Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to examine the determinants of entrepreneurial intention among students of a university in Nigeria, with particular emphasis on their risk-taking propensity, social support and demographic variables.
Design/methodology/approach
Data for the study were collected from 350 undergraduates across seven faculties in Obafemi Awolowo University, Nigeria, through a self-reported questionnaire. Descriptive and regression statistical analysis were used to estimate and test the relationship among entrepreneurial intention and social support, risk-taking propensity and demographic variables.
Findings
The results showed high entrepreneurial intention among the students. The push factors, such as perceived social support from families, risk-taking propensity and previous engagement in business, are key determinants of entrepreneurship intention among the students. The age and father’s occupation also showed a significant relationship with the level of entrepreneurial intention.
Practical implications
This result suggests that strengthening social support for entrepreneurship among students could enhance their desire to own a business during and after graduation. Improving entrepreneurship ecosystems in the university could further motivate those already practicing entrepreneurship while also stimulating intentions among others. For instance, provision of entrepreneurship infrastructure and incentives such as business incubators, innovation hubs, science parks and competitive business grants could enhance the risk-taking propensity among students and motivate them for venture creation.
Originality/value
Understanding the influence of social support and risk-taking propensity on entrepreneurial intention among undergraduates is important for policy and practice. The result further reinforces the need to promote entrepreneurship education to create a critical mass of potential entrepreneurs in the university.
Keywords
Citation
Ilevbare, F.M., Ilevbare, O.E., Adelowo, C.M. and Oshorenua, F.P. (2022), "Social support and risk-taking propensity as predictors of entrepreneurial intention among undergraduates in Nigeria", Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 90-107. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-02-2022-0010
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2022, Femi Monday Ilevbare, Oluwatosin Eniola Ilevbare, Caleb Muyiwa Adelowo and Favour P. Oshorenua. Published in Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence maybe seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
License
Published in Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence maybe seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
In recent times, entrepreneurship has become a budding area of interest to both researchers as well as policymakers and governments across the globe (Do Paço et al., 2015). The major reason for this development is that entrepreneurship has been perceived to be a key solution to socioeconomic growth and development challenges confronting many nations, including Nigeria (Kaegon and Nwogu, 2012; Kigotho, 2015; Adelowo et al., 2018). Recent study, through the collaborative effort of Small and Medium Enterprise Development Agency [1] (SMEDAN) and National Bureau of Statistics [2] (NBS), has demonstrated that micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) contribute to employment and gross domestic product more than any other sector of the economy (SMEDAN-NBS, 2019). In fact, entrepreneurship has been argued to promote rapid economic growth as well as reduce the rate of unemployment (Ogunlana, 2018; Siyanbola, 2019; Adelowo et al., 2021b; Ezeh et al., 2020). Unemployment is a major problem in Nigeria (Adelowo et al., 2021b). To paint the picture of unemployment in the country more starkly, Figure 1 shows a consistent increase in the rate of unemployment even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit. In 2018, Nigeria was reported to have over 16 million unemployed youths (NBS, 2018). NBS (2018) moreover estimates unemployment to be 23.13% in the third quarter of 2018. The current figure shows that over 33% of Nigerians are unemployed (Statista, 2022). The more worrisome situation is the huge number of youth who are without a job, creating a breeding ground for social vices such as kidnapping, banditry, internet frauds and insurgence (Ezeh et al., 2020; Adelowo et al., 2021a, 2021b). Nigerian population structure has shown that the country has the largest youth population in the world with a median age of 18.1 years while about 70% of the population are actually under 30 years of age (Akinyemi and Mobalaji, 2022). Thus, with a huge population and fewer institutions to absorb them in full-time employment, the government need to change its strategy and approach to education for national development. Adelowo et al. (2015) and Olofinyehun et al. (2022) have clearly identified the need to bolster existing entrepreneurship education programmes in the country to stimulate job and wealth creation among the youth. For instance, from 2017 to date, the national budget has consistently placed emphasis on creating an enabling environment for businesses to thrive while also improving existing infrastructure to guarantee new business development. One of these strategies as earlier noted is the need to promote entrepreneurship culture among youth, particularly from the undergraduate levels. Although the contents and the curriculum delivery system are crucial for entrepreneurship education to deliver on its objectives, students’ entrepreneurial intention is also a key component that has to be cultivated and supported as well. The entrepreneurship education was introduced to grow a critical mass of entrepreneurs among undergrads such that they become job creators rather than job seekers after graduation (Wu and Wu, 2008; Adelowo et al., 2021a, 2021b).
Similarly, there are other key initiative by the Nigerian Government to eradicate the menace of unemployment and poverty in the country. These initiatives include the National Poverty Eradication Programme, the Bank of Industry programme to support business development, the National Youth Service Corps skills acquisition and entrepreneurship department programme, the social protection programme of N-POWER, Youth Enterprise with Innovation in Nigeria, TraderMoni and the Government Enterprise and Empowerment Programme among others (Akujuru and Eyioko, 2019; NACETEM-APRM, 2021). These initiatives are also meant to facilitate successful venture creation and reduce unemployment (Olayinka 2010; Emannuel et al., 2012; Akhuemonkhan et al., 2013; Akujuru and Eyioko, 2019; NACETEM-APRM, 2021). Other government efforts linked to strengthening entrepreneurship ecosystems in the country are the expansion of the technology incubation programme, the creation of ICT hubs in tertiary institutions, CBN Entrepreneurship grants and other COVID-19 pandemic response programmes to build back better with a more resilient economy. Among all the abovementioned initiatives, a practically sustainable one includes the entrepreneurship education programme in which the mindset and attitudes of young Nigerians are consciously trained to absorb the culture of job creation rather than job searching. It has been observed that despite entrepreneurship education policy in the country, the rate of venture creation among the youth is still low (Olofinyehun et al., 2022). This may be linked to an inadequate understanding of youth’s attitudes, preparedness and readiness for entrepreneurship education, and perhaps inadequate entrepreneurship infrastructure. Therefore, this study examined entrepreneurial intention, risk-taking propensity and available social supports for venture creation among undergraduates in a university in Nigeria. The study is considered important and timely for policy planning and to grow the necessary pool of entrepreneurs for sustainable development.
Entrepreneurial intention here refers to the enthusiasm exhibited by an individual to engage in self-employment, start a business or to participate in and accomplish an entrepreneurial activity (Engel et al., 2017). Uddin and Bose (2012) investigated the determining factors of entrepreneurial intention of business students and found that risk-taking tendency, the need for achievement, job security, the environment for starting a business and education are significant factors in determining the intention of business students to become entrepreneurs. Similar results were observed among students of 55 universities across Nigeria in 2008 and 2011 (NACETEM, 2012). Although social support matters for grooming entrepreneurs in any setting, it has been less examined alongside risk-taking propensity among potential entrepreneurs, particularly in the university settings. It should be noted here that in the course of human development, the need to get support from friends, family and external donors influences outcomes. This support could be emotional, tangible, financial, moral and social. The abovementioned forms of social support that could be gained from the peer environment not only motivate individuals positively but could also create negative effects. Hartanto (2011) argued that most parents of university graduates all over the world associate the prospects of being an entrepreneur with a high level of uncertainty. This suggests that parents are likely to believe that a regular paying job is more secure and preferred than for their wards to engage in self-employment, which has been considered to be high risk and tainted with uncertainties. Such pessimistic suppositions could sometimes deter youth from being adventurous in terms of entrepreneurial endeavours. This paper therefore examines the level of entrepreneurial intention among undergraduates, and the extent to which social supports, risk-taking propensity and demographic variables predict such intention.
This study practically contributes to the understanding of initiatives that support the process of alleviating the menace of youth unemployment in a developing country. Findings from this study are expected to provide insights into the extent to which social support and risk-taking propensities predict entrepreneurial intentions among youths. The findings provide inputs for counsellors and entrepreneurship lecturers to provide necessary advice and mentorship to students who show an interest in entrepreneurship. Policymakers could also use the findings to further strengthen intervention in entrepreneurship education programmes for improved outcomes, particularly jobs and wealth among youth. The rest of this article presents a literature review, methodology, results and discussion and concludes with policy recommendations.
2. Literature review
2.1 Entrepreneurial intention: definitions and theory
Theoretically, researchers have used the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) to widely study entrepreneurial intentions among different populations. As expressed in its final form, the TRA combines two sets of belief variables, described under the headings of “behavioural attitudes” and “the subjective norm”. TRA was designed to predict and explain human behaviour in specific contexts that are volitional in nature and excluded those behaviours that are non-volitional (impulsive, habitual or cravings) (Langer, 1989). TRA assumes that human beings are rational and they make systematic use of information available to form beliefs (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). This theory suggests that an individual’s behaviour is predicted by his/her behavioural intention, which is in turn determined by the individual’s attitude toward the behaviour and the subjective norm. Each attitude and subjective norm are affected by a set of noticeable beliefs. An individual may have a large number of beliefs about a given behaviour, but he/she can only attend to a relatively small number of beliefs at a specific moment (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980).
Specifically, Ajzen (1991, 2002) had advanced the key theoretical clarification of the key determinants of human behaviours, which hinges on their intention to act in certain ways. The crux of the theory holds that human behaviour can be determined by the three main components of attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. In this case, firstly, entrepreneurial behaviour has been argued to depend on a number of attitudinal factors such as the degree to which an individual considers self-employment as a favourable alternative to all available options. Secondly, where entrepreneurship behaviour becomes an acceptable norm in the society/environment, the tendency to desire it will likely be higher; and thirdly and finally, the perceived behavioural control can give credence to individuals’ capability to actually engage in the entrepreneurial act. Following Ajzen’s theory, entrepreneurship or business creation requires careful planning that rests on the intention and attitude of the individual. In effect, social support and risk-taking behaviour are found to be germane. The ability of individuals to manage uncertainties or take viable decisions in the period of uncertainties has been perceived to be an essential component of entrepreneurship behaviour (Rosique-Blasco et al., 2018; Gubik, 2021).
In our context therefore, entrepreneurial intention refers to the willingness of individuals to perform entrepreneurial activities, be self-employed or establish new business (Dohse, 2010; Dhose and Walter, 2012). Entrepreneurial intention has proven to be a primary predictor of future entrepreneurial behaviour (Krueger et al., 2000). An individual may have the potential of becoming an entrepreneur because of his or her own competency and self-efficacy but may not make the transition into entrepreneurship because of a lack of interest. Quan (2012) differentiated between impulsive and deliberate entrepreneurial intention. The former describes the intention without realistic control of business resources, whereas the latter indicates the willingness of an individual to venture into business with a prepared mindset. This may be triggered by several factors, including exposure to relevant training, loss of job and access to venture facilities. In an empirical study of entrepreneurial intention among final-year students, Fatoki (2014) found that business students had a more positive disposition towards entrepreneurship than students of other departments. Similar results were obtained by Muhammad et al. (2015) in their study on entrepreneurial intention among Nigerian university students using an adapted TPB as the main framework. In the case of Gubik (2021), the family entrepreneurial background was considered a strong determinant of entrepreneurial intention among Hungarian students using a data set collected by the Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Student’s Survey (GUESSS).
2.2 Relationship among entrepreneurial intention, social support and education
In a study by Molino and Dolce (2018), self-efficacy was found to mediate between the internal locus of control, self-regulation and entrepreneurship intention (EI). The study further revealed that self-efficacy partially mediated between support from family and friends and EI. Babatunde and Durowaiye (2014) reported that exposure to entrepreneurship education influences students’ intentions of becoming self-employed and barriers such as funding or inadequate experience in management impaired students’ efforts. Pulka et al. (2014) evaluated students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship education in some selected universities in North East Nigeria and found that students’ cognitive component of attitude is rated at 84.31%, the affective component at 83.34%, while the behavioural component is at 78.72%. The overall attitude was positive. In addition, Tam (2009) asserted that entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial attitude had a significant relationship with entrepreneurship behavioural disposition. It was reported that entrepreneurship education had enriched them with real-world skills and knowledge, and consequently gave them the confidence to venture into an entrepreneurial path, thus increasing their entrepreneurial intention.
Seeking support from multiple sources for venture creation is an indication of venture readiness. Sources of support for the entrepreneurship activity of individuals are mostly family, partners and peers whom they can trust. Accordingly, as the closest environment, family support can synergise interest in entrepreneurship. Family support plays a pivotal role in inspiring children to choose entrepreneurship as a career option. Parents also tend to encourage their children to take a more challenging career that allows freedom and independence (Buang and Yusof, 2006). This invariably means that families play a crucial role in the new venture creation process. How family support influences career options in entrepreneurship among students needs further scrutiny to unpack its direction and depth. Having practicing entrepreneurs in the family is considered an advantage and resource that could be leveraged by the family members. The results in Olofinyehun et al. (2022) also suggest that family support influences the intention to become an entrepreneur among students. In Ezeh et al. (2020) and Adelowo et al. (2021a, 2021b) educational support and perceived behavioural control were found to be significant predators of entrepreneurship among students within the two different contexts.
3. Research methodology
3.1 Design
This study adopted a descriptive cross-sectional survey research design to examine the influence of risk-taking propensity and social support on entrepreneurial intention among undergraduates in Obafemi Awolowo University, Nigeria. The independent variables are social support, risk-taking propensity, age, gender, previous engagement in business and field of study, whereas the dependent variable is the entrepreneurial intention.
3.2 Study population
The population of this study consists of undergraduate students in Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria. The choice of this target population was informed by some factors that suggested that students’ samples are most suitable because of ease of accessibility and the capability to establish supervision over the study settings (Mueller, 2004). Additionally, it has been established that the areas flourishing with entrepreneurial undertakings today tend to be mostly located around university communities, as university environments in particular are locations where the entrepreneurs of tomorrow can be discovered (Cone, 2012). To empower the youths, therefore, it is important to gather and study the appropriate information about their entrepreneurial inclination and motivation. The university also plays host to thousands of youths being prepared for diverse careers. The Ewing Kauffman Foundation in 2010 reported that “universities themselves are meant to be the driving force of entrepreneurship” where specialised departments are created to encourage technology transfer among faculty members to convert their research results into products for the benefit of larger society. Invariably, numerous research studies conducted at universities have been known to become the bedrock for new industries and manufactured goods Shockley (2010). In addition, all Nigerian undergraduates are expected to take compulsory courses in entrepreneurship before graduation[3].
3.3 Sample and sampling technique
Respondents were drawn using the convenience sampling technique (350) from different departments and faculties. Sample size was determined with the use of Slovin’s (2010) sample size calculation method.
The estimated average population of undergraduates in Obafemi Awolowo University is about 8,000. The following computation shows the sample size determined for this research:
3.4 Research instrument
The study used a quantitative (structured interviewee guided standard scales) technique. The tool was designed based on findings from a preliminary review of related studies. The research instruments that were used in gathering data for this study were standardised scales (Zimet et al., 1988; Zhang et al., 2019) that have been used for similar studies. The study instruments were designed based on the literature reviewed. Instruments from similar studies were adapted, reviewed and adopted. To test for the validity of the study, a pilot study was carried out on eligible study participants with similar characteristics to test the validity and reliability of the collection tools after the analysis of data obtained from the pilot study.
The scales are a multidimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS), a general risk-taking propensity scale and an entrepreneurial intention scale. The research instrument was divided into four sections comprising information on respondents’ sociodemographic data, social support (independent variable), risk-taking propensity (independent variable) and entrepreneurial intention (dependent variable).
3.4.1 Socio-demographic data.
This section consists of the demographic factors of the respondent and includes gender, age, field of study, previous business engagement and parents’ occupation. Information on these variables provides a better understanding of how these demographic factors influence entrepreneurial intention.
3.4.2 Entrepreneurial intention scale.
This scale consists of a 16-item EI scale developed by Kolvereid and Isaken (2006) to measure three areas of EI:
personal control-behaviour – six items;
achievement – six items; and
innovation-behaviour – three items
The entrepreneurial intention scale includes items such as “Combining entrepreneurship with a paid job is the right choice for me”, “Entrepreneurship is about my mindset and personal interest” and “Entrepreneurship will make me self-fulfilled”. The scale was scored on a five-point Likert format: “5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = Undecided, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree”. Feasible scores vary from 16 to 80. Higher scores indicate that individuals are positively disposed to entrepreneurship. The internal consistency showed an excellent reliability with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91 and normative scores showed a mean = 59.0 ± 9.17.
3.4.3 Multidimensional scale of perceived social support.
The scale is a 12-item scale designed by Zimet et al. (1988) to measure how social support is perceived. The scale has three dimensions measuring family support, support from friends and support from a significant other. Family support can be in the form of financial support, emotional support, empathy and other intangible help. Support from friends includes those received from colleagues and acquaintances. The MSPSS includes items such as “There is a special person with whom I can share my joys and sorrows”, “I have a special person who is a real source of comfort to me” and “I can count on my friends when things go wrong”. The scale was scored on a seven-point Likert format with responses: “7 = Very Strongly Agree, 6 = Strongly Agree, 5 = Mildly Agree, 4 = Neutral, 3 = Mildly Disagree, 2 = Strongly Disagree, 1 = Very Strongly Disagree”. Possible scores for the scale range from 12 to 84, with higher scores indicating more perceived social support. The author reported coefficient alpha scores of 0.87, 0.85 and 0.91, respectively, for the subscales. The total scale score reliability was found to be 0.88. The Cronbach’s α of the MSPSS is reported to be 0.91.
3.4.4 General risk-taking propensity scale.
The scale is an eight-item, five-point Likert scale unidimensional self-report measure of general risk propensity designed by Zhang et al. (2018). The general risk-taking propensity scale includes items such as “Taking risks makes life more fun”, “I enjoy taking risks in most aspects of my life” and “Taking risks is an important part of my life”. The scale was scored on a five-point Likert format: “5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = Undecided, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree”. The scale is widely used and has a test-reliability of r = 0.80. The general risk-taking propensity scale was reliably measured with self- and peer-ratings, with coefficients alphas of 0.89 and 0.90, respectively. Data collected were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics.
Ethically, participants’ consent was sought before they could partake in the study. This was also indicated on the questionnaire. Respondents were informed that they could discontinue or withdraw their involvement before, during and after the study without any penalty or consequence.
4. Results and discussion
4.1 Results
This section presents the results of the descriptive analysis and hypotheses tested in this study. The descriptive analysis of demographic information of the undergraduates in the study is presented in Table 1. A total of 350 university undergraduates were sampled in the study. The ages of the participants ranged from 16 to 39 years with a mean of 21.3 years and standard deviation of 3.13. The age distribution is justified based on the minimum university entry age of between 17 and 18 years in Nigeria. With respect to family socioeconomic status as defined by Nigeria Health and Development Survey, 24 (7.1%) indicated belonging to a low socioeconomic status, 203 (59.7%) were of medium economic status, while 113 (33.2) reported being of high socioeconomic status. Furthermore, the majority of the students (86.6%) affirmed that at least one member of the family owns or runs a business while few students (13.4%) indicated otherwise. Lastly, most of students (66.7%) reported that they engage in business while about 33.3% reported otherwise.
4.2 Entrepreneurial intention among the undergraduates
Here, we assess the extent of entrepreneurial intention among undergraduates in the study area using respondents’ mean scores. The statistics of one standard deviation above and below the mean (X ± 1SD) were used to categorise the respondents into level of entrepreneurial intention. Respondents scored between the range of 15 and 80 on this scale with a mean score of 59.0 (SD = 14.1). They were further divided using the mean score into three groups with low, moderate and high scores on entrepreneurial intention propensity. Thus, respondents who had a mean score between 1.0 and 1.9 were categorised as having low entrepreneurial intention; those with a mean score between 2.0 and 3.9 were categorised as having moderate entrepreneurial intention and those with mean scores between 3.50 and 5.00 were classified as having high entrepreneurial intention. The results in Table 2 showed that 2.3% of the undergraduates have a low disposition to entrepreneurship, 36% have moderate entrepreneurial intention, while about 61.7% have high entrepreneurial intention in the study area. The results corroborate the findings of earlier studies where high entrepreneurial propensities were observed among undergraduates in Nigeria (Adelowo et al., 2021a, 2021b, Olofinyehun et al., 2022).
4.3 Social support and entrepreneurial intentions among undergraduates
The main hypothesis that was tested in this study, using linear regression at 0.05% level of significance, relates to how social supports influence entrepreneurial intention among the undergrads. The variable of social support was captured in three categories using three sub-scales, namely, social support from significant others, social support from family and social support from friends. The analysis procedure involves subjecting the respondent’s total score on social support and the sub-scales of social support on their entrepreneurial intention to linear regression. The results, as presented in Table 3, revealed that the overall social support shows a significantly positive relationship with the entrepreneurial intention of undergraduates in the study area [F(1, 345), 56.386, p < 0.05, R2 = 0.138]. The correlation and determination coefficients are 37.5% and 13.8%, respectively. This suggests that social support explains up to 13.8% of the factors that predict entrepreneurial intention among the undergrads. The remainders of the factors are exogenous to the model. The result is consistent with findings in Rosique-Blasco et al. (2018) and Gubik (2021) where family support provided motivation for undergraduates to develop a keen interest in entrepreneurship as a career option. Our result here is further supported by Sahban et al. (2016) who affirmed that trusted family members, partner and peers constitute important support sources for entrepreneurial inclination.
Furthermore, the social support factor was unbundled to see how each element of the variable interacts with the entrepreneurial intention among the undergrads. The results showed that family support, as an element of social support, has a strong and significant relationship with the students’ entrepreneurial intention (β = 0.857, p < 0.001). Although, friends as an element of social support also show a positive relationship to the entrepreneurial intention, but the relationship was not significant. This further strengthened existing knowledge that parental influence is central to career choice, especially for those undertaking university education Sahban et al. (2016). Overall, there is a slight difference in the predictive power of the model when the social support was broken down and treated as separate variables. The correlation and determination coefficients are 38.2% and 14.6%, respectively, indicating that the variables explained 14.6% of factors that affect entrepreneurial intention. In addition, it should be noted that family support is critical to explaining entrepreneurial intention among the students.
Next, we assessed and estimated how risk-taking propensity among the students predicts their entrepreneurial intentions through a linear regression analysis at a 0.05% level of significance. The result as summarised in Table 4 show that risk-taking predicts the entrepreneurial intention of undergraduates in the study area [F(1, 343) 23.311, p < 0.05, R2 = 0.063]. The R value represents the simple correlation and is 0.251, which indicates a not very high degree of correlation. The R2 value indicates how much of the total variation in the dependent variable is explained by the independent variable (risk-taking), suggesting that risk-taking potential explained just 6.3% of factors that determine entrepreneurial intention among the students.
Finally, we estimate how the socioeconomic characteristics of students jointly and independently influence their entrepreneurial intention. The analysis was conducted using multiple regressions at the 0.05% level of significance. The results, as presented in Table 5, show that demographic variables (gender, religion, marital status, previous business experience and age) jointly predicted entrepreneurial intention [F(2, 296) = 3.17, p < 0.05, R2 = 0.07]. The R2 = 0.07 indicates that sociodemographic factors explained 7% of the variation in entrepreneurial intention. Furthermore, respondents’ never having engaged in business before (β = 0.146, t = 2.542, p < 0.05) has an independent influence on entrepreneurial intention. In addition, age (β = −0.352, t = −3.119, p < 0.05) has an independent influence on entrepreneurial intention. However, gender (β = −0.064, t = −1.089, p > 0.05) and religion (β = −0.032, t = 0.71, p > 0.05) did not have a significant relationship with entrepreneurial intention. Moreover, marital status did not show a significant relationship with entrepreneurial intention of the undergraduates in the study area.
4.4 Discussion of findings
Firstly, social support significantly predicted entrepreneurial intentions among undergraduates. The hypothesis was accepted as the findings of this research suggested that social support significantly predicted the entrepreneurial intention of undergraduates in the study. Our finding is consistent with the results obtained by Molino and Dolce (2018), Rosique-Blasco et al. (2018) and Gubik (2021) who found that social support significantly predicts entrepreneurial intention. In addition, Adelowo and Akinwale (2021) also observed that family with practical entrepreneurship experience tend to supports students’ self-employment option. This suggests that most entrepreneurs would always desire that their children succeed them in the future (GUESSS, 2021). However, whether they actually develop entrepreneurial skill for take-over is beyond the scope of this paper. Conversely, the above result negates the findings of Shen and Osorio (2017) who suggested that perceived family support did not positively relate to the perceived desirability and feasibility of starting a business among students. Moreover, of all three levels of social support (significant others, family and friends), only the social support from family significantly predicted the entrepreneurial intention of undergraduates in this study, which agrees with the findings of Osorio (2017); social support from significant others and friends did not influence entrepreneurial intention.
Moreover, the study found that risk-taking propensities significantly predict entrepreneurial intentions among undergraduates. The hypothesis was accepted as findings from the analysis show that risk-taking predicts the entrepreneurial intention of the students. The results corroborate findings from Zhang et al. (2015) who asserted that risk-taking preference is significantly and positively associated with entrepreneurial intention. Also, the findings of this study were consistent with those of Uddin and Bose (2012) that indicated that risk-taking tendency, the need for achievement, job security, the environment for starting a business and education are significant factors in determining the intention of business students to become entrepreneurs. In addition, Lumpkin and Dess (1996) articulated risk-taking potential as one of the key entrepreneurial orientations at all levels: the greater the disposition to taking calculated risks, the higher the chance of becoming an entrepreneur. This is also supported by Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour, particularly in his proposal of the attitude towards a behaviour.
Furthermore, this study observed that demographic variables such as gender, religion and marital status jointly influenced entrepreneurial intention among undergraduates. However, independently, religion and gender did not significantly influence or predict entrepreneurial intention among undergraduates. Both age and prior business experience significantly influenced entrepreneurial intention. These findings are consistent with those of Babatunde and Durowaiye (2014), who found that exposure to entrepreneurship education influences students’ intentions of becoming self-employed. However, the findings of this study on the influence of gender on entrepreneurial intention were not consistent with the findings of Molino and Dolce (2018), which indicated that gender difference exists between entrepreneurial role and intention.
5. Conclusion and policy recommendations
This study has established that social support significantly predicted the entrepreneurial intention of undergraduates, which is consistent with previous studies (Molino and Dolce, 2018) suggesting that social support significantly predicts entrepreneurial intention. However, it is important to note that of all the dimensions of social support, only social support from the family significantly predicted and influenced entrepreneurial intention. Based on the findings from this study, it can be established that the propensity to take risks is very important in determining who will eventually go on to be an entrepreneur. Furthermore, the study concluded that demographic variables jointly predicted and influenced entrepreneurial intentions among undergraduates. However, when considered independently, age and previous experience in business were the only demographic variables that predicted and influenced entrepreneurial intention while gender and religion had no significant influence whatsoever.
Generally, social support is important in ensuring that young individuals have the “entrepreneurial spirit” and make up their mind about becoming entrepreneurs. Social support, especially from family members, is of the utmost importance because family is the first stage of socialisation. Support from this setting is vital to the extent that individuals who make up the family unit are likely to be the first clients of an entrepreneur. With regards to risk-taking, this study suggests that those who are more willing to take risks are likely going to entertain thoughts of being an entrepreneur. This implies that the higher the risk-taking propensity of an individual is, the higher the chances of thinking about being an entrepreneur and eventually becoming one.
Furthermore, it can be implied from the findings of this study that jointly as a unit, demographic factors have an influence on entrepreneurial intention among undergraduates, most especially age and prior knowledge in entrepreneurship. Other demographic variables like gender and religion were not statistically significant as far as determinants of entrepreneurial intention are concerned.
From the foregoing, the following policy recommendations are proposed: policymakers should pay attention to social support and risk-taking propensity as important factors in stimulating and entrenching entrepreneurship among the undergrads. One of the ways to help family members support the entrepreneurship behaviour of the students is to familiarise parents and stakeholders with the overall goals of entrepreneurship education and solicit their support. This support could help deepen students’ commitment to the course and enhance their readiness for venture creation after graduation. Developing policies and programmes that would further ingrain entrepreneurship spirit in students is also an important plausible option. The existing compulsory entrepreneurship education strengthened with practical contents could thereby create opportunities for students to pitch business ideas and access start-up grants.
This study examined the determinants of entrepreneurial intention amongst students of a university in Nigeria, with particular emphasis on their risk-taking propensity, social support and demographic variables. This was implemented through the use of a self-reported questionnaire. It has been documented that information provided through a self-reported questionnaire has its own limitations; however, the primary research instruments are adapted scales with sound reliability and validity test scores. In addition, the study’s findings should be interpreted with caution as sampled respondents (youth) were limited to university students and not all categories of youth. Nigeria is a large country with diverse categories of youth such as individuals with no formal education, skilled and unskilled youth and unemployed youth. Moreover, the sampled undergraduates did not cover the whole of Nigerian universities, hence the likelihood of limited generalisation.
Figures
Descriptive analysis of sociodemographic characteristics
| Variable | Level | Frequency | (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 164 | 46.9 |
| Female | 186 | 53.1 | |
| Age | 16–21 | 210 | 65.0 |
| Mean = 21.3 Standard deviation = 3.13 |
22–28 | 103 | 31.9 |
| 29–39 | 10 | 3.1 | |
| Religion | Christianity | 267 | 76.7 |
| Islam | 70 | 20.1 | |
| Other | 11 | 3.2 | |
| Marital status | Never married | 299 | 88.5 |
| Married | 38 | 11.2 | |
| Separated | 1 | 0.3 | |
| Family socioeconomic status | Low | 24 | 7.1 |
| Medium | 203 | 59.7 | |
| High | 113 | 33.2 | |
| Father’s occupation | Self-employed | 148 | 43.5 |
| Salary earner | 131 | 38.5 | |
| Retired | 51 | 15.0 | |
| Unemployed | 10 | 2.9 | |
| Mother’s occupation | Self-employed | 152 | 45.0 |
| Salary earner | 150 | 44.4 | |
| Retired | 31 | 9.2 | |
| Unemployed | 5 | 1.5 | |
| Family ownership of business | No | 46 | 13.4 |
| Yes | 297 | 86.6 | |
| Ever engaged in business? | No | 115 | 33.3 |
| Yes | 230 | 66.7 |
Source: Author’s survey
Frequencies of respondents in the categorisation of level of entrepreneurial intention
| Variable | Frequency | (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Low entrepreneurial intention | 8 | 2.3 |
| Moderate entrepreneurial intention | 125 | 36.0 |
| High entrepreneurial intention | 214 | 61.7 |
| Total | 347 | 100.0 |
Source: Author’s survey
Summary of linear regression showing social support as a predictor of entrepreneurial intention
| Variables | Β | T | Sig | R | R2 | F | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social support | 0.307 | 7.509 | 0.000 | 0.375 | 0.138 | 56.386 | <0.05 |
| Significant others | −0.350 | −1.545 | 0.123 | 0.382 | 0.146 | 19.439 | <0.05 |
| Family | 0.857 | 4.633 | 0.000 | ||||
| Friends | 0.304 | 1.495 | 0.136 |
Source: Author’s survey
Summary of linear regression showing risk-taking as a predictor of entrepreneurial intention
| Variables | Β | T | Sig | R | R2 | F | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk-taking | 0.465 | 4.807 | 0.000 | 0.251 | 0.063 | 23.111 | <0.05 |
Source: Author’s survey
Summary of multiple regression showing sociodemographic variables as predictors of entrepreneurial intention
| Variables | Β | T | Sig | R | R2 | F | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | −1.676 | −1.089 | 0.277 | 0.264 | 0.07 | 3.17 | <0.05 |
| Religion | −1.287 | −0.548 | 0.584 | ||||
| Marital status | −1.897 | −0.652 | 0.515 | ||||
| Ever engaged in business | 4.421 | 2.542 | 0.012 | ||||
| Age | −10.032 | −3.119 | 0.002 |
Notes
An agency of government responsible for coordinating and developing programmes to improve the contribution of small and medium enterprises to the national economy.
Agency responsible for managing repository of national data and statistics.
This is a result of a 2006 government policy that mandates all students in Nigerian tertiary institutions take both elective and compulsory courses in entrepreneurship before graduation.
References
Adelowo, C.M., Ilevbare, O.E. and Surujlal, J. (2021b), “Do entrepreneurial characteristics and education influence start-up potentials among undergraduates? Evidence from a developing country”, International Entrepreneurship Review, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 71-82.
Adelowo, C.M., Joshua, A. and Ilevbare, O.E. (2018), “Entrepreneurship potentials among undergraduates in Nigerian universities: empirical evidence”, AMC Indian Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 36-51.
Adelowo, Caleb, M., Ukpabio, M.G., Olaopa, O.R. and Siyanbola, W.O. (2015), “Exploring business incubation practices in developing economies: Lessons for Nigeria”, A paper presented at the 2nd Africalics international conference held at the University of Rwanda, Kigali between 13 and 17th November, 2015.
Adelowo, C.M., Ilevbare, O.E., Sanni, M., Orewole, M., Adekemi, J.O., Olomu, M. and Ukwuoma, F. (2021a), “Impact of COVID-19 on household enterprises in Nigeria”, in Merwe, S. and Den, B. (Eds), Proceedings of Emerging perspectives, methodologies, practices and theories, Social Science International Research Conference, Potchefstroom, South Africa, North-West University, pp. 551-567, available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16FvbZtx2qzQSlVnMdAjMEor_WB5RTAET/view?usp=sharing
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2002), “Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 665-683.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Akhuemonkhan, I.A., Raimi, L. and Sofoluwe, A. (2013), “Entrepreneurship education and employment stimulation in Nigeria”, Journal of Studies in Social Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 55-79.
Akinyemi, A.I. and Mobalaji, J.W. (2022), “Nigeria’s large, youthful population could be an asset or a burden”, The conversation, available at: https://theconversation.com/nigerias-large-youthful-population-could-be-an-asset-or-a-burden-186574#:∼:text=The%20country%20has%20the%20largest,under%20the%20age%20of%2015. Accessed 23/08/2022
Akujuru, C. and Enyioko, N. (2019), “The impact of N-power programmes on poverty alleviation in Nigeria: a study of Rivers state”, Global Journal of Political Science and Administration, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 29-50.
Babatunde, E.B. and Durowaiye, B.E. (2014), “The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions among Nigerian undergraduates impact”, International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Literature, Vol. 2 No. 11, pp. 15-26.
Buang, N.A. and Yusof, Y.M. (2006), “Motivating factors that influence class F contractors to become entrepreneurs”, Journal Pendidikan, Vol. 31, pp. 107-121.
Cone, J. (2012), “Kauffmann foundation”, available at: www.kauffman.org/entrepreneurship/teaching-entrepreneurship-in-colleges.aspx
Dhose, D. and Walter, S.G. (2012), “Knowledge context and entrepreneurial intentions among students”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 877-895.
Do Paço, A., Ferreira, J.M., Raposo, M., Rodrigues, R.G. and Dinis, A. (2015), “Entrepreneurial intentions: is education enough?”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 57-75.
Dohse, D.A. (2010), “The role of entrepreneurship education and regional contex in forming entrepreneurial intentions”, Working Paper Present at Document de Treball de I'IEB.
Emmanuel, E.A., Dazala, I.U. and Daniel, J.D. (2012), “Entrepreneurship education and attitude of undergraduate students to self-employment in Mubi, Adamawa state, Nigeria”, Journal of Education and Practice, Vol. 3 No. 8, pp. 95-97.
Engel, Y., Kaandorp, M. and Elfring, T. (2017), “Toward a dynamic process model of entrepreneurial networking under uncertainty”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 35-51.
Ezeh, P.C., Nkamnebe, A.D. and Omodafe, U.P. (2020), “Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among undergraduates in a Muslim community”, Management Research Review, Vol. 43 No. 8, pp. 1013-1030, doi: 10.1108/MRR-09-2018-0348.
Fatoki, A.K. (2014), “Demographics, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and locus of control as determinant of adolescent's entrepreneurial intention in Ogun state Nigeria”, European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 12, pp. 59-67.
Gubik, A.S. (2021), “Entrepreneurial career: factors influencing the decision of Hungarian students”, Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 43-58, doi: 10.15678/EBER.2021.090303.
Hartanto, E.F. (2011), “Obstacles to entrepreneurship in Indonesia”, available at: http://research.amikom.ac.id/index.php/KIM/article/view/3933/2272
Kaegon, L.E. and Nwogu, U.J. (2012), “Entrepreneurship education in Nigerian universities: a panacea for unemployment in Nigeria”, British Journal of Advance Academic Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 57-67.
Kigotho, W. (2015), Producing Unemployable Graduates: Wastes Time and Money, University World News, Vol. 359, pp. 1-3.
Kolvereid, L. and Isaken, E. (2006), “New business start-up and subsequent entry into self-employment”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 866-885.
Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000), “Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 Nos 5/6, pp. 411-432.
Langer, E.J. (1989), “Mindfulness addison wesley longman”.
Lumpkin, G. and Dess, G. (1996), “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-172.
Molino, M., Dolce, V., Cortese, C.G. and Ghislieri, C. (2018), “Personality and social support as determinants of entrepreneurial intention. Gender differences in Italy”, Plos One, Vol. 13 No. 6, p. e0199924, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199924, PMID: 29953517; PMCID: PMC6023202.
Mueller, S. (2004), “Gender gaps in potential for entrepreneurship across countries and cultures”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9, pp. 199-220.
Muhammad, A., Dahiru, A. and Ahmed, S. (2015), “Entrepreneurial intention among Nigerian university students”, American Journal of Business Education, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 239-248.
NACETEM (2012), Characterisation of Technological Entrepreneurship Education in Nigeria Tertiary Institutions: Structure, Content and Delivery System, Hi-Digiit, Nigeria.
NACETEM-APRM (2021), Socio-Economic Development in Nigeria. An unpublished report of the 2nd African Peer Review Mechanism on socio-economic development in Nigeria, NACETEM, Nigeria.
NBS (2018), Report, Labour Force Statistics: Unemployment and Underemployment Report Q4 2017-Q3 2018.
NBS (2020), Labor Force Statistics: Unemployment and Underemployment Report (Q2 2020), National Bureau of Statistics, Abridged Labour Force Survey Under Covid-19. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Abuja, available at: www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/pdfuploads/Q2_2020_Unemployment_Report.pdf
Ogunlana, F. (2018), “The role of entrepreneurship as the driver of economic growth”, A Published Thesis from Centria University of Applied Sciences on Degree programme on Business Management.
Olayinka, C. (2010), “NDE, Turkey to partner on Job Creation Initiatives”, The Guardian Newspaper Tuesday, 9 February 2010, Lagos.
Olofinyehun, A., Egbetokun, A. and Adelowo, C. (2022), “Pooled dataset on entrepreneurial of undergraduates in selected universities in Nigeria”, Data in Brief, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 1-8, doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2021.107718.
Pulka, B.M., Rikwentishe, R. and Ibrahim, B. (2014), “An evaluation of students’ attitude towards entrepreneurship education in some selected universities in North East Nigeria”, Global Journal of Management and Business Research: A Administration and Management, Vol. 14 No. 8, available at: https://journalofbusiness.org/index.php/GJMBR/article/download/1465/1372
Quan, X. (2012), “Prior experience, social network and levels of entrepreneurial intentions”, Management Research Review, Vol. 35 No. 10, pp. 945-957.
Rosique-Blasco, M., Madrid-Guijarro, A. and García-Pérez de-Lema, D. (2018), “The effects of personal abilities and self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intentions”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 1025-1052.
Sahban, M.A., Ramalu, S.S. and Syahputra, R. (2016), “The influence of social support on entrepreneurial inclination among business students in Indonesia”, Information Management and Business Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 32-46, doi: 10.22610/imbr.v8i3.1330.
Shen, T., Osorio, A.E. and Settles, A. (2017), “Does family support matter? The influence of support factors on entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions of college students”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 24-43.
Shockley, G. (2010), “Ewing marion kauffman foundation”, in Anheier, H.K. and Toepler, S. (Eds), International Encyclopedia of Civil Society, Springer, New York, NY, doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-93996-4_773
Sieger, P., Raemy, L., Zellweger, T., Fueglistaller, U. and Hatak, I. (2021), Global Student Entrepreneurship 2021: Insights from 58 Countries, KMU-HSG/IMU-U, St.Gallen/Bern.
Siyanbola, W.O. (2019), “Stimulating the culture of innovation in a latecomer economy for sustainable development”, A keynote paper presented at the 1st International Conference on knowledge and Innovation Management, organised by Babcock University, Ilisan-Remo, Ogun state, Nigeria, 15-18 January, 2019.
SMEDAN-NBS (2019), National Survey of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) 2017, SMEDAN Report, Abuja, available at: http://smedan.gov.ng/images/NATIONAL%20SURVEY%20OF%20MICRO%20SMALL%20&%20MEDIUM%20ENTERPRISES%20(MSMES),%20%202017%201.pdf (accessed 20 September 2022).
Statista (2022), “The unemployment in Nigeria in selected quarter between the 1st quarter of 2015 and the 4th quarter of 2020”, available at: www.statista.com/statistics/1119375/unemployment-rate-in-nigeria-by-quarter/#:∼:text=In%20the%20fourth%20of%202020,percentage%20points%20during%20the%20year.
Tam, H.W. (2009), “How and to what extent does entrepreneurship education make students more entrepreneurial?”, Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Uddin, M.R. and Bose, T.K. (2012), “Determinants of entrepreneurial intention of business students in Bangladesh”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 7 No. 24, p. 128.
Wu, S. and Wu, L. (2008), “The impact of higher education on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in China”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 752-774.
Zhang, D.C., Highhouse, S. and Nye, C.D. (2019), “Development and validation of the general risk propensity scale”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 152-167, doi: 10.1002/bdm.2102.
Zhang, P., Owen, C.L. and Dongyuan, D. (2015), “A study of entrepreneurial intention of university students”, Entrepreneurship Research Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Zimet, G.D., Dahlem, N.W., Zimet, S.G. and Farley, G.K. (1988), “The multidimensional scale of perceived social support”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 30-41, doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2.
Further reading
Adelowo, C.M., Egbetokun, A.A. and James, A. (2016), The supply of high quality entrepreneurs in developing countries: evidence from Nigeria. An unpublished project report submitted to PEDL, UK.
Anderson, A.R., Jack, S.L. and Dodd, S.D. (2005), “The role of family members in entrepreneurial networks: beyond the boundaries of the family firm”, Family Business Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 135-154.
Antoncic, B. (2003), “Risk taking in intrapreneurship: translating the individual level risk aversion into the organizational risk taking”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Antoncic, B., Auer Antoncic, J. and Gantar, M. (2012), “Risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs and their non-persistence in entrepreneurship”, in Antoncic, B. (Ed.), Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Conference — ABSRC 2012, Olbia, Italy, September 5–7, 2012, Conference Proceedings. Koper: Edukator.
Antoncic, B., Auer Antoncic, J. and Gantar, M. (2015), “Risk-taking propensity of students and their presence in entrepreneurship in Slovenia”, in Antoncic, B. (Ed.), Advances in Business Related Scientific Research Conference — ABSRC 2015, Venice, Italy, March 25–27, 2015.
Astuti, D.A.W. (2009), “Pengaruh konteks keluarga, kerja, pendidikan, hambatan dalam memulai bisnis, dukungan sosial, nilai – nilai individualisme dan kolektivisme pada intensi berwirausaha”.
Bönte, W., Falck, O. and Heblich, S. (2009), “The impact of regional age structure on entrepreneurship”, Economic Geography, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 269-287.
Brockhaus, R.H. (1980), “Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 509-520.
Bromiley, P. and Curley, S. (1992), “Individual differences in risk taking”, in Yates, J. (Ed.), Risk Taking Behavior, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 87-132.
Caliendo, M., Fossen, F. and Kritikos, A. (2010), “The impact of risk attitudes on entrepreneurial survival”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 45-63.
Cantillon, R. (1734), Essai Sur la Nature du Commerce en General [Essay on the Nature of General Commerce], (H. Higgs, trans.), Macmillan, London.
Falck, O., Heblich, S. and Luedemann, E. (2009), “Identity and entrepreneurship: do school peers shape entrepreneurial intentions?”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 39-59.
Gantar, M., Antoncic, B. and Auer Antoncic, J. (2013), “Entrepreneurs’ need for independence and their non-persistence”, Middle Eastern Finance and Economics, Vol. 19, pp. 159-164.
Giunipero, L.C., Denslow, D. and Melton, H.L. (2008), “Risk propensity, risk perception and business plan formalisation: a conceptual investigation”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 397-416.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor-GEM (2012), 2012 Global Survey Report: GEM.
Granovetter, M.S. (1973), “The strength of weak ties”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 1360-1380.
Hisrich, R.D. (1986), “Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship”, in Hisrich, R.D. (Ed.), Entrepreneurship, Intrapreneurship and Venture Capital, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 71-104.
Hisrich, R.D. and Peters, M.P. (1998), Entrepreneurship: Starting, Developing, and Managing a New Enterprise, 4th ed., Irwin, Chicago, IL.
Ismail, A., Nor, S.M., Yahya, Z., Zahar, U.A.U., Ismail, Y. and Samah, A.J.A. (2013), “Social support in job performance as an antecedent of work intrusion on family conflict: empirical evidence”, Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 37-55.
Kamalanabhan, T.J., Sunder, D.L. and Amat, T.M. (2006), “Evaluation of entrepreneurial risk-taking using magnitude of loss scale”, The Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 37-46.
Kets de Vries, M. (1977), “The entrepreneurial personality: a person at the crossroads”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 34-57.
Kihlstrom, R.E. and Laffont, J.J. (1979), “A general equilibrium entrepreneurial theory of firm formation based on risk aversion”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 719-748.
Knight, F.H. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
León, J.A.M., Descals, F. J.P. and Domínguez, J.F.M. (2007), “The psychosocial profile of the university entrepreneur”, Psychology in Spain, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 72-84.
Mead, S., Hilton, D. and Curtis, L. (2001), “Peer support: a theoretical perspective”, Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, p. 134.
Mill, J.S. (1848), Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy, in Parker, J.W. (Ed.), John W. Parker, West Strand, London.
Miner, J.B. and Raju, N.S. (2004), “Risk propensity differences between managers and entrepreneurs and between low- and high-growth entrepreneurs: a reply in a more conservative vein”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Muhammad, D.A. (2012), “Entrepreneurial intention among undergraduate students in international Islamic university, Malaysia”, A paper presented at the 6th Islamic Development Management Conference (IDMAC, 2012), Universiti of Sains Malaysia.
Procidano, M.E. and Heller, K. (1983), “Measures of perceived social support from friends and from family: three validation studies”, American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Rani, S.H.B.A. (2012), “A study of relationship between family support, role model and financial support towards entrepreneurial inclination among UUM Non-Business student”, Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Utara Malaysia
Rauch, A. and Frese, M. (2007), “Born to be an entrepreneur? Revisiting the personality approach to entrepreneurship”, in Baum, J.R., Frese, M. and Baron, R.A. (Eds), The Psychology of Entrepreneurship, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 41-65.
Stevenson, H.H. and Gumpert, D.E. (1985), “The heart of entrepreneurship”, Harvard Business Review (March), pp. 9-24.
Stewart, A. (2003), “Help one another, use one another: toward an anthropology of family business”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 383-396.
Stewart, W.J. and Roth, P.L. (2001), “Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 145-153.
Vivarelli, M. (2012), “Drivers of entrepreneurship and post-entry performance: microeconomic evidence from advanced and developing countries”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper WPS6245.
Zafar, M., Yasin, G. and Ijaz, M. (2012), “Social networking a source for developing entrepreneurial intentions among entrepreneurs: a case of Multan”, Asian Economic and Financial Review, Vol. 2 No. 8, pp. 1072-1084.
Zain, Z.M., Akram, A.M. and Ghani, E.K. (2010), “Entrepreneurship intentions among Malaysian business students”, Canadian Social Science, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 34-44.