Content uploaded by Beatriz M. Terán-Pérez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Beatriz M. Terán-Pérez on Jan 25, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
10.21640/ns.v13i26.2729
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 1 -
Intención Emprendedora Académica: un estudio a través de la Teoría del Comportamiento
Planeado
Academic Entrepreneurial Intention: a study through the Theory of Planned Behavior
Beatriz M. Terán-Pérez 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7561-9938
Cuitláhuac Valdez-Lafarga 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7876-1430
Alejandra Miranda-Félix 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5469-0834
Pedro Flores-Leal 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1007-8763
1 Universidad Autónoma de Occidente, bemaita13@gmail.com
2 Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa
© Universidad De La Salle Bajío (México)
Recibido en: 26 – 10 – 2020 / Aceptado en: 02 – 04 – 2021
Resumen
Introducción: El estudio de la intención emprendedora es primordial para entender el inicio del
proceso de emprendimiento. La literatura en emprendimiento académico sustenta que existe
escasez de investigaciones relacionadas con el cómo un individuo, en el entorno académico,
desarrolla la intención de emprender un spin-off. Partiendo de la Teoría del Comportamiento
Planeado, el objetivo del presente estudio es analizar la incidencia de los antecedentes
motivacionales (actitud, norma subjetiva y control percibido) en la Intención Emprendedora
Académica y examinar el efecto de los factores individuales (creatividad, utilidad percibida,
autoconfianza, experiencia empresarial) y del contexto (experiencia empresarial, capacitación en
emprendimiento y entorno de negocios) en dichos antecedentes.
Método: La recolección de datos fue a través de una encuesta aplicada de forma aleatoria a 172
académicos de la Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa en diversas áreas del conocimiento (técnicas
y sociales). El análisis de datos se llevó a cabo mediante la técnica multivariante Modelo de
Ecuaciones Estructurales, a través del enfoque de Mínimos Cuadrados Parciales, para ello se utilizó
el software Smart PLS.
Resultados: El resultado del modelo de ecuaciones estructurales evidenció que el antecedente
principal de la intención emprendedora académica es la Actitud hacia el emprendimiento. Esta, a
su vez, se ve influida por la Creatividad y la Utilidad Percibida.
Discusión o Conclusión: El modelo estructural de la investigación permite proporcionar evidencia
predictiva de variables no observables que inciden en la formación de la intención emprendedora
Intención Emprendedora Académica: un estudio a través de la Teoría del Comportamiento Planeado
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 2 -
en el entorno académico. Además, los hallazgos presentan implicaciones prácticas que son de
utilidad a la gestión universitaria para el impulso al emprendimiento académico.
Palabras clave: emprendimiento académico; spin-off académico; intención emprendedora; teoría
del comportamiento planeado; universidad; educación; entorno académico; emprendimiento;
investigación; creatividad; experiencia empresarial
Abstract
Introduction: The study of Entrepreneurial Intention is essential to understand the beginning of
the entrepreneurship process. The literature on academic entrepreneurship sustains a shortage of
research related to how an individual, in the academic environment, develops the entrepreneurial
intention of starting a spin-off. Starting from the Theory of Planned Behavior, the objective of the
present study is to analyze the incidence of motivational antecedents (attitude, subjective norm,
and perceived control) on Academic Entrepreneurial Intention and examine the effect of individual
factors (creativity, perceived utility, self-confidence, business experience) and context (business
experience, entrepreneurship training, and business environment) in said antecedents.
Method: The data collection was through a survey applied randomly to 172 academics from the
Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa in various areas of knowledge (technical and social). Data
analysis was carried out using the multivariate Structural Equation Model technique, through the
Partial Least Squares approach, for which the Smart PLS software was used.
Results: The result of the structural equation model showed that the main antecedent of the
academic entrepreneurial intention is the attitude towards entrepreneurship. This, in turn, is
influenced by Creativity and Perceived Utility.
Discussion or Conclusion: The research’s structural model allows predictive evidence of
unobservable variables that influence entrepreneurial intention’s formation in the academic
environment. Also, the findings present practical implications that are useful for university
authorities to promote academic entrepreneurship.
Keywords: academic entrepreneurship; academic spin-off; entrepreneurial intention; theory of
planned behavior; university; education; academic environment; entrepreneurship; research;
creativity; business experience
Terán-Pérez, B. M. et al.
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 3 -
Introduction
From a critical perspective of the literature on academic entrepreneurship, it sustains that the role
of the scientist, academic, or researcher in the entrepreneurial process is neglected (Etzkowitz et
al., 2000; Goethner et al., 2012; Perkmann et al., 2013; Urban and Chantson, 2017; Wang et al.,
2021; Wright, 2014), there is a shortage of studies related to how an individual involved in the
academic environment identifies the business opportunity and develops the entrepreneurial
intention of starting a spin-off based on the results of their research (Guerrero et al., 2016; Miranda
et al., 2018; Prodan and Drnovsek, 2010; Rasmussen and Wright, 2015).
In this sense, previous contributions show that the study of entrepreneurial intention (EI) is
essential to understand the entrepreneurship process (Kautonen et al., 2015; Kolvereid, 2016). The
closest predictor of the decision to become an entrepreneur is seen in EI; the intention can
foreshadow behaviors (Fini et al., 2012), indicates how intensely you prepare and how much effort
you are planning to commit to carrying out an entrepreneurial behavior (Bird, 1988; Carsrud and
Brannback, 2011).
According to Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), human behavior is planned and is
preceded by the intention towards that behavior. Also, TPB maintains that EI is influenced by
motivational factors that include beliefs about an outcome; these factors' importance in predicting
intention varies according to behaviors, situations, and population (Ajzen, 1991).
Thus, previous research has considered the TPB model as a theoretical framework,
confirming the concept's application in different settings (Entrialgo and Iglesias, 2016; Liñan and
Fayolle, 2015). However, specifically in the academic field, it is evident that most of the literary
production related to empirical studies in which EI models are developed has been in students and,
to a lesser extent, in university academics (Al-Jubari et al., 2018; Feola et al., 2017; Miranda et al.,
2017; Obschonka et al., 2015).
Consequently, starting from the TPB, this study aims to analyze the incidence of
motivational antecedents (Attitude, Subjective Norm, and Perceived Control) on Academic
Entrepreneurial Intention (AEI) and examine the effect of individual factors and context on the
antecedents of the AEI.
This article is structured as follows: the first section presents a review of the literature on
TPB's motivational antecedents and the individual factors and the context that have been
considered in studies of academic entrepreneurship with a theoretical foundation in EI. The second
Intención Emprendedora Académica: un estudio a través de la Teoría del Comportamiento Planeado
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 4 -
section refers to the methodology used for data collection and analysis. Later, in section three, the
study results, conclusions, and implications are discussed.
Literature Review
Theory of Planned Behavior
From a cognitive approach, the best element to predict deliberate and planned behavior is the
intention, mainly when said behavior is complex, difficult to observe, or involves an unpredictable
period (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). TPB postulates that intention predicts human behavior, where
intention indicates the extent of the effort of a person who plans to perform that behavior (Ajzen,
1991). In other words, when a person decides or not to take action, they tend to have prior planning,
which is to say they have an intention (Ajzen, 2002). Explaining and predicting human behavior is
the central purpose of TPB development, this theory comes from the field of psychology and has
had satisfactory applications in others knowledge areas such as marketing and management (Al-
Mamary et al., 2020) or career choice (Deprez et al., 2019).
Particularly, TPB represents a framework for the study of entrepreneurship, where it is
considered superior and more influential than other models of intention (Al-Jubari et al., 2018;
Entrialgo and Iglesias, 2016; Liñán and Fayolle, 2015), such as the business event model (Shapero
and Sokol 1982) and the entrepreneurial potential model (Krueger and Brazeal 1994). TPB allows
addressing the analysis of the intentions of the entrepreneurs, conditioned by the result they hope
to obtain, the perceptions of the environment and the perception that the entrepreneur has of their
ability to control and achieve the results of their entrepreneurial action (Liñan and Chen, 2009; Van
Gelderen et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2020).
According to Ajzen's TPB (1991), the intention that precedes a behavior is determined by
three motivational factors: 1) Attitude towards the behavior, 2) Subjective Norm, and 3) Perceived
Control of the behavior. Collectively, these factors represent people's actual Control over behavior
and may be preceded by the beliefs of each individual (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen, 2011). Previous studies
in entrepreneurship found that these three antecedents of the TPB explain 30-45% of the variation
of intentions (Liñan and Chen, 2009).
Terán-Pérez, B. M. et al.
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 5 -
Attitude
Attitude towards behavior refers to people's general evaluation to carry out a particular behavior;
it can be positive or negative, weak, or strong, and explicit or implicit (Ajzen, 1991). A positive or
favorable attitude towards a behavior, such as starting a business, is formed when perceived to have
beneficial and desirable consequences. Specifically, the attitude towards entrepreneurship (AE) has
shown a consistent and significant impact on EI in most of the research carried out in various
contexts (Al-Jubari et al., 2018; Kautonen et al., 2015; Kolvereid, 2016). Considering the above,
the following working hypothesis is proposed.
H1. AE significantly influences AEI.
Subjective Norm
The Subjective Norm (SN) refers to the individual's perception of how the people in their life
perceive their participation or not in a particular behavior, such as starting a business. That is, SN
considers the perceived support of other people –family, friends, work colleagues- valued by the
individual's own motivation to fulfill the aspirations of these people (Kautonen et al., 2013). In
previous studies, the effect of SN on Entrepreneurial Intent has varied substantially; in general, it
has been found that SN is the weakest predictor of EI (Krueger et al., 2000; Liñán and Chen, 2009),
but instead of excluding SN from TPB, some authors have chosen to study the effects of SN on
Attitude towards Entrepreneurship and Perceived Control (Liñan et al., 2011; Lortie and
Castogiovanni, 2015; Urban and Chantson, 2017). Therefore, the following hypothesis is stated:
H2: SN significantly influences AEI.
H2a: SN significantly influences AE.
H2b: SN significantly influences PC.
Perceived Control of Behavior
Perceived Control (PC) refers to the ability perceived by the individual to perform some behavior;
it relates to the resources and opportunities available to a person, which to some degree, should
dictate the probability of achievement in behavior (Ajzen, 1991). According to TPB, perceived
control influences behavior directly or indirectly through intention. Various studies have found that
PC is positively related to entrepreneurial intention, specifically in the academic environment; it
allows overcoming the perception of financial and technological uncertainty (Feola et al., 2017;
Intención Emprendedora Académica: un estudio a través de la Teoría del Comportamiento Planeado
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 6 -
Fernández Pérez et al., 2015; Obschonka et al., 2015). Therefore, the following research hypothesis
is proposed:
H3: PC significantly influences AEI.
Individual and Context Factors as Precedents of TPB
The literature emphasizes that academic entrepreneurial intention is a multilevel phenomenon,
determined by contextual and individual factors. Specifically, articles have been published based
on some intention models, and they also consider different antecedents that determine the AEI.
Thus, for example, about individual characteristics and AEI, some studies consider scientific
production (Goel et al., 2015; Prodan and Drnovsek, 2010) and creativity (Jain et al., 2009;
Miranda et al., 2017; Zampetakis et al., 2009) as factors that determine the attitude towards
entrepreneurship. Regarding context factors, the academic researcher's experience in the
productive sector (Erikson et al., 2015; Moog et al., 2015; Miranda et al., 2017; Prodan and
Drnovsek, 2010), the family environment (Foo et al., 2016), social and business networks
(Fernández-Pérez et al., 2015), the triple helix (Feola et al., 2017), institutional and organizational
barriers (Erikson et al., 2015; Guerrero and Urbano, 2014; Huyghe and Knockaert, 2015; Urban
and Chantson, 2017) significantly affect the AEI.
Starting from the TPB and according to the gaps opened by previous studies, to continue
analyzing the EI through a combination of the academics' individual factors and the region's
contextual factors (Foo et al., 2016; Miranda et al., 2017), the research model used in the present
study is shown in Fig. 1, the TPB is extended considering four antecedents predictors of the AE
construct: Creativity (CREA), perceived utility (UP), self-confidence (SELF), and business
experience (BE), as well as three antecedents of the PC: business experience (BE),
entrepreneurship training (ET) and business environment (ENV).
Terán-Pérez, B. M. et al.
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 7 -
Fig. 1. Research Model.
Creativity (CREA). It is an important component of individual cognitive processing, can be
defined as a personality trait that implies a willingness to pursue decisions or courses of action in
a new way, even when it entails uncertainty regarding the results of success or failure (Batool et
al., 2015). In the field of entrepreneurship, CREA at an individual level refers to the key element
at the beginning of the entrepreneurial process in which entrepreneurs can combine existing
resources, generate new ideas to start innovative businesses (Hu et al., 2018) or exploitation of
business opportunities (Zampetakis et al., 2011), that is to say, they have the ability of matching
information and knowledge to create new and valuable ideas (Shahab et al., 2018; Zhang and
Zhang, 2018). The results of several studies are not conclusive on CREA and EI in the academic
context. Shi et al. (2020) sustain that people with high CREA can maintain a positive attitude and
high self-confidence in entrepreneurial activities, and Miranda et al. (2017) argue that there is no
direct relationship between CREA and intention and propose an indirect connection through AE.
Therefore, we posit the following hypothesis:
H4: CREA significantly influences AE.
Perceived
Utility (PU)
Attitude
entrepreneurshi
p (AE)
Creativity
(CREA)
Academic
Entrepreneurial
Intention (AEI)
Self-confidence
(SELF)
Subjetive
Norm (SN)
Business
Experience
(BE)
Entrepreneurship
Training (ET)
Business
Environment
(ENV)
Perceived
Control
(PC)
H1
H2
H3
H2a
H2b
H4
H5
H6
H7a
H7b
H8
H9
Intención Emprendedora Académica: un estudio a través de la Teoría del Comportamiento Planeado
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 8 -
Perceived Utility (PU). According to Miranda et al. (2017), previous studies related to
entrepreneurship have offered models of expected utility to describe the factors that influence an
individual's choice to pursue a business career. The perception of economic benefits and the amount
of work effort anticipated to achieve them are important factors when deciding to become an
entrepreneur (Wu and Li, 2011). Against this background, the following hypothesis is:
H5: PU significantly influences AE.
Self-confidence (SELF). According to Ferreira et al. (2012), self-confidence (SELF) is identified
as one of the main antecedents of AE. Margahana (2019) argues that self-confidence allows
convincing others and improves individual motivation to achieve established goals. Specifically,
in the academic field, Miranda et al. (2017) suggests a direct relationship between SELF and the
attitude towards entrepreneurship. Consequently, the following hypothesis is:
H6: SELF significantly influences AE.
Business experience (BE). Several prior studies emphasized individual attributes, acquired from
education and industrial experience, are the most significant determinants in promoting academic
entrepreneurship activities (Wang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021). Academics with less experience
in the industry find it difficult to identify opportunities for commercialization of their research
results (Perkmann et al., 2013). In contrast, individuals who have had previous contact, through
their family or professionally, in the business sector have a positive perception of carrying out
entrepreneurial initiatives (D'Este and Perkmann, 2011; Prodan and Drnovsek, 2010). Miranda et
al. (2017) argues that the previous experience of academics with the business sector through
patents, collaborative research projects/contracts, and networks have a direct influence on their
Attitude towards entrepreneurship (AE) and Perceived Control (PC). Therefore, we posit the
following hypothesis:
H7a: Academic BE significantly influences AE.
H7b: Academic BE significantly influences PC.
Entrepreneurship Training (ET). Training and contact with entities that provide support to
entrepreneurs tend to favor the willingness to start a business (Miranda et al., 2017). Previous
studies show that the ET directly affects the PC because it allows access to entrepreneurs' resources
Terán-Pérez, B. M. et al.
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 9 -
and networks (Rauch and Hulsink, 2015). For their part, Rasmussen, and Wright (2015)
acknowledge that many academics lack the necessary skills to start a business since those skills are
very different from those they use in their academic life. There is little evidence of ET's impact on
the likelihood that academics will engage in entrepreneurship (Miranda et al., 2017). Against this
background, the following research hypothesis is proposed:
H8: The academic's ET significantly influences PC.
Business Environment (ENV). Various studies emphasize the importance of government policies
to support business activities in the region (incubators, science parks, economic incentives, among
others) and, particularly, government support mechanisms to encourage university academic
entrepreneurship, for example, seed capital for the spin-off (Davey et al., 2016; Fini and Toschi,
2015; Foo et al., 2016; Mustar and Wright, 2010). According to Miranda et al. (2017), the business
environment significantly affects the PC of academics in the process of creating a company.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is raised:
H9: ENV significantly influences the PC of academics.
Methodology
Sample and data collection
For the fulfillment of the purpose of this research, to analyze the incidence of motivational
antecedents in the Academic Entrepreneurial Intention and the effect of individual factors and the
context on that antecedents, an empirical study was carried out at the Universidad Autónoma de
Sinaloa (UAS), located in northwestern Mexico, an educational institution that has considered in
its Institutional Development Plan (2017-2021) the interest in generating technology-based
companies through starting from the research results by academics and higher education students,
to multiply the link and technology transfer.
The random sample was made up of university academics from various faculties of
technical and social areas. It was surveyed in November 2019, distributed in person among
academics, or thru an online format. Concentrating a total of 172 responses obtained. Table 1
summarizes the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents.
Intención Emprendedora Académica: un estudio a través de la Teoría del Comportamiento Planeado
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 10 -
It should be noted that the sample size is appropriate for the study; it is above the specific
requirements for the analysis using the modeling of structural equations for latent variables used
in this research
1
.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample.
n
172
Age
Min
28
Max
67
Mean
41.6
Standard Deviation
8.9
Gender
Male
108 (62.8%)
Female
64 (37.2%)
Research
Experience
Yes
96 (55.8%)
No
76 (44.2%)
Knowledge
Area
Physics-Mathematics
21 (12.2%)
Biotechnology & Agriculture
52 (30.2%)
Chemistry-biology
21 (12.2%)
Medicine
7 (4.1%)
Engineering
34 (19.8%)
Social Science
37 (21.5%)
Variables
Previous studies related to entrepreneurial intention suggest the importance of considering how
motivational, individual, and contextual factors influence intention formation (Antonieli et al.,
2016; Knockaert et al., 2015). Thus, after analyzing contributions in the literature review to identify
how the variables that comply with content validity have been measured, the scale of Miranda et
al. (2017) was selected, which consists of 47 items obtained from previous studies.
The structure of items with the variables considered is as follow: Academic Entrepreneurial
Intention (4), Attitude towards Entrepreneurship (4), Subjective Norm (4), Perceived Control (8),
Creativity (5), Perceived Utility (5), Self-confidence (5), Business Experience (2),
1
The minimum sample size should be the result of multiplying by 10 the maximum number of arrows pointing to a
latent variable anywhere in the nomogram (Hair et al. 2016). Furthermore, the authors Hair et al. (2019) suggest that
the sample size is determined from the use of the statistical program G * Power to carry out a statistical power analysis
for different configurations of the model. Both requirements were fulfilled.
Terán-Pérez, B. M. et al.
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 11 -
Entrepreneurship Training (4) and Business Environment (6). The scale was measured on a 7-point
Likert-type scale, which assesses the degree of agreement for each of the item statements: total
disagrees (1) totally agree (7).
Data analysis
Data analysis was carried out using the multivariate Structural Equation Model technique, through
the Partial Least Squares approach (PLS-SEM), mainly due to the following reasons:
1) It is oriented to the prediction of unobservable variables (latent variables)
2) The proposed theoretical model is complex
3) Large number of different latent variables, but with multiple or cross-dependence, can combine
reflective and formative measures.
Therefore, the research model is analyzed and interpreted with the PLS-SEM approach,
following Hair et al. (2019):
1) Evaluation of the measurement model, with reflective indicators, each item's individual
reliability is analyzed, through factor loadings, scale reliability or internal consistency, convergent
validity, and discriminant validity of the constructs.
2) Evaluation of the structural model to assess the direct effect of the exogenous latent variables
on the endogenous latent variables. When evaluating the structural model, the relationships
between the constructs are considered, estimating the parameters in a way that maximizes the
explained variance of the latent or endogenous variables. The criteria to evaluate the structural
model were as follows: the variance of the construct (R2) was obtained
2
, the predictive relevance
of the model is validated through the Stone-Geisser Test (Q2), the percentage of explained variance
is obtained as the product of the coefficient path and the correlation coefficient, and finally, the
effect size (f2) of each exogenous variable in the endogenous construct is measured.
Subsequently, bootstrapping (5000 subsamples) is used to generate t statistics and confidence
intervals, which evaluates the statistical importance of the direct effects of the structural model that
allows determining the non-rejection of the hypotheses raised.
The model was estimated using SmartPLS 3.0 software (Ringer et al., 2015). For the significance
of the parameters, a value of p <0.05 was considered, as it is the value that most researchers choose
(Hair et al., 2016).
2
Adjusted R2 is considered as a criterion to avoid bias in the research model (Hair et al., 2019).
Intención Emprendedora Académica: un estudio a través de la Teoría del Comportamiento Planeado
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 12 -
Results
Measurement model
The evaluation of the measurement model for reliability and validity for reflective indicators,
considered the individual reliability adequate because all the indicators had loads greater than
0.706, with the exception of nine items that were subsequently excluded (see Table 2 for the final
list). Cronbach’s Alpha for each construct lay between 0.696 and 0.907, indicative of good
reliability and all the constructs comply with the composite reliability greater than 0.70. To assess
convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) was examined; all latent variables reach
a value higher than 0.50.
Table 2. Measurement model evaluation.
Construct/ítem
Loadings
Cronbach´s
Alpha
Composite
Realiability
AVE
Academic Entrepreneurial Intention (AEI)
0.772
0.867
0.686
I am determined to create a business in the future
0.885
I intend to commercialize the results of my research a spin-off
0.822
I would very much like to be an entrepreneur
0.773
Attitude toward Entrepreneurship (AE)
0.841
0.894
0.68
I find the idea of being an entrepreneur attractive
0.853
Given the opportunity and resources, I would like to create a spin-
off business
0.888
Being an entrepreneur would generate in me a feeling of great
satisfaction
0.825
I think if I decide to start a spin-off business then it would succeed
0.724
Subjetive Norm (SN)
0.798
0.868
0.622
My family would support me in my career as an entrepreneur
0.739
My friends see entrepreneurship as a logical option
0.832
The culture of my region encourages entrepreneurship
0.791
Most people in my region see entrepreneurship as very positive
0.789
Perceived Control (PC)
0.907
0.926
0.642
Recognize a business opportunity before others do
0.752
Make improvements to certain existing products on the market
0.782
Conduct market research for a new product
0.793
Design a marketing campaign for my products
0.818
Organize and maintain my business’s financial information
0.794
Manage relationships with my employees
0.847
Develop a strategic plan
0.818
Creativity (CREA)
0.739
0.879
0.784
I consider myself a very creative person
0.828
I like to start new projects, despite the risk of being wrong
0.940
Terán-Pérez, B. M. et al.
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 13 -
Perceived Utility (PU)
0.753
0.857
0.667
Being an entrepreneur would entail a very high degree of autonomy
0.787
The personal satisfaction from being an entrepreneur would be very
high
0.881
The quality of life that I would get from being an entrepreneur
would be very high
0.779
Self-confidence (SELF)
0.753
0.858
0.669
Whether or not a target is reached depends mainly on me and my
behavior
0.759
When I make plans, I am sure that they will come to fruition
0.853
Achieving what I want is the result of my own effort and personal
commitment
0.839
Business Experience (BE)
0.696
0.831
0.712
I have work experience in the private sector
0.860
I have experience as proprietor of another firm or other firms
0.826
Entrepreneurship Training (ET)
0.867
0.908
0.712
The hours of training in entrepreneurship I received during my
university studies were adequate
0.823
The hours of training in entrepreneurship I have received as part of
my university’s teaching and research staff training programs have
been sufficient
0.902
The hours of training in entrepreneurship I have received outside
the university have been sufficient
0.825
My university gives good training to its teaching and research staff
for them to develop their entrepreneurial potential
0.822
Business Environment (ENV)
0.862
0.895
0.588
It is easy to obtain a bank loan to start a business
0.706
It is easy to find investors for a new business
0.757
There are enough grants and subsidies to create businesses
0.811
There are sufficient consulting firms that can help start up a
business
0.810
The country’s economic situation will improve notably in the
coming years
0.769
The conditions for entrepreneurs will improve notably in the
coming years
0.745
In regard to discriminant validity, allows us to assess that each latent variable is different from
other constructs in the model. According to the Fornell-Larcker criterion, each construct's diagonal
indices is the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) and must be the highest in any
column or row (Table 3). In addition, in Table 4, heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio was
considered, to estimate whether the monotrait-heteromethod correlations (correlations between the
indicators that measure the same construct) are greater than the heterotrait-heteromethod
(correlations between the indicators that measure different constructs), there will be discriminant
validity. Thus, the HTMT ratio is considered conservative at a value of 0.85, while values higher
than 0.90 suggest lack of discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2019). In this case, there is only one
Intención Emprendedora Académica: un estudio a través de la Teoría del Comportamiento Planeado
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 14 -
value close to this critical point, HTMT in AEI-AE = 0.900, this is due to the high correlation
between the two variables.
Table 3. Discriminant Validity. Fornell-Larcker criterion.
Variables
Mean
StDev
AE
SELF
ET
PC
CREA
BE
ENV
AEI
SN
PU
AE
5.412
1.076
0.825
SELF
5.742
0.938
0.376*
0.818
ET
3.225
1.444
0.189*
0.158*
0.844
PC
4.861
1.170
0.523*
0.321*
0.367*
0.801
CREA
5.845
0.892
0.464*
0.308*
0.221*
0.435*
0.886
BE
3.480
1.808
0.455*
0.129
0.266*
0.368*
0.203*
0.844
ENV
3.807
1.109
0.089
0.098
0.352*
0.265*
0.134
0.231*
0.767
AEI
4.698
1.411
0.734*
0.272*
0.274*
0.563*
0.411*
0.378*
0.229*
0.828
SN
5.180
1.083
0.385*
0.298*
0.412*
0.455*
0.351*
0.312*
0.317*
0.341
0.789
PU
5.420
0.973
0.659*
0.391*
0.122
0.322*
0.233*
0.375*
0.105
0.480*
0.479*
0.817
* Denote a significant at p < 0.05.
Table 4. Discriminant Validity. Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT).
AE
SELF
ET
PC
CREA
BE
ENV
AEI
SN
PU
AE
---
SELF
0.472
ET
0.219
0.218
PC
0.594
0.377
0.396
CREA
0.57
0.411
0.286
0.529
BE
0.640
0.265
0.359
0.495
0.303
ENV
0.113
0.167
0.407
0.285
0.178
0.307
AEI
0.900
0.342
0.31
0.643
0.534
0.531
0.273
SN
0.471
0.373
0.501
0.523
0.475
0.453
0.388
0.414
PU
0.809
0.531
0.173
0.379
0.292
0.546
0.145
0.609
0.637
Structural model
Fig. 2 and Table 5 show the results of the evaluation of the structural model. In general, ranges of
values obtained from adjusted R2 (0 to 1) and Q2 (greater than 0) indicate a high predictive precision
of the model proposed in this research. The variance of the Academic Entrepreneurial Intention
construct explained by this model is 57.6%, of which PC contributes 13.96%, SN is not significant,
and AE is the construct that most contributes to explaining the AEI with 44.61%. For the AE
construct, the value of R2 is 56.2%, mainly described by PU with 33.21%, CREA contributes
13.83%, and BE contributes 9.46%. SELF and SN do not contribute to the variance of AE.
Terán-Pérez, B. M. et al.
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 15 -
Regarding PC, the value of the variance is 27.5%, explained in a more significant proportion by
SN with 13.65%, BE with 8%, ET with 6.10%, and ENV not significant.
In particular, the bootstrap technique shows that 7 of the 12 direct effects on endogenous o
independent variables are significant. Thus, AE (β = 0.607; t = 10.03; p <0.05) and PC (β = 0.248;
t = 3.329; p <0.05) positively and significantly influence the AEI, otherwise the SN, which only
shows a positive relationship and significant in the PC (β = 0.30; t = 3.683; p> 0.05).It should be
noted that the values obtained from f2 allow us to ratify that AE emerges as the most important
antecedent in AEI; it has a strong and significant effect, whereas PC is significant, but with a small
effect on intention and SN does not have a direct effect on the AEI.
Regarding the direct relationships of the individual factors that precede the AE construct,
only PU (β = 0.504; t = 7.434; p <0.05), CREA (β = 0.298; t = 4.503; p <0.05) and BE (β = 0.208;
t = 3.436; p <0.05) are the significant variables with large, moderate, and small direct effect,
respectively. In reference, to the contextual factors that precede the PC construct, BE (β = 0.217; t
= 2.803; p <0.05) and ET (β = 0.165; t = 2.415; p <0.05) are significant, but with a small effect.
Fig. 2. Results of the structural model.
The values, in the arrows, indicate the beta coefficients and, in parentheses, the explained variance
* Denotes a significant direct effect at p < 0.05.
Intención Emprendedora Académica: un estudio a través de la Teoría del Comportamiento Planeado
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 16 -
Table 5. Result of the Structure Model.
Hypothesis
Direct
Effect β
t-Value
P Value
Explained
Variance
f2
H1: AE→AEI
0.607
10.03
0.000
44.61%
0.619
H2: SN→AEI
-0.005
0.092
0.927
-0.17%
0.000
H2a: SN→AE
-0.05
0.832
0.405
-1.92%
0.004
H2b: SN→PC
0.300
3.683
0.000
13.65%
0.097
H3: PC→AEI
0.248
3.329
0.001
13.96%
0.096
H4: CREA→AE
0.298
4.503
0.000
13.83%
0.172
H5: PU→AE
0.504
7.434
0.000
33.21%
0.388
H6: SELF→AE
0.076
1.29
0.197
2.90%
0.011
H7a: BE→AE
0.208
3.436
0.001
9.46%
0.084
H7b: BE→PC
0.217
2.803
0.005
8.00%
0.058
H8: ET→PC
0.165
2.415
0.016
6.10%
0.029
H9:ENV→PC
0.062
0.887
0.375
1.64%
0.004
Discussion
The structural model of the research shows a 57.6% explanation of the variance of AEI. This
percentage is higher than those obtained by previous studies academic entrepreneurship between
35 and 50% (Alonso-Galicia et al., 2015; Feola et al., 2017; Fernández-Pérez et al., 2014).
Regarding the motivational factors (AE, SN, and PC) that directly precede the AEI, the
results obtained show that the AE presents a positive and significant relationship with a greater
influence on the intention to become an entrepreneur. On the other hand, PC has a significant
impact, but with a small effect. However, SN does not significantly affect AEI or AE; it only
significantly affects PC. This agrees with previous research supports that in non-business
environments such as universities, it is the characteristics of the academic, his positive attitude
towards generating spin-off companies, has a more significant influence on intention, in contrast
to formal factors such as institutional or organizational support measures (Guerrero et al., 2016;
Miranda et al., 2017; Urban and Chantson, 2017).
However, regarding AE's dominant influence as an antecedent of intention, the present
study's findings reveal a significant but weak relationship between PC in AEI. This contrasts with
previous research, in which they find the PC not significant (Miranda et al., 2017; Piperopoulos
and Dimov, 2015) and with those that find that the PC is the main determinant of intentions, where
AE and SN act as support (Feola et al., 2017). An explanation for this result could be found in the
characteristics of the sample of academic researchers, who consider that with the more significant
Terán-Pérez, B. M. et al.
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 17 -
human capital, they could develop the skills and abilities necessary to start a business when the
time comes. The PC will be more influential when initiating entrepreneurial behavior and not when
the business intention is formed (Kautonen et al., 2015).
Regarding the SN, that is, the perception by family, friends, and co-workers that the
academic decides to become an entrepreneur, the results show that it does not directly influence
the AEI, only indirectly with a small effect through the PC. This finding agrees with previous
studies that support that SN tends to vary according to culture or environment (Liñan et al., 2011),
in Latin America and the Anglo-Saxon region, both the success or failure of business activities are
viewed and judged from differently, for example, when the academic knows a colleague who has
started a spin-off and has a positive experience, it will positively influence the SN and PC;
otherwise, if they have had an experience of failure to become an entrepreneur, it may not
negatively affect any antecedent of the intention but be significant because the individual considers
that the experience, even when it was negative, has served to acquire knowledge (Passaro et al.,
2017; Sieger and Monsen, 2015).
Concerning the individual factors that precede AE, they are CREA, PU, and BE, which
positively and significantly affect the academic attitude towards entrepreneurship. This is in line
with the results obtained with Miranda et al. (2017), who argue that, in the academic field, it is
necessary to encourage entrepreneurial activities as a mechanism to transfer technology and, to be
considered together with teaching and research, with the same recognition by the educational
institution.
On the other hand, the contextual factors that precede the PC are BE and ET, presenting a
positive and significant direct effect. According to the theory, it sustains that the academic who has
experience in the business sector, whether due to having developed a spin-off or for research
reasons, had a link with the industry, will have a PC to carry out entrepreneurial activities. Besides,
together with entrepreneurship training for academics and students, it will allow the development
of skills that favor university spin-offs. (Bienkowska et al., 2016; Perkman et al., 2013; Rasmussen
and Wright, 2015).
Conclusions
Starting from the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), the present study had as objectives: to
analyze the incidence of motivational antecedents (attitude, subjective norm, and perceived
Intención Emprendedora Académica: un estudio a través de la Teoría del Comportamiento Planeado
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 18 -
Control) on Academic Entrepreneurial Intention and to examine the effect of individual factors and
context in the background of the AEI; with the idea of contributing to the open gaps of investigating
the determinants of the intention to create an academic spin-off.
Thus, our research's empirical sample was made up of academics from the Universidad Autónoma
de Sinaloa, a public institution that shows interest in creating science-based companies. The results
obtained provide predictive evidence of unobservable variables that influence the formation of
intention in the academic environment.
Based on the methodology used, PLS-SEM, the following results were obtained:
1) With respect to motivational antecedents in the intention, our analysis showed that the
Attitude towards Entrepreneurship is the variable with the most significant influence on the
formation of the Academic Entrepreneurial Intention.
2) In regard to the individual factors with the most significant effect on Attitude are the
Perceived Utility by the academic, the perception of economic benefit, amount of
anticipated work effort, among others, to achieve utility are essential factors when deciding
to become an entrepreneur.
3) Likewise, the Creativity and the Business Experience of the academic, with a moderate and
small effect, respectively, affect the attitude towards entrepreneurship.
This research contains academic implications, the proposed theoretical model allows in general,
contributing to the study of Entrepreneurial Intentions and, in particular, intentions among
university academics. The incorporation of new theoretical perspectives to the study of
entrepreneurial intention allows to continue with the individual analysis with different approaches;
for example, integrating the cognitive aspects of the TPB and the elements of the Triple Helix
(government, industry, academia) can contribute to the sustenance of the determinants of the
formation of the AEI. In the same way, considering theoretical approaches proven in organizational
studies, such as the resource-based approach to the company or the theory of social networks, can
provide excellent foundations to understand how to encourage entrepreneurial intention in the
academic environment.
Regarding the practical implications of the study, due to the importance of the transfer of
university technology to generate competitive advantage, economic and social development in the
region, and considering the relevant role of the individual in the entrepreneurial process, it is useful
Terán-Pérez, B. M. et al.
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 19 -
that the university authorities know the factors that allow promoting entrepreneurship activities, in
particular, the creation of academic spin-offs.
In this sense, some university environment agents' support is essential, such as technology
transfer offices, science, and technology parks, in the training of academics to develop their
creativity and identify business opportunities in the research results, which can favor the attitude
and perceived control towards entrepreneurship.
In the same direction, the empirical results show the need to promote a university culture
that favors academic entrepreneurship, providing support through tangible and intangible
resources. Specifically, the findings indicate that utility perceived by the academics of Universidad
Autónoma de Sinaloa is a significant factor in having a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship;
therefore, the university must establish specific regulations for innovation, linkage, and
entrepreneurship; for example, prevention and treatment of conflict of interest between the
academic and the institution, regarding the participation of royalties and incentives when
participating in entrepreneurial activities, particularly in creating spin-offs.
Our study has some limitations that suggest gaps for future lines of research. Only the direct
effects between the individual, contextual and motivational factors that precede the IEA have been
analyzed; future studies towards identifying new relationships between the determining factors and
the intention may consider the moderating effect of the academic's personal and professional
characteristics. Besides, carry out a longitudinal study that allows analyzing factors that affect the
link or "bridge" from entrepreneurial intention to the subsequent entrepreneurial behavior. Finally,
considering results obtained can only be generalized to the sample studied, it is convenient to
extend the study with a more significant number of universities that allow comparisons in different
university settings, considering institutions that already have success stories in academic spin-offs
with null or low academic entrepreneurship.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(1), 179–211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of
planned behavior. Journal of applied social psychology, 32(4), 665-683. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x
Intención Emprendedora Académica: un estudio a través de la Teoría del Comportamiento Planeado
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 20 -
Ajzen, I. (2011). Theory of planned behavior: reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health,
26(9), 1113-1127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.613995
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Al-Jubari, I., Hassan, A., & Liñan, F. (2018). Entrepreneurial intention among university students
in Malaysia: integrating self-determination theory and the theory of planned behavior.
International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 15(4), 1323-1342. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0529-0
Al-Mamary, Y. H. S., Abdulrab, M., Alwaheeb, M. A., & Alshammari, N. G. M. (2020). Factors
impacting entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Saudi Arabia: testing an
integrated model of TPB and EO. Education+Training, 62(7/8), 779-803. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-04-2020-0096
Alonso-Galicia, P. E., Fernández-Pérez, V., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes, M.
(2015). Entrepreneurial cognitions in academia: exploring gender differences. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 30(6), 630-644. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-08-2013-0262
Antonieli, D., Nicolli, F., Ramaciotti, L. & Rizzo, U. (2016). The effect of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations on academics’ entrepreneurial intention. Administrative Science, 6(15), 2-18.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci6040015
Batool, H., Rasheed, H., Malik, M.I. & Hussain, S. (2015). Application of partial least square in
predicting e-entrepreneurial intention among business students: evidence from Pakistan.
Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-
015-0019-3
Bienkowska, D., Klofsten, M., & Rasmussen, E. (2016). PhD students in the entrepreneurial
university‐perceived support for academic entrepreneurship. European Journal of
Education, 51(1), 56-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12160
Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of
Management Review, 13(3), 442–453. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306970
Carsrud, A., & Brannback, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial motivations: What do we still need to know?
Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 9–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
627X.2010.00312.x
Terán-Pérez, B. M. et al.
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 21 -
Davey, T., Rossano, S., & van der Sijde, P. (2016). Does context matter in academic
entrepreneurship? The role of barriers and drivers in the regional and national context.
Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1457–1458. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-
015-9450-7
Deprez, J., Cools, E., Robijn, W., & Euwema, M. (2019). Choice for an Entrepreneurial Career:
Do Cognitive Styles Matter? Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 0(0). DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2019-0003
D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M., (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial
university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer 36, 316–339.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007
Entrialgo, M., & Iglesias, V. (2016). The moderating role of entrepreneurship education on the
antecedents of entrepreneurial intention. International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, 12(4), 1209–1232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0389-4
Erikson, T., Knockaert, M., & Der Foo, M. (2015). Enterprising scientists: The shaping role of
norms, experience, and scientific productivity. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 99, 211–221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.06.022
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. & Cantisano, B. (2000). The future of the university and
the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research
Policy, 29, 313-330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4
Feola, R., Vesci, M., Botti, A., & Parente, R. (2017): The determinants of entrepreneurial intention
of young researchers: combining the theory of planned behavior with the triple helix model.
Journal of Small Business Management, 57(4), 1424-1443. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12361
Fernández-Pérez, V., Esther Alonso-Galicia, P., del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes, M., & Rodríguez-Ariza,
L. (2014). Business social networks and academics ‘entrepreneurial intentions. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 114(2), 292–320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-02-
2013-0076
Fernández-Pérez, V., Alonso-Galicia, P. E., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes, M.
(2015). Professional and personal social networks: A bridge to entrepreneurship for
academics? European Management Journal, 33(1), 37-47. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.07.003
Intención Emprendedora Académica: un estudio a través de la Teoría del Comportamiento Planeado
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 22 -
Ferreira, J. J., Raposo, M. L., Rodrigues, R. G., Dinis, A., & do Pac¸ o, A. (2012). A model of
entrepreneurial Intention: An application of the psychological and behavioral approaches.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(3), 424–440. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/14626001211250144
Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Marzocchi, G. L., & Sobrero, M. (2012). The determinants of corporate
entrepreneurial intention within small and newly established firms. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 36(2), 387-414. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6520.2010.00411.x
Fini, R., & Toschi, L. (2015). Academic logic and corporate entrepreneurial intentions: a study of
the interaction between cognitive and institutional factors in new firms. International Small
Business Journal, 34(5), 637-659. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242615575760
Foo, M. D., Knockaert, M., Chan, E. T., & Erikson, T. (2016). The individual environment nexus:
Impact of promotion focus and the environment on academic scientists ‘entrepreneurial
intentions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 63(2), 213–222. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2016.2535296
Goel, R. K., Goktepe-Hulten, D., & Ram, R. (2015). Academics’ entrepreneurship propensities and
gender differences. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), 161–177. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9372-9
Goethner M, Obschonka M, Silbereisen R. et al. (2012) Scientists’ transition to academic
entrepreneurship: Economic and psychological determinants. Journal of Economic
Psychology 33(3): 628–641. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.12.002
Guerrero, M. & Urbano, D. (2014). Academics’ start-up intentions and knowledge filters: an
individual perspective of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small
Business Economics, 43, 57–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9526-4
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Fayolle, A., Klofsten, M. & Mian, S. (2016) Entrepreneurial universities:
emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business Economics
47(3): 551-563. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9526-4
Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage publications.
Terán-Pérez, B. M. et al.
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 23 -
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M. & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the
results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review 31(1), 2-24. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Hu, R., Wang, L., Zhang, W., & Bin, P. (2018). Creativity, proactive personality, and
entrepreneurial intention: the role of entrepreneurial alertness. Frontiers in psychology, 9,
951. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00951
Huyghe, A., & Knockaert, M. (2015). The influence of organizational culture and climate on
entrepreneurial intentions among research scientists. The Journal of Technology Transfer,
40(1), 138–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9333-3
Jain, S., George, G. & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role
identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity.
Research Policy, 38(6), 922-935. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.007
Kautonen, T., van Gelderen, M., & Fink, M. (2015). Robustness of the theory of planned behavior
in predicting EI and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 655–674. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12056
Kautonen, T., van Gelderen, M., & Tornikoski, E. T. (2013). Predicting entrepreneurial behavior:
A test of the theory of planned behavior. Applied Economics, 45(6), 697–707. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2011.610750
Knockaert, M., Foo, M., Erikson, T. & Cools, E. (2015). Growth intentions among research
scientists: a cognitive style perspective. Technovation, 38: 64-74. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.12.001
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),
100–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1465750316648576
Krueger, N. & Brazeal, D. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5(1), 315-330. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879401800307
Krueger, N., Reilly, M. & Carsrud, A. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions.
Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5), 411-432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-
9026(98)00033-0
Intención Emprendedora Académica: un estudio a través de la Teoría del Comportamiento Planeado
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 24 -
Liñán, F. & Chen, Y. (2009). Development and Cross-Cultural Application of a Specific Instrument
to Measure Entrepreneurial Intentions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 33(3), 593-
617. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x
Liñan, F. & Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions:
citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 11(4), 907-933. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-015-0356-5
Liñán, F., Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2011). Regional variations in entrepreneurial cognitions:
Start-up intentions of university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, 23(3–4), 187–215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620903233929
Lortie, J., & Castogiovanni, G. (2015). The theory of planned behavior in entrepreneurship
research: What we know and future directions. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 11(4), 935–957. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-015-0358-3
Margahana, H. (2019). Self-Efficacy, Self-Personality And Self Confidence On Entrepreneurial
Intention: Study On Young Enterprises. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 22(1), 1-
12.
Miranda, F. J., Chamorro-Mera, A., & Rubio, S. (2017). Academic entrepreneurship in Spanish
universities: An analysis of the determinants of entrepreneurial intention. European
research on management and business economics, 23(2), 113-122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2017.01.001
Miranda, F., Chamorro, A. & Rubio, S. (2018). Re-thinking university spin-off: A critical literature
review and a research agenda. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(4), 1007-1038. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9647-z
Moog, P., Werner A., Houweling S., & Backes-Gellner, U. (2015). The impact of skills, working
time allocation and peer effects on the entrepreneurial intentions of scientists. The Journal
of Technology Transfer, 40, 493-511.
Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2010). Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation
of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. The Journal
of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 42–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9113-7
Obschonka, M., Silbereisen, R. K., Cantner, U., & Goethner, M. (2015). Entrepreneurial self-
identity: Predictors and effects within the theory of planned behavior framework. Journal
Terán-Pérez, B. M. et al.
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 25 -
of Business and Psychology, 30(4), 773–794. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-
9385-2
Passaro, R., Scandurra, G. & Thomas, A. (2017). The Emergence of Innovative Entrepreneurship:
Beyond the Intention - Investigating the Participants in an Academic SUC. International
Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 14(5), 1750025 (22 pages). DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877017500250
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P. et al. (2013).
Academic engagement and commercialization: A review of the literature on university–
industry relations. Research policy, 42(2), 423-442. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007
Piperopoulos, P., & Dimov, D. (2015). Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship education,
entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business
Management, 53(4), 970–985. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12116
Prodan, I. & Drnovsek, M. (2010). Conceptualizing academic-entrepreneurial intentions: An
empirical test. Technovation, 30(5), 332-347. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.02.002
Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2014). The influence of university departments on the
evolution of entrepreneurial competencies in spin-off ventures. Research Policy, 43(1), 92–
106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.007
Rasmussen, E. y Wright, M. (2015). How can universities facilitate academic spin-offs? An
entrepreneurial competency perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(5), 782- -799.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9386-3
Rauch, A., & Hulsink, W. (2015). Putting entrepreneurship education where the intention to act
lies: An investigation into the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial
behavior. Academy of Management Learning & Education,14(2), 187–204. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0293
Ringle, Christian M., Wende, Sven & Becker, Jan-Michael. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Bönningstedt:
SmartPLS. Retrieved from http://www.smartpls.com
Shahab, Y., Chengang, Y., Arbizu, A. D., & Haider, M. J. (2018). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and
intention: do entrepreneurial creativity and education matter? International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-12-2017-0522
Intención Emprendedora Académica: un estudio a través de la Teoría del Comportamiento Planeado
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 26 -
Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton
and K. Vespers (Eds), The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship.: Prentice-Hall: Englewood
Cliffs, NJ 72-90.
Shi, Y., Yuan, T., Bell, R., & Wang, J. (2020). Investigating the Relationship Between Creativity
and Entrepreneurial Intention: The Moderating Role of Creativity in the Theory of Planned
Behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01209
Sieger, P., & Monsen, E. (2015). Founder, academic, or employee? A nuanced study of career
choice intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(S1), 30–57. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12181
Urban, B. & Chantson, D. (2017). Academic entrepreneurship in South Africa: testing for
entrepreneurial intentions. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9639-z
Van Gelderen, M., Brand, M., Van Praag, M., Bodewes, W., Poutsma, E., & Van Gils, A. (2008).
Explaining entrepreneurial intentions by means of the theory of planned behavior. Career
Development International, 13(6), 538–559. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810901688
Wang, M., Cai, J., & Munir, H. (2020). Academic entrepreneurship in China: individual human
capital and institutional context in higher education organizations. Asian Journal of
Technology Innovation, 1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2020.1833354
Wang, M., Soetanto, D., Cai, J., & Munir, H. (2021). Scientist or Entrepreneur? Identity centrality,
university entrepreneurial mission, and academic entrepreneurial intention. The Journal of
Technology Transfer, 1-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09845-6
Wright, M. (2014). Academic entrepreneurship, technology transfer and society: where next?
Journal Technology Transfer, 39, 322–334. DOI: 10.1007/s10961-012-9286-3. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9286-3
Wu, L., & Li, J. (2011). Perceived value of entrepreneurship. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship,
3(2), 134-146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/17561391111144564
Zampetakis, L. A., Kafetsios, K., Bouranta, N., Dewett, T., & Moustakis, V. S. (2009). On the
relationship between emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 15(6), 595–618. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550910995452
Terán-Pérez, B. M. et al.
Nº 26, Vol. 13 (2), 2021. ISSN 2007 – 0705, pp.: 1 – 27
- 27 -
Zampetakis, L. A., Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., & Moustakis, V. (2011). Creativity and
entrepreneurial intention in young people. Empirical insights from business school students.
The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation,12(3), 189–199. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5367/ijei.2011.0037
Zhang, X., and Zhang, K. (2018). The relation between creativity and entrepreneurial intention: a
moderated mediating effect model. Foreign Economics & Management. 40, 67–78. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.16538/j.cnki.fem.2018.03.005
