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
JMRD
January - December (2011), pp. 63-69 © PRJ PUBLICATION
© PRJ Publication, http://www.prjpublication.com/JMRD.asp
DEMOGRAPHIC 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:
nishayt@yahoo.com; nishayt@ktr.srmuniv.ac.in
Dr. Jayshree Suresh, Dean , SRM School of Management, SRM University., SRM Nagar,
Kattankulathur, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India.E-mail: jayshreesuresh@gmail.com;
jayshreesuresh@ktr.srmuniv.ac.in
ABSTRACT
People may decide to start businesses when and because they recognize—perhaps
unexpectedly—specific entrepreneurial opportunities. The thought of becoming an entrepreneur
may not have even occurred to them before this idea came into view. Others may decide to start
ventures and undergo a Search for ideas. Entrepreneurs may recognize opportunities well in
advance, or just before they set up their businesses. Consequently, the perception of
opportunities 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 who
perceive opportunities for launching a business in the area in which they live. These people are
further encouraged by their beliefs in their capabilities for starting the types of ventures they may
envisage. The quantity and quality of the opportunities they perceive, and their beliefs about their
capabilities, may be affected by various conditions in their environment: for example, economic
growth, culture and education.
Different demographic groups may make distinct judgments about opportunities and
capabilities; these may be embedded in historical, socio-economic or cultural factors. At the
same time, policy makers may seek to Stimulate these attitudes. Policy programs may explicitly
63

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 national
conditions may affect perceived capabilities, both directly and indirectly. On average, individuals
in factor-driven economies have higher perceptions that there are good opportunities for
entrepreneurship, and that they have the capabilities to start businesses. These attitude measures
tend to decline with greater development levels.
Even when individuals have favorable perceptions of entrepreneurship, they may
nonetheless 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 by
high intentions for starting businesses. A variety of national characteristics could be underlying
this phenomenon. An economy’s entrepreneurial capacity requires individuals with the ability
and motivations to start businesses. These entrepreneurs, however, will need to rely on a wide
variety of personal and professional support mechanisms: families, advisors, government
officials, creditors and investors, suppliers and customers and so forth. These stakeholders need
to 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 entrepreneurial
behavior (Katz, 1988; Reynolds, 1995; Krueger et al., 2000). Therefore, investigating what
factors determine the entrepreneurial intent is a crucial issue in entrepreneurship research. In
general, intent can be defined as “a state of mind directing a person’s attention toward a specific
object or a path in order to achieve something” (Vesalainen and Pihkala, 1999, p. 3). A common
theoretical framework for models explaining pre-start up processes is the theory of planned
behavior that views behavioral intent as an immediate determinant of planned behavior (Fishbein
and Ajzen, 1975).
It applies particularly, when the behavior is rare, hard to observe, or involves
unpredictable time lags (Krueger et al., 2000). Entrepreneurship can be viewed as the type of
planned behavior, for which intention models are appropriate (Autio et al., 1997; Krueger et al.,
2000). In previous research, personal and environment-based determinants of entrepreneurial
intent such as personality traits, attitudes toward entrepreneurship, or social environment have
64

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; Franke
and Lu¨ thje, 2004; Robinson et al., 1991; Segal et al., 2005).
However, there have been only a limited number of studies addressing influence factors
for students’ entrepreneurial intention (Lu¨thje and Franke, 2003; Wang and Wong, 2004). In
addition, research results are partly inconsistent. Specifically, it is not widely known whether
environment or the individual characteristics drive the students’ career decision toward self-
employment.
3.0 INFLUENCE OF DEMOGRAPHIC FEATURES ON ENTREPRENEURIAL
INTENTIONS
The following factors were taken as demographic factors influencing entrepreneurial
intention.
Gender, age, birth order, education, academic performance, marital status, native region,
education of father and mother, occupation of father , mother and siblings, monthly family
income.
GENDER
The frequency distribution of gender of professional course students was analyzed and
the results are presented in Table 1
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF GENDER OF STUDENTS
Gender Frequency Per Cent
Male 452 69.54
Female 198 30.46
Total 650 100.00
Source: Primary & Computed Data
Inference
From the above table, it is clear that about 69.54 per cent of the professional course
students 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. 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 the
results are presented in Table 2
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF AGE OF STUDENTS
Age( Years) Frequency Per Cent
19-20 32 4.92
20-21 91 14.00
21-22 158 24.31
22-23 194 29.85
23-24 88 13.54
24-25 49 7.54
25 and Above 38 5.84
Total 650 100.00
Source: Primary & Computed Data
Inference
The results show that about 29.85 per cent of the professional course students belong to
the age group of 22-23 years followed by 21-22 years(24.31 per cent), 20-21 years(14.00 per
cent), 23-24 years(13.54 per cent), 24-25 years(7.54 per cent), 25 and above 25 years( 5.84 per
cent) and 19-20 years( 4.92 per cent). The results reveal that the most of the professional course
students belong to the age group of 22-23 years.
In order to examine the influence of demographic features on entrepreneurial intentions
of professional course students, the multiple linear regression has employed and the results are
presented in Table 1. The results indicate that the Adjusted R2 is 0.76 indicating the regression
model is good fit and it also shows about 76.00 per cent of the variation in entrepreneurial
intentions is explained by demographic variables.
66

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
Coefficients
Intercept 11.692** 5.642 .001
Gender(X1) 1.043 1.016 .364
Age (X2) 1.236** 2.934 .001
Birth Order(X3) -.893 1.184 .429
Education (X4) 1.328** 3.106 .001
Academic Performance(X5) .642 0.852 .324
Marital Status(X6) 1.024* 2.112 .025
Native Region(X7) 1.114* 2.106 .342
Education of Father(X8) .987** 2.848 .012
Education of Mother(X9) -.652 .876 .482
Occupation of Father(X10) .864* 2.084 .043
Occupation of Mother(X11) .452 .864 .396
Occupation of Siblings(X12) .788* 2.226 .042
Monthly Family Income(X13) 1.127** 3.104 .001
R2 0.78
Adjusted R2 0.76
F 11.494 0.01
N 650
Note: ** Significance at one per cent level *
Significance at five per cent level
Source: Primary and Computed Data
The results show that age, education, education of father and monthly family income are
positively influencing the entrepreneurial intentions of professional course students at one per
cent level of significance. Meanwhile, marital status, native region, occupation of father and
occupation of siblings are also positively influencing the entrepreneurial intentions of
67

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 that
the 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. The
management students have showed a comparative higher level of intention than other
specialization students. This may be due to the fact that there is increase in the number of
engineering students who come in to do their post graduation in management. The monthly
family income of the individual students have played a major role in influencing the
entrepreneurial in intention of the students. Most of the students in today’s time take bank loan to
complete their course. This influences their decision on the aspect of career choice.
REFERENCES
1.Ajzen.I & Fishbein.M. (1977). Attitude – behavior Relations: A theoretical analysis and review
of empirical research .Psychological Bulletin, Vol.84, No.5, 888-918.
2.Ajzen.I (1991).The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational behavior & human decision
process, 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 relations
among 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. Entrepreneurship
Theory and practice, 21- 29.
8.Bird .B. (1988), Implementing entrepreneurial Ideas: The case for Intentions. Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 13, No.3, 442-453.
68

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 distinguish
entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing 13 (4), 295–316.
11. Davidsson, P., 1995. Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions. Paper presented at the
RENT IX Conference, Workshop in Entrepreneurship Research, Piacenza,Italy, November 23–
24.
12.Davidsson, P., Wiklund, J., 2001. Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship re-search: current
research 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? First
insights from a sample of French students. International Journal on Entrepreneurship and small
business management, Vol.5, No.1, 1-25.
14.Fishbein, M. and Stasson, M. (1990) The role of desires, self-predictions, and perceived
control 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 from
organizational behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16, 13–31.
16.Krueger, N.F., Carsud, A.L., 1993. Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned
behavior. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 5 (4), 315–330.
17. Kolvereid, L., 1996. Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 21 (1), 47–57.
18. Linan, F., Chen, Y.W., 2009. Development and cross-cultural application of a specific
instrument 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