The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

[Link]/[Link]

JSBED
15,4 The impact of higher education on
entrepreneurial intentions of
university students in China
752
Sizong Wu
School of Economics & Management, Tongji University, Shanghai, China, and
Lingfei Wu
Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, China

Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this article is to investigate the relationship between Chinese university
students’ higher educational background and their entrepreneurial intentions.
Design/methodology/approach – The TPB model was adopted and tested for the formation of
Chinese university students’ entrepreneurial intentions using structural equation modeling. Data were
collected from students of Tongji University in Shanghai, China.
Findings – The main results of this empirical research suggest that diversity of educational
background offers plausible explanations on the difference of entrepreneurial intentions of Chinese
university students. Higher educational institutions should develop more flexible approaches with
focus on different groups of students in accordance with their various educational backgrounds.
Practical implications – In response to the change of graduate labour market and the quest for
sustainable competitive advantage in China, higher educational institutions have to integrate the
change of mindset, skills and abilities about entrepreneurship in their general academic education in
order to nurture university students’ entrepreneurial intentions in China.
Originality/value – The paper provides comprehensive empirical evidence about the impact of
higher education on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in mainland China and thus fills
an important gap in the entrepreneurship literature.
Keywords Entrepreneurialism, Behaviour, Students, China
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Surveys of Chinese university students indicate that although conditions for
entrepreneurship have much improved than before, only a small number of
students start up a business after graduation. Compare with the total
entrepreneurial activity (TEA) for China in 2005 at the rate of 13.7 per cent
(according to year 2005 GEM report), there are only 2 to 6 per cent of Chinese
students choose entrepreneurship as a career option. Seeing entrepreneurship as a
driving force of regional economy and an effective way to ease employment
pressure of university students, the Chinese government has made great efforts to
Journal of Small Business and support entrepreneurial behaviors.
Enterprise Development
Vol. 15 No. 4, 2008
pp. 752-774 The authors wish to thank Professor Francisco Liñán, School of Economics and Business
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1462-6004
Administration, University of Seville, for providing EIQ (Entrepreneurial Intention
DOI 10.1108/14626000810917843 Questionnaire) as a reference.
 Because the decision-making process of creating new venture can be regarded as a The impact of
reasoned behavior or planned behavior, there are strong relationships between higher education
intentions toward behavior and actual act (Ajzen, 1991; Sheppard et al., 1988). With an
understanding of university students’ entrepreneurial intentions, we can better predict
whether they will take real action to start a new business. And promoting
entrepreneurial intentions of university students can effectively increase possibility
that the students will engage in entrepreneurship. 753
Recently, entrepreneurial intentions of university students have received considerable
interests among researchers (Tkachev and Kolvereid, 1999; Autio et al., 2001; Veciana
et al., 2005). Previous studies maintain that entrepreneurs are cultivated during their
lifetime, and education is very important to build entrepreneurship in people’s mind (Lee
et al., 2006). Because educational background is a key demographic variable, it is often
included in the analysis by researchers (Davidsson, 1995; Liñán and Chen, 2006;
Kolvereid and Isaksen, 2006). Since previous works were focused on broader factors than
educational background, they cannot show the relationship between educational
background, university students’ entrepreneurial perceptions and, through them,
entrepreneurial intentions. Therefore, whether education influences entrepreneurial
perceptions and intentions “requires further research” (Collins et al., 2004).
Traditionally Chinese universities have educated graduates for employment in the
public sector and the established firms and the role of Chinese universities was less
important in developing future entrepreneurs. With the rapid change of economic and
social conditions in China, Chinese universities have experienced considerable growth
and undergone striking changes. Further recognition of cultivating entrepreneurship
as a function of university is evidenced by the growing number of debates and
publications in professional journals. Hence, it is important to understand the
formation of entrepreneurial intention of Chinese university students and its linkage
with different educational backgrounds.
In general, there is a need to better comprehend the Chinese students’
entrepreneurial intentions and the factors affecting intentions. The main purpose of
this paper is to address this need. First, we aim to test the adequacy of Ajzen’s theory of
planned behavior to predict the entrepreneurial intentions of Chinese university
students in a sample of university students in Shanghai, China. Second, we intend to
correlate the four components in the model of entrepreneurial intentions of Chinese
University students with different educational backgrounds.
The results are expected to shed some light on a number of issues. It will test the
applicability of Ajzen’s TPB model to Chinese university students. It will also serve as
a clarification of relationships between educational background and the antecedents of
intentions. Finally, policy-makers could find useful insights from the research.
After this introduction, the paper is organized in four parts:
(1) A literature review on prior studies on entrepreneurial intentions models and
theoretical frameworks of the relationship between educational background
and intentions.
(2) The methodology of the research.
(3) Results and discussions.
(4) The concluding remarks.
JSBED 2. Entrepreneurial intention and educational background
15,4 2.1. Entrepreneurial intention model
Behavioral intention is a necessary process before taking any action. It is the decision
to initiate behavior. As a psychological process, intention has been examined by a
number of theorists and researchers (Bird, 1988). Relevant researches on behavior
indicate that intention has better explanation ability than other factors (i.e.
754 psychological character).
Entrepreneurial intention is a state of mind that people wish to create a new firm or
a new value driver inside existing organizations. It is a driving force of the
entrepreneurial activity. Researches in entrepreneurial intention make inquiry into
why some people choose to be self-employed or start their own businesses while others
prefer traditional salary-based jobs. When researchers try to explain the phenomenon
from the viewpoint of entrepreneurs’ personalities, ability of innovation and
opportunity exploitation on the range of economics, or the conditions and resources
facing entrepreneurs, the entrepreneurial intention perspective provides a new
research focus and offers a means to better explain and predict entrepreneurship,
thereby breaking down the boundaries between disciplines.
The reason for studying entrepreneurial intention can be categorized into two
aspects:
(1) In the individual aspects, in order to become novice, serial and even portfolio
entrepreneurs, individuals must first become nascent entrepreneurs (Westhead
and Wright, 1998). Therefore, the process that underlies the emergence of
entrepreneurial intentions and behavior is of the uttermost importance
(Drnovsek and Eriksona, 2005).
(2) In the social aspects, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Research reports there
are correlations between a country’s per capita GDP, national economic growth
rate and the level and type of entrepreneurial activity in the country. In this
sense, the level of entrepreneurial intention reflects economic potential and
economic environment of the country.

In sum, there are numerous approaches to the study of entrepreneurial intention,

each addressing different facets of intentional entrepreneurial activity. Ajzen’s (1991)
theory of planned behavior (hereafter TPB) and Shapero’s (1982) model of the
“entrepreneurial event” (hereafter SEE) are two similar intention models. TPB is a
general model to explain individual behavior and appears useful for assessing
entrepreneurial intentions when being adopted by entrepreneurship scholars
(Krueger et al., 2000).
TPB identifies three attitudinal antecedents of intentions: personal attitude toward
the behavior, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control. Personal attitude is a
reflection of beliefs and opinions held by an individual about the behavior. Subjective
norm refers to the degree to which the behavior will comply with the wishes of
important others. And perceived behavioral control is defined as a person’s perception
of his/her ability to perform the specific behavior.
According to the SEE model, the personal choice to start a new venture depends
on three elements: perceived feasibility, perceived desirability, and the propensity to
act. Krueger et al. (2000) compared TPB with SEE in a study. They pointed out that
perceived behavioral control in TPB and perceived desirability in SEE are The impact of
conceptually associated with perceived self-efficacy. And TPB’s other two higher education
antecedents correspond to SEE’s perceived desirability. As their results illustrate,
there is an inherent consistency in these two models. Table I shows a comparison of
studies on entrepreneurial intentions based on the models of Ajzen (1991) and
Shapero (1982).
The effectiveness of the TPB model has been tested in studies listed in Table I. And 755
selected demographic variables are also listed in Table I. It is a valuable tool for
understanding the process of new venture creation regardless of cultural differences.
But the question is whether it will serve as a proper cognitive model to the
entrepreneurial decision of mainland Chinese sample. Hence, referring to Ajzen’s TPB
model, we propose the following hypotheses:
H1. Personal attitude towards entrepreneurship is positively related to Chinese
university students’ entrepreneurial intentions.
H2. Subjective norm is positively related to Chinese university students’
entrepreneurial intentions.
H3. Perceived behavioral control is positively related to Chinese university
students’ entrepreneurial intentions.

2.2. The theoretical framework for the relationship between educational background and
entrepreneurial intention
From a societal perspective, both entrepreneurship and the educational system are
important for economic growth, but the importance of education for
entrepreneurship has been acknowledged only recently (Kuip and Verheul, 2003).
Education is one of the biggest and most important ongoing investments people
make. Through access to education, people can not only gain knowledge and
develop ability, but also have more opportunities to improve their quality of life.
There is plenty of evidence in daily life and scientific literature to show that
improving educational level will increase future earnings of individuals and help
people achieve overall success (Angrist and Krueger, 1999). But very few researches
using the TPB model have been done concerning the relationship between
educational background and entrepreneurial intention.
The potential impacts of higher education on students include three aspects: the
first is about their personal development, including changes in attitudes and values;
the second is to do with changes in their abilities; and the third with possible social
impacts (West and Hore, 1989). These aspects are consistent with the components of
the TPB model. Many other literatures (Lee and Wong, 2004; Liñán and Chen, 2006)
show that “antecedents” in the TPB model are affected by situational factors and
demographic variables. Among them, educational background is one of the most
important factors.
Le (1999) argues that there are several channels through which the level of
education might influence the propensity to become self-employed. On the one hand,
the impact of educational attainment can be explained by the Lucas’ (1978) model. In
this model, education would enhance an individual’s managerial ability, which in turn
increases the probability of entrepreneurship. The other channel of influence as
 15,4

756

studies
Table I.
JSBED

Comparison of
entrepreneurial intention
Basic Demographic
Author (year) model variables Variables Unit of analysis Findings

Kolvereid (1996) TPB Family background Attitude Norwegian business school Self-employment experience, gender, and
Gender Subjective norm students family background only indirectly
Self-employment Perceived behavioral influence self-employment intentions
experience control through their effect on attitude, subjective
norm and perceived behavioral control
Tkachev and TPB Family background Attitude Russian university students Attitude, subjective norm and perceived
Kolvereid (1999) Gender Subjective norm behavioral control determine employment
Self-employment Perceived behavioral status choice intentions among Russian
experience control students, not tracking or demographic
Veciana et al. TPB and Gender New venture feasibility Puerto Rico and Catalonia The relationship between demographic
(2005) SEE Entrepreneurs New venture university students variables and entrepreneurial intention are
among relatives desirability not the same with different country
students
Liñán and Chen TPB Role model Personal attraction Spanish and Taiwan Demographic variables except gender have
(2006) Self-employment Social Norms university students relatively few significant effects over the
experience Self-efficacy antecedents of the entrepreneurial intention
Work experience
Personal data (age,
gender)
Segal et al. (2005) SEE Self-efficacy USA undergraduate Net desirability for self-employment is
Tolerance for risk business students determinant factors for entrepreneurial
Net desirability for intention
self-employment
Souitaris et al.. TPB Entrepreneurship Attitude London, UK and Grenoble, Entrepreneurship programmes are a source
(2007) programme Subjective norm France university students of trigger-events, which inspire students
Perceived behavioral (arouse emotions and change mindsets)
control
indicated by Le has an opposite, negative effect on selection into entrepreneurship. It The impact of
points to the possibility that higher levels of education might generate better outside higher education
options (i.e. more lucrative paid wage employment under better working conditions)
and thus decrease the likelihood of entrepreneurship as the preferred choice (Van der
Sluis et al., 2004). Ajzen (1991) argued that the demographics only indirectly influence
intentions and suggests the inclusion of demographic characteristics to assess the
sufficiency of the TPB model. 757
Educational background and personal attitudes. Personal attitudes include
emotional factors and factors to evaluate. The former are based on person’s
subjective psychological status, while the later are judged by “expectancy-value
model”. Because attitudes are open to change, entrepreneurial attitudes may be
influenced by educators and practitioners. By cultivating an attitude of innovation,
achievement, self-esteem, educators can change students’ perception and feeling of
entrepreneurship (Robinson et al., 1991). There can be two reasons for highly
educated people not to choose self-employment: first, highly educated persons earn
more as employees than they would as self-employed. Second, the stream of
earnings is less secure as self-employed than as employee, due to higher inherent
risks in the operation of small firms compared to large ones or the public sector
(Kangasharju and Pekkala, 2002). Hence, the fourth hypothesis to be tested under
the present circumstance is:
H1a. It is expected that university students who have a low level of education are
more interested in entrepreneurship.
While Kolvereid and Moen’s (1997) research results indicate that graduates with an
entrepreneurship major have stronger entrepreneurial intentions than other graduates
of Norwegian business school, Levenburg et al.’s (2006) study failed to reveal a
difference between business and non-business majors of interest in entrepreneurship
among US university students. De Young (1996) pointed out that students are attracted
to various academic major may in part because of their personal beliefs and
psychological characteristics. Based on the arguments above, we arrive at the fifth and
sixth hypothesis:
H1b. Differences and a relationship (positive or negative) are expected between the
effects of academic major in determining entrepreneurial interests.
H1c. It is expected that university students who have received entrepreneurship
education are more interested in entrepreneurship.
Educational background and subjective norm. In the TPB model, subjective norm
incorporates external factors to the model, which measure the perceived social pressure
to perform or not perform the entrepreneurial behavior. In particular, it would refer to
the perception of those “reference people” such as families, friends and colleagues,
whether they will approve the decision of being an entrepreneur (Liñán and Chen,
2006). Some early studies (Krueger et al., 2000; Autio et al., 2001) of entrepreneurial
intentions found that the relationship between subjective norm and entrepreneurial
intentions tended to be very weak. In this case, some studies have simply omitted
subjective norm (Veciana et al., 2005). But it cannot be denied that the expectancy of
JSBED families and other key persons have significant influence on the career choices of
15,4 university students. Since China initiated its economic reform in 1978, people’s
perception of entrepreneurship has changed greatly and more efforts of encouraging
higher educated people to be entrepreneur have been made.
H2a. University students with low level of education perceived more social
758 pressure of not being an entrepreneur than those who have higher education
degrees.
Educational background and perceived behavioral control. As for entrepreneurial
activity, perceived behavioral control refers to the perception of easiness or difficulty in
the fulfillment of creating a new venture. It is based on the evaluation of one’s
controllability and self-efficacy during the process of new venture development. A high
level of perceived behavioral control should strengthen a person’s intention to perform
the behavior, and increase his/her effort and perseverance (Ajzen, 2002). Since
education has two principle functions: knowledge transfer and ability development, it
would change a person’s perception of his or her ability to perform the intentional
behavior. As Ferrante and Sabatini (2007) pointed out:
The connection between education and general cognitive abilities is a two-way street: codified
knowledge acquired through education helps people to better understanding the general rules
which govern the world they live in. Moreover, education enhances the ability to acquire and
use codified information about specific aspects of working and non working life. Hence,
appropriately explored data on educational attainment should reveal the cognitive abilities
possessed by individuals.
Ewert and Baker (2001) suggest higher education differentially prepares people
humanistic and technical. Then individual in different academic major fields who
grasp different knowledge which may act as a mediate role for entrepreneurship
abilities. Richardson’s (1993) study revealed the significant difference between
perceived contributions of education to alumni with different academic majors. The
results show some academic major such as communication, human ecology facilitate
growth and development in personal/social skills, while some academic majors as
engineering and science facilitate growth and development in quantitative skills.
Accordingly, the next three hypotheses are to be tested in present circumstance are:
H3a. Differences are expected between the effects of academic major in
determining perceived behavioral control.
H3b. It is expected that university students who have good academic achievement
have more perceived behavioral control than those who have bad academic
achievement.
H3c. It is expected that university students who have received entrepreneurship
education have more perceived behavioral control than those who have not.

3. Methodology
3.1. Research framework
In exploring the relationship between Chinese university students’ educational
background and their entrepreneurial intention, we decided first to investigate
entrepreneurial intention based on Ajzen’s (1991) model. This model is one of the The impact of
robust models that we identify since it provides good results in very diverse fields higher education
including the choice of professional career (Liñán and Chen, 2006).
Educational background was measured by the respondent’s educational level,
academic major, academic achievement, and entrepreneurship education. All the
hypotheses in Section 2 are described in Figure 1.
H1, H2 and H3 describe the impact of personal attitude, subjective norm, and 759
perceived behavioral control to entrepreneurial intention. H1a, H1b, H1c, H2a, H3a,
H3b and H3c are hypotheses about the relationship between educational background
and TPB components.

3.2. Research design

Data. A number of steps were taken in the construction of the questionnaire:
(1) Making reference to related recent studies (Van Auken et al., 2006; Levenburg
et al., 2006; Davidsson, 1995; Krueger et al., 2000; Zampetakis and Moustakis,
2006; Kristiansen and Indarti, 2004; Souitaris et al., 2007; Lüthje and Franke,
2003).
(2) Developing some items according to theory.
(3) Taking into account advice from senior statisticians of some business
consulting companies and professors.

Entrepreneurial intention and its antecedents have been measured through a

Likert-type scale with seven items. In particular, close reference was made to the
methods used in the Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire (EIQ) developed by Liñán
and Chen (2006). The EIQ was used to measure entrepreneurial intentions of Spanish
and Taiwanese samples.
The questionnaire has seven sections:
(1) educational background;
(2) personal attitude;

Figure 1.
Hypothetical model of the
relationship between
educational background
and entrepreneurial
intentions
JSBED (3) subjective norm;
15,4 (4) perceived behavioral control;
(5) entrepreneurial intention;
(6) entrepreneurship education; and
(7) demographic variables.
760
The data for this research were obtained from students of Tongji University in
Shanghai. We sent out 180 questionnaires in different classes. The students took 15
minutes to complete the anonymous questionnaires in class. After class, we received
162 completed questionnaires. There are 150 validity questionnaires, validity rate 92.6
per cent (see Table II).
Data analysis. The statistical analysis was made in two parts: first, the path analysis
was to define the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and its antecedents;
and second, the descriptive statistical was to examine the correlation of educational
background and antecedents of entrepreneurial intention. These analyses were
accomplished by using the Amos 7.0 and SPSS version 15.0.

Variable Frequency Valid per cent

Sex Male 58 63.7

Female 33 36.3
Missing value 3

Age 14-18 4 2.7

19-28 133 90.5
29-35 9 6.1
Older than 35 1 0.7
Missing value 3

Educational level Diploma and Undergraduate 86 57.3

Postgraduate 64 42.7

Academic major ERMa 55 37.2

Non-ERMb 51 34.5
Engineering 42 28.4
Missing value 2

Entrepreneurship education Yes 33 22.4

No 114 77.6
Missing value 3

Academic achievement Low 79 52.7

High 71 47.3
Notes: a Entrepreneurship related majors, which include Business Administration and Economics;
b
Table II. Non-entrepreneurship related majors, which include Biology, Physics, Mathematics, History,
Sample characteristics Medicine, Psychology, Geography, Law and so on
4. Results and discussion The impact of
4.1. Entrepreneurial intentions and its antecedents higher education
Through reliability analysis of the questionnaire, inappropriate items were excluded
and the following items were retained as the construction of structural equation
modeling analysis (see Table III).
The Cronbach’s alpha of the constructs relating to personal attitude, subjective
norm, perceived behavioral control and entrepreneurial intentions is 0.778, 0.717, 0.765 761
and 0.831 respectively, thus all exceeding the 0.60 cut-off value for reliability
consistency.
After running the statistical software (Amos 7.0) on the total sample, Figure 2
presents the results for the entrepreneurial intention model.
The comparative fit index (CFI) (Bentler, 1990) is one of the most commonly
reported fit indices. This index uses a baseline model for comparison purposes,
meaning that the fit is examined in regard to an independence model of fit, which is the
standard of no fit at all. The measure varies from zero to one with one indicating a
perfect fit and the general rule of thumb for minimum acceptable fit is 0.90.
The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is a measure based on
population discrepancy. The rule of thumb for RMSEA is that values of 0.05 or less
indicate a close fit, 0.06-0.08 a reasonable fit, and values of 0.10 the upper limit of
acceptable fit (Arbuckle, 1999; Byrne, 2001).
In this structural equation model, the CFI indicated a proper level of fit of 0.89. It
is very close to the fit index 0.90. The RMSEA values were also acceptable (0.072).
These suggest a reasonably good-fitting model because they fit into normal
parameters.
Table IV shows the regression estimates between entrepreneurial intentions and its
hypothesized determinants and p-values for significance. It suggests that personal
attitude has a significant and positive impact on entrepreneurial intentions ( p , 0.000).

Construct Indicator Correlated item-total correlation Cronbach’s alpha

Personal attitude 12 attitude 0.598 0.778

13a attitude 0.652
13b attitude 0.583
13c attitude 0.500
Subjective norm 19a culture 0.490 0.717
19b status 0.567
19c acceptable 0.576
Perceived behavioral control 20 ability 0.614 0.765
21 ability 0.563
22 ability 0.573
24 ability 0.522
Entrepreneurial intentions 26 intention 0.693 0.831 Table III.
27a intention 0.717 Reliability analysis for
27c intention 0.597 Chinese university
28 intention 0.587 student entrepreneurial
29 intention 0.561 intentions model
JSBED
15,4

762

Figure 2.
Estimations of the
entrepreneurial intention
model for Chinese
university students

Besides the strong positive effect of personal attitudes on behavioral intentions,

perceived behavioral control also has an additional positive effect on entrepreneurial
intentions ( p ¼ 0.014 , 0.05). Though subjective norm has a positive impact on
entrepreneurial intention, it is not significant at the 0.05 level.
Hence, H1 and H3 receive strong support, H3 is not verified. The result is found to
be consistent with studies conducted by Krueger et al. (2000) and Autio et al. (2001).
The high positive correlation between personal attitude and intentions reveals that
there are few respondents with a high attitude and low intentions. And the impact of
personal attitude on behavioral intention is greater than the effect of perceived
behavioral control.
 The impact of
Estimate SE CR p Label
higher education
EI ˆ PA 1.188 0.236 5.025 *
EI ˆ SN 0.216 0.112 1.931 0.053
EI ˆ PBC 0.336 0.137 2.451 0.014
P5 ˆ PBC 1.000
*
P3 ˆ PBC 1.033 0.173 5.981
*
763
P2 ˆ PBC 1.240 0.210 5.896
P1 ˆ PBC 1.271 0.208 6.117 *
D3_3 ˆ SN 1.000
D3_2 ˆ SN 1.292 0.235 5.504 *
D3_1 ˆ SN 0.980 0.182 5.384 *
F1 ˆ EI 1.000
F2_1 ˆ EI 1.141 0.119 9.579 *
F2_3 ˆ EI 0.864 0.110 7.852 *
F3 ˆ EI 0.615 0.097 6.375 *
F4 ˆ EI 0.604 0.096 6.267 *
B3_3 ˆ PA 1.000
B3_2 ˆ PA 1.415 0.255 5.559 *
B3_1 ˆ PA 1.515 0.258 5.871 * Table IV.
B2 ˆ PA 1.395 0.254 5.500 * Regression weights of
entrepreneurial intention
Note: * The regression weight is significantly different from zero at the 0.001 level (two-tailed) model

4.2. Educational background and TPB components

Educational level and TPB components. The mean value for the total four-item
constructs measurement of personal attitude of respondents who are with diploma and
undergraduate is 19.32 while postgraduate respondents’ is 17.45 (Table V). And the
t-test (Table VI) shows the difference between the mean values is significant at the 0.05
( p ¼ 0.018) level, which indicates the respondents who are with diploma and
undergraduate degree are more interested in start-up than those who are with
postgraduate degree. So H1a is verified. But differences of subjective norm of
postgraduate versus diploma and undergraduate respondents are not big and
significant (see Tables V and VI). H2a is not verified. Mean entrepreneurial intention of
diploma and undergraduate group amounted to 23.36 (versus postgraduate’s is 21.13),

Std. Std. error

Educational level N Mean deviation mean

Personal attitude Diploma and Undergraduate 85 19.3176 4.31556 0.46809

Postgraduate 64 17.4531 4.95353 0.61919
Subjective norm Diploma and Undergraduate 86 8.6628 3.73414 0.40266
Postgraduate 63 8.0159 3.70044 0.46621 Table V.
Means and standard
Perceived behavioral control Diploma and Undergraduate 86 13.9767 4.50614 0.48591
deviations of the TPB
Postgraduate 63 13.5397 3.43992 0.43339
components; diploma and
Entrepreneurial intentions Diploma and Undergraduate 85 23.3647 5.80814 0.62998 undergraduate versus
Postgraduate 63 21.1270 6.41443 0.80814 postgraduate
 15,4

764
JSBED

Table VI.

diploma and

postgraduate
undergraduate versus
of the TPB components;
Independent samples test
Levene’s test
for equality of t-test for equality of means
variances Sig. Mean Std. error
F Sig. t df (two-tailed) difference difference

Personal attitude Equal variances assumed 1.084 0.300 2.449 147 0.015 1.86452 0.76126
Equal variances not assumed 2.402 124.972 0.018 1.86452 0.77621
Subjective norm Equal variances assumed 0.066 0.797 1.049 147 0.296 0.64692 0.61690
Equal variances not assumed 1.050 134.434 0.296 0.64692 0.61603
Perceived behavioral control Equal variances assumed 1.711 0.193 0.644 147 0.520 0.43706 0.67834
Equal variances not assumed 0.671 146.727 0.503 0.43706 0.65110
Entrepreneurial intentions Equal variances assumed 0.720 0.397 2.216 146 0.028 2.23772 1.00961
Equal variances not assumed 2.184 125.926 0.031 2.23772 1.02468
indicating that diploma and undergraduate students are more willing to be The impact of
entrepreneurs than their postgraduate counterpart. higher education
Academic major and TPB components. H1b and H3a were tested using ANOVA
analysis. The result shows that differences exist in personal attitude (F ¼ 5.245,
p , 0.05), perceived behavioral control (F ¼ 3.794, p , 0.05) and entrepreneurial
intentions (F ¼ 7.930, p , 0.05) among university students with different academic
majors (see Table VII). H1b and H3a receive strong support. 765
The “Non-ERM” students have lower attitude (Mean ¼ 16.86, Table VIII) towards
start-up compared with “ERM” (Mean ¼ 19.02, Table VIII) and “Engineering” students
(Mean ¼ 19.76, Table VIII). The mean difference of personal attitude between
“Non-ERM” group and “Engineering” group is significant at 0.05 level (Table IX).
The mean value for perceived behavioral control of “Non-ERM” is 12.82, which is
significantly smaller than that of “Engineering” group (Mean ¼ 15.1190) and is smaller
but not significantly than that of “ERM” group (Mean ¼ 13.6000), indicating that
“Non-ERM” students feel they possess less ability at creating a new venture. The result
shows the “Engineering” group is the most confident of their entrepreneurial capability
than other groups.
On the entrepreneurial intentions side, the intentions of becoming an entrepreneur
of “Engineering” students is higher than students from the others majors. Again, the
comparison shows the lowest levels of entrepreneurial intentions when the students are
from “Non-ERM” course.
Academic achievement and TPB components. Respondents were classified in low
versus high academic achievement groups using median split. T-test analysis
(Tables X and XI) shows that among respondents who score high on academic
achievement, mean value for personal attitude (t ¼ 3.428, p , 0.05) and entrepreneurial
intentions (t ¼ 2.120, p , 0.05) are higher and significant than low academic
achievement group. But the difference of mean value for perceived behavioral control is
not significant at 0.05 level. So H3b did not receive support.
Entrepreneurship education and TPB components. H1c and H3c were tested using
t-test analysis, and the analysis result shows no significant difference for the three
antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions between students who had entrepreneurship
education and who did not have. But students who had entrepreneurship education

Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

Personal attitude Between groups 216.127 2 108.064 5.245 0.006

Within groups 2966.621 144 20.602
Total 3182.748 146
Subjective norm Between groups 2.190 2 1.095 0.078 0.925
Within groups 2022.708 144 14.047
Total 2024.898 146
Perceived behavioral control Between groups 123.151 2 61.576 3.794 0.025
Within groups 2336.985 144 16.229 Table VII.
Total 2460.136 146 ANOVA analysis of the
Entrepreneurial intentions Between groups 539.487 2 269.744 7.930 0.001 TPB components; ERM,
Within groups 4864.026 143 34.014 non-ERM and
Total 5403.514 145 engineering
 15,4

766
JSBED

engineering
Table VIII.

Non-ERM and
components; ERM,
Means and standard
deviations of the TPB
95% confidence
Academic major N Mean Std. deviation Std. error interval for mean Minimum Maximum

Personal attitude ERM 55 19.0182 3.98837 0.53779 17.9400 20.0964 8.00 28.00
Non-ERM 50 16.8600 5.09105 0.71998 15.4131 18.3069 4.00 27.00
Engineering 42 19.7619 4.51993 0.69744 18.3534 21.1704 10.00 28.00
Total 147 18.4966 4.66901 0.38509 17.7355 19.2577 4.00 28.00
Subjective norm ERM 55 8.5455 3.64549 0.49156 7.5599 9.5310 3.00 15.00
Non-ERM 50 8.3000 3.97055 0.56152 7.1716 9.4284 3.00 15.00
Engineering 42 8.2857 3.60410 0.55612 7.1626 9.4088 3.00 15.00
Total 147 8.3878 3.72413 0.30716 7.7807 8.9948 3.00 15.00
Perceived behavioral control ERM 55 13.6000 4.36993 0.58924 12.4186 14.7814 5.00 28.00
Non-ERM 50 12.8200 3.53807 0.50036 11.8145 13.8255 5.00 20.00
Engineering 42 15.1190 4.10949 0.63411 13.8384 16.3997 6.00 25.00
Total 147 13.7687 4.10491 0.33857 13.0996 14.4378 5.00 28.00
Entrepreneurial intentions ERM 55 22.9091 5.32038 0.71740 21.4708 24.3474 10.00 35.00
Non-ERM 50 19.9600 6.52768 0.92315 18.1049 21.8151 5.00 33.00
Engineering 41 24.7561 5.58471 0.87219 22.9933 26.5189 13.00 35.00
Total 146 22.4178 6.10456 0.50522 21.4193 23.4163 5.00 35.00
 95% confidence
Dependent variable (I) Academic major (J) Academic major Mean difference (I-J) Std. error Sig. error interval

Personal attitude ERM Non-ERM 2.15818 0.88691 0.055 20.0355 4.3519

Engineering 20.74372 0.93010 0.727 23.0443 1.5568
Non-ERM ERM 22.15818 0.88691 0.055 24.3519 0.0355
Engineering 22.90190 * 0.95002 0.011 25.2517 2 0.5521
Engineering ERM 0.74372 0.93010 0.727 21.5568 3.0443
Non-ERM 2.90190 * 0.95002 0.011 0.5521 5.2517
Subjective norm ERM Non-ERM 0.24545 0.73234 0.945 21.5659 2.0568
Engineering 0.25974 0.76801 0.944 21.6399 2.1594
Non-ERM ERM 20.24545 0.73234 0.945 22.0568 1.5659
Engineering 0.01429 0.78446 1.000 21.9260 1.9546
Engineering ERM 20.25974 0.76801 0.944 22.1594 1.6399
Non-ERM 20.01429 0.78446 1.000 21.9546 1.9260
Perceived behavioral control ERM Non-ERM 0.78000 0.78718 0.613 21.1670 2.7270
Engineering 21.51905 0.82552 0.188 23.5609 0.5228
Non-ERM ERM 20.78000 0.78718 0.613 22.7270 1.1670
Engineering 22.29905 * 0.84320 0.027 24.3846 2 0.2134
Engineering ERM 1.51905 0.82552 0.188 20.5228 3.5609
Non-ERM 2.29905 * 0.84320 0.027 0.2134 4.3846
Entrepreneurial intentions ERM Non-ERM 2.94909 * 1.13962 0.038 0.1301 5.7681
Engineering 21.84701 1.20335 0.311 24.8236 1.1296
Non-ERM ERM 22.94909 * 1.13962 0.038 25.7681 2 0.1301
Engineering 24.79610 * 1.22878 0.001 27.8356 2 1.7566
Engineering ERM 1.84701 1.20335 0.311 21.1296 4.8236
Non-ERM 4.79610 * 1.22878 0.001 1.7566 7.8356
Notes: * The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

the TPB components;

engineering
higher education

ERM, Non-ERM and

Multiple comparisons of
Table IX.
767
The impact of
JSBED show a greater intention to start-up than those who did not have (see Tables XII and
15,4 XIII).

5. Summary, limitation and conclusions

5.1. Validity of the TPB
768 In this study, based on the TPB, the path analysis shows that Chinese university
students’ entrepreneurial intentions can be explained by the combination of personal
attitude and perceived behavioral control. Subjective norm does not contribute
significantly to the predication of entrepreneurial intentions of Chinese university
students. Personal attitude is the main predictor of behavioral intentions, irrespective
of students’ educational background. Hence, a positive attitude towards start-up is a
good starting point to stimulate entrepreneurial behavior.
However, a positive attitude does not always result in entrepreneurial intention.
This is due to the fact that perceived behavioral control also determines the
decision-making process. Students who are more convinced that start-up is not a
difficult task for them are more inclined to create a new venture.

5.2. Relationship between educational background and entrepreneurial intentions

Figure 3 illustrates findings in the present study. Educational level will influence
entrepreneurial intentions through its effect on personal attitude. Entrepreneurship
seems less attractive to students with postgraduate degree than those with diploma
and undergraduate degree. There are two possible reasons for this phenomenon. First
of all, diploma and undergraduate students are young and full of enthusiasm to begin
their new venture; second, postgraduate students are facing high opportunity cost of
time and stable cash flow demand.
Academic major is an important factor to influence entrepreneurial intention
identified in this study. Differences are found not only for attitudes but also for
perceived behavioral control of students who differ in academic major. “Engineering”
students have the highest tendency to start-up. And their scores for attitude as well as
perceived behavioral control are higher than other groups. The findings are not
identical to those reported from a study of Spanish university students (Guerrero et al.,
2006), which the highest results are in “ERM” students. And “Non-ERM” group has the
lowest inclination towards entrepreneurship. This may entail design of curriculums

Academic achievement N Mean Std. deviation Std. error mean

Personal attitude High 70 19.8571 4.29116 0.51289

Low 79 17.3291 4.70875 0.52978
Subjective norm High 70 8.3662 4.12740 0.48983
Low 78 8.4103 3.33590 0.37772
Table X.
Perceived behavioral control High 71 14.4225 4.33149 0.51405
Means and standard
Low 78 13.2179 3.77843 0.42782
deviations of the TPB
components; high Entrepreneurial intentions High 71 23.5211 6.44506 0.76489
versus low Low 77 21.3896 5.72427 0.65234
 Levene’s
test for
equality of
variances t-test for equality of means
F Sig. t df Sig. (two-tailed) Mean difference Std. error difference

Personal attitude Equal variances assumed 2.422 0.122 3.409 147 0.001 2.52803 0.74154
Equal variances not assumed 3.428 146.877 0.001 2.52803 0.73737
Subjective norm Equal variances assumed 7.450 0.007 2 0.072 147 0.943 2 0.04406 0.61244
Equal variances not assumed 2 0.071 134.700 0.943 2 0.04406 0.61855
Perceived behavioral control Equal variances assumed 0.119 0.731 1.813 147 0.072 1.20459 0.66451
Equal variances not assumed 1.801 139.647 0.074 1.20459 0.66879
Entrepreneurial intentions Equal variances assumed 0.311 0.578 2.131 146 0.035 2.13152 1.00045
Equal variances not assumed 2.120 140.433 0.036 2.13152 1.00529

of the TPB components;

higher education

Independent samples test

high versus low

Table XI.
769
The impact of
JSBED and courses to help “Non-ERM” students develop knowledge and skills required to
15,4 start and run a business.
T-test failed to reveal a relationship between academic achievement and perceived
behavioral control. The findings imply that students do not take academic achievement
into account in their perception of behavioral control. Therefore, though academic
achievement is often regarded as a judgment standard for university students’ ability,
770 entrepreneurship education should be available to all university students without
discrimination on the grounds of academic achievement.
From the data we gathered, curriculum for entrepreneurship education of Tongji
University did not have significant impact on students’ entrepreneurial related ideas.
This is not similar to the result of Souitaris et al. (2007). The later show that the
programmes raise some attitudes and the overall entrepreneurial intention of students.
Possible explanation about this result is: entrepreneurship education at Tongji
University is still at the initial stage, it needs to be improved in terms of both
motivating students and skills training.
There are several limitations in the study. The greatest challenge we see is in the
data collection process since we only collected cross-sectional data. Longitudinal data
will provide validity research support. Further, the findings hold specifically within the
characteristics of the sample and the study region, i.e. university students at Tongji
University, one of China’s leading centers in research and education in Shanghai.
Therefore, extrapolation to other university remains speculative. Finally, since there is
no standardization of educational background in previous literature, future research
could be oriented to redefine the variables that compose the educational background of
the research.
Three important implications for higher education institutions and public policy
arise from this study. First, Ajzen’s TPB model can also be used to predict Chinese
university students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Second, educational background has
impact on entrepreneurial intentions through antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions.
Attitudinal factors, perceived behavioral control are different among Chinese
university students with different educational backgrounds. Third, entrepreneurship
education should pay attention to entrepreneurial skills as well as inspiring students’
interest in entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship Std. Std. error

education N Mean deviation mean

Personal attitude Yes 33 18.4848 5.16068 0.89836

No 113 18.4867 4.58280 0.43111
Table XII.
Means and standard Subjective norm Yes 33 9.0303 3.69531 0.64327
deviations of the TPB No 114 8.2018 3.68489 0.34512
components; have
Perceived behavioral control Yes 33 14.7576 3.50027 0.60932
entrepreneurship
No 114 13.4561 4.20943 0.39425
education versus do not
have entrepreneurship Entrepreneurial intentions Yes 33 24.6364 6.10747 1.06317
education No 113 21.7168 6.07905 0.57187
 Levene’s
test for
equality of
variances t-test for equality of means
F Sig. t df Sig. (two-tailed) Mean difference Std. error difference

Personal attitude Equal variances assumed 0.938 0.334 20.002 144 0.998 2 0.00188 0.93342
Equal variances not assumed 20.002 47.713 0.999 2 0.00188 0.99645
Subjective norm Equal variances assumed 0.211 0.646 1.137 145 0.258 0.82855 0.72886
Equal variances not assumed 1.135 51.857 0.262 0.82855 0.73000
Perceived behavioral control Equal variances assumed 0.134 0.714 1.620 145 0.107 1.30144 0.80326
Equal variances not assumed 1.793 61.357 0.078 1.30144 0.72574
Entrepreneurial intentions Equal variances assumed 0.848 0.359 2.425 144 0.017 2.91955 1.20411
Equal variances not assumed 2.418 51.953 0.019 2.91955 1.20722

have entrepreneurship
have entrepreneurship

education
of the TPB components;

education versus do not

higher education

Independent samples test

Table XIII.
771
The impact of
JSBED
15,4

772
Figure 3.
The relationship between
educational background
and entrepreneurial
intentions of Chinese
university students

References
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50, 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, pp. 665-83.
Angrist, J. and Krueger, A. (1999), “Empirical strategies in labour economics”, in Ashenfelter,
O.C. and Card, O. (Eds), Handbook of Labour Economics, Elsevier Publishers, North
Holland, Amsterdam.
Arbuckle, J.L. (1999), Amos 4.0 [Computer software], Smallwaters, Chicago, IL.
Autio, E., Keeley, R., Klofsten, M., Parker, G. and Hay, M. (2001), “Entrepreneurial intent among
students in Scandinavia and in the USA”, Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 145-60.
Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indexes in structural models”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 107, pp. 238-46.
Bird, B. (1988), “Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 442-53.
Byrne, B.M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS, Lawrence Erlbaum, London.
Collins, L., Hannon, P. and Smith, A. (2004), “Enacting entrepreneurial intent: the gaps between
student needs and higher education capability”, Education & Training, Vol. 46 Nos 8/9,
pp. 454-63.
Davidsson, P. (1995), “Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions”, Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Rent IX Workshop, Piacenza, November.
De Young, R. (1996), “Some psychological aspects of a reduced consumption lifestyle: the role of
intrinsic satisfaction and competence motivation”, Environment & Behavior, Vol. 28,
pp. 358-409.
Drnovsek, M. and Eriksona, T. (2005), “Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions”,
Economic and Business Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 55-71.
Ewert, A. and Baker, D. (2001), “Standing for where you sit: an exploratory analysis of the
relationship between academic major and environment beliefs”, Environment & Behavior,
Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 687-707.
Ferrante, F. and Sabatini, F. (2007), “Education,social capital and eentrepreneurial selection in The impact of
Italy”, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Paper No. 2451, available at: http://
[Link]/ 2451 higher education
Guerrero, M., Rialp, J. and Urbano, D. (2006), “The impact of desirability and feasibility on
entrepreneurial intentions: a structural equation model”, The International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal.
Kangasharju, A. and Pekkala, S. (2002), “The role of education in self-employment success in 773
Finland”, Growth and Change, Vol. 33, pp. 216-37.
Kolvereid, L. (1996), “Prediction of employment status choice intentions”, Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 47-57.
Kolvereid, L. and Isaksen, E. (2006), “New business start-up and subsequent entry into
self-employment”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21, pp. 866-85.
Kolvereid, L. and Moen, Ø. (1997), “Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in
entrepreneurship make a difference?”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 21
No. 4, pp. 154-60.
Kristiansen, S. and Indarti, N. (2004), “Entrepreneurial intention among Indonesian and
Norwegian students”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 55-78.
Krueger, N., Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000), “Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15, pp. 411-32.
Kuip, I. and Verheul, I. (2003), “Early development of entrepreneurial qualities: the role of initial
education”, Working Paper, SCALES-paper N200311.
Le, A.T. (1999), “Empirical studies of self-employment”, Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 381-416.
Lee, S.H. and Wong, P.K. (2004), “An exploratory study of technopreneurial intentions: a career
anchor perspective”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 19, pp. 7-28.
Lee, S.M., Lim, S., Pathak, R.D., Chang, D. and Li, W. (2006), “Influences on students attitudes
toward entrepreneurship: a multi-country study”, The International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 351-66.
Levenburg, N.M., Lane, P.M. and Schwarz, T.V. (2006), “Interdisciplinary dimensions in
entrepreneurship”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 81 No. 5, pp. 275-81.
Liñán, F. and Chen, Y. (2006), “Testing the entrepreneurial intention model on a two-country
sample”, Working Paper 200607, Department of Business Economics, Universitat
Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona.
Lucas, R.E. (1978), “On the size distribution of business firms”, Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 9,
pp. 508-23.
Lüthje, C. and Franke, N. (2003), “The ‘making’ of an entrepreneur: testing a model of
entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT”, R&D Management, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 135-47.
Richardson, W.E. (1993), “Academic major and alumni perception of growth and development”,
paper presented at the 33rd Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research,
Chicago, IL, May.
Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C. and Hunt, H.K. (1991), “An attitude approach to the
prediction of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 13-31.
Segal, G., Borgia, D. and Schoenfeld, J. (2005), “The motivation to become an entrepreneur”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 42-57.
JSBED Shapero, A. (1982), “Social dimension of entrepreneurship”, in Kent, C. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of
Entrepreneurship, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 72-90.
15,4 Sheppard, B.H., Hartwick, J. and Warshaw, P.R. (1988), “The theory of reasoned action:
a meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 325-43.
Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S. and Al-Laham, A. (2007), “Do entrepreneurship programmes raise
774 entrepreneurial intention of science? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 566-91.
Tkachev, A. and Kolvereid, L. (1999), “Self-employment intentions among Russian students”,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 269-80.
Van Auken, H., Fry, F.L. and Stephens, P. (2006), “The influence of role models on
entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 157-67.
Van der Sluis, J., Van Praag, C.M. and Vijverberg, W. (2004), “Education and entrepreneurship in
industrialized countries: a meta-analysis”, discussion paper, Tinbergen Institute,
University of Amsterdam.
Veciana, J.M., Aponte, M. and Urbano, D. (2005), “University students’ attitudes towards
entrepreneurship: a two countries comparison”, International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 165-82.
West, L.H.T. and Hore, T. (1989), “The impact of higher education on adult students in Australia
Part 2. The person”, Higher Education, Vol. 18, pp. 473-83.
Westhead, P. and Wright, M. (1998), “Novice, portfolio, and serial founders: are they different”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 13, pp. 173-204.
Zampetakis, L.A. and Moustakis, V. (2006), “Linking creativity with entrepreneurial intentions: a
structural approach”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 413-28.

Further reading
Galloway, L. and Brown, W. (2002), “Entrepreneurship education at university: a driver in the
creation of high growth firms”, Education þ Training, Vol. 44 Nos 8/9, pp. 398-405.
Reitan, B. (1996), “Entrepreneurial intentions – a combined models approach”, paper presented at
the 9th Nordic Small Business Research Conference, Lillehammer.

About the author

Sizong Wu is Professor of School of Economics & Management at Tongji University, Shanghai,
China. He was the leader of Chinese part participated in EU Asia-link project STARTSIM
(Training of entrepreneurial skills by networked start up simulation). The project is to design a
course to achieve the purpose of educating students for entrepreneurial spirit and preparing
students with solid and rich business knowledge, professional knowledge and skills.
Lingfei Wu is PhD candidate of School of Economics & Management at Tongji University,
Shanghai, China. Her current research is on the topic of entrepreneurial intentions. Lingfei Wu is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [Link]@[Link]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@[Link]

Or visit our web site for further details: [Link]/reprints