevertheless, as discussed in the meta?analytic review of Armitage and Conner (2001), previous research identifies the TPB as the best predictor of planned behavior across a diverse range of disciplines. In addition, participants in this study were asked to indicate their immediate career path choices in terms of their intention to become entrepreneurially active within the next twelve months. As discussed by Ajzen and Madden (1986), such a short-term time span implies a better intention-behavior relationship. Overall, as discussed in Section 3.2, the present choices show robustness, validity, and reliability in terms of prior research (e.g., Bae, Qian, Miao & Fiet, 2014; Kolvereid, 1996; Krueger, 2009; Liñán & Chen, 2009).

Another limitation is that this study’s sample comprised mainly individuals from Austria, Finland and Greece. Consequently, the findings of this investigation are dependent on cultural norms and present economic conditions in these countries and therefore may not be more widely generalizable. Nevertheless, this study serves as a point of departure for future research.

The Potential for Future Research

The present findings suggest that future research should make further use of TPB-based models. As recommended by Cardon, Gregoire, Stevens, and Patel (2013), the three domains of passion (inventing, founding, and developing) each represent fruitful directions for future research; fine-grained examination of these specific objectives was beyond the scope of this study. This study also reiterates the suggestion by Fayolle, Liñán, and Moriano (2014) suggestion that EE research would benefit greatly from longitudinal data on the different factors in entrepreneurial intention, such as exposure to entrepreneurial role models. In this regard, validating TPB variables as significant indirect predictors of entrepreneurial behavior following multimedia exposure to entrepreneurial role models would further enrich the potential of this teaching tool. The present study needs to be repeated with larger samples and in other cultural contexts, as well as with different EE target groups. In this regard, it would be interesting to explore how students at the primary level perceive entrepreneurial role models. It would be also worth taking the time to analyze the links of the results to prior work related to entrepreneurial failure (e.g., DeTienne, Shepherd & De Castro, 2008). Finally, given the observed significant differences of entrepreneurial intention in the post model, future research should place more emphasis on how to cope with these differences to promote equality between the sexes in EE. This commitment appears crucial in light of the unexplored potential of female entrepreneurs; again, the present study serves as a useful point of departure in this regard.

Appendix

Table-7 Entrepreneurial Role Model-Inspiration/Modeling (Modified from Nauta & Kokaly, 2001) Level of Agreement from 1 (Strongly Disagree) To 7 (Strongly Agree)
Domain	Item	Mean	SD	Item total correlation	Alpha if item is deleted
IM_01_pre	There is an entrepreneurial person I am trying to be like in my career pursuits.	4.15	1.64	.717	.818
IM_02_pre	There is an entrepreneurial person particularly inspirational to me in my career path.	4.15	1.63	.771	.804
IM_03_pre	In the career path I am pursuing, there is an entrepreneurial person I admire.	4.25	1.59	.724	.817
IM_04_pre	I have a mentor in my potential entrepreneurial career field.	3.36	1.67	.528	.866
IM_05_pre	I know of an entrepreneurial person who has a career I would like to pursue.	4.18	1.69	.646	.837
IM_01_post	There is an entrepreneurial person I am trying to be like in my career pursuits.	4.03	1.62	.794	.875
IM_02_post	There is an entrepreneurial person particularly inspirational to me in my career path.	4.20	1.56	.820	.870
IM_03_post	In the career path I am pursuing, there is an entrepreneurial person I admire.	4.15	1.52	.804	.874
IM_04_post	I have a mentor in my potential entrepreneurial career field.	3.64	1.57	.642	.908
IM_05_post	I know of an entrepreneurial person who has a career I would like to pursue.	4.19	1.54	.744	.886

Table-8 Entrepreneurial Intention (Modified From Liñán & Chen, 2009 And Kautonen, Gelderen & Fink, 2013) Level of Agreement From 1 (Strongly Disagree) To 7 (Strongly Agree)
Domain	Item	Mean	SD	Item total correlation	Alpha if item is deleted
Items pre
Intention1	I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur.	3.30	1.68	.752	.935
Intention2	My professional goal is to become an entrepreneur.	3.67	1.74	.769	.934
Intention3	I will make every effort to start and run my own firm.	3.67	1.66	.843	.930
Intention4	I am determined to create a firm in the future.	3.93	1.71	.824	.931
Intention5	I have very seriously thought of starting a firm.	3.92	1.80	.793	.933
Intention6	I have the firm intention to start a firm someday.	4.07	1.73	.787	.933
Intention7	I plan to take steps to start a business in the next 12 months.	2.68	1.72	.712	.938
Intention8	I intend to take steps to start a business in the next 12 months.	2.67	1.70	.731	.936
Intention9	I will try to take steps to start a business in the next 12 months.	2.70	1.73	.749	.935
Items post
Intention1	I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur.	3.49	1.76	.778	.942
Intention2	My professional goal is to become an entrepreneur.	3.80	1.72	.803	.941
Intention3	I will make every effort to start and run my own firm.	3.79	1.71	.841	.939
Intention4	I am determined to create a firm in the future.	3.98	1.72	.841	.938
Intention5	I have very seriously thought of starting a firm.	4.05	1.74	.828	.939
Intention6	I have the firm intention to start a firm someday.	4.05	1.70	.808	.940
Intention7	I plan to take steps to start a business in the next 12 months.	2.89	1.80	.745	.944
Intention8	I intend to take steps to start a business in the next 12 months.	2.87	1.77	.754	.943
Intention9	I will try to take steps to start a business in the next 12 months.	2.91	1.78	.737	.944

Table-9 Entrepreneurial Passion (Cardon, Gregoire, Stevens & Patel, 2013) Level of Agreement from 1 (Strongly Disagree) To 7 (Strongly Agree)
Domain	Item Note: inv = inventing; fnd = founding; and dev = developing.	Mean	SD	Item total correlation	Alpha if item is deleted
Passion-inv1_pre	It is exciting to figure out new ways to solve unmet market needs that can be commercialized.	4.76	1.53	.663	.945
Passion-inv2_pre	Searching for new ideas for products and services appears enjoyable to me.	4.96	1.48	.722	.943
Passion-inv3_pre	I am motivated to figure out how to make existing products/services better.	5.01	1.34	.736	.942
Passion-inv4_pre	Scanning the environment for new opportunities really excites me.	4.87	1.37	.742	.942
Passion-inv5_pre	Inventing new solutions to problems could turn into an important part of who I am.	4.77	1.49	.705	.943
Passion-fnd1_pre	Establishing a new company seems exciting to me.	4.67	1.47	.768	.941
Passion-fnd2_pre	Owning my own company will energize me.	4.78	1.61	.703	.944
Passion-fnd3_pre	Nurturing a new business through its emerging success will be enjoyable.	4.73	1.41	.761	.942
Passion-fnd4_pre	Being the founder of a business could turn into an important part of who I am.	4.72	1.51	.732	.943
Passion-dev1_pre	I will like finding the right people to whom to market a new product/service.	4.79	1.40	.762	.942
Passion-dev2_pre	Assembling the right people to work for my business will be exciting.	4.91	1.48	.776	.941
Passion-dev3_pre	Pushing myself to make my business better motivates me.	5.11	1.49	.797	.941
Passion-dev4_pre	Nurturing and growing companies could turn into an important part of who I am.	4.54	1.46	.738	.942
Passion-inv1_post	It is exciting to figure out new ways to solve unmet market needs that can be commercialized.	4.62	1.53	.712	.951
Passion-inv2_post	Searching for new ideas for products and services appears enjoyable to me.	4.79	1.48	.769	.950
Passion-inv3_post	I am motivated to figure out how to make existing products/services better.	4.75	1.48	.741	.951
Passion-inv4_post	Scanning the environment for new opportunities really excites me.	4.73	1.42	.753	.950
Passion-inv5_post	Inventing new solutions to problems could turn into an important part of who I am.	4.69	1.48	.747	.950
Passion-fnd1_post	Establishing a new company seems exciting to me.	4.61	1.52	.778	.950
Passion-fnd2_post	Owning my own company will energize me.	4.74	1.58	.749	.950
Passion-fnd3_post	Nurturing a new business through its emerging success will be enjoyable.	4.60	1.45	.774	.950
Passion-fnd4_post	Being the founder of a business could turn into an important part of who I am.	4.55	1.50	.744	.951
Passion-dev1_post	I will like finding the right people to whom to market a new product/service.	4.61	1.48	.792	.949
Passion-dev2_post	Assembling the right people to work for my business will be exciting.	4.76	1.49	.821	.948
Passion-dev3_post	Pushing myself to make my business better motivates me.	4.78	1.56	.787	.949
Passion-dev4_post	Nurturing and growing companies could turn into an important part of who I am.	4.45	1.54	.760	.950

Table-12 Results of A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Cfa)
Construct	Items	Standardized factor loadingsa	Indicator reliability ≥0.4b	Composite reliability ≥0.6c	Cronbach’s α ≥0.7d	AVE ≥0.5e	Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacyf	Determinantg	Bartlett's Test of Sphericityh
Inspiration/Modeling	IM_01_pre	.823	.677	.862	.858	.563	.838	.094	999.52 ***
	IM_02_pre	.880	.774
	IM_03_pre	.789	.623
	IM_04_pre	.537	.288
	IM_05_pre	.672	.452
	IM_01_post	.878	.771	.901	.904	.799	.862	.035	1410.857 ***
	IM_02_post	.904	.818
	IM_03_post	.855	.731
	IM_04_post	.624	.390
	IM_05_post	.735	.540
Perceptions of entrepreneurial passion	Passion-inv1_pre	.677	.459	.946	.947	.756	.941	.00004	4256.608 ***
	Passion-inv2_pre	.712	.508
	Passion-inv3_pre	.749	.561
	Passion-inv4_pre	.733	.537
	Passion-inv5_pre	.718	.515
	Passion-fnd1_pre	.778	.605
	Passion-fnd2_pre	.723	.522
	Passion-fnd3_pre	.780	.609
	Passion-fnd4_pre	.780	.609
	Passion-dev1_pre	.775	.601
	Passion-dev2_pre	.790	.624
	Passion-dev3_pre	.827	.684
	Passion-dev4_pre	.783	.613
	Passion-inv1_post	.692	.479	.951	.954	.774	.946	.000012	4731.97 ***
	Passion-inv2_post	.746	.557
	Passion-inv3_post	.720	.518
	Passion-inv4_post	.752	.565
	Passion-inv5_post	.753	.567
	Passion-fnd1_post	.792	.627
	Passion-fnd2_post	.765	.586
	Passion-fnd3_post	.781	.610
	Passion-fnd4_post	.779	.608
	Passion-dev1_post	.824	.679
	Passion-dev2_post	.852	.727
	Passion-dev3_post	.813	.662
	Passion-dev4_post	.799	.639
Entrepreneurial intention	Intention1_pre	.780	.609	.927	.941	.758	.899	.00003	4427.37 ***
	Intention2_pre	.836	.699
	Intention3_pre	.902	.814
	Intention4_pre	.905	.819
	Intention5_pre	.850	.723
	Intention6_pre	.832	.693
	Intention7_pre	.549	.301
	Intention8_pre	.566	.320
	Intention9_pre	.600	.360
	Intention1_post	.737	.543	.931	.947	.766	.902	.000014	4698.82 ***
	Intention2_post	.814	.662
	Intention3_post	.845	.714
	Intention4_post	.933	.870
	Intention5_post	.916	.838
	Intention6_post	.912	.831
	Intention7_post	.578	.334
	Intention8_post	.588	.346
	Intention9_post	.571	.326

Bibliographical Notes

As an Erwin-Schrödinger-Fellow Katharina Fellnhofer is a visiting researcher at the Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland. She holds a Ph.D. in social and economic sciences from the University of Innsbruck, Austria. In addition, Katharina Fellnhofer is an entrepreneur of an Austrian small- to medium-sized company which is engaged in interdisciplinary European research and innovation projects.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Austrian Science Fund FWF [J3740] for supporting this research project.

Copyright c The Author(s) 2017. This is an Open Access Article distributed under the CC BY license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

References

1. Ajzen I (1988). Attitudes, liersonality, and Behavior. Chicago, IL: Dorsey liress.
2. Ajzen I (1991). The Theory of lilanned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision lirocesses, 50(2), 179-211.
3. Ajzen I &amli; Madden TJ &nbsli;(1986). lirediction of Goal-Directed Behavior: Attitudes, Intentions, and lierceived Behavioral Control. Journal of Exlierimental Social lisychology, 22(5), 453-474.
4. Akerlof GA &amli; Kranton RE (2000). Economics and Identity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 715-753.
5. Allison li (1999). Multicollinearity in Logistic Regression. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
6. Anderson JC &amli; Gerbing DW (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in liractice: A Review and Recommended Two-Steli Aliliroach. lisychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411.
7. Arenius li &amli; Minniti M (2005). liercelitual Variables and Nascent Entrelireneurshili. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 233-247.
8. Armitage CJ &amli; Conner M (2001). Efficacy of the Theory of lilanned Behaviour: A Meta?Analytic Review. British Journal of Social lisychology, 40(4), 471-499.
9. Bae TJ, Qian S, Miao C &amli; Fiet JO (2014). The Relationshili between Entrelireneurshili Education and Entrelireneurial Intentions: A Meta-Analytic Review. Entrelireneurshili: Theory &amli; liractice, 38(2), 217-254.
10. Bagozzi Rli &amli; Baumgartner H (1994). The Evaluation of Structural Equation Models and Hyliotheses Testing. In R. li. Bagozzi (Ed.), lirincililes of Marketing Research (lili. 386-422). Cambridge: Blackwell.
11. Bagozzi Rli, Baumgartner J &amli; Yi Y (1989). An Investigation into the Role of Intentions as Mediators of the Attitude-Behavior Relationshili. Journal of Economic lisychology, 10(1), 35-62.
12. Bagozzi Rli, Yi Y (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
13. Bandura A (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. lisychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
14. Bandura A (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. NJ: Englewood Cliffs, lirentice-Hall.
15. Barling J, Dulire KE &amli; Heliburn CG (1998). Effects of liarents' Job Insecurity on Children's Work Beliefs and Attitudes. Journal of Alililied lisychology, 83(1), 112.
16. Baron RA (2008). The Role of Affect in the Entrelireneurial lirocess. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 328-340.
17. Bartlett&nbsli; M (1937). lirolierties of Sufficiency and Statistical Tests. liroceedings of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 160, 268-282.
18. Basow S.A &amli; Howe KG (1980). Role-Model Influence: Effects of Sex and Sex-Role Attitude in College Students. lisychology of Women Quarterly, 4(4), 558-572.
19. Baum JR &amli; Locke EA (2004). The Relationshili of Entrelireneurial Traits, Skill, and Motivation to Subsequent Venture Growth. Journal of Alililied lisychology, 89(4), 587-598.
20. Baum JR, Locke EA &amli; Smith KG (2001). A Multidimensional Model of Venture Growth. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 292-303.
21. Baumeister RF &amli; Bratslavsky E (1999). liassion, Intimacy, and Time: liassionate Love as a Function of Change in Intimacy. liersonality and Social lisychology Review, 3(1), 49-67.
22. Béchard Jli &amli; Grégoire D (2005). Entrelireneurshili Education Research Revisited: The Case of Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning &amli; Education, 4(1), 22-43.
23. Bentler liM &amli; Bonett DG (1980). Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures. lisychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
24. Bird B (1988). Imlilementing Entrelireneurial Ideas: The Case for Intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442-453.
25. Boje D &amli; Smith R (2010). Re?Storying and Visualizing the Changing Entrelireneurial Identities of Bill Gates and Richard Branson. Culture and Organization, 16(4), 307-331.
26. Bosma N, Hessels J, Schutjens V, Van liraag&nbsli; M &amli; Verheul I (2012). Entrelireneurshili and Role Models. Journal of Economic lisychology, 33(2), 410-424.
27. Breugst N, Domurath A, liatzelt H &amli; Klaukien A (2012). liercelitions of Entrelireneurial liassion and Emliloyees' Commitment to Entrelireneurial Ventures. Entrelireneurshili: Theory &amli; liractice, 36(1), 171-192.
28. Browne M &amli; Cudeck R (1993). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. In K. Bollen &amli; L. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (lili. 136-162). London: Sage liublications.
29. Brush CG (1992). Research on Women Business Owners: liast Trends, a New liersliective and Future Directions. Entrelireneurshili: Theory &amli; liractice, 16(4), 5-31.
30. Byrne BM (1994). Structural Equation Modeling with Eqs and Eqs/Windows: Basic Concelits, Alililications, and lirogramming. University of Ottawa, Canada: Sage.
31. Cardon MS (2008). Is liassion Contagious? The Transference of Entrelireneurial liassion to Emliloyees. Human Resource Management Review, 18(2), 77-86.
32. Cardon MS, Gregoire DA, Stevens CE &amli; liatel liC (2013). Measuring Entrelireneurial liassion: Concelitual Foundations and Scale Validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(3), 373-396.
33. Cardon MS &amli; Kirk Cli (2015). Entrelireneurial liassion as Mediator of the Self-Efficacy to liersistence Relationshili. Entrelireneurshili: Theory &amli; liractice, 39(5), 1027-1050.
34. Cardon MS, Wincent J, Singh J &amli; Drnovsek M (2009). The Nature and Exlierience of Entrelireneurial liassion. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 511-532.
35. Carmines Edward G &amli; Zeller Richard A (1990). Reliability and Validity Assessment (Series: Quantitative Alililications in the Social Sciences). Newbury liark, CA: Sage liublications.
36. Chang WL &amli; Lee CY (2013). Trust as a Learning Facilitator That Affects Students' Learning lierformance in the Facebook Community: An Investigation in a Business lilanning Writing Course. Comliuters &amli; Education, 62, 320-327.
37. Chen Xli, Yao X &amli; Kotha S (2009). Entrelireneur liassion and lireliaredness in Business lilan liresentations: A liersuasion Analysis of Venture Caliitalists' Funding Decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 199-214.
38. Chlosta S, liatzelt H, Klein SB &amli; Dormann C (2012). liarental Role Models and the Decision to Become Self-Emliloyed: The Moderating Effect of liersonality. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 121-138.
39. Clarke J (2011). Revitalizing Entrelireneurshili: How Visual Symbols Are Used in Entrelireneurial lierformances. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1365-1391.
40. Davidsson li &amli; Honig B (2003). The Role of Social and Human Caliital among Nascent Entrelireneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 301-331.
41. Davidsson li &amli; Wiklund J (1997). Values, Beliefs and Regional Variations in New Firm Formation Rates. Journal of Economic lisychology, 18(2), 179-199.
42. DeTienne DR, Sheliherd DA &amli; De Castro JO (2008). The Fallacy of “Only the Strong Survive”: The Effects of Extrinsic Motivation on the liersistence Decisions for under-lierforming Firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(5), 528-546.
43. Donnellon A, Ollila S &amli; Middleton KW (2014). Constructing Entrelireneurial Identity in Entrelireneurshili Education. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(3), 490-499.
44. Douglas EJ &amli; Sheliherd DA (2002). Self-Emliloyment as a Career Choice: Attitudes, Entrelireneurial Intentions, and Utility Maximization. Entrelireneurshili: Theory &amli; liractice, 26(3), 81-90.
45. Down S &amli; Warren L (2008). Constructing Narratives of Enterlirise: Clichés and Entrelireneurial Self-Identity. International Journal of Entrelireneurial Behavior &amli; Research, 14(1), 4-23.
46. Drent M &amli; Meelissen M (2008). Which Factors Obstruct or Stimulate Teacher Educators to Use Ict Innovatively? Comliuters &amli; Education, 51(1), 187-199.
47. Drnovsek M, Cardon MS &amli; liatel liC (2016). Direct and Indirect Effects of liassion on Growing Technology Ventures. Strategic Entrelireneurshili Journal, 10(2), 194-213.
48. Duckworth AL, lieterson C, Matthews MD &amli; Kelly DR (2007). Grit: lierseverance and liassion for Long-Term Goals. Journal of liersonality and Social lisychology, 92(6), 1087-1101.
49. Dziuban CD &amli; Shirkey EC (1974). When Is a Correlation Matrix Aliliroliriate for Factor Analysis? Some Decision Rules. lisychological Bulletin, 81(6), 358-361.
50. EC. (2013). Entrelireneurshili 2020 Action lilan. Communication from the Commission to the Euroliean liarliament, the Council, the Euroliean Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Reigniting the Entrelireneurial Sliirit in Eurolie. Brussels: EC.
51. Essers C &amli; Benscholi Y (2007). Enterlirising Identities: Female Entrelireneurs of Moroccan or Turkish Origin in the Netherlands. Organization Studies, 28(1), 49-69.
52. Falck O, Heblich S, &amli; Luedemann E (2012). Identity and Entrelireneurshili: Do School lieers Shalie Entrelireneurial Intentions? Small Business Economics, 39(1), 39-59.
53. Farmer SM, Yao X &amli; Kung?Mcintyre K (2011). The Behavioral Imliact of Entrelireneur Identity Asliiration and lirior Entrelireneurial Exlierience. Entrelireneurshili: Theory &amli; liractice, 35(2), 245-273.
54. Fauchart E &amli; Gruber M (2011). Darwinians, Communitarians, and Missionaries: The Role of Founder Identity in Entrelireneurshili. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 935-957.
55. Fayolle A, Gailly B &amli; Lassas-Clerc N (2006). Assessing the Imliact of Entrelireneurshili Education lirogrammes: A New Methodology. Journal of Euroliean Industrial Training, 30(8/9), 701-720.
56. Fayolle A, Liñán F, &amli; Moriano JA (2014). Beyond Entrelireneurial Intentions: Values and Motivations in Entrelireneurshili. International Entrelireneurshili and Management Journal, 10(4), 679-689.
57. Fernández-liérez V, García-Morales VJ &amli; liullés DC (2016). Entrelireneurial Decision-Making, External Social Networks and Strategic Flexibility: The Role of Ceos' Cognition. Euroliean Management Journal, 34(3), 296-309.
58. Fishbein M &amli; Ajzen I (1977). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research.
59. Fletcher DE &amli; Watson TJ (2007). Entrelireneurshili, Management Learning and Negotiated Narratives:‘Making It Otherwise for Us—Otherwise for Them’. Management Learning, 38(1), 9-26.
60. Fornell C &amli; Larcker DF (1981). Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388.
61. Fraenkel JR &amli; Wallen NE (1993). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (Vol. 7). New York: McGraw-Hill.
62. Giannetti M &amli; Simonov A (2009). Social Interactions and Entrelireneurial Activity. Journal of Economics &amli; Management Strategy, 18(3), 665-709.
63. Gibson DE (2004). Role Models in Career Develoliment: New Directions for Theory and Research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 134-156.
64. Godsey ML &amli; Sebora TC (2009). liart Iv: Chaliter 11: Tell Us Your Story: The Use of Role Model Narratives in Entrelireneurshili Education. Current Toliics in Management, 14(January), 245-272.
65. Goktan AB &amli; Gulita VK (2013). Sex, Gender, and Individual Entrelireneurial Orientation: Evidence from Four Countries. International Entrelireneurshili and Management Journal, 11(1), 95-112.
66. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL &amli; Black WC (1995). Multivariate Data Analyses with Readings. NJ: lirentice Hall College Div.
67. Hair JF, Black B, Babin B, Anderson RE &amli; Tatham RL (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th edn ed.). Ulilier Saddle River, NJ: lirentice Hall.
68. Harmelin SS &amli; Sarasvathy SD (2013). When Contingency Is a Resource: Educating Entrelireneurs in the Balkans, the Bronx, and Beyond. Entrelireneurshili: Theory &amli; liractice, 37(4), 713-744.
69. Hendrick C &amli; Hendrick SS (1989). Research on Love: Does It Measure Uli? Journal of liersonality and Social lisychology, 56(5), 784-794.
70. Holtz-Eakin D (2000). liublic liolicy toward Entrelireneurshili. Small Business Economics, 15(4), 283-291.
71. Hsu DK, Haynie JM, Simmons SA &amli; McKelvie A (2014). What Matters, Matters Differently: A Conjoint Analysis of the Decision liolicies of Angel and Venture Caliital Investors. Venture Caliital, 16(1), 1-25.
72. Hu LT &amli; Bentler liM (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidiscililinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
73. James LR, Demaree RG &amli; Wolf G (1984). Estimating within-Grouli Interrater Reliability with and without Reslionse Bias. Journal of Alililied lisychology, 69(1), 85-98.
74. Johansson AW (2004). Narrating the Entrelireneur. International Small Business Journal, 22(3), 273-293.
75. Jones Ali, Johnson LA, Butler MC &amli; Main DS (1983). Alililes and Oranges: An Emliirical Comliarison of Commonly Used Indices of Interrater Agreement. Academy of Management Journal, 26(3), 507-519.
76. Kaiser HF (1974). An Index of Factorial Simlilicity. lisychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.
77. Kautonen T, Gelderen M &amli; Fink M (2013). Robustness of the Theory of lilanned Behavior in liredicting Entrelireneurial Intentions and Actions. Entrelireneurshili: Theory &amli; liractice, 39(3), 655-674.
78. Kelley D Singer S &amli; Herrington M (2016). 2015/16 Global Reliort - Gem Global Entrelireneurshili Monitor. Retrieved from Babson liark, MA, United States; Santiago, Chile; Malaysia; Mexiko; London, United Kingdom:
79. Kim MS &amli; Hunter JE (1993). Relationshilis among Attitudes, Behavioral Intentions, and Behavior a Meta-Analysis of liast Research, liart 2. Communication Research, 20(3), 331-364.
80. Kim liH, Aldrich HE &amli; Keister LA (2006). Access (Not) Denied: The Imliact of Financial, Human, and Cultural Caliital on Entrelireneurial Entryin the United States. Small Business Economics, 27(1), 5-22.
81. Koellinger li, Minniti M &amli; Schade C (2007). “I Think I Can, I Think I Can”: Overconfidence and Entrelireneurial Behavior. Journal of Economic lisychology, 28(4), 502-527.
82. Kolvereid L (1996). lirediction of Emliloyment Status Choice Intentions. Working lialier Series. Henley Management College HWli. Henley.
83. Kolvereid L &amli; Isaksen E (2006). New Business Start-uli and Subsequent Entry into Self-Emliloyment. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6), 866-885.
84. Krueger Jr NF, Reilly MD &amli; Carsrud AL (2000). Comlieting Models of Entrelireneurial Intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5), 411-432.
85. Krueger N (1993). The Imliact of lirior Entrelireneurial Exliosure on liercelitions of New Venture Feasibility and Desirability. Entrelireneurshili: Theory &amli; liractice, 18(1), 5-21.
86. Krueger N &amli; Carsrud A (1993). Entrelireneurial Intentions: Alililying the Theory of lilanned Behavior. Entrelireneurshili and Regional Develoliment, 5(1), 315-330.
87. Krueger N, Reill MD &amli; Carsrud AL (2000). Comlieting Models of Entrelireneurial Intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5), 411-432.
88. Krueger NF (2009). The Microfoundations of Entrelireneurial Learning and&hellili; Education: The Exlieriential Essence of Entrelireneurial Cognition. In E. J. G. K. G. S. G. li. West (Ed.), Handbook of University-Wide Entrelireneurshili Education (lili. 35-59). NJ: Edward Elgar.
89. Krumboltz JD, Mitchell AM &amli; Jones GB (1976). A Social Learning Theory of Career Selection. The Counseling lisychologist, 6(1), 71-81
90. Kuratko, D. F. (2003). Entrelireneurshili Education: Emerging Trends and Challenges for the 21st Century. Madison, WI: USASBE.
91. Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The Emergence of Entrelireneurshili Education: Develoliment, Trends, and Challenges. Entrelireneurshili: Theory &amli; liractice, 29(5), 577-597.
92. Latham, G. li., &amli; Saari, L. M. (1979). Imliortance of Suliliortive Relationshilis in Goal Setting. Journal of Alililied lisychology, 64(2), 151.
93. Lattin, J. M., Carroll, J. D., &amli; Green, li. E. (2003). Analyzing Multivariate Data. USA CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole liacific Grove.
94. Lautenschläger, A., &amli; Haase, H. (2011). The Myth of Entrelireneurshili Education: Seven Arguments against Teaching Business Creation at Universities. Journal of Entrelireneurshili Education, 14, 147-161.
95. Lerner, M., Brush, C., &amli; Hisrich, R. (1997). Israeli Women Entrelireneurs: An Examination of Factors Affecting lierformance. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(4), 315-339.
96. Letz, R., &amli; Gerr, F. (1995). Standing Steadiness Measurements: Emliirical Selection of Testing lirotocol and Outcome Measures. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 17(6), 611-616.
97. Levesque, M., &amli; Minniti, M. (2006). The Effect of Aging on Entrelireneurial Behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 177-194.
98. Liñán, F., &amli; Chen, Y.-W. (2009). Develoliment and Cross-Cultural Alililication of a Sliecific Instrument to Measure Entrelireneurial Intentions. Entrelireneurshili: Theory &amli; liractice, 33(3), 593-617.
99. Linstead, A., &amli; Hytti, U. (2005). New Meanings for Entrelireneurs: From Risk-Taking Heroes to Safe-Seeking lirofessionals. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(6), 594-611.
100. Lóliez, X., Valenzuela, J., Nussbaum, M., &amli; Tsai, C.-C. (2015). Some Recommendations for the Reliorting of Quantitative Studies. Comliuters &amli; Education, 91(C), 106-110.
101. Lorz, M., Mueller, S., &amli; Volery, T. (2013). Entrelireneurshili Education: A Systematic Review of the Methods in Imliact Studies. Journal of Enterlirising Culture, 21(2), 123-151.
102. Mason, J., &amli; Siqueira, A. C. O. (2014). Addressing the Challenges of Future Entrelireneurshili Education: An Assessment of Textbooks for Teaching Entrelireneurshili. In S. Hoskinson &amli; D. F. Kuratko (Eds.), Innovative liathways for University Entrelireneurshili in the 21st Century (Vol. 24, lili. 41-64). Bingley: Emerald Grouli liublishing Ltd.
103. Matlay, H., &amli; Harmeling, S. S. (2011). Re-Storying an Entrelireneurial Identity: Education, Exlierience and Self-Narrative. Education+ Training, 53(8/9), 741-749.
104. Matthews, C. H., &amli; Moser, S. B. (1996). A Longitudinal Investigation of the Imliact of Family Background and Gender on Interest in Small Firm Ownershili. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(2), 29.
105. McDougall, li., Robinson, J. R., &amli; DeNisi, A. (1992). Modeling New Venture lierformance: An Analysis of New Venture Strategy, Industry Structure and Venture Origin. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(4), 267-289.
106. Mitchell, L. K., &amli; Krumboltz, J. D. (1984). Career Choice and Develoliment: Alililying Contemliorary Theory to liractice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
107. Mitteness, C., Sudek, R., &amli; Cardon, M. S. (2012). Angel Investor Characteristics That Determine Whether lierceived liassion Leads to Higher Evaluations of Funding liotential. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(5), 592-606.
108. Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., &amli; Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Structural Equation Models. lisychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430-445.
109. Murnieks, C. Y., Mosakowski, E., &amli; Cardon, M. S. (2014). liathways of liassion Identity Centrality, liassion, and Behavior among Entrelireneurs. Journal of Management, 40(6), 1583-1606.
110. Murlihy, K. R., &amli; Davidshofer, C. O. (1988). lisychological Testing. New Jersey: lirentice-Hall.
111. Nanda, R., &amli; Sørensen, J. B. (2010). Worklilace lieers and Entrelireneurshili. Management Science, 56(7), 1116-1126.
112. Nauta, M. M., &amli; Kokaly, M. L. (2001). Assessing Role Model Influences on Students' Academic and Vocational Decisions. Journal of Career Assessment, 9(1), 81-99.
113. Ngai, E. W. T. (2007). Learning in Introductory E-Commerce: A liroject-Based Teamwork Aliliroach. Comliuters &amli; Education, 48(1), 17-29.
114. Nunnally, J. (1978). lisychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
115. Obschonka, M., Goethner, M., Silbereisen, R. K., &amli; Cantner, U. (2012). Social Identity and the Transition to Entrelireneurshili: The Role of Grouli Identification with Worklilace lieers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 137-147.
116. Oosterbeek, H., van liraag, M., &amli; Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The Imliact of Entrelireneurshili Education on Entrelireneurshili Skills and Motivation. Euroliean Economic Review, 54(3), 442-454.
117. liarker, S. C., &amli; Van liraag, C. M. (2006). Schooling, Caliital Constraints, and Entrelireneurial lierformance: The Endogenous Triangle. Journal of Business &amli; Economic Statistics, 24(4), 416-431.
118. lieterman, N. E., &amli; Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterlirise Education: Influencing Students' liercelitions of Entrelireneurshili. Entrelireneurshili: Theory &amli; liractice, 28(2), 129-144.
119. Rae, D. (2005). Entrelireneurial Learning: A Narrative?Based Concelitual Model. Journal of Small Business and Enterlirise Develoliment, 12(3), 323-335.
120. Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of Comliosite Reliability for Congeneric Measures. Alililied lisychological Measurement, 21(2), 173-184.
121. Reio, T. G. (2010). The Threat of Common Method Variance Bias to Theory Building. Human Resource Develoliment Review, 9(4), 405-411.
122. Rideout, E. C., &amli; Gray, D. O. (2013). Does Entrelireneurshili Education Really Work? A Review and Methodological Critique of the Emliirical Literature on the Effects of University-Based Entrelireneurshili Education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 329-351.
123. Rigdon, E. E. (1996). Cfi Versus Rmsea: A Comliarison of Two Fit Indexes for Structural Equation Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidiscililinary Journal, 3(4), 369-379.
124. Scherer, R., Adams, J., &amli; Wiebe, F. (1989). Develoliing Entrelireneurial Behaviors: A Social Learning Theory liersliective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 2(3), 16-28.
125. Scherer, R. F., Adams, J. S., Carley, S., &amli; Wiebe, F. A. (1989). Role Model lierformance Effects on Develoliment of Entrelireneurial Career lireference. Entrelireneurshili: Theory &amli; liractice, 13(3), 53-71.
126. Scherer, R. F., Brodzinski, J. D., &amli; Wiebe, F. (1991). Examining the Relationshili between liersonality and Entrelireneurial Career lireference 1. Entrelireneurshili &amli; Regional Develoliment, 3(2), 195-206.
127. Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., &amli; King, J. (2006). Reliorting Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results: A Review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323-338.
128. Schröder E &amli; Schmitt-Rodermund E (2006). Crystallizing Enterlirising Interests among Adolescents through a Career Develoliment lirogram: The Role of liersonality and Family Background. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(3), 494-509.
129. Shane S, Locke EA &amli; Collins CJ (2003). Entrelireneurial Motivation. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2), 257-279.
130. Shaliero A &amli; Sokol L (1982). The Social Dimensions of Entrelireneurshili. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, &amli; K. H. Veslier (Eds.), Encycloliedia of Entrelireneurshili (lili. 72-90). New York: Englewood Cliffs, NJ: lirentice-Hall.
131. Shaliiro EC, Haseltine Fli &amli; Rowe Mli (1978). Moving Uli: Role Models, Mentors, and the "liatron System". Sloan Management Review, 19(3), 51-58.
132. Shaliiro Sli (1987). The Social Control of Imliersonal Trust. American Journal of Sociology, 93(3), 623-658.
133. Smith B, Caliuti li &amli; Rawstorne li (2007). The Develoliment of a Measure of Subjective Comliuter Exlierience. Comliuters in Human Behavior, 23(1), 127-145.
134. Solomon GT, Duffy S &amli; Tarabishy A (2002). The State of Entrelireneurshili Education in the United States: A Nationwide Survey and Analysis. International Journal of Entrelireneurshili Education, 1(1), 65-86.
135. Souitaris V, Zerbinati S &amli; Al-Laham A (2007). Do Entrelireneurshili lirogrammes Raise Entrelireneurial Intention of Science and Engineering Students? The Effect of Learning, Insliiration and Resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 566-591.
136. Sternberg R. (1986). A Triangular Theory of Love. lisychological Review, 93(2), 119-135.
137. Stuart TE &amli; Ding WW (2006). When Do Scientists Become Entrelireneurs? The Social Structural Antecedents of Commercial Activity in the Academic Life Sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 97-144.
138. Tkachev A &amli; Kolvereid L (1999). Self-Emliloyment Intentions among Russian Students. Entrelireneurshili &amli; Regional Develoliment, 11(3), 269-280.
139. Unger JM, Rauch A, Frese M &amli; Rosenbusch N (2011). Human Caliital and Entrelireneurial Success: A Meta-Analytical Review. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 341-358.
140. Vallerand RJ (2010). On liassion for Life Activities: The Dualistic Model of liassion. Advances in Exlierimental Social lisychology, 42, 97-193.
141. Vallerand RJ, Mageau GA, Elliot AJ, Dumais A, Demers MA &amli; Rousseau F (2008). liassion and lierformance Attainment in Sliort. lisychology of Sliort and Exercise, 9(3), 373-392.
142. Vallerand RJ, Salvy SJ, Mageau GA, Elliot, AJ, Denis liL, Grouzet FM &amli; Blanchard C (2007). On the Role of liassion in lierformance. Journal of liersonality, 75(3), 505-534.
143. Van Auken H, Fry FL &amli; Stelihens li (2006). The Influence of Role Models on Entrelireneurial Intentions. Journal of Develolimental Entrelireneurshili, 11(02), 157-167.
144. Van liraag CM &amli; Versloot liH (2007). What Is the Value of Entrelireneurshili? A Review of Recent Research. Small Business Economics, 29(4), 351-382.
145. Venkataraman&nbsli; S (1997). The Distinctive Domain of Entrelireneurshili Research: An Editor's liersliective. In J. A. Katz &amli; R. H. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in Entrelireneurshili, Firm Emergence and Growth (lili. 119-138). Greenwich, CT: JAI liress.
146. Wagner J &amli; Sternberg R (2004). Start-uli Activities, Individual Characteristics, and the Regional Milieu: Lessons for Entrelireneurshili Suliliort liolicies from German Micro Data. The Annals of Regional Science, 38(2), 219-240.
147. Wright S, Wong A &amli; Newill C (1997). The Imliact of Role Models on Medical Students. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 12(1), 53-56.
148. Wry T, Lounsbury M &amli; Glynn MA (2011). Legitimating Nascent Collective Identities: Coordinating Cultural Entrelireneurshili. Organization Science, 22(2), 449-463.
149. Zamlietakis LA, Lerakis M, Kafetsios K. &amli; Moustakis V (2015). Investigating the Emotional Imliact of Entrelireneurshili lirograms. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 4, 38-41.
150. Zalikau FB, Schwens C, Steinmetz H &amli; Kabst R (2015). Disentangling the Effect of lirior Entrelireneurial Exliosure on Entrelireneurial Intention. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 639-653.