Personal Initiative Mediates Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intentions

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjeb20
Download by: [The UC San Diego Library] Date: 25 June 2017, At: 00:42
Journal of East-West Business
ISSN: 1066-9868 (Print) 1528-6959 (Online) Journal homepage: http://tandfonline.com/loi/wjeb20
A Cross-National Study of Personal Initiative
as a Mediator between Self-Efficacy and
Entrepreneurial Intentions
Marina Z. Solesvik
To cite this article: Marina Z. Solesvik (2017): A Cross-National Study of Personal Initiative as
a Mediator between Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intentions, Journal of East-West Business,
DOI: 10.1080/10669868.2017.1306821
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10669868.2017.1306821
Published online: 15 Jun 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 25
View related articles
View Crossmark data

JOURNAL OF EAST-WEST BUSINESS
https://doi.org/10.1080/10669868.2017.1306821
A Cross-National Study of Personal Initiative as a Mediator
between Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intentions
Marina Z. Solesvik
Nord University Business School, Nord University, Bodø, Norway
ABSTRACT
Although considerable research has highlighted that high levels
of self-efficacy are associated with high levels of entrepreneurial
intentions, little attention has been paid to the mediating
effects of different variables on the relations between self-
efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions. Integrating theoretical
work on self-efficacy with personal initiative literature,
I developed a model of entrepreneurial intentions that included
both the independent effects of self-efficacy and control
variables and the mediating effect of personal initiative on
entrepreneurial intentions. I tested this model with a sample of
429 students from four universities in emerging and developed
countries. Results indicate that personal initiative fully mediates
the effect of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intentions.
I uncover that the level of self-efficacy is significantly higher
among the students in an emerging economy. However, no
significant difference was observed in the reported levels of
personal initiative in two contexts.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 10 November 2016
Revised 11 March 2017
Accepted 12 March 2017
KEYWORDS
Entrepreneurial intentions;
Norway; personal initiative;
self-efficacy; Ukraine
Introduction
Policy makers in established and transition economy countries are concerned
with increase of the number and performance of entrepreneurial ventures
(Mihailova, Shirokova, and Laine 2015). Entrepreneurial ventures have a great
potential to boost employment and create value (Davidsson and Wiklund
2001). One of the biggest potential groups of new entrepreneur supplies is
young people (Schøtt, Kew, and Cheraghi 2015). Consequently, governments
in many countries and nonprofit organizations support the development of
entrepreneurial skills among young people (Kourilsky and Walstad 1998;
Rasheed 2000). Various measures and programs are introduced for youth,
for example, student enterprises, business plan competitions, and the like.
All of these initiatives are aimed to increase interest among young people
toward entrepreneurship, enhance self-efficacy, and develop skills related to
venture creation and management (Jansen et al. 2015).
Entrepreneurial intentions (EI) have long been recognized as predictors
of the future engagement of young people into new venture creation
none defined
CONTACT Marina Z. Solesvik mzs@hvl.no Nord University Business School, Nord University, Post Box 1490,
Bodø 8049, Norway.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis

(Kolvereid 1996; Kolvereid 2016). Many factors that influence the intensity of
intentions have been explored in previous studies. The theory of planned
behavior (Ajzen 1991) and entrepreneurial event model (Shapero and Sokol
1982) (or a combination of these two theories) are among the most popular
theoretical approaches used in publications on intentions (Kolvereid 1996;
Iakovleva, Kolvereid, and Stephan 2011). In addition, self-efficacy is one of
the most consistent predictors of intentions (Klyver and Thornton 2010).
Although the literature on self-efficacy is extant (Chen, Greene, and Crick
1998; Barbosa, Gerhardt, and Kickul 2007; Bullough, Renko, and Myatt
2014), the role of self-efficacy in transition-economy countries has been
limitedly explored in the literature (Zhao, Seibert, and Hills 2005).
Several research areas are worth scholars’ attention in the quickly growing
field of research of entrepreneurial intentions. One of the major concerns of
entrepreneurship scholars is that a significant part of people who report entre-
preneurial intentions never start a new business (Kolvereid 2016). A meta-
analysis of Armitage and Conner (2001) reported that EI is responsible on
average only for 27% of the variance in behavior. A call has been made to
attract researchers’ attention to this topic. Fayolle and Liñán (2014, 665) argue
that “an urgent need exists to empirically and theoretically investigate the
intention-behaviour link.” Scholars attempt to determine factors that lead
to shortening of the intention-behavior gap (Adam and Fayolle 2016). Action
theory (Frese 2009) and its antecedent—implementation intention perspective
(Gollwitzer 1999)—are recommended as theoretical frameworks for inten-
tion-behavior research (Liñán and Fayolle 2015). The action theory suggests
that goals, action plans, and self-efficacy are vital to execute action and beha-
vior (Frese 2009; Fayolle and Liñán 2014). Goals, action plans, and tasks are
components of the personal initiative construct (Frese and Gielnik 2014).
Personal initiative is related to “a behavior syndrome that includes self-
starting, proactive, and long-term oriented behavior as well as persistence
towards obstacles” (Utsch and Rauch 2000, 48). The positive effect of personal
initiative on entrepreneurial outcome is established (Frese, Gielnik, and
Mensmann 2016a). However, the research on relations between personal
initiative and entrepreneurship, especially in emerging economies, is still
scarce (Rooks, Sserwanga, and Frese 2016).
To address the aforementioned issues, I developed and tested a model of
entrepreneurial intentions that pays attention to action related factors. Specifi-
cally, I integrate research on self-efficacy with personal initiative stream of
research to explore individual’s features that are likely to lead to higher entre-
preneurial intentions. In particular, recent studies recognized that the direct
link between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions can be mediated
by different factors (Tsai, Chang, and Peng 2016). In the proposed model, I
hypothesize that the relation between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial inten-
tions is mediated by personal initiative.
2 M. Z. SOLESVIK

Following suggestions to explore the influence of context on the shaping of
EI (Fayolle and Liñán 2014), and to examine entrepreneurial phenomena in
contrasting environments (Smallbone and Welter 2012), I focus on entrepre-
neurial intentions of students in two different contexts: a developed economy
of Norway and an emerging economy country of Ukraine. Using reanalysis of
the International Entrepreneurial Intentions Research Group project data
(Iakovleva, Kolvereid, and Stephan 2011; Solesvik 2013), this study explores
the following research questions related to the Norwegian and Ukrainian
contexts: (i) Does personal initiative mediate the relation between self-efficacy
and entrepreneurial intentions? (ii) Do students in emerging and developed
countries differ in the level of entrepreneurial intentions, self-efficacy, and
personal initiative?
The major contribution of this study is to draw attention to personal
initiative in entrepreneurship intention research. Using a novel and advanced
bootstrapping procedure to test mediation (Preacher and Hayes 2004, 2008),
I found that personal initiative fully mediates the relation between self-efficacy
and entrepreneurial intentions. This finding is important for entrepreneur-
ship scholars, policy makers, and educators. In particular, the finding is
important because the level of individual’s personal initiative can be increased
with the help of special educational programs (Glaub et al. 2014; Frese,
Gielnik, and Mensmann 2016a). Thus, the focus of enterprise education
courses might be changed from self-efficacy to personal initiative.
Comparative cross-national research on personal initiative is somewhat
scarce (Frese et al. 1997). The second important contribution of this study
is that the level of personal initiative is not different among the individuals
in the former socialist country of Ukraine and those from the country with
developed market economy of Norway.
The article is organized as follows. In the following section, I review
previous research related to self-efficacy, personal initiative and national
contexts that can influence a student’s intensity of entrepreneurial intention.
Next, I discuss the sample and the method used to test the hypotheses.
Results from statistical analysis, including mediation bootstrapping test of
the links between student asset profiles, self-efficacy, and intensity of
entrepreneurial intentions, are reported. Last, discussion and conclusions
are presented.
Theoretical insights
Self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions
Research of entrepreneurial intentions is a popular topic among scholars over
the past 20 years (Kolvereid 1996; Fayolle and Liñán 2014). Previous research
point out that an entrepreneurial intention is a recognized forecaster of
JOURNAL OF EAST-WEST BUSINESS 3

subsequent behavior (Krueger and Carsrud 1993; Westhead and Solesvik
2016). Intentions are
assumed to capture the motivational factors that influence behavior; they are
indications of how hard people are willing to try, of how much of an effort they
are planning to exert to perform the behavior. As a general rule, the stronger the
intention to engage in behavior, the more likely should be its performance (Ajzen
1991, 181).
A number of specific research questions related to entrepreneurial inten-
tions were explored and theories were tested in different contexts (Liñán
and Fayolle 2015). However, there is a dearth of narrow research topics in
the intentions field that need additional attention from scholars. Luckily, as
Krueger (2009, 53) noticed:
The construct of intentions appears to be deeply fundamental to human decision
making and, as such, it should afford us multiple fruitful opportunities to explore
the connection between intent and a vast array of other theories and models that
relate to decision making under risk and uncertainty.
This means that scholars can combine different perspectives and theories
into new models to deeper explore the influence of different constructs on
intentions. Following suggestion by Fayolle and Liñán (2014), scholars should
also test an interaction effect (Fitzsimmons and Douglas 2011), a mediation
effect (Tsai, Chang, and Peng 2016), and a moderation effect on intentions
(Shinnar, Hsu, and Powell 2014).
One of the most recognized constructs shaping entrepreneurial intentions
is self-efficacy (Krueger and Brazeal 1994; Piperopoulos and Dimov 2015;
Tsai, Chang, and Peng 2016). It has been argued that self-efficacy is one
of the constructs that is “closer to action than other traits, it can be used
to predict and study an entrepreneur’s behaviour choice, persistence, and
effectiveness” (Utsch and Rauch 2000, 47). Having its roots in the social
learning theory (Bandura 1977), self-efficacy is defined as “beliefs in one’s
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to
produce given attainments” (Bandura 1997, 3). The person who feels
confident in her skills and power to start and drive business is more likely
to start it rather than a person who does not believe in own capabilities
(Piperopoulos and Dimov, 2015). In fact, people’s behavior is driven not
by objective estimation of own capabilities but subjective perceptions of
these capabilities (Markman, Balkin, and Baron 2002). Self-efficacy is related
to one’s feeling of optimistic perception of own competencies to start and
manage own business. The stronger feeling of perceived self-efficacy leads
to more daring actions in coping with new or difficult situations, and
greater success in one’s actions (Benight and Bandura 2004). It is interesting
to note that people who report higher perceived self-efficacy target higher
goals and achieve them (Bandura and Wood 1989).
4 M. Z. SOLESVIK

More confident people perceive a possible failure as a learning experience
(Luthans, Vogelgesang, and Lester 2006) which does not prevent them from
trying an activity again later. In this case, people take into account a negative
experience from previous attempts. Factors that can be changed (e.g., entre-
preneurial experience and education) have greater influence on self-efficacy
and intentions than factors which are difficult to change (i.e., gender and risk
propensity) (Zhao, Seibert, and Hills 2005). Previous empirical research
confirmed direct influence of self-efficacy on intentions (Chen, Greene, and
Crick 1998; Jung and Yammarino 2001; Ahlin, Drnovšek, and Hisrich
2014). Furthermore, self-efficacy is valid to explain entrepreneurial intentions
both in a developed economy context (Zhao, Seibert, and Hills 2005) and in
an emerging economy context (Prabhu et al. 2012; Bullough, Renko, and
Myatt 2014). However, the link between self-efficacy and intentions was not
tested in prior research in relation to the Ukrainian context. This discussion
leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relation between students’ self-efficacy and high
intensity of entrepreneurial intentions.
Some recent studies also reported the mediation effect of different variables
between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions. The model developed by
Tsai, Chang, and Peng (2016) tests the mediating effect of the constructions
from the theory of planned behavior (subjective norms, attitude, and
perceived behavior control). Testing the model with the sample of 308
individuals in Taiwan detected that attitude and perceived behavior control
mediated the relation between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions.
Schlaegel and Koenig (2014) demonstrated that constructs of the entrepre-
neurial event theory (perceived desirability and perceived feasibility) partially
mediate the relation between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions.
Furthermore, Tsai, Chang, and Peng (2016) called for further research related
to detection of other variables that might mediate the relation between
self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions. One of these mediators can be
personal initiative construct, a variable that has got somewhat limited
attention in EI research.
Personal initiative
Following suggestions by Fayolle and Liñán (2014), Krueger (2009), Liñán and
Fayolle (2015), studies on entrepreneurial intentions should further explore
the influence of personal-level variables on intentions. Personal initiative is
a construct that is positively associated with entrepreneurship activity (Frese
2009; Glaub et al. 2014; Frese, Hass, and Friedrich 2016b). However, the link
between personal initiative and entrepreneurship is scarcely explored, especially
in the context of emerging economies (Rooks, Sserwanga, and Frese 2016).

More specifically, only a handful of studies have explored the effect of an
individual’s personal initiative on entrepreneurial intentions (Krueger and
Brazeal 1994; Johnmark, Munene, and Balunywa 2016). Personal initiative is
defined as “a behaviour syndrome that results in an individual taking an
active and self-starting approach to work goals and tasks and persisting in
overcoming barriers and setbacks” (Fay and Frese 2001: 97). It is important
to note that personal initiative is a somewhat similar construct to propensity
to act construct in the entrepreneurial event theory (Shapero and Sokol 1982)
and proactivity (Crant 1996). Unfortunately, there were no well-developed
scales to measure the propensity to act construct (Krueger, Reilly, and
Carsrud 2000). Thus, the influence of the constructs related to proactivity
and action on intentions has not got enough empirical support. Given the
importance of an action toward intentions, I aim to study the influence of
personal initiative in this research. It is surprising that the influence of personal
initiative on shaping of entrepreneurial intentions was not examined properly
in previous research. Personal initiative is a proactive act (Krauss et al. 2005)
which is characterized by self-started nature (Fay and Frese 2001). Self-starting
refers to the individual’s ability to set goals independently. The goals, thus, are
not assigned by someone else. In contrast, a passive behavior consists in
contributing to someone else’s goals, giving up if difficulties appeared on the
way, and responding to environmental burdens (Fay and Frese 2001). Further-
more, many studies have demonstrated the significant benefits that people who
score high in personal initiative can achieve (Frese, Garst, and Fay 2007).
The aforementioned definition of self-efficacy in an entrepreneurship con-
text reflects a somewhat static nature of this concept—that is, one’s belief in
own capability to start and manage a firm. A person can be absolutely sure
(subjectively and objectively) that he or she is capable to start and own
business; however, natural inertia (Katz 1992) can hinder the formation of
person’s entrepreneurial intentions. Inertia leads to a situation when people
are unwilling to change their lives unless some positive events (e.g., getting
money from relatives) or a negative event (such as job loss) leads a person
to leave the steady-state position and change her own life (Krueger and
Brazeal 1994). Thus, personal initiative behavior distinguished by such
components as self-starting, proactivity, and overcoming difficulties (Frese
and Fay 2001; Frese 2009) can be that missing link that connects self-efficacy
to the development of intentions and then into further action (i.e., an
entrepreneurial event).
The link between self-efficacy and personal initiative behavior of employees
was explored using the sample of 563 individuals in Germany (Speier and
Frese 1997). It was established the positive and significant link between
general self-efficacy and personal initiative (Speier and Frese 1997). Indeed,
people with low levels of self-efficacy having low self-estimates of their
abilities to perform an action will tend to have low levels of personal initiative
6 M. Z. SOLESVIK

toward the behavior. I can hypothesize that the positive relation between
self-efficacy and personal initiative will be even higher in entrepreneurship
context.
Frese, Gielnik, and Mensmann (2016a) provide an evidence that start-up
intentions among the students have increased after the personal initiative
development training offered to 2724 individuals in five African countries.
The mediating role of personal initiative behavior between different
constructs is recognized in previous research. For example, it mediates the
relation between self-efficacy and venture performance (Utsch and Rauch
2000), and relation between self-efficacy and control complexity (Speier and
Frese 1997). Thus, to test those assumptions and fully examine the role of
personal initiative in shaping entrepreneurial intentions, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relation between students’ personal initiative and
entrepreneurial intentions.
Hypothesis 3: Personal initiative mediates relation between students’ self-efficacy
and entrepreneurial intentions.
Influence of a country context
Entrepreneurship is starkly influenced by social and cultural contexts
(Reynolds 1992). Fayolle and Liñán (2014) highlighted major areas of entre-
preneurial intentions research and, in particular, called for further research to
explore the influence of context on intentions. The previous empirical
research confirms that the national culture is a predictor of entrepreneurial
intentions. For example, Pruett et al. (2009) examined the entrepreneurial
intentions in the United States, China, and Spain. They have found
support for hypothesis related to the role of national culture in shaping
entrepreneurial intentions. In a similar vein, Shirokova, Osievskyy, and
Bogatyreva (2016) studied responses of 84 thousand students from 28
countries participating in Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students’
Survey. Shirokova and colleagues have also found the significant relation
between the national context and intentions.
Recent studies of entrepreneurial intentions showed that the level of
entrepreneurial intentions in emerging Ukrainian economy is high (Solesvik,
Westhead, and Matlay 2014; Westhead and Solesvik 2016). Moreover,
comparative empirical studies showed that the level of entrepreneurial
intentions in emerging-economy countries is higher than the level of
intentions in developed countries (Engle et al. 2010; Iakovleva, Kolvereid,
and Stephan 2011). More specifically, Engle et al. (2010) reported the mean
scores of individual’s entrepreneurial intentions: Finland = 6.6; Germany = 7;
Sweden = 7.1; Spain = 7.8; United States = 7.9; France = 8; China = 8.4;
Egypt = 10.9; Costa Rica = 11.1; Bangladesh = 11.2; Russia = 12.2; and

Ghana = 12.3. Frese et al. (1997) found out that individuals in the former
German Democratic Republic reported lower levels of personal initiative.
They collected data right after the German Democratic Republic collapse in
1991–1992 (Frese et al. 1997). Personal initiative of citizens under the
command economy was not welcomed and harnessed by authorities. People
were provided with free houses and apartments, salaries were enough to
survive, and unemployment did not exist; that is, all people worked in the
state owned or collective enterprises. Entrepreneurial activities were crimin-
ally prosecuted (Peng 2001). Such “greenhouse conditions” did not promote
personal initiative among the individuals. The situation changed over almost
twenty years of market economy in former socialist states. People were not
provided with jobs anymore, many people lost their jobs and should change
their professions. Some people became entrepreneurs because it was the only
way to survive and provide means for the living (Parsyak and Zhuravlyova
2001). Such situation favored the development of personal initiative because
stressors are positively related to the growth of personal initiative (Fay and
Sonnentag 2002). Thus, I can expect that the level of self-efficacy, personal
initiative, and intentions is higher in countries with emerging economy than
in developed countries. I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 4: Entrepreneurial intentions of students in emerging economy are
higher than entrepreneurial intentions of students in developed
economy.
Hypothesis 5: Self-efficacy of students in emerging economy is higher than self-
efficacy of students in developed economy.
Hypothesis 6: Personal initiative of students in emerging economy is higher than
personal initiative of students in developed economy.
Research method and data collected
Sample, data collection, and respondents
To test my hypotheses, I used data collected from bachelor and master students
in Nikolaev in Ukraine and in Bodø in Norway. The questionnaire was
developed in English. A professional translator translated the original
English version into local languages. To ensure translations correctness, both
Norwegian and Russian versions were then back-translated into English,
following recommendations of Brislin, Lonner, and Thorndike (1973).
Furthermore, a pilot study was conducted with 10 native Russian speaking
students studying at the Nord University in Norway and 10 Norwegian
students at the same university.
Students in Ukraine followed business studies or engineering studies in
three universities. Ukrainian participants followed courses at the private
European University (opened in 1997), the state owned National University
of Shipbuilding (opened in 1920), and the state owned Petro Mohyla Black
8 M. Z. SOLESVIK

Sea State University (opened in Nikolaev in 1996). The curriculum of
enterprise education proposed in each Ukrainian university is alike. Taking
enterprise education is compulsory in all three Ukrainian universities for
business students. I have asked business students in the three universities in
Ukraine to fill out a structured questionnaire in September 2010. Entrepreneur-
ship was taught in a conventional form (lectures and seminars). In addition, I
collected supplement data in September 2010 from a control group of bachelor
and master engineering students in the National University of Shipbuilding
who were not offered to take enterprise education. I have not had access to
engineering students in the other two universities. To improve the response
rate and confidentiality of the data provided, the survey was anonymous.
At the European University, 242 business students had received enterprise
education by September 2010. A random sample of 50 business students was
asked to complete a paper-based questionnaire during a class, and 38 students
provided responses (76% response rate). At the National University of
Shipbuilding, 490 business students had been engaged into entrepreneurship
courses by September 2010. A random sample of 140 business students was
asked to complete a paper-based questionnaire during a class, and 106
students provided responses (76% response rate). The information was, in
addition, gathered from a random sample of 100 engineering students and
78 students provided responses (78% response rate). At the Petro Mohyla
Humanitarian University, 295 business students had taken entrepreneurship
education by September 2010. A random sample of 124 business students
was asked to complete a paper-based questionnaire during a class, and 99
students provided responses (80% response rate). In total, 329 questionnaires
were returned. Eight questionnaires returned had some missing data, and they
were excluded from further analysis. In total, valid returns were obtained
from 243 business students (77% valid response rate) and 78 engineering
students (78% response rate). The average age of respondents was 20.2 years,
and 65% were women. Chi-square tests did not detect significant differences
between the business studies respondents and nonrespondents with regard
to university origin, age, gender, and degree course, at the .05 level of
significance. No response bias was detected. Thus, I can generalize from the
sample of business students to the population of business students who had
taken enterprise courses at three universities in Ukraine. Furthermore,
chi-square tests did not detect significant differences between the engineering
studies respondents and nonrespondents with regard to age, gender, and
degree course, at the .05 level of significance. No response bias was detected.
Thus, I can generalize from the sample of engineering students to the
population of engineering students in the National University of Shipbuilding.
Students in Norway followed business studies in the Nord Business School
of the Nord University (opened in 1985). This is a dynamically developing
university situated in the North of Norway. At the Nord University,

entrepreneurship courses are compulsory for business students. In February-
March 2007, a structured questionnaire was administered to business studies
students. Participants were recruited via an e-mail message that explained the
study’s aim and asked for their voluntary participation. All 258 senior busi-
ness students have received a link to an online survey, and 111 responses were
obtained (43% response rate). Three questionnaires returned had some miss-
ing data, and they were excluded from further analysis. The average age of
Norwegian respondents was 26.45 years old. The majority of respondents
were male (59%). Students who participated in this study were not
compensated.
Chi-square tests did not detect significant differences between the respon-
dents and nonrespondents with regard to age and gender at the .05 level of
significance. No response bias was detected. Thus, I can generalize from the
sample of business students to the population of business students who had
taken enterprise courses at the Norwegian university. The final sample
consisted of 429 students in Ukraine and Norway.
Measures
Dependent variable
I assessed students’ entrepreneurial intentions using the following question:
“Have you seriously considered starting your own business?” In relation to
this question, students were presented with the following six statements: “I
am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur,” “My professional goal is
to become an entrepreneur,” “I am determined to create a business venture
in the future,” “I have very seriously thought about starting a firm,” “I have
got the intention to start a firm one day,” and “I intend to start a firm within
five years of graduation” (Liñán and Chen 2009). All responses to each state-
ment were reported on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (absolutely disagree) to
7 (absolutely agree) (intentions).
Independent variables
General self-efficacy variable. The majority of students do not have
entrepreneurial experience. Thus, it might be highly questionable to assess
their entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Khedhaouria, Gurău, and Torrès 2015).
Therefore, for the purposes of this research I will use general self-efficacy. I
used the measure of general self-efficacy developed by Schwarzer and
Jerusalem (1995). Sample items included “I can always manage to solve
difficult problems if I try hard enough”; “If someone opposes me, I can find
the means and ways to get what I want”; “It is easy for me to stick to my aims
and accomplish my goals”; “I am confident that I could deal efficiently with
unexpected events”; “Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle
unforeseen situations”; “I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary
10 M. Z. SOLESVIK

effort”; “I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my
coping abilities”; “When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find
several solutions”; “If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution”; and “I
can usually handle whatever comes my way.” All responses were reported on a 7-
point scale ranging from 1 (completely false) to 7 (completely true) (self-efficacy).
Personal initiative variable. Students were presented with seven statements
with reference to the personal initiative variable (Frese et al. 1997). Sample
items included “I actively attack problems,” “Whenever something goes
wrong, I search for a solution immediately”; “Whenever there is a chance
to get actively involved, I take it”; “I take initiative immediately even when
others don’t”; “I use opportunities quickly in order to attain my goals”;
“Usually I do more than I am asked to do”; and “I am particularly good at
realizing ideas.” Respondents in our sample used a 7-point scale ranging from
1 (absolutely disagree) to 7 (absolutely agree) (initiative).
Control variables
I included a comprehensive list of control variables in the analysis. Gender,
knowledge gained from self-employed parents, and experience from own
entrepreneurial activity (current and previous) might shape entrepreneurial
intentions among young people. General human capital variables were
operationalized as control variables. Gender was a dummy variable such that
female students were coded as ‘2,’ and male students were coded as ‘1’
(gender). I used a dummy variable capturing whether the students had
self-employed parents (coded as ‘1’), or did not have self-employed parents
(coded as ‘0’) (parents). Previous entrepreneurial experience is positively
and significantly related to self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions (Zhao,
Seibert, and Hills 2005). Students who are self-employed now were coded as
‘1,’ and otherwise were coded as ‘0’ (experience).
Multicollinearity test
Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics, correlations among the variables, and
variance inflation factor scores. The variance inflation factor scores are well
under the recommended guideline of 5 (Hair et al. 2010) and this implies that
Table 1. Variable Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Correlation Coefficients (N = 429).
Variable M SD
Variance
inflation factor 1 2 3 6 7 8
1. Gender 1.60 0.49 1.022 1.00
2. Parents 0.69 0.71 1.041 −.083 1.00
3. Experience 0.51 0.82 1.047 −.16** .66** 1.00
4. Self-efficacy 54.35 8.98 1.686 −.04 −.09 −.09 1.00
5. Initiative 37.46 7.36 1.684 .04 .00 .02 .66** 1.00
6. Intentions 27.90 9.38 −.01 −.14** −.23** .35** .39** 1.00
Note. Means and standard deviations for self-efficacy, initiative, and intentions relate to summative scales.
*p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed.

the presented ordinary least squares models are not seriously distorted by
multicollinearity.
Results
Structural equation modeling was applied to investigate the causal links
between independent and dependent variables. This approach allows the
researcher to evaluate the direct, indirect and total effects of each factor,
and the explanatory power of the model. Following Anderson and Gerbing
(1988), confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with using IBM AMOS
23 package. A measurement model was estimated using confirmatory factor
analysis with maximum likelihood estimation. Confirmatory factor analysis
is an instrument for evaluation and improving theoretical models. A struc-
tural equation model relating to the formation of entrepreneurial intentions
and two factors (personal initiative and self-efficacy) is analyzed.
I evaluated convergent validity. The variance extracted relating to all factors
was calculated. All factors had VE scores above the guideline of 0.5. Construct
reliabilities of all factors well significantly above 0.7 guideline. To evaluate
discriminant validity, I calculated the squared interconstruct correlations
for all factors and judged them against the variance extracted scores for each
factor. Relating to each factor, the variance extracted score was higher than
the squared interconstruct correlations score. This means that the proposed
model is valid (Kline 1998).
Results from confirmatory factor analysis suggest that the model fitted the
data (χ2
= 585.37, df = 224, p < .001; normed fit index χ2
= 2.61; goodness-of-fit
index (NFI) = 0.91; comparative fit index = 0.94; Tucker-Lewis index = 0.93;
and the badness-of-fit index relating to the root mean square error of
approximation = 0.06. The normed χ2
was below 3, which suggests a good
fit model (Kline 1998). Furthermore, the comparative fit index and normed
fit index were above the 0.9 minimum guideline, which suggests a good fit
model. The level of root mean square error of approximation was also accept-
able (below 0.08).
Hierarchical multiple ordinary least squares regression analysis was applied
to test the hypotheses 1 and 2. Models reported in Table 2 are significant at
the 0.001 level. The results of an analysis of the baseline control variable
model (Model 1 in Table 2) showed that males (p < .01) reported significantly
higher intensity of intentions. Those who have ever been self-employed busi-
ness (experience) (p < .05) reported significantly lower intensity of intentions.
To test the mediating effect, I used bootstrapped approach of Preacher and
Hayes (2004, 2008). The Baron and Kenny (1986) mediation test that was
widely used in the past was heavily criticized and considered as not efficient
to test the mediating effect (Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010; Guide and Ketokivi
2015). In particular, Baron and Kenny (1986) mediation test procedure relied
12 M. Z. SOLESVIK

on the assumption of normality (Preacher and Hayes 2004). The advantages
of the Preacher–Hayes approach are, first, that it does not rely on the assump-
tion of normality and, second, it allows to testing indirect effects of several
mediators.
Following the bootstrapping procedure described by Zhao, Lynch, and
Chen (2010), mediation analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS 24 with
installed Preacher–Hayes script called PROCESS (PROCESS 2017). To test
the mediation hypothesis, I used bootstrapping procedure with 5000 boot-
strap samples to check indirect effects of self-efficacy via personal initiative
on entrepreneurial intentions. The bootstrap method relies on 95% confi-
dence intervals. If the confidence interval does not contain 0, I can conclude
that the mediating effect is confirmed. If the confidence interval contains 0,
the mediation hypothesis should be rejected (Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010).
The results shown in Table 3 indicate that true indirect effect for personal
initiative lies between 0.1046 and 0.2646. Because zero is out of 95% confi-
dence interval, I conclude that the indirect effect is significantly different
from zero at p < .05 and that personal initiative mediates the relation between
self-efficacy and EI. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported. I run the bootstrapping
procedure separately on the basis of the Ukrainian sample only and the
Norwegian sample only. In both samples, personal initiative mediates the
relation between self-efficacy and EI.
Table 2. Resources Associated with Intensity of Entrepreneurial Intentions: Ordinary Least
Squares Hierarchical Regression Models (N = 429).
Variable Model 1 (β) Model 2 (β) Model 3 (β)
Control variable
Gender −0.25** −0.23** −0.24**
Parents −0.09 −0.04 −0.03
Experience −0.19* −0.15 −0.13
Independent variable
Self-efficacy 0.35*** 0.20
Initiative 0.27**
R2
0.12 0.24 0.27
Adjusted R2
0.10 0.22 0.24
DR2
0.12 0.12 0.03
F value 4.92*** 8.31*** 7.95***
Note. For all three models, the dependent variable was intentions.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 3. Summary of Mediation Results for Entrepreneurial Intentions with Self-Efficacy as
Independent Variable and Personal Initiative as Mediator (N = 429).
Dependent
variable
Mediating
variable
Effect of
independent variable
on mediating variable
Effect of mediating
variable on
dependent variable
Direct
effect
Indirect
effect
Total
effects
Intentions Initiative .66*** .28*** .16 .19a
.35***
Note. a
The indirect effect is significantly different from zero (p < .05).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

I used t-tests to test Hypotheses 4, 5, and 6. The results show that Hypoth-
eses 4 and 5 were supported; Ukrainian students report higher level of entre-
preneurial intentions (t = 5.41, p < .001) and higher level of self-efficacy
(t = 2.775, p < .01). However, there is no difference in personal initiative
between two samples. Thus, I did not find support for Hypothesis 6.
Discussion and conclusions
Key findings
This research replies to the call by Fayolle and Liñán (2014), “to empirically
and theoretically investigate the intention–behavior link” (p. 665). I have
studied new research questions related to the links between self-efficacy, per-
sonal initiative and entrepreneurial intentions. Following recommendations
of Smallbone and Welter (2012) to test new models in contrasting contexts,
I provide novel insights to a somewhat under-researched context for youth
entrepreneurship in Ukraine and Norway.
Policy makers are concerned with low levels of youth entrepreneurship in
developed and developing countries (Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development 2012; Schøtt, Kew, and Cheraghi 2015).
Universities provide entrepreneurship education courses to increase
entrepreneurial awareness among young people. More specifically, enterprise
education courses aimed to enhance self-efficacy among the students (Jansen
et al. 2015; Piperopoulos and Dimov 2015). The results of prior research
related to effectiveness of enterprise education courses are mixed (Oosterbeek,
van Praag, and Ijsselstein 2010; Parsyak, Solesvik, and Parsyak 2014). I
provide insight into these concerns. In line with previous research (Tsai,
Chang, and Peng 2016), I confirm the hypothesis that self-efficacy is positively
and significantly related to EI. Moreover, according to expectations, the
bootstrapping mediation procedure (Preacher and Hayes 2004) revealed
that personal initiative mediates the relation between self-efficacy and
entrepreneurial intentions. This finding confirms the results of recent studies,
suggesting that the link between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions
can be fully (Bullough, Renko, and Myatt 2014; Tsai, Chang, and Peng
2016) or partially (Schlaegel and Koenig 2014) mediated by different factors.
I have discovered a new variable that mediates the relation between self-
efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions.
The t-tests compared the levels of self-efficacy personal initiative and entre-
preneurial intentions in two contrasting environments. Ukrainian students
report higher start-up intentions. This finding is in line with the results of pre-
vious research (Tkachev and Kolvereid 1999). The higher level of entrepre-
neurial intentions reported by Ukrainian students might be explained by
push factors. Students in Ukraine are aware that the salary of University
14 M. Z. SOLESVIK

graduates is not sufficient to provide a decent life standard. In contrast, the
average salary of fresh graduates of business schools in Norway is around
50,000 euro (Hegnar 2016). A viable option for entrepreneurially oriented
Norwegian individuals might be hybrid entrepreneurship—that is, combining
entrepreneurial activity with work for salary elsewhere. In the longitudinal
study, Folta, Delmar, and Wennberg (2010) demonstrated that 58% of
Swedish start-ups in knowledge-intensive industries are created while their
founders were employed at other firms. Combining entrepreneurship with
employment for wage, can be beneficial for novice entrepreneurs since because
job provides income for a family and preserves generous social security
benefits for employees (but not for entrepreneurs) in Scandinavian countries
(Solesvik 2017). The survival rate of hybrid businesses is also higher compared
with firms started by full-time entrepreneurs (Raffiee and Feng 2014). Future
research might explore intentions to become hybrid entrepreneurs among
young people in different locational and cultural contexts.
The results indicated that Ukrainian students reported significantly higher
levels of self-efficacy. However, this is not necessary advantageous. The higher
levels of self-efficacy may be a sign of overconfidence (Forbes 2005) and
can lead to starting risky businesses. The low level of self-efficacy among
Norwegian students may be an evidence of a more realistic approach of the
Norwegian students related to the self-employment career path. On average,
Norwegian students were older than Ukrainian students.
Contrary to expectations, Ukrainian students do not report higher personal
initiative. It might be that the level of ambitions and readiness to act to
achieve goals is equal among the students in two contexts. This is a novel con-
tribution to personal initiative research. Research has reported lower levels of
personal initiative among individuals in East Germany than among their
counterparts in West Germany (Frese et al. 1997). The absence of difference
in personal initiative level can be explained by transformations in individual’s
minds since the collapse of command economies in Eastern and Central
Europe. More severe conditions of market economy (unemployment, lower
income, uncertainty) forced people to change and be more initiative.
Thus, it can be concluded that the role of personal initiative and self-
efficacy related to entrepreneurship is higher in Ukrainian context. For
Norwegians honing of self-efficacy and personal initiative related to entrepre-
neurship might be important in later phases of career because a viable option
for entrepreneurially oriented Norwegian individuals might be hybrid entre-
preneurship—that is, combining entrepreneurial activity with work for salary
elsewhere. In the longitudinal study, Folta, Delmar, and Wennberg (2010)
demonstrated that 58% of Swedish start-ups in knowledge-intensive indus-
tries are created while their founder were employed at other firms. Combining
entrepreneurship with employment for wage, can be beneficial for novice
entrepreneurs because paid job provides income for a family and preserve

generous social security benefits for employees (but not for entrepreneurs) in
Scandinavian countries. The survival rate of hybrid businesses is also higher
compared with firms started by full-time entrepreneurs (Raffiee and Feng
2014). Future research might explore intentions to become hybrid
entrepreneurs among young people in different locational and cultural
contexts.
Implications for theory
The study contributes to the entrepreneurship literature in several ways. First,
it is one of the first studies that assumed a link between personal initiative and
entrepreneurial intentions. By exploring the mediating effect of personal
initiative between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions, I shed light
on further understanding of entrepreneurial intentions’ formation. This
finding helps to recognize how high levels of self-efficacy might be translated
into entrepreneurial intentions. Scholars might explore the role of other
possible mediating variables between self-efficacy and intentions. Moreover,
the more complex relations between the factors might be explored, such as
mediated moderation or moderated mediation.
In addition, the findings contribute to development of the action theory
(Frese 2009) and personal initiative literature. Cross-national research of per-
sonal initiative in different contexts was somewhat scarce over the last years. It
is interesting to note that the study of Frese et al. (1997) revealed lower levels
of personal initiative among former German Democratic Republic citizens
compared with their counterparts from West Germany. This study has not
detected any difference in the level of personal initiative reported by
individuals in developed market economy of Norway and in former socialist
republic of Ukraine. Personal initiative is an interesting concept for
entrepreneurial intentions research and future studies might extend our
model and explore closer the role of personal initiative in shaping locational
and cultural contexts. Thus, additional qualitative and quantitative research is
warranted. Although personal initiative was important for entrepreneurial
intentions, it did not notably diminish the significance of self-efficacy in this
research. Future research is warranted to better recognize the potentially
distinct association among self-efficacy, personal initiative and entrepreneur-
ial intentions. It might be particularly attractive to investigate the influence of
additional variables on shaping of intentions, for example, risk-taking.
This study is also in line with the recent calls by academic scholars for
multicountry research related to entrepreneurial intentions (Fayolle and
Liñán 2014; Liñán and Fayolle 2015). It is surprising that, to date, little
research had explored the link between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial
intentions in the Ukrainian context. I covered this gap in the literature. In line
with previous empirical studies suggesting that self-efficacy is a recognized
16 M. Z. SOLESVIK

antecedent of entrepreneurial intentions in developed countries (Boyd and
Vozikis 1994; Krueger and Brazeal 1994; Zhao, Seibert, and Hills 2005), the
findings of this study also confirmed that self-efficacy is a predictor of
intentions. In contrast with a recent study that has not detected any signifi-
cant difference in level of self-efficacy among the students in the developed
(United States) and emerging (Croatia) economies (Ahlin, Drnovšek, and
Hisrich 2014), the findings of this study provide evidence that Ukrainian
students have higher level of self-efficacy. This is consistent with Bandura’s
(1986) suggestion that self-efficacy is context dependent. Future research
is warranted in this area. In this study, I have used general self-efficacy
scale. Researchers could explore how entrepreneurial self-efficacy related to
personal initiative and entrepreneurship intentions. Further research could
also explore gender differences in entrepreneurial self-efficacy and personal
initiative.
Implications for practitioners and policy-makers
Governments and educators seek to encourage young people to start their own
businesses. The benefits for society are clear, entrepreneurship is a driver of
economic development (David 2007), successful firms create working places
and bring higher revenues to budget. Despite the many barriers for entrepre-
neurship in Ukraine (Parsyak and Zhuravlyova 2001, 2007), findings of this
study suggest that Ukrainian students have higher levels of entrepreneurial
intentions. This finding might be interesting for policy makers in Ukraine.
Young people have intentions to start their businesses. The task of policy
makers is to provide favorable conditions for start-ups so that the firms could
develop in stable and business-friendly environments. At present, Ukraine is in
80th place in the world in terms of ease of doing business (World Bank 2017).
Thus, to support the transfer of entrepreneurial intentions into actions, the
government should contribute to the business climate improvement.
Different educational programs are developed to assist young people to
launch start-ups. However, the results of studies reporting entrepreneurial
intentions before and after taking enterprise education courses are contro-
versial (Oosterbeek, van Praag, and Ijsselstein 2010). Some studies report that
enterprise education improve entrepreneurial intentions, some do not find the
difference and others observe the decline of EI. The results of this study show
that young people try to get more rewards for their behavior and choose a
more secure and beneficial employment career path in Norway and prefer
self-employment in Ukraine. The findings from this study are important
contributions for entrepreneurship educators.
Recent research reported the successful results of experimental courses
aimed to increase personal initiative level at students and entrepreneurs in
developed (Frese, Hass, and Friedrich 2016b) and developing countries

(Glaub et al. 2014). Consequently, it looks like personal initiative is not simply
a personality feature but something that can be recognized, exploited, and cul-
tivated. If personal initiative is not merely a personality trait, individuals can
start to recognize the nature of personal initiative that is motivating them,
they may also facilitate to use it and pull it to achieve their objectives. Educa-
tors might consider offering different courses for people with high and low
initial levels of entrepreneurial intentions, self-efficacy, and personal initiative.
Additional research is necessary to investigate the effectiveness of tailor-made
entrepreneurship courses for different groups of individuals. Scholars might
design and deliver entrepreneurship courses for individuals with high and
low levels of intentions, personal initiative and self-efficacy.
Acknowledgements
The valuable comments of the Editor Desislava Dikova are warmly appreciated. All errors and
omissions are the author’s own. The author thanks the reviewers for the suggestion to use the
Preacher–Hayes bootstrapping test.
References
Adam, A. F., and A. Fayolle. 2016. Can implementation intention help to bridge the intention–
behaviour gap in the entrepreneurial process? An experimental approach. The International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 17 (2):80–88. doi:10.1177/1465750316648569
Ahlin, B., M. Drnovšek, and R. D. Hisrich. 2014. Entrepreneurs’ creativity and firm
innovation: The moderating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Small Business Economics
43 (1):101–17. doi:10.1007/s11187-013-9531-7
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 50 (2):179–11.
Anderson, J. C., and D. W. Gerbing. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3):411–23. doi:10.1037//
0033-2909.103.3.411
Armitage, C. J., and M. Conner. 2001. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-
analysis review. British Journal of Social Psychology 40 (4):471–99. doi:10.1348/
014466601164939
Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review 84 (2):191–15. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. 1997. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A., and R. Wood. 1989. Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards
on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
56 (5):805–14. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.56.5.805
Barbosa, S. D., M. W. Gerhardt, and J. R. Kickul. 2007. The role of cognitive style and risk
preference on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies 13 (4):86–04. doi:10.1177/10717919070130041001
Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6):1173–82. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173
18 M. Z. SOLESVIK

Benight, C. C., and A. Bandura. 2004. Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: The
role of perceived self-efficacy. Behaviour Research and Therapy 42 (10):1129–48.
doi:10.1016/j.brat.2003.08.008
Boyd, N. G., and G. S. Vozikis. 1994. The influence of self-efficacy on the development of
entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18 (4):63–77.
Brislin, R. W., W. J. Lonner, and R. M. Thorndike. 1973. Cross-cultural research methods
32–58. New York, NY: J. Wiley.
Bullough, A., M. Renko, and T. Myatt. 2014. Danger zone entrepreneurs: The importance of
resilience and self‐efficacy for entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 38 (3):473–99.
Chen, C. C., P. G. Greene, and A. Crick. 1998. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish
entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing 13 (4):295–16. doi:10.1016/
s0883-9026(97)00029-3
Crant, J. M. 1996. The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions.
Journal of Small Business Management 34 (3):42–49.
David, B. A. 2007. Entrepreneurship capital and economic growth. Oxford Review of Economic
Policy 23 (1):63–78.
Davidsson, P., and J. Wiklund. 2001. Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: Current
research practice and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
25 (4):81–100.
Engle, R. L., N. Dimitriadi, J. V. Gavidia, C. Schlaegel, S. Delanoe, I. Alvarado, X. He, S.
Buame, and B. Wolff. 2010. Entrepreneurial intent: A twelve-country evaluation of Ajzen’s
model of planned behavior. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research
16 (1):35–57. doi:10.1108/13552551011020063
Fay, D., and M. Frese. 2001. The concept of personal initiative: An overview of validity studies.
Human Performance 14 (1):97–124. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1401_06
Fay, D., and S. Sonnentag. 2002. Rethinking the effects of stressors: A longitudinal study on
personal initiative. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 7 (3):221–34. doi:10.1037//
1076-8998.7.3.221
Fayolle, A., and F. Liñán. 2014. The future of research on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of
Business Research 67 (5):663–66.
Fitzsimmons, J. R., and E. J. Douglas. 2011. Interaction between feasibility and desirability in
the formation of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing 26 (4):431–40.
Folta, T. B., F. Delmar, and K. Wennberg. 2010. Hybrid entrepreneurship. Management
Science 56 (2):253–69.
Forbes, D. P. 2005. Are some entrepreneurs more overconfident than others?. Journal of
Business Venturing 20 (5):623–40. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.05.001
Frese, M. 2009. Toward a psychology of entrepreneurship: An action theory perspective.
Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship 5 (6): 437–96.
Frese, M., and D. Fay. 2001. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the
21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior 23:133–87. doi:10.1016/s0191-3085(01)
23005-6
Frese, M., and M. M. Gielnik. 2014. The psychology of entrepreneurship. Annual Review of
Organisational Psychology & Organisational Behaviour 1 (1):413–38.
Frese, M., D. Fay, T. Hilburger, K. Leng, and A. Tag. 1997. The concept of personal initiative:
Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology 70 (2):139–61. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00639.x
Frese, M., H. Garst, and D. Fay. 2007. Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships
between work characteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural

equation model. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (4):1084–02. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.
92.4.1084
Frese, M., M. M. Gielnik, and M. Mensmann. 2016a. Psychological training for entrepreneurs
to take action contributing to poverty reduction in developing countries. Current Directions
in Psychological Science 25 (3):196–02. doi:10.1177/0963721416636957
Frese, M., L. Hass, and C. Friedrich. 2016b. Personal initiative training for small
business owners. Journal of Business Venturing Insights 5 (1):27–36. doi:10.1016/j.jbvi.
2016.01.001
Glaub, M. E., M. Frese, S. Fischer, and M. Hoppe. 2014. Increasing personal initiative in small
business managers or owners leads to entrepreneurial success: A theory-based controlled
randomized field intervention for evidence-based management. Academy of Management
Learning & Education 13 (3):354–79. doi:10.5465/amle.2013.0234
Gollwitzer, P. M. 1999. Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American
Psychologist 54 (7):493–03. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.54.7.493
Guide, V. D. R., and M. Ketokivi. 2015. Notes from the editors: Redefining some methodolo-
gical criteria for the journal. Journal of Operations Management 37:v–viii. doi:10.1016/
s0272-6963(15)00056-x
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, B. J. Babin, and W. C. Black. 2010. Multivariate data analysis.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hegnar. 2016. Are you satisfied with your salary? dcAvailable at http://www.hegnar.no/
Nyheter/Naeringsliv/2016/10/Fornoeyd-med-aarsloennen-Saa-mye-tjener-en-siviloekonom
(accessed January 15, 2017).
Iakovleva, T., L. Kolvereid, and U. Stephan. 2011. Entrepreneurial intentions in developing and
developed countries. Education + Training 53 (5):353–70. doi:10.1108/00400911111147686
Jansen, S., T. van de Zande, S. Brinkkemper, E. Stam, and V. Varma. 2015. How education,
stimulation, and incubation encourage student entrepreneurship: Observations from
MIT, IIIT, and Utrecht University. The International Journal of Management Education
13 (2):170–81. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2015.03.001
Johnmark, D. R., J. C. Munene, and W. Balunywa. 2016. Robustness of personal initiative in
moderating entrepreneurial intentions and actions of disabled students. Cogent Business &
Management 3 (1):1–16.
Jung, D. I., and F. J. Yammarino. 2001. Perceptions of transformational leadership among
Asian Americans and Caucasian Americans: A level of analysis perspective. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies 8 (1):3–21. doi:10.1177/107179190100800101
Katz, J. A. 1992. A psychosocial cognitive model of employment status choice. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 17 (1):29–37.
Khedhaouria, A., C. Gurău, and O. Torrès. 2015. Creativity, self-efficacy, and small-firm
performance: the mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation. Small Business Economics
44 (3):485–04.
Kline, R. B. 1998. Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: Guilford
Press.
Klyver, K., and P. H. Thornton. 2010. The cultural embeddedness of entrepreneurial self-
efficacy and intentions: A cross-national comparison. Paper presented at Academy of
Management Annual Meeting, Montreal, August 2010.
Kolvereid, L. 1996. Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Working Paper Series,
Henley Management College.
Kolvereid, L. 2016. Preference for self-employment Prediction of new business start-up
intentions and efforts. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
17 (2):100–09.
20 M. Z. SOLESVIK

Kourilsky, M. L., and W. B. Walstad. 1998. Entrepreneurship and female youth: Knowledge,
attitudes, gender differences, and educational practices. Journal of Business Venturing
13 (1):77–88. doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(97)00032-3
Krauss, S. I., M. Frese, C. Friedrich, and J. M. Unger. 2005. Entrepreneurial orientation:
A psychological model of success among southern African small business owners. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 14 (3):315–344. doi:10.1080/13594320500170227
Krueger, N. 2009. Entrepreneurial intentions are dead: Long live entrepreneurial intentions. In
Understanding the Entrepreneurial Mind, ed. A. Carsrud and M. Brännback 51–72.
New York: Springer.
Krueger, N. F., and A. L. Carsrud. 1993. Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of
planned behavior. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 5 (4):315–30.
Krueger, N. F., and D. V. Brazeal. 1994. Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18 (3):91–104.
Krueger, N. F., M. D. Reilly, and A. L. Carsrud. 2000. Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions. Journal of Business Venturing 15 (5):411–32.
Liñán, F., and A. Fayolle. 2015. A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions:
Citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal 11 (4):907–33.
Liñán, F., and Y. W. Chen. 2009. Development and cross-cultural application of a specific
instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
33 (3):593–17. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x
Luthans, F., G. R. Vogelgesang, and P. B. Lester. 2006. Developing the psychological capital of
resiliency. Human Resource Development Review 5 (1):25–44.
Markman, G. D., D. B. Balkin, and R. A. Baron. 2002. Inventors and new venture formation:
The effects of general self‐efficacy and regretful thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 27 (2):149–65. doi:10.1111/1540-8520.00009
Mihailova, I., G. Shirokova, and I. Laine. 2015. New venture internationalization from an
emergent market: Unexpected findings from Russia. Journal of East-West Business
21 (4):257–91. doi:10.1080/10669868.2015.1067276
Oosterbeek, H., M. van Praag, and A. Ijsselstein. 2010. The impact of entrepreneurship edu-
cation on entrepreneurial skills and motivation. European Economic Review 54 (3):442–54.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2012. Policy brief on youth entre-
preneurship: Entrepreneurial activities in Europe. Paris: OECD Entrepreneurship education
and entrepreneurial intention: Do female students benefit?
Parsyak, V., and M. Zhuravlyova. 2001. Small business: Essence, state, and means of stability
support. Nikolaev: Ukrainian State Maritime Technical University Press.
Parsyak, V., and M. Zhuravlyova. 2007. Problems of small entrepreneurship. Economy of
Ukraine 48 (3):84–89.
Parsyak, V., M. Solesvik, and K. Parsyak. 2014. Economic aspects in formation and develop-
ment of entrepreneurship education. Actual Problems of Economics/Aktual’ni Problemi
Ekonomìki 155 (5):126–133.
Peng, M. W. 2001. How entrepreneurs create wealth in transition economies. The Academy of
Management Executive 15 (1):95–108. doi:10.5465/ame.2001.4251397
Piperopoulos, P., and D. Dimov. 2015. Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship
education, entrepreneurial self‐efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small
Business Management 53 (4):970–85.
Prabhu, V. P., S. J. McGuire, E. A. Drost, and K. K. Kwong. 2012. Proactive personality
and entrepreneurial intent: Is entrepreneurial self-efficacy a mediator or moderator?
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 18 (5):559–86.

Preacher, K. J., and A. F. Hayes. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods
40 (3):879–91.
Preacher, K. J., and A. F. Hayes. 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers
36 (4):717–31.
PROCESS. 2017. The PROCESS macro for SPSS and SAS. Available at: www.processmacro.
org/faq.html
Pruett, M., R. Shinnar, B. Toney, F. Llopis, and J. Fox. 2009. Explaining entrepreneurial inten-
tions of university students: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research 15 (6):571–94.
Raffiee, J., and J. Feng. 2014. Should I quit my day job?: A hybrid path to entrepreneurship.
Academy of Management Journal 57 (4):936–63.
Rasheed, H. S. 2000. Developing entrepreneurial potential in youth: The effects of entrepreneurial
education and venture creation, Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.
Reynolds, P. D. 1992. Predicting new firm births: Interactions of organizational and human
populations. In The state of the art of entrepreneurship ed. D. L. Sexton and J. D. Kasarda
pp. 268–97. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent Publishing.
Rooks, G., A. Sserwanga, and M. Frese. 2016. Unpacking the personal initiative–performance
relationship: A multi‐group analysis of innovation by Ugandan rural and urban
entrepreneurs. Applied Psychology 65 (1):99–131.
Schlaegel, C., and M. Koenig. 2014. Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: A meta‐analytic
test and integration of competing models. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
38 (2):291–332. doi:10.1111/etap.12087
Schøtt, T., P. Kew, and M. Cheraghi. 2015. Future potential: A GEM perspective on youth
entrepreneurship 2015. GEM Consortium, available at: http://www.gemconsortium.org/
report (accessed 17 September 2016).
Schwarzer, R., and M. Jerusalem. 1995. Optimistic self-beliefs as a resource factor in coping
with stress. In Extreme stress and communities: Impact and intervention, ed S. E. Hobfoll
and M. W. de Vries 159–77. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Shapero, A., and L. Sokol. 1982. The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In The Encyclo-
pedia of Entrepreneurship ed. C. Kent, D. Sexton and K. H. Vesper, pp. 72–90. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Shinnar, R. S., D. K. Hsu, and B. C. Powell. 2014. Self-efficacy, entrepreneurial intentions,
and gender: Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education longitudinally. The
International Journal of Management Education 12 (3):561–70.
Shirokova, G., O. Osievskyy, and K. Bogatyreva. 2016. Exploring the intention-behavior link
in student entrepreneurship: moderating effects of individual and environmental character-
istics. European Management Journal 34 (4):386–99.
Smallbone, D., and F. Welter. 2012. Entrepreneurship and institutional change in transition
economies: The commonwealth of independent states, central and eastern Europe and
china compared. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 24 (3–4):215–33.
Solesvik, M. 2013. Entrepreneurial motivations and intentions: Investigating the role of
education major. Education + Training 55 (3):253–71.
Solesvik, M. 2017. Hybrid entrepreneurship: How and why entrepreneurs combine employ-
ment with self-employment. Technology Innovation Management Review 7 (3): 33–41.
Solesvik, M., P. Westhead, and H. Matlay. 2014. Cultural factors and entrepreneurial intention:
The role of entrepreneurship education. Education + Training 56 (8–9):680–96. doi:10.1108/
et-07-2014-0075
22 M. Z. SOLESVIK

Speier, C., and M. Frese. 1997. Generalized self-efficacy as a mediator and moderator between
control and complexity at work and personal initiative: A longitudinal field study in East
Germany. Human Performance 10 (2):171–92.
Tkachev, A., and L. Kolvereid. 1999. Self-employment intentions among Russian students.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 11 (3):269–80.
Tsai, K. H., H. C. Chang, and C. Y. Peng. 2016. Extending the link between entrepreneurial
self-efficacy and intention: a moderated mediation model. International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal 12 (2):445–63. doi:10.1007/s11365-014-0351-2
Utsch, A., and A. Rauch. 2000. Innovativeness and initiative as mediators between achieve-
ment orientation and venture performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology 9 (1):45–62.
Westhead, P., and M. Solesvik. 2016. Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial inten-
tion: Do female students benefit? International Small Business Journal 34 (8):979–03.
World Bank. 2017. Ease of doing business in Ukraine. available at http://www.doingbusiness.
org/data/exploreeconomies/ukraine
Zhao, H., S. E. Seibert, and G. E. Hills. 2005. The mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy
in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology
90 (6):1265–72.
Zhao, X., J. G. Lynch, and Q. Chen. 2010. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths
about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 37 (2):197–206.

Personal Initiative Mediates Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intentions

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (15)

Similar to Personal Initiative Mediates Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intentions

Similar to Personal Initiative Mediates Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intentions (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Personal Initiative Mediates Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intentions