CC BY-NC-ND
79
Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. 2016. Vol.13. N 2. P. 240-255.
ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION AND VALUES: RESULTS FROM A RUSSIAN POPULATION SURVEY
P. SCHMIDTab, A.N. TATARKOa
' National Research University Higher School of Economics, 20 Myasnitskaya Str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation
bJustus Liebig-Universität Gießen, Ludwigstrasse 23, D-35390 Giessen, Hessen, Germany
Abstract
This article examines the relationship between value orientations and Entrepreneurial Intention according to Reasoned Action Approach. The empirical base of this study relied on the results of a representative survey conducted in 2 regions of Russia (the Central Federal District and the North Caucasian Federal District). The total sample included 2,061 respondents. Interviews were conducted with representative samples of 1,026 respondents from the Central Federal District of Russia, including Moscow, and 1,035 respondents from the North Caucasian Federal District of Russia. It A subsample (269 pers.) was selected from this sample. The subsample was composed of the respondents intending to open a business in the next 2 years. The results of research carried out in the framework of Reasoned Action Approach allowed us to confirm the validity of the Theory of Planned Behaviour in the Russian sample. The questionnaire included methods related to the assessment of values (PVQ-R), entrepreneurial intentions, and demographic variables. To establish convergent and divergent validity of all the constructs of the theory of planned behaviour, attitudes toward the behaviour, social norms, perceived behavioural control, and intention as well as an additionally introduced concept of implementation intention, we tested our measurement model simultaneously for all measures. For this purpose we conducted a simultaneous confirmatory factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimation for estimating all parameters. It was also found that the value of Self-Direction (Action) is positively associated with the components of the model of entrepreneurial planned behaviour (attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control). Value of Security (Personal) is negatively associated with an attitude toward the idea of opening a new business.
Keywords: theory of planned behaviour, values, entrepreneurial behaviour.
Introduction
In Eastern Europe an increase in entrepreneurial activity has been a major challenge after the intensive transformation process from a communist system to a market society.
Entrepreneurial intentions best reflect the commitment of individuals to start a new business (Engle et al., 2010).
As entrepreneurial activities are important determinants for long-term economic growth (Hmieleski & Baron, 2009), understanding these determinants
is central to an economy's well-being (Sternberg & Wennekers, 2005). In recent years there have been several studies using the reasoned action approach (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010), also often referred to as the theory of planned behaviour (TOPB), as a theoretical framework to explain entrepreneurial intention and behaviour. The empirical results corresponded to those of the general meta-analyses summarised in Fishbein and Ajzen (2010). However, for closing the intention-behaviour gap, Gollwitzer (1999) has argued that it would be necessary to introduce the concept of implementation intention. These implementation intentions are usually formed after a general intention has been formed and would fully mediate the effect of intention on behaviour. In addition the roles values play were discussed, and whether values have either a direct or indirect effect on intentions (Liñán, 2008).
1. In our paper we address these issues by answering the following research questions while using a sub-sample of our large population sample:
2. Can we establish both convergent and discriminant validity for the concepts of attitude, norms, perceived behavioural control, intention, and implementation intention?
3. Are we able to confirm the postulated model of the theory of planned behaviour including implementation intention with Russian population data?
4. Which of the new values of the enlarged concept of human values developed by Schwartz et al. (2012) have predictive and explanatory power for the intention to start a new business, and are their effects fully mediat-
ed by the constructs of the theory of planned behaviour?
Theory
Intentions are indications of a person's readiness to perform a specific behaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen 2010, p. 39). Starting a business represents a clearly planned and intentional behaviour, and this has been discussed intensively in entrepreneurial research (Bird, 1988; Krueger & Carsrud, 1993; Carsrud & Brannback, 2009; Linan & Chen, 2009). However, in the last years Gollwitzer (Gollwitzer, 1999; Gollwitzer & Brandstätter, 1997; Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006) has argued that the step from intention to behaviour has to be analyzed in more detail. He proposed a new concept called "implementation intention". This type of intention comes out of more concrete steps people will undertake to reach a certain goal. Such additional steps seem to be effective because they allow people to delegate control of their goal-directed behaviours to the social context (the stimulus situation). Examples in the context of entrepreneurial research are questions of whether people have started to write a business plan or attempted to borrow money from a bank if necessary.
Empirical studies have confirmed the relevance of implementation intentions as bridges between general intentions and concrete behaviour (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). However, Ajzen et al. (2006) have challenged this by arguing that it is the commitment, and not the implementation intention, that leads to a higher consistency between intention and behaviour. We tried to replicate this finding in a field
study but could not establish sufficient divergent validity of the concepts intention, implementation intention, and commitment (Zercher, 2010). Therefore, this different evaluation of the role of implementation intention is still not settled.
According to the theory of planned behaviour, attitudes toward the behaviour, social norms, and perceived behavioural control are the only direct and positive antecedents of inten-tion.This has been confirmed by a series of meta-analyses (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).
Given the overwhelmingly positive empirical evidence we can now formulate explicitly the propositions derived from the theory of planned behaviour and combine them with the concept of implementation intention:
H1: The higher the intention to start a new business, the higher the implementation intention to start the new business.
H2: The more positive the attitude toward starting a new business, the higher the intention to start a new business.
H3: The higher the perceived behavioural control concerning the start of a new business, the higher the intention to start a new business.
H4: The stronger the social norms for starting a new business, the higher the intention to start a new business.
Hypotheses H2—H4 are derived from the theory of planned behaviour, and H1 is part of Gollwitzer's (1999) concept of implementation intention.
Fishbein and Ajzen (2010) argued that a series of more distal background factors (individual, social, and informational) influence attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioural control. In the
context of our research and taking into account the limited interview time, we have selected those which were seen as especially relevant and/or had some supporting empirical evidence. Within the group of individual determinants, the concept of values has become especially important in recent years. Because of its theoretical foundation and its refined measurement instruments, we have chosen to use Shalom Schwartz's (1992) value theory in the present study.
Both on an empirical and theoretical level, a systematic comparison of the most prominent value concepts of Hofsteede, Inglehart, and Schwartz are still missing. However, comparisons of the value theory and measurements of Inglehart and Schwartz show a higher reliability and validity of the value dimensions of Schwartz (Datler, Jago-dzinski, & Smidt, 2013).
The original theory specifies 10 basic values that are ordered in a circular motivational structure. Schwartz (2012) has proposed a refinement of the theory and the measurement of these 10 basic human values to reduce the problems of reliability and validity. He suggested a substantial increase in the number of values and proposed to partition the continuum into 19 more narrowly defined, conceptually precise and discrete values instead of the original 10. In pretest studies we translated and validated the new instrument for use in the present research. Schwartz (1992) suggested that the value structure could be summarized by distinguishing four higher-order values that form two dimensions: self-enhancement vs. self-transcendence and openness to change vs. conservation. The values grouped within each of the four
higher-order values often exhibit similar correlations with a large number of different behaviours, attitudes, and personality variables (Schwartz, 2006). Furthermore, Schwartz (Schwartz et al., 2012) postulates that the latent variables for each of the 19 variables should load on the appropriate higherorder variable. Three of the original 10 values, ( hedonism, stimulation, and achievement), were so narrowly defined that they required no further subdividing. The others were subdivided based both on conceptual considerations and empirical evidence.
This expansion from 10 to 19 values without doubt increases the complexity of the theory. Now the question of how to derive propositions for explaining attitudes, norms, perceived behavioural control, intention, and behaviour by values arises. In principle, one can formulate propositions on the level of the four underlying basic concepts, on the level of the 10 values, or on the level of the 19 values.
As starting a new business can be regarded as a type of innovation, we use the conceptual model of Fishbein and Ajzen (2010, p. 22) to generate more specific propositions relating specific higher-order values and attitude, norms, and perceived behavioural control (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2010, pp. 137—176). Openness to Change values like Self-Direction and Stimulation especially promote the motivation to act innova-tively including starting oness own business. This should lead to a more positive attitude toward starting a new business and could also lead to higher perceived norms because of the selection effects (homophily) within social networks. However, we would expect small effects on perceived behavioural
control due to cognitive dissonance effects. Self-Direction (Action) might lead to a downward bias in the perception of difficulties and barriers. Explicitly one can formulate the following hypotheses:
H5: The higher the Self-Direction (Action) value, the more positive the attitude toward starting a new business is.
H6: The higher the Self-Direction (Action) value, the more positive the norms concerning the start of a new business are.
H7: The higher the Self-Direction (Action) value, the higher the perceived behavioural control.
Security (Personal) value should have the opposite effect. If, for people, personal security is a very high value, the risk of starting a new business will be threatening and their attitude toward starting their own business will tend to be more negative. Similarly, people with high Security (Personal) value will tend to display lower perceived behavioural control. The explicit propositions are elaborated in the following three hypotheses:
H8: The higher the Security (Personal) value, the more negative the attitude toward starting a new business is.
H9: The higher the Security (Personal) value, the more negative the norms concerning the start of a new business are.
H10: The higher the Security (Personal) value, the lower the perceived behavioural control.
To test the hypotheses we specified a sequence of models described below. We start with a test of the underlying measurement model of the theory of planned behaviour to establish its convergent and divergent validity using a
subsample of our representative sample. Next, we proceed to test a structural equation model to explain intention and implementation intention to start a new business in Russia. Finally, we enlarge the model by testing whether the effects of values and demographic variables on intention are fully mediated by attitude, norms, and perceived behavioural control.
Sample and Measurements
Sample
The total sample included 2,061 respondents. Interviews were conducted with representative samples of 1,026 respondents from the Central Federal District of Russia, including Moscow, and 1,035 respondents from the North Caucasian Federal District of Russia. The questionnaire included methods related to the assessment of values, entrepreneurial intentions, and demographic variables. A more detailed description of the methodology of the study is presented below. In addition to these methods, the questionnaire included a filter question: 'Are you thinking about starting your own business within the forthcoming two years?" The possi-
ble answers were: "Yes", "Maybe/Not sure" and "No". Next, two subgroups of respondents from the entire sample were selected for further analysis. The first group (n = 269) included the respondents who answered either "Yes", or "Maybe/ Not sure" — they were labeled the "intenders." The number of people who did not plan to start a new business within the next two years was 1,792. Further, a second group of 270 respondents was selected from this part of the representative sample, who matched the intenders in their socio-demographic characteristics ("non-intenders").
The distribution of respondents according to gender, age, and education in both subsamples was equal: female — 42.4% (for "intenders") and 44.4% (for "non-intenders"); age (median) — 30 years old (for both groups). In both groups most of the respondents had a specialized secondary education or higher education and were employed. Therefore, there were practically no differences between the two groups with respect to gender, age, education, and distribution of their current occupations, which allowed testing of the hypotheses by comparing the groups.
Table 1 presents the distribution of the professional status of respondents'
Table 1
Distribution of professional status of respondents' parents assessed retrospectively
at age 14 years
Professional Status Father % (for 269) Father % (for 1,789) Mother % (for 269) Mother % (for 1,789)
Employee 68.4 65.1 62.5 53.7
Self-employed 10.5 5.5 4.8 4.1
Not working 5.1 6.9 26.7 26.1
Father/Mother deceased/absent when the respondent was 14 16.0 22.5 6.0 6.1
parents, assessed retrospectively at the respondent's age of 14 years. Participants were asked the following question: When you were 14, did your father (mother) work as an employee, was he (she) self-employed, or was he (she) not working at that time?
An interesting finding revealed in Table 1, is that presently in Russia the father's self-employment status is twice as high only for those who intend to start a new business, whereas no difference is found for the mother's self-employment status.
Measures
Behavioural intention (a = .72) was measured using a two-item questionnaire on a 7-point Likert scale, similar to that used by Ajzen (2002). Example: "How likely is it that you will start a business within the next two years?" with answers ranging from "very unlikely" (—3) to "very likely" (3).
Behavioural attitude (a = .86) was measured using two statements. Example: "The idea of starting a business within the next two years is for me... " with answers ranging on a 7-point Likert scale from "very inappropriate" (—3) to "very appropriate" (3).
Subjective norms (a = .60) were measured using two items. Example: "Most people who are important to me think I should start my own business within the next two years." For both statements answers ranged on a 7-point Likert scale from "strongly disagree" (—3) to "strongly agree" (3).
Perceived behavioural control (a = .93) was measured using two items. Example: "For me to start a business within the next two years is... " with answers ranging on a 7-point Likert
scale from "very difficult" (-3) to "very easy (3).
Implementation intention (a = .73) was measured using three items following Gollwitzer's (1999) approach. For example: "Are you currently saving money for your intention to start a business?" with answers ranging on a 5-point Likert scale from "No, I am not" (1) to "I have been actively doing this/have already done this" (5).
Portrait Value Questionnaire Revised (PVQ-R). The new version of the Russian version of the Schwartz value instrument included 57 value items, representing each type of value (Schwartz et al., 2012). In accordance with the key, an average rating is calculated for the 19 values corresponding to the 19 types of motivation (or individual-level values) delineated by Schwartz.
Initial results suggest that the instrument functions well to measure the 19 values, and this refers both to convergent and divergent validity (Schwartz et al., 2012). However, in this study we used only the values that are on two axes — Conservation (Security (Personal) value) and Openness to Change (Self-Direction (Action) value) — because they are the most relevant predictors for starting a new business and for innovation in general (see Dollinger, Burke, & Gump, 2007; Lebedeva & Schmidt, 2012).
Results
Simultaneous Confirmatory Factor Analyses: Model 1
To establish convergent and divergent validity of all the constructs of the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), attitude toward the behaviour,
social norms, perceived behavioural control, and intention as well as the additionally introduced concept of implementation intention (Gollwitzer, 1999), we tested our measurement model simultaneously for all measures (Brown, 2006). For this purpose we conducted a simultaneous confirmatory factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimation to estimate all parameters using the computer program AMOS version 21 (Arbuckle, 2012). We deleted one indicator of intention because of significant error correlations with some indicators of attitude. The fit of the model was good according to the recommended criteria for goodness of fit (Brown, 2005; Hu and Bentler, 1999): j2 = 121,001; df = 44;
X2/df = 2.75; CFI = .935; RMSEA = = .08; CAIC default model considerably lower than the CAIC of the saturated model (Byrne, 2010, p. 82).
Figure 1 illustrates the measurement model for the TOPB constructs with the standardized coefficients.
All factor loadings are significant and higher than .40. The standardised loadings of the TOPB constructs are much higher than 0.4, whereas the lower loadings of the implementation items may reflect their greater specificity because they refer to different concrete actions taken and not to intention in general. As one can see from the path diagram, all items load only on the factor (construct) they were to supposed to and on no other
Figure 1
Model 1 — Simultaneous confirmatory factor analysis results for the TOPB constructs and
implementation intention
construct. Therefore, convergent validity was established. Furthermore, no construct had to be combined with another one because of extremely high correlations between them. As predicted from theory, all correlations between the factors intention, implementation intention, attitude toward the behaviour, and perceived behavioural control are positive. The most critical case is the correlation between intention and implementation intention, which is rather high. However, even in this case the model containing both factors was better confirmed by the data than the model postulating only one factor for all intention and implementation items. To check for method effects (Podsakoff MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), we compared a confirmatory model with only one general factor with a model which specified all the five substantive factors just discussed and a model with the five substantive factors plus a method factor. For the last model we had to constrain the loadings of the method factor to be equal, because otherwise we could not reach a proper solution (see Brown, 2006). All global fit measures did not indicate a significantly better fit for the model with method effects (AIC: 129.49 vs. 132.69; CFI: .968 vs .965; RMSEA .061 vs. .064; X2/df: 1.92 vs. 2.03). The first number represents the result for the model without method effects and the second number the model with method effects. As a consequence, we did not take into account a method factor in the subsequent structural equation models.
Structural Equation Models
Model 2: Determinants of Intention and Implementation Intention: What
role do attitudes, norms and PBC play?
We have specified Model 2 in Figure 2 based on the theory of planned behaviour and its direct measures (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010) supplemented by the concept of implementation intention (Gollwitzer, 1999). Implementation intention is specified in Model 2 as a dependent construct which is only directly influenced by the intention to start a new business. The reasoning for this is that intention is a more general tendency which influences a more concrete implementation intention (Gollwitzer, 1999; Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). The intention itself is determined by the three constructs: attitude toward the behaviour, social norms, and perceived behavioural control as postulated by the theory and confirmed in all meta-analyses (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). We postulate that there is a total mediation of the effects of attitude, norms, and PBC on implementation intention via intention as argued above. The standardised coefficients both for the structural model and the measurement model can be found in Figure 2.
For the estimation we used the maximum likelihood estimation procedure available in the program AMOS version 21.
The model of full mediation as specified here was not significantly worse than a model with direct influences of attitude, norms, and perceived behavioural control on implementation intention. The measures of global fit are satisfactory (CFI = 0.961, RMSEA = 0.06, *Vdf = 2,031, AIC default model = 133.61 vs. AIC saturated model =132). As one can see in Figure 2, intention has a very
Figure 2
Model 2 — Determinants of Intention and Implementation Intention
strong effect (.80) on implementation intention and as demonstrated here and in the confirmatory factor analysis described above, divergent validity has been established thus empirically corroborating the assumption of two independent constructs. As it has been shown in meta-analyses (Fishbein & Aizen 2010), the predictors of attitude toward the behaviour, norms, and PBC are also in our model all positively and significantly correlated. However, one can see that attitude is more strongly correlated with norms and PBC than norms are with PBC. The effects of attitude and PBC on intention are as expected: strong, positive, and significant (.61; .45). Also, in our model social norms has a positive and significant effect (.59).
Model 3: A MIMIC Model for the TOPB, Implementation Intention, Values, and Demographics
In Model 3 we firstly tested whether values have a significant effect on attitudes, norms, and PBC and whether the impact of values on intention and implementation intention is fully mediated by attitude, norms, and PBC. Secondly, we examined how the influence of demographic variables on intention operates. As postulated by the TOPB (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010, pp. 225—235), we assume full mediation which means that the demographic variables influence intention and implementation intention only via attitude, norms, and PBC and, therefore, not directly.
In addition, we postulated that self-employment of father and mother should also have an effect on values of self-determination and subjective security. The acronym MIMIC stands for multiple indicators multiple causes (Joreskog & Goldberger, 1975; Kline, 2011, pp. 322-325).This type of SEM model is called a MIMIC model because the model contains both formative and reflective indicators in addition to the latent variables themselves. The demographic variables are the formative observed variables, which influence the latent constructs represented by values and the constructs of the TOPB including implementation intention. In contrast to the formative indicators the items to measure values and the TOPB constructs are seen as reflective indicators determined by their respective constructs (Brown, 2006; Bollen & Davis, 2009).
Model 3 in Figure 3 represents only those paths that were at least significant at the 5% level. In the sense of the seminal paper by Joreskog (1993), who differentiates strictly between confirmatory, alternative, and model generating models, our final model belongs to the third category. The fit of this Model 3 seems to be sufficient: x2 = 206.913 with 137 degrees of freedom, x2/df = 1.510, CFI = .959, RMSEA = .044, CAIC for our model (default model) = 556,433 compared to CAIC for the saturated model = 1,252,995.
Firstly, the path diagram reveals that the factor loadings of all constructs are sufficiently high to establish convergent validity. In Figure 3, one can see that the relation between intention and implementation intention did not change (0.80) compared with the coefficient in Model 2. As there is no
Figure 3
Model 3 — Standardized Coefficients for the Integrated Model of Demographic Variables, Values, Theory of Planned Behaviour Constructs, and Implementation Intention
other direct effect on implementation intention, the explained variance of implementation intention also did not change (.64). The same is true for the explained variance of intention (.73).
Let us now refer to the relations between values, attitude, norms, perceived behavioural control, intention, and implementation intention. As predicted, there is no direct relation between the two values and intention and implementation intention, which confirms the fully mediated model specification outlined in Fishbein and Aizen (2010). Self-Determination (Action) seems to be the only significant value of the higher-order factor Openness to Change for the prediction of attitude (.40), norms (.35), and PBC (.45). The positive and significant effects corroborate the theoretical hypotheses for this dimension of Openness to Change. The only subdimension of Conservation that has an impact seems to be Security (Personal), which has, however, only a negative effect on attitude. This means the more people value Security (Personal) as a value, the more negative their attitude toward starting their own business is (—.24). The negative sign of the coefficient also confirms the theoretically postulated hypothesis.
The explained variance of attitude is .16, of norms .19, and of PBC .21 that shows that important variables are still missing in our model specification. The explained variances of Self-Determination (Action) and Security (Personal) by demographics are even considerably lower (.03 and .09).
Summary and Discussion
Our findings are consistent with some empirical results using the theory
of planned behaviour as a framework to explain entrepreneurial behaviour. In our study only attitude toward the behaviour and perceived behavioural control had a statistically significant effect. Autio et al. (2001) found that social norms had only a weak effect, Linan and Chen (2009) reported that norms had only an indirect effect via attitudes and perceived behavioural control, and Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud (2000) found no significant effect at all. In contrast to this, Kolvereid (1996), Tkachev and Kolvereid (1999), and Zapkau et al. (2015) found that all three determinants of intention had a significant effect, as the theory predicts. Concerning such inconsistent findings, Fishbein and Ajzen (2010) argue that depending on situational and contextual factors these coefficients can vary considerably and can sometimes be nonsignificant. Linan and Chen (2009) have taken up this point and argued that social norms may have a stronger influence in collectivistic cultures and a weaker one in individualistic cultures. The breakdown of the Soviet Union certainly led to a longer period of anomia (i.e., normlessness), and this could explain the finding that norms had no significant effect in our study. However, in the Caucasus region the culture is much more collectivistic than in central Russia around Moscow. However, our sample size in the restricted sample was very small, so we could not use a multi-group MIMIC Model to test this assumption. However, in the big sample the Caucasus region had significant effects on values and intention. Additionally we could show that intention and implementation intention could be established as separate constructs although
they are closely related and that all effects from attitude and perceived behavioural control were fully mediated by intention. Concerning the values, we could confirm the assumption of Fishbein and Ajzen (2010) that values are important but more distal predictors. Their effect on intention and implementation intention was, as predicted, fully mediated by attitude, norms, and perceived behavioural control. In the descriptive analysis it was found that all subdimensions of openness were higher for those individuals who intended to start a new business, whereas for all those individuals who had no intention to start a business, all subdimensions of conservation were higher. Regarding the subdimensions of openness, we could demonstrate that self-determination of actions seems to be the only significant and positive determinant.
As in the study of Zapkau et al. (2015), we did not find any significant connection between prior role model exposure and the intention to start a business. Neither self-employment of fathers nor of mothers had an effect. There was one exception; however, the self-employment of mothers had even a negative effect on perceived behavioural control. One explanation for this might be that respondents with self-employed mothers get a more realistic view on the problems of starting a new business.
However, this explanation would have to be tested in new studies. The explanation provided by Zapkau et al. (2015) for the insignificant findings was twofold. Firstly, they argued that
samples of business owners were often used instead of representative samples. Secondly, prior research has mostly neglected to take into account how a positive or negative role model exposure was actually perceived by the respondents. Concerning the effect of gender and its mediation by attitude, norms, and perceived behavioural control, in a meta-analysis Haus et al. (2013) could demonstrate that the direct effect of gender is rather low. This corresponds to our results.
One major limitation of intention-based research is that the strength of the relation between intention and behaviour and its stability can be only observed in longitudinal studies (Davidsson & Honig, 2003).
However, numerous studies and meta-analyses have shown the close connection between intention and behaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Since our study was designed as a longitudinal study and had 2 assessible steps, we had the opportunity at the end of the year to test the predictive validity of the research assets used by measuring the actual behaviour of those participants who had eariler expressed the intent to start a new business.
Acknoledgements
The article was prepared within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and supported within the framework of a subsidy by the Russian Academic Excellence Project "5-100".
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179—211.
Ajzen, I. (2002, September). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. (Revised January, 2006). Retrieved from http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/ikg/zick/ ajzen%20construction%20a%20tpb%20questionnaire.pdf Ajzen, I., Czasch, C., & Flood, M. G. (2006). From intentions to behaviour: Implementation intention, commitment, and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1356—1372. doi:10.1111 /j.1559-1816.2009.00485.x Arbuckle, J. (2012). IBM SPSS Amos 21 user's guide. Amos Development Corporation, Chicago. Autio, E., Keeley, R. H., Klofsten, M., Parker, G. G. C., & Hay, M. (2001). Entrepreneurial intent among students in Scandinavia and in the USA. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 2(2), 145—160. Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas. The case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442—453.
Bollen, K. A., & Davis, W. R. (2009). Causal indicator models: Identification, estimation, and testing.
Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 498—522. doi:10.1080/10705510903008253 Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Multivariate applications series. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Carsrud, A. L., & Brannback, M. (Eds.). (2009). International studies in entrepreneurship: Vol. 24.
Understanding the entrepreneurial mind: Opening the black box. New York: Springer. Datler, G., Jagodzinski, W., & Schmidt, P. (2013). Two theories on the test bench: Internal and external validity of the theories of Ronald Inglehart and Shalom Schwartz. Social Science Research, 42(3), 906-925. doi: 10.1016/j .ssresearch.2012.12.009 Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs.
Journal of Business Venturing,, 18(3), 301-331. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00097-6 Dollinger, S. J., Burke, P. A., & Gump, N. W. (2007). Creativity and values. Creativity ResearchJournal, 19, 91 — 103. doi:10.1080/10400410701395028
Engle, R. L., Dimitriadi, N., Gavidia, J. V., Schlaegel, C., Delanoe, S., Alvarado, I.....Wolff, B. (2010).
Entrepreneurial intent: A twelve-country evaluation of Ajzen's model of planned behaviour. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 16(1), 35—57. doi:10.1108/ 13552551011020063
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behaviour: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American
Psychologist, 54, 493—503. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493 Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstatter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186—199. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 38, 69—119. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1 Haus, I., Steinmetz, H., Isidor, R., & Kabst, R. (2013). Gender effects on entrepreneurial intention: a meta-analytical structural equation model. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 130—156.
Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Entrepreneurs' optimism and new venture performance: A social cognitive perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 473—488. doi:10.5465/ AMJ.2009.41330755
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1—55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory construction and model-building skills. New York: Guilford Press.
Jôreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294—316). Newbury, CA: Sage.
Jôreskog , K. G., & Goldberger, A. S. (1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes with a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 10, 631 — 639.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(1), 47—57.
Krueger, N. F., & Carsrud, A. L. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behaviour. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5(4), 315—330.
Krueger, N. F. Jr., Reilly, M. D. & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing,, 15, 411—432. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0
Lebedeva, N., & Schmidt, P. (2012). Values and attitudes towards innovation among Canadian, Chinese, and Russian students. Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP 04/SOC/2012.
Liñán, F. (2008). Skill and value perceptions: How do they affect entrepreneurial intentions? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4, 257—272. doi:10.1007/s11365-008-0093-0
Liñán, F., & Chen, Y.-W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 593—617. doi:10.1111 /j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879—903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1—65.
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Les valeurs de base de la personne: théorie, mesures et applications. Revue Française de Sociologie, 47, 929—968.
Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C.....Konty, M. (2012).
Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 663—688. doi: 10.1037/a0029393.
Sternberg, R., & Wennerkers, S. (2005). Determinants and effects of new business creation using global entrepreneurship monitor data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 193—203. doi:10.1007/s11187-005-1974-z.
Tkachev, A., & Kolvereid, L. (1999). Self-employment intentions among Russian students. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 11(3), 269—280.
Zapkau, F. B., Schwens, C., Steinmetz, H., Kabst, R. ( 2013). Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention. Unpublished manuscript, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Zapkau, F. B., Schwens, C., Steinmetz, H., & Kabst, R. (2015). Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 639—653. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.007 Zercher, F. (2010). Determinanten der Teilzeitarbeit: Modellierung mit der Theorie des geplanten Verhaltens und Strukturgleichungsmodellen (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Gießen, Gießen, Germany.
Peter Schmidt — professor, Justus Liebig University of Giessen (Giessen, Germany); professor, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
E-mail: Peter.Schmidt@sowi.uni-giessen.de
ss- ¿
у
Предпринимательское намерение и ценности личности: результаты опроса российского населения
П. Шмидт"\ А.Н. Татарко"
a Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики», 101000, Россия, Москва, ул. Мясницкая, д. 20
b Гиссенский университет имени Юстуса Либиха, Ludwigstrasse 23, D-35390 Giessen, Hessen, Germany
Резюме
В данной статье рассматривается взаимосвязь между ценностными ориентациями и предпринимательским намерением с опорой на теорию разумного действия. Эмпирической базой данного исследования явились результаты репрезентативного опроса, проведенного в двух регионах России (Центральный федеральный округ и Северо-
Alexander N. Tatarko — associate professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, School of Psychology, senior researcher, International Laboratory for Socio-Cultural Research, National Research University Higher School of Economics, D.Sc. E-mail: tatarko@yandex.ru
Кавказский федеральный округ). Общий объем выборки включал 2061 респондента, в Центральном федеральном округе опрошены 1026 респондентов и в Северо-Кавказском — 1035 респондентов. Затем из общей выборки было отобрано 269 респондентов, намеревающихся открыть собственный бизнес в течение ближайших двух лет. Все дальнейшие виды математико-статистического анализа проводились именно на этой подвыборке. Результаты нашего исследования позволили подтвердить валидность теории разумного действия на российской выборке и применительно к предпринимательскому поведению. Анкета включала в себя методы, направленные: а) на оценку индивидуальных ценностных ориентаций (PVQ-R Ш. Шварца); б) оценку предпринимательских намерений; в) оценку социально-демографических характеристик респондентов. Для выявления конвергентной и дивергентной валидности всех конструктов, влияющих на намерение, в соответствии с теорией планируемого поведения (в основе которой лежит теория разумного действия), мы, помимо основных составляющих намерения (аттитюд, социальные нормы, воспринимаемый поведенческий контроль), дополнительно добавили в модель конструкт «реализация намерения». Связь всех вышеописанных конструктов была протестирована в модели одновременно. С этой целью мы провели симультанный конфирматорный факторный анализ, используя метод максимального правдоподобия при оценке параметров. Далее мы проверили гипотезы о связи ценностных ориентаций с компонентами планируемого поведения (аттитюд, социальные нормы, воспринимаемый поведенческий контроль). Было показано, что такая ценность, как «Самостоятельность действия», позитивно связана со всеми компонентами планируемого предпринимательского поведения. Ценность «Безопасность личная» продемонстрировала отрицательную связь с отношением к идее открытия нового бизнеса (предпринимательским аттитюдом).
Ключевые слова: теория планируемого поведения, ценности, предпринимательское поведение, предпринимательское намерение.
Шмидт Питер — профессор социологии, Гиссенский университет (Гиссен, Германия); Международная научно-учебная лаборатория социокультурных исследований, Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики». Контакты: Peter.Schmidt@sowi.uni-giessen.de
Татарко Александр Николаевич — доцент, департамент психологии, факультет социальных наук, и ведущий научный сотрудник, Международная научно-учебная лаборатория социокультурных исследований, Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики», доктор психологических наук. Контакты: tatarko@yandex.ru
