Content uploaded by J. Michael Crant
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by J. Michael Crant on Oct 23, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
The
Proactive Personality Scale
as a Predictor of
Entrepreneurial Intentions
by /. Michael Crant
Abstract
This study explored
the
relationship
between individual differences
and
behav-
ioral intentions toward entrepreneurial
careers,
defined here
as
owning one's
own
business. C)f particular
interest
was
a
recent
innovation
in
the individual
differences
liter-
ature
— the
proactive personality scale.
Using
a
sample
of
181 students, entrepre-
neurial intentions were found
to be
signifi-
cantly associated with gender, education.
having
an
entrepreneurial
parent,
and
pos-
sessing
a
proactive
personality.
The
strongest
association
was found
between
entrepreneur-
ial intentions
and
the proactive personality
scale. Hierarchical regression analysis
showed that
proactivity explained
significant
incremental variance
in
entrepreneurial
intentions above and beyond that
explained
by the
other
variables.
In
a
review
of
trends
in the
entrepre-
neurship literature, Gartner (1990) identi-
fied eight themes characterizing
the
major issues
of
entrepreneurship. One of
these themes focused on the entrepreneur
as
an
individual,
and the
notion that
entrepreneurship involves individuals
with unique personality characteristics
and abilities. Within this domain
of
research, five attributes have consistently
been found
to
covary with entrepreneur-
ship:
need
for
achievement, locus
of
con-
trol, risk-taking propensity, tolerance
for
ambiguity,
and
Type-A behavior
(Brockhaus 1982; Brockhaus and Horwitz
1986;
Furnham 1992).
Despite these findings,
a
number
of
scholars have expressed dissatisfaction
with extant knowledge of the personality-
entrepreneurship relationship. Chell,
Haworth,
and
Brearley (1991) suggested
that disagreement
on the
meaning
of
Dr. Crant
is an
associate professor
in the
Department
of
Management
at the
University
of
Notre Dame.
His
current
research interests include proactive hehavior, individual differ-
ences,
and entrepreneurship.
"entrepreneurship" has impeded research
progress; moreover, these authors advo-
cated using trait terms which describe
natural categories accessible
to lay per-
sons.
Gartner (1988) noted that theoreti-
cal models seeking
to
explain
the
broad
phenomenon
of
entrepreneurship would
benefit
by
including variables beyond
traits alone. Robinson et
al.
(1991) argued
for more dynamic models of the entrepre-
neurship process. Shaver and Scott (1991)
identified the methodological weaknesses
of much entrepreneurial trait research
(including the research that generated the
attributes listed above)
and
argued
for
consistency between
the
specificity
of
measures and underlying constructs.
Perhaps as a result of criticisms such as
these, recently little research
has
been
published examining
the
relationship
between personality traits
and
entrepre-
neurship. Considerable attention
has
been devoted
to
creating ambitious mod-
els
of
various entrepreneurial processes,
such
as new
venture initiation (Herron
and Sapienza 1992), entrepreneurial
42
JOURNAL
OF
SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
potential (Krueger and Brazeal 1994), and
entrepreneurial motivation (Naffziger,
Hornsby, and Kuratko 1994). These con-
ceptual frameworks have significantly
enhanced the precision of theory sur-
rounding the entrepreneurship process.
However, the death knell for the study of
personality and entrepreneurship may
have sounded prematurely.
The proactive personality scale, a
recent addition to the literature on indi-
vidual differences, appears to have the
potential for providing further insight
into the personality trait-entrepreneur-
ship relationship. The proactive personal-
ity scale measures a personal disposition
toward proactive behavior, an idea that
intuitively appears to be related to entre-
preneurship. The purpose of this paper is
to examine empirically the extent to
which having a proactive personality is
associated with entrepreneurial inten-
tions.
Because a common definition of entre-
preneurship is lacking, it is incumbent
upon researchers to define explicitly the
meaning they ascribe to the term
(;Gartner 1989; 1990). The central variable
in this paper, entrepreneurial intentions,
will be defined as one's judgements about
the likelihood of owning one's own busi-
ness.
For the research questions in this
paper, differences in specific tactics and
themes of entrepreneurship (for example,
creating a new venture vs. buying an
existing business) will not be explored.
Defining entrepreneurial intentions
broadly is consistent with the objectives
of this research in that it avoids delimit-
ing subjects' expression of entrepreneur-
ial intentions.
The study of behavioral intentions has
a rich history in psychology (for example,
Ajzen and Fishbein 1980), and has begun
to appear in both conceptual (Bird 1988;
Katz and Gartner 1988; Krueger and
Brazeal 1994) and empirical (Brenner,
Pringle, and Greenhaus 1991; Krueger
1993a; 1993b; Scott and Twomey 1988)
entrepreneurship research. Krueger
(1993b) argued that entrepreneurial
intentions are central to understanding
the entrepreneurship process because
they form the underpinnings of new
organizations. Because entrepreneurship
occurs over time (Gartner et al. 1994),
entrepreneurial intentions might be
viewed as the first step in an evolving,
long-term process.
The Proactive Dimension of Personality
Bateman and Crant (1993) discussed
the proactive component of organization-
al behavior and introduced a measure of
the "proactive personality." This measure
of a personal disposition toward proactive
behavior is intended to identify differ-
ences among people in the extent to
which they take action to influence their
environments. Bateman and Crant
defined the prototypic "proactive person-
ality" as one who is relatively uncon-
strained by situational forces and who
effects environmental change. Proactive
personalities identify opportunities and
act on them; they show initiative, take
action, and persevere until they bring
about meaningful change. In contrast,
people who are not proactive exhibit the
opposite patterns: they fail to identify, let
alone seize, opportunities to change
things.
Proactivity differs fundamentally from
affective traits like well-being and from
cognitive traits like locus of control. The
proactive disposition is a tendency to ini-
tiate and maintain actions that directly
alter the surrounding environment
(Bateman and Crant 1993). Using the lan-
guage of Buss and Finn (1987), proactivi-
ty is an instrumental trait because it is
part of a class of behaviors that impact
the environment.
Rooted in the interactionist perspec-
tive (Bandura 1977; Schneider 1983), the
proactive approach considers the possibil-
ity that individuals create their environ-
ments. In the psychology and organiza-
tional behavior literatures, the theme of
interactionism holds that behavior is
both internally and externally controlled,
and that situations are as much a func-
tion of persons as vice versa (Schneider
1983).
Reciprocal causal links exist
between person, environment, and
behavior (Bandura 1977). Accordingly,
individuals can intentionally and directly
change their current circumstances, such
JULY 1996
43
as by choosing vocations for which they
are best suited. Thus, based on interac-
tionist theory and the behaviors associat-
ed with the proactive personality, it seems
reasonable that proactive personalities
may be drawn to entrepreneurial careers.
This notion of a proactive orientation
has been discussed in other theoretical
treatments of the entrepreneurship
process. Shapero and Sokol (1982) spoke
of a tendency toward action and initiative
in their discussion of the social dimen-
sions of entrepreneurial events. Krueger
and his colleagues (1993b; Krueger and
Brazeal 1994) have included the concept
of "propensity to act" in their work on
entrepreneurial intentions and potential.
Krueger (1993b) used the desirability of
control scale (Burger 1985) as a proxy for
propensity to act; however, Krueger and
Brazeal (1994) suggested that other mea-
sures of propensity may be useful. The
proactive personality scale may be such a
measure.
Bateman and Crant (1993) argued that
the proactive personality scale may have
implications for vocational choice and
entrepreneurship in particular. Given the
definition of proactive personality and
previous research on the correlates of
entrepreneurship, such an assertion is
intuitively appealing. Consistent with the
theoretical domain that entrepreneurs
may possess certain personality dimen-
sions,
the following hypothesis is offered:
Hypothesis 1: The extent to which people pos-
sess a proactive personality will be posi-
tively associated with entrepreneurial
intentions.
Other Individual Differences
In addition to personality traits, sever-
al additional individual difference vari-
ables have been found to predict entre-
preneurial behaviors. In a review of the
literature, Brockhaus and Horwitz (1986)
identified several pertinent personal char-
acteristics, including age, gender, educa-
tion, and role models. Findings regarding
gender differences in entrepreneurship
(particularly, that males are more likely
than females to be entrepreneurs) have
been explained in terms of work value dif-
ferences (Brenner, Pringle, and Greenhaus
1991) and psychological characteristics
(Sexton and Bowman-Upton 1990).
Evidence from a sample of over 181,000
people culled from the 1980 U.S. Census
indicated that education is positively
related to entrepreneurship and
self-
employment (Robinson and Sexton
1994).
Finally, studies have shown that
people having a parent who is an entre-
preneur are more likely to express entre-
preneurial intentions themselves (Krueger
1993a; 1993b; Scott and Twomey 1988).
Thus,
based on previous findings the fol-
lowing hypotheses are offered:
Hypothesis 2: Females will express lower
entrepreneurial intentions than males.
Hypothesis 3: Education will be positively
associated with entrepreneurial intentions.
Hypothesis 4: Subjects with a parent who is
an entrepreneur will have higher entrepre-
neurial intentions than those whose par-
ents are not entrepreneurs.
The focus of this study is the extent to
which the proactive personality scale is
associated with entrepreneurial inten-
tions.
A rigorous test of this relationship
will control for the effects of other vari-
ables on entrepreneurial intentions.
Given the divergent theories and perspec-
tives on entrepreneurship, it would be dif-
ficult if not impossible to control for all
possible effects on entrepreneurial inten-
tions.
However, the previous discussion
suggests that gender, education, and
parental role models are appropriate con-
trol variables for a study of individual dif-
ferences in entrepreneurial intentions. If
the proactive personality scale explains
unique amounts of variance above and
beyond these other variables, then it may
be of some incremental value in under-
standing entrepreneurial intentions. It
seems reasonable that the proactive per-
sonality construct captures some unique
element of entrepreneurial intentions not
accounted for by demographic variables.
Thus:
Hypothesis 5: The proactive personality scale
will explain a significant amount of vari-
ance in entrepreneurial intentions after
controlling for the effects of gender, educa-
tion,
and parental role models.
44
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Method
Sample and Procedure
A sample of 181 students from a medi-
um-sized Midwestern university provided
data for this study. One-half the students
were undergraduates (« = 91) and half
were MBA students (n = 90). The average
age of the sample was 23 years; 33 percent
were female. The undergraduate students
had little or no full-time work experience;
the MBA students averaged three years of
work experience.
All subjects completed the same sur-
vey; however, data were collected in two
ways.
The undergraduates received extra
course credit for participating in a
research project. They attended a session
outside of class for purposes of complet-
ing the project. The MBA students did not
receive extra credit; the author placed sur-
veys in the mailboxes of 225 currently
enrolled MBA students, along with a
cover memo asking them to complete the
materials. The response rate was 40 per-
cent.
Measures
Proactive
personality.
Proactive person-
ality was measured using Bateman and
Cram's (1993) 17-item measure. These
items are summed to arrive at a proactive
personality score. Responses are indicated
on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from
1 ("strongly disagree") to 7 ("strongly
agree"),
with such items as "I excel at
identifying opportunities" and "No mat-
ter what the odds, if I believe in some-
thing I will make it happen."
Bateman and Crant (1993) presented
the results of three studies assessing the
scale's psychometric properties. The uni-
dimensionality of the scale was supported
via factor analysis and reliability esti-
mates across the three samples (ranging
from 0.87 to 0.89). Convergent validity
was demonstrated via moderate correla-
tions with need for achievement and
need for dominance. Proactive personali-
ty was not significantly associated with
locus of control, providing some evidence
of discriminant validity. To establish crite-
rion validity, Bateman and Crant demon-
strated that the proactive personality
scale was associated with involvement in
proactive community service activities,
the degree of constructive environmental
change revealed in essays of subjects'
most significant personal achievements,
and with peer ratings of transformational
leadership. Crant (1995) investigated the
criterion validity of the proactive person-
ality scale using a sample of 131 real
estate agents. Proactive personality pre-
dicted objective measures of job perfor-
mance culled from archival records of the
agents' houses sold, listings obtained, and
commission income earned.
Entrepreneurial
intentions. Three items,
including "I will probably own my own
business one day" and "It is likely that I
will personally own a small business in
the relatively near future," were devel-
oped to measure this variable using a
seven-point Likert format.
Demographic
data. The survey included
items inquiring about the subjects' age,
gender, and work experience. Gender was
dummy coded 0 for female subjects and 1
for male subjects. Education was dummy
coded 0 for undergraduate students and 1
for MBA students. A dichotomous item
asked whether one or both of the sub-
. jects' parents owned their own full-time
business most of the time while they were
growing up. Responses were dummy
coded 0 for no and 1 for yes.
Results
Means, standard deviations, reliabili-
ties,
and correlations for all variables are
reported in Table 1. Chronbach's alpha
for entrepreneurial intentions and the
proactive personality scale were 0.93 and
0.88, respectively; thus, the continuous
measures achieved acceptable levels of
reliability. Thirty-four percent of the sub-
jects reported having at least one parent
who owned a business.
Looking at the correlations between
entrepreneurial intentions and the other
variables, the strongest relationship is
with the proactive personality scale
(r=0.48,
p<.01). Significant correlations
also were obtained between entrepreneur-
ial intentions and gender (r= 0.21, p<.01),
education (r=0.24, p<.01) and parental
role models (r = 0.22, p<.01).
JULY 1996
45
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for All Variables'*
Entrepreneurial Proactive Eotrepreneurla
Mean SD Intentions Personality Gender Education Parents
Entrepreneurial
Intentions
Proactive
Personality
Gender
Education
Entrepreneurial
Parents
13.65
88.10
0.67
0.50
0.34
5.29
12.71
0.47
0.50
0.47
(.93)
.48**
.21**
.24**
.22**
(.88)
.07
.28**
.05
—
.18
.01 -.03 —
*^»=18].
Values in parentheses represent coefficient alphas.
*p<.05.
"p
Table 2
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis
Variable
Control Variables:
Gender
Education '
Entrepreneurial parents
Proactive Personality
AR2
.044
.042
.052
.171
Entrepreneurial Intentions
pof
A
.01
.01
.01
.01
Overall R2
.044
.086
.138
.309
Beta
.211
.098
.203
.431
To further examine the effects of the
dichotomous variables on entrepreneurial
intentions, a series of one-way ANOVAs
were performed and the cell means exam-
ined to determine the direction of the
effects. The dichotomous variables (gen-
der, education, entrepreneurial parents)
served as the independent variables, and
the dependent measure was entrepreneur-
ial intentions. A significant effect was
found for gender (f(l,180)=8.33, /x.Ol):
Males reported higher entrepreneurial
intentions (M=14.43) than did females
(M=12.07). A main effect also was found
for education (7='(l,180)=10.99, /x.Ol):
MBA students reported higher entrepre-
neurial intentions (M=14.92) than did
undergraduate students (M=12.38). The
main effect of the presence of entrepre-
neurial parents was also significant
(f(l,180)=9.35, p<.01): Subjects with role
models reported higher entrepreneurial
intentions (M=15.30) than did those with-
out such role models (M=12.81). Together,
these results provide support for
Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4.
To test Hj^othesis 5, which predicted
that the proactive personality scale would
explain additional variance in entrepre-
neurial intentions beyond that accounted
for by the demographic variables, a hierar-
chical regression analysis was performed.
Following the recommendations of Cohen
and Cohen (1983), the control variables —
gender, education, and entrepreneurial
parents — were entered into the regression
equation first. The proactive personality
scale was the last variable entered into the
equation.
The results of the hierarchical regression
analysis are displayed in Table 2. Together,
the three control variables accounted for
14 percent (p<.01) of the variance in entre-
preneurial intentions. The proactive per-
sonality scale explained an additional 17
percent (p<.01) of the variance in entrepre-
neurial intentions over and above variance
accounted for by gender, education, and
entrepreneurial parents. Thus, Hj^othesis
5 was supported. The complete model
accounted for
31
percent of the variance in
entrepreneurial intentions.
46
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Discussion
The results of the present study indi-
cated that a variety of individual differ-
ence variables are associated with entre-
preneurial intentions. Gender, education,
and entrepreneurial parents were all asso-
ciated with entrepreneurial intentions.
Students who reported higher entrepre-
neurial intentions tended to be male
rather than female, MBA students rather
than undergraduates, and had at least one
parent who owned a business. The central
findings of this study concerned the rela-
tionship between the proactive personali-
ty scale and entrepreneurial intentions.
Proactivity was positively associated with
entrepreneurial intentions; furthermore,
the proactive personality scale explained
a significant amount of additional vari-
ance in entrepreneurial intentions even
after all other variables were entered into
a regression model.
The results of this study contain sever-
al implications. First, these results con-
tribute to the literature concerning indi-
vidual differences in entrepreneurship
and entrepreneurial intentions. Other
researchers have hinted at the connec-
tions between proactivity and entrepre-
neurship, but this paper is the first to
empirically demonstrate that proactivity
is associated with entrepreneurial inten-
tions.
Second, consistent with Gartner's
(1988) concerns, this study did not look
at a personality trait in isolation; rather,
an effect was shown for proactive person-
ality above and beyond several demo-
graphic variables.
The findings regarding the proactive
personality scale are consistent with the
interactional psychology perspective
(Bandura 1977; Schneider 1983), which
postulates that people influence their
environments as well as vice versa.
Individuals select, interpret, and alter sit-
uations. People may be expected to seek
out environments that offer opportuni-
ties to capitalize on individual strengths
and needs (Schneider 1983), and the char-
acteristics of an environment are in part
determined by the types of people who
dominate that environment (Holland
1985).
Thus, one explanation for these
findings is that more proactive people
tend to envision creating situations—
such as forming or buying a business—
that will allow them to capitalize on their
personality.
These results also provide further evi-
dence for the utility of the proactive per-
sonality scale. Coupled with recent find-
ings regarding associations between the
proactive personality scale and transfor-
mational leadership (Batemari and Crant
1993) and the criterion validity of the
proactive personality scale (Crant 1995),
this relatively new construct appears to
have the potential for explaining variance
in organizational phenomena. Moreover,
these findings are consistent with prior
research suggesting the importance of a
"propensity to act" in judgements about
entrepreneurial careers. Having a proac-
tive personality may be an important ele-
ment of this propensity toward action.
In considering the generalizability of
the findings, potential limitations should
be addressed. First, the cross-sectional
design focusing on behavioral intentions
weakens the explanatory power of the
study. While the intention-behavior link-
age is well established (for example, Ajzen
and Fishbein 1980), and entrepreneurial
intentions have been studied previously
(for example, Krueger 1993a and 1993b),
a longitudinal design following the stu-
dents'
career choices over time would be
preferable. While this study provides
compelling evidence for the relationship
between proactivity and entrepreneurial
intentions, it would be inappropriate to
generalize these results to actual entrepre-
neurial behaviors like starting a new busi-
ness until such a relationship is con-
firmed by empirical research. Second, the
sample chosen did not vary significantly
across some important dimensions. For
example, the range of possible education-
al levels and exposure to entrepreneur-
ship courses was restricted in the present
sample. Relatedly, age was not included as
a control variable because of sample
homogeneity. Third, some may criticize
the use of a student sample beyond the
restriction of range issues described
above. However, because the appropriate-
ness of a given sample is a function of the
type of theory explored and the major
JULY 1996
47
constructs of the model (Gartner 1989),
students may be more appropriate for
research into individual differences and
vocational intentions than for other
research questions. Krueger (1993b) pro-
vided a number of cogent arguments sup-
porting the use of student samples to
study entrepreneurial intentions.
Regarding opportunities for future
research, studies might profitably employ
other definitions of entrepreneurial inten-
tions.
For example, proactivity may be
more strongly associated with intentions
to start one's own business—a significant
environmental change—than with inten-
tions to purchase an existing operation.
Furthermore, it would be useful to exam-
ine the relative importance of proactivity
compared to the entrepreneurial traits
listed earlier (for example, need for
achievement or risk-taking propensity).
Perhaps most importantly, future research
should assess the relationship between
proactivity and entrepreneurship by
using more heterogeneous samples and
studying various entrepreneurial behav-
iors.
For example, proactivity could be
examined in a matched sample of practic-
ing entrepreneurs and organizational
managers, or used to predict levels of suc-
cess among entrepreneurs. While inten-
tions are an important step in the process
of becoming an entrepreneur, it is vital
that future research move beyond inten-
tions and focus on specific entrepreneur-
ial behaviors like starting a small business.
Conclusions
This study extends the literature into
individual differences and entrepreneur-
ial intentions by considering a relatively
new but potentially important individual
difference variable, the proactive person-
ality scale. Further, this research expands
on the theme that has emerged in the
entrepreneurship literature in which the
traits,
characteristics, and abilities of
entrepreneurs are considered important
determinants of attitudes and behaviors.
The results of this study suggest that the
proactive personality scale may be a use-
ful addition to the armament of personal-
ity variables predictive of entrepreneurial
intentions.
References
Ajzen, Icek, and Martin Fishbein (1980).
Understanding Attitudes and Predicting
Social
Behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, Albert (1977). Social Leaming
Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Bateman, Thomas S., and J. Michael
Crant (1993). "The Proactive
Component of Organizational
Behavior," Journal of Organizational
Behavior
14(2), 103-118.
Bird, Barbara (1988). "Implementing
Entrepreneurial Ideas: The Case for
Intention," Academy of Management
Review 13(3), 442-453.
Brenner, O. C, Charles D. Pringle, and
Jeffrey H. Greenhaus (1991).
"Perceived Fulfillment of Organiza-
tional Employment Versus Entrepre-
neurship: Work Values and Career
Intentions of Business College
Graduates," Joumal of Small Business
Management 29(3), 62-74.
Brockhaus, Robert H. (1982). "The
Psychology of the Entrepreneur,"
Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Ed.
Calvin A. Kent, Donald L. Sexton, and
Karl H. Vesper. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall, 39-56.
Brockhaus, Robert H., and Pamela S.
Horwitz (1986). "The Psychology of
the Entrepreneur," The Art and
Science
of Entrepreneurship. Ed. Donald L.
Sexton and Raymond W. Smilor.
/ Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 25-48.
/Burger, Jerry M. (1985). "Desire for
' Control and Achievement-Related
Behaviors," Joumal of
Personality
and
Social Psychology
48(6), 1520-1533.
Buss,
A., and S. Finn (1987). "Classifi-
cation of Personality Traits," Joumal of
Personality
and
Social Psychology
52(2),
432-444.
Chell, Elizabeth, Jean Haworth, and Sally
Brearley (1991). The Entrepreneurial
Personality. London, England: Rout-
ledge.
Cohen, Jacob, and Patricia Cohen (1983).
Applied Multiple
Regression/Correlation
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Eribaum.
48
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Crant, J. Michael (1995). "The Proactive
Personality Scale and Objective Job
Performance Among Real Estate
Agents," Joumal of Applied Psychology
80 (4), 532-537.
Furnham, Adrian (1992). Personality at
Work:
The Role of
Individual Differences
in the Workplace. London, England:
Routledge.
Gartner, William B. (1988). " 'Who is an
Entrepreneur?' Is the Wrong Oues-
tion," American Journal of Small
Business 12 (Spring), 11-32.
— (1989). "Some Suggestions for Research
on Entrepreneurial Traits and Char-
acteristics,"
Entrepreneurship Theory
and
Practice
14(1), 27-37.
— (1990). "What Are We Talking About
When We Talk About Entrepreneur-
ship?"
Journal of Business Venturing
5(1),
15-28.
Gartner, William B., Kelly G. Shaver,
Elizabeth Gatewood, and Jerome A.
Katz (1994). "Finding the Entrepreneur
in Entrepreneurship,"
Entrepreneurship
Theory
and
Practice
18(3), 5-9.
Herron, Lanny, and Harry J. Sapienza
(1992).
"The Entrepreneur and the
Initiation of New Venture Launch
Activities,"
Entrepreneurship
Theory and
Practice
17(1), 49-55.
Holland, John L. (1985). Making
Vocational
Choices:
A
Theory
of
Careers.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Katz, Jerome, and William B. Gartner
(1988).
"Properties of Emerging
Organizations," Academy of Manage-
ment
Review
13(3),
429-441.
Krueger, Norris R (1993a). "Growing Up
Entrepreneurial?: Developmental Con-
sequences of Early Exposure to Entre-
preneurship," Academy of
Management
Best
Papers Proceedings
53, 80-84.
— (1993b). "The Impact of Prior
Entrepreneurial Exposure on Per-
ceptions of New Venture Feasibility
and Desirability," Entrepreneurship
Theory
and
Practice,
18(1), 5-21.
Krueger, Norris F., and Deborah V. Brazeal
(1994).
"Entrepreneurial Potential and
Potential Entrepreneurs,"
Enrepreneur-
ship
Theory
and
Practice
18(3), 91-104.
Naffziger, Douglas W., Jeffrey S. Hornsby,
and Donald R Kuratko (1994). "A
Proposed Research Model of Entre-
preneurial Motivation," Entrepreneur-
ship
Theory
and
Practice
18(3), 29-42.
Robinson, Peter B., and Edwin A. Sexton
(1994).
"The Effect of Education and
Experience on Self-Employment
Success," Joumal of
Business
Venturing
9(2),
141-156.
Robinson, Peter B., David V. Stimpson,
Jonathan C Huefner, and H. Keith
Hunt (1991). "An Attitude Approach to
the Prediction of Entrepreneurship,"
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
16(4),
13-31.
Schneider, Benjamin (1983). "Inter-
actional Psychology and Organi-
zational Behavior," Research in
Organizational Behavior. Ed. Larry L.
Cummings and Barry M. Staw.
Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1-31.
Scott, Michael G., and Daniel R Twomey
(1988).
"The Long-Term Supply of
Entrepreneurs: Students' Career
Aspirations in Relation to Entre-
preneurship," Joumal of
Small
Business
Management 26 (October), 37-44.
Sexton, Donald L., and Nancy Bowman-
Upton (1990). "Female and Male
Entrepreneurs: Psychological Char-
acteristics and Their Role in Gender-
Related Discrimination," Journal of
Business
Venhiring
5(1), 29-36.
Shapero, Albert, and Lisa Sokol (1982).
"The Social Dimensions of Entrepre-
neurship," Encyclopedia of Entrepre-
neurship.
Ed. Calvin A. Kent, Donald L.
Sexton, and Karl H. Vesper. Englewood
Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 72-90.
Shaver, Kelly. G., and Linda R. Scott
(1991).
"Person, Process, Choice: The
Psychology of New Venture Creation,"
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
16(2),
23-45.
JULY 1996 49
