Demographic factors influence on the entrepreneurial intention among students in chennai city


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Demographic factors influence on the entrepreneurial intention among students in chennai city

  1. 1. Journal of Management Research and Development (JMRD), ISSN 2248 – 937X (Print) Journal of Management Research and Development (JMRD),ISSN 2248 ––937X (Print) Volume 1, Number 1, January - December (2011) ISSN 2248 9390(Online),ISSN 2248 – 9390(Online), Volume 1, Number 1 JMRDJanuary - December (2011), pp. 63-69 © PRJ PUBLICATION© PRJ Publication, FACTORS INFLUENCE ON THE ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION AMONG STUDENTS IN CHENNAI CITY Nisha Ashokan, Assistant Professor (Selection Grade), SRM School of Management, SRM University. SRM Nagar, Kattankulathur, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India.E-mail:; Dr. Jayshree Suresh, Dean , SRM School of Management, SRM University., SRM Nagar, Kattankulathur, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India.E-mail:; People may decide to start businesses when and because they recognize—perhapsunexpectedly—specific entrepreneurial opportunities. The thought of becoming an entrepreneurmay not have even occurred to them before this idea came into view. Others may decide to startventures and undergo a Search for ideas. Entrepreneurs may recognize opportunities well inadvance, or just before they set up their businesses. Consequently, the perception ofopportunities relative to new business starts can take many different paths.1.0 INTRODUCTION An economy’s entrepreneurial energy derives, at least in part, from individuals whoperceive opportunities for launching a business in the area in which they live. These people arefurther encouraged by their beliefs in their capabilities for starting the types of ventures they mayenvisage. The quantity and quality of the opportunities they perceive, and their beliefs about theircapabilities, may be affected by various conditions in their environment: for example, economicgrowth, culture and education. Different demographic groups may make distinct judgments about opportunities andcapabilities; these may be embedded in historical, socio-economic or cultural factors. At thesame time, policy makers may seek to Stimulate these attitudes. Policy programs may explicitly 63
  2. 2. Journal of Management Research and Development (JMRD), ISSN 2248 – 937X (Print)ISSN 2248 – 9390(Online), Volume 1, Number 1, January - December (2011)target groups exhibiting low perceived or actual capabilities. Thus, particular sets of nationalconditions may affect perceived capabilities, both directly and indirectly. On average, individualsin factor-driven economies have higher perceptions that there are good opportunities forentrepreneurship, and that they have the capabilities to start businesses. These attitude measurestend to decline with greater development levels. Even when individuals have favorable perceptions of entrepreneurship, they maynonetheless have few intentions to start businesses. This is the case for many European countries.Although attitudes and perceptions about entrepreneurship are fairly high, this is not matched byhigh intentions for starting businesses. A variety of national characteristics could be underlyingthis phenomenon. An economy’s entrepreneurial capacity requires individuals with the abilityand motivations to start businesses. These entrepreneurs, however, will need to rely on a widevariety of personal and professional support mechanisms: families, advisors, governmentofficials, creditors and investors, suppliers and customers and so forth. These stakeholders needto be willing to support entrepreneurs, perhaps taking some risks along with them.2.0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Entrepreneurial intent has proven to be a primary predictor of future entrepreneurialbehavior (Katz, 1988; Reynolds, 1995; Krueger et al., 2000). Therefore, investigating whatfactors determine the entrepreneurial intent is a crucial issue in entrepreneurship research. Ingeneral, intent can be defined as “a state of mind directing a person’s attention toward a specificobject or a path in order to achieve something” (Vesalainen and Pihkala, 1999, p. 3). A commontheoretical framework for models explaining pre-start up processes is the theory of plannedbehavior that views behavioral intent as an immediate determinant of planned behavior (Fishbeinand Ajzen, 1975). It applies particularly, when the behavior is rare, hard to observe, or involvesunpredictable time lags (Krueger et al., 2000). Entrepreneurship can be viewed as the type ofplanned behavior, for which intention models are appropriate (Autio et al., 1997; Krueger et al.,2000). In previous research, personal and environment-based determinants of entrepreneurialintent such as personality traits, attitudes toward entrepreneurship, or social environment have 64
  3. 3. Journal of Management Research and Development (JMRD), ISSN 2248 – 937X (Print)ISSN 2248 – 9390(Online), Volume 1, Number 1, January - December (2011)been extensively discussed (Begley et al., 1997; Brandsta¨tter, 1997; Davidsson, 1995; Frankeand Lu¨ thje, 2004; Robinson et al., 1991; Segal et al., 2005). However, there have been only a limited number of studies addressing influence factorsfor students’ entrepreneurial intention (Lu¨thje and Franke, 2003; Wang and Wong, 2004). Inaddition, research results are partly inconsistent. Specifically, it is not widely known whetherenvironment or the individual characteristics drive the students’ career decision toward self-employment.3.0 INFLUENCE OF DEMOGRAPHIC FEATURES ON ENTREPRENEURIALINTENTIONSThe following factors were taken as demographic factors influencing entrepreneurialintention.Gender, age, birth order, education, academic performance, marital status, native region,education of father and mother, occupation of father , mother and siblings, monthly familyincome.GENDER The frequency distribution of gender of professional course students was analyzed andthe results are presented in Table 1 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF GENDER OF STUDENTS Gender Frequency Per CentMale 452 69.54Female 198 30.46Total 650 100.00Source: Primary & Computed DataInference From the above table, it is clear that about 69.54 per cent of the professional coursestudents are males and the rest of 30.46 per cent of the professional course students are females.It is inferred that the majority of the professional course students are males. 65
  4. 4. Journal of Management Research and Development (JMRD), ISSN 2248 – 937X (Print)ISSN 2248 – 9390(Online), Volume 1, Number 1, January - December (2011)AGE The frequency distribution of age of professional course students was analyzed and theresults are presented in Table 2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF AGE OF STUDENTS Age( Years) Frequency Per Cent19-20 32 4.9220-21 91 14.0021-22 158 24.3122-23 194 29.8523-24 88 13.5424-25 49 7.5425 and Above 38 5.84Total 650 100.00Source: Primary & Computed DataInference The results show that about 29.85 per cent of the professional course students belong tothe age group of 22-23 years followed by 21-22 years(24.31 per cent), 20-21 years(14.00 percent), 23-24 years(13.54 per cent), 24-25 years(7.54 per cent), 25 and above 25 years( 5.84 percent) and 19-20 years( 4.92 per cent). The results reveal that the most of the professional coursestudents belong to the age group of 22-23 years. In order to examine the influence of demographic features on entrepreneurial intentionsof professional course students, the multiple linear regression has employed and the results arepresented in Table 1. The results indicate that the Adjusted R2 is 0.76 indicating the regressionmodel is good fit and it also shows about 76.00 per cent of the variation in entrepreneurialintentions is explained by demographic variables. 66
  5. 5. Journal of Management Research and Development (JMRD), ISSN 2248 – 937X (Print)ISSN 2248 – 9390(Online), Volume 1, Number 1, January - December (2011) TABLE 1 INFLUENCE OF DEMOGRAPHIC FEATURES ON ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS –MULTIPLE REGRESSION Personal Attitudes Regression t-value Sig CoefficientsIntercept 11.692** 5.642 .001Gender(X1) 1.043 1.016 .364Age (X2) 1.236** 2.934 .001Birth Order(X3) -.893 1.184 .429Education (X4) 1.328** 3.106 .001Academic Performance(X5) .642 0.852 .324Marital Status(X6) 1.024* 2.112 .025Native Region(X7) 1.114* 2.106 .342Education of Father(X8) .987** 2.848 .012Education of Mother(X9) -.652 .876 .482Occupation of Father(X10) .864* 2.084 .043Occupation of Mother(X11) .452 .864 .396Occupation of Siblings(X12) .788* 2.226 .042Monthly Family Income(X13) 1.127** 3.104 .001 R2 0.78 Adjusted R2 0.76 F 11.494 0.01 N 650Note: ** Significance at one per cent level * Significance at five per cent levelSource: Primary and Computed Data The results show that age, education, education of father and monthly family income arepositively influencing the entrepreneurial intentions of professional course students at one percent level of significance. Meanwhile, marital status, native region, occupation of father andoccupation of siblings are also positively influencing the entrepreneurial intentions of 67
  6. 6. Journal of Management Research and Development (JMRD), ISSN 2248 – 937X (Print)ISSN 2248 – 9390(Online), Volume 1, Number 1, January - December (2011)professional course students at five per cent level of significance. The above analysis shows thatthe age and education are highly influencing the Entrepreneurial intention among the students.The institutions should undertake intervention in the age group of 23 and above. Themanagement students have showed a comparative higher level of intention than otherspecialization students. This may be due to the fact that there is increase in the number ofengineering students who come in to do their post graduation in management. The monthlyfamily income of the individual students have played a major role in influencing theentrepreneurial in intention of the students. Most of the students in today’s time take bank loan tocomplete their course. This influences their decision on the aspect of career choice.REFERENCES1.Ajzen.I & Fishbein.M. (1977). Attitude – behavior Relations: A theoretical analysis and reviewof empirical research .Psychological Bulletin, Vol.84, No.5, 888-918.2.Ajzen.I (1991).The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational behavior & human decisionprocess, 50, 179 – 211.3.Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J.Beckmann (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). New York:4.Springer-Verlag. Bagozzi .P. Richard (1982). A field investigation of causal relationsamong cognitions, affect, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.XIX,562-584.5.Ajzen.I, Czasch.C, Flood.M.G. (2009). From intentions to behavior: Implementation,intention, commitment and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 6,1356-1372.6.Bandura, A., 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory.Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.7.Bird.B & Jelinek .M. (1988). The operation of entrepreneurial intentions. EntrepreneurshipTheory and practice, 21- 29.8.Bird .B. (1988), Implementing entrepreneurial Ideas: The case for Intentions. Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 13, No.3, 442-453. 68
  7. 7. Journal of Management Research and Development (JMRD), ISSN 2248 – 937X (Print)ISSN 2248 – 9390(Online), Volume 1, Number 1, January - December (2011)9.Crant, J.M., 1996. The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions.Journal of Small Business Management 34, 42–49.10.Chen, C.C., Greene, P.G., Crick, A.,1998. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguishentrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing 13 (4), 295–316.11. Davidsson, P., 1995. Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions. Paper presented at theRENT IX Conference, Workshop in Entrepreneurship Research, Piacenza,Italy, November 23–24.12.Davidsson, P., Wiklund, J., 2001. Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship re-search: currentresearch practice and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 25 (4),81–100.13. Degeorge J.M. & Fayolle .A. (2008). Is entrepreneurial intention stable through time? Firstinsights from a sample of French students. International Journal on Entrepreneurship and smallbusiness management, Vol.5, No.1, 1-25.14.Fishbein, M. and Stasson, M. (1990) The role of desires, self-predictions, and perceivedcontrol in the prediction of training session attendance, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,20, pp. 173–198.15.Gartner,W.B., Bird, B.J., Starr, J.A., 1992. Acting as if: differentiating entrepreneurial fromorganizational behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16, 13–31.16.Krueger, N.F., Carsud, A.L., 1993. Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of plannedbehavior. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 5 (4), 315–330.17. Kolvereid, L., 1996. Prediction of employment status choice intentions. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice 21 (1), 47–57.18. Linan, F., Chen, Y.W., 2009. Development and cross-cultural application of a specificinstrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 593–617(May).19.Wang, C. & Wong, P. (2004), Entrepreneurial interest of university students in Singapore,Technovation , , 24 (2), 161-172. 69