Content uploaded by Leonidas A Zampetakis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Leonidas A Zampetakis
Content may be subject to copyright.
189
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 12, No 3, 2011, pp 189–199 doi: 10.5367/ijei.2011.0037
Creativity and entrepreneurial
intention in young people
Empirical insights from business school students
Leonidas A. Zampetakis, Manto Gotsi, Constantine Andriopoulos and Vassilis
Moustakis
Abstract: The authors examine the link between creativity and entrepre-
neurial intention in young people and the roles that family and education
may play in encouraging this link. The results from a survey of 180 under-
graduate business school students show that the more creative young
people consider themselves to be, the higher are their entrepreneurial
intentions. Students’ creativity also fully mediates the effect of family
support for creativity on their entrepreneurial intention. Support for
creativity in the university is found to have no effect on their creativity or
on their entrepreneurial intention. Entrepreneurship course attendance
moderates the effect of individual creativity on entrepreneurial intention.
Keywords: entrepreneurial intention; creativity; entrepreneurship educa-
tion; young entrepreneurs
Leonidas A. Zampetakis and Vassilis Moustakis are with the Technical University of Crete,
Kounoupidiana, 73100 Chania, Greece. E-mail: lzabetak@dpem.tuc.gr; moustaki@dpm.tuc.gr.
Manto Gotsi and Constantine Andriopoulos (corresponding author) are with the Cardiff Business
School, Cardiff University, Aberconway Building, Cardiff CF10 3EU, UK. E-mail:
gotsim@cardiff.ac.uk; andriopoulosc@cardiff.ac.uk.
Entrepreneurship is one of the major triggers of eco-
nomic growth and job creation (McMullan and Long,
1987). Yet alarmingly, studies highlight the fact that
entrepreneurial activity is lowest among young people
under 25 (Harding and Bosma, 2006). In response, there
has been an explosion of government initiatives seeking
to unlock the entrepreneurial intention of young people
(Robson et al, 2009). Universities, for instance, are
called to mobilize a more entrepreneurial workforce and
help students overcome misconceptions about entrepre-
neurship (Warren et al, 2010). Understanding the factors
that drive entrepreneurial intention in young people is
paramount in this effort. Traditionally, researchers have
focused heavily on the role that an individual’s attitude
towards entrepreneurship, perceived social norms and
self-efficacy plays in influencing the intention to
become an entrepreneur (Krueger et al, 2000). Scholars
have highlighted the dynamic interaction between the
individual and the environment in explaining entrepre-
neurial behaviour (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). Yet
studies have also shown growing interest in the cogni-
tive properties that trigger individuals to identify and
exploit opportunities and, hence, mobilize entrepre-
neurial intention (for example, Smith et al, 2009).
In this cognitive perspective on entrepreneurship, a
burgeoning stream of research highlights the link
between creativity – that is, the generation of novel and
useful ideas (Amabile, 1996) – and entrepreneurship
(Ward, 2004). Creativity has long been identified as a
major component of entrepreneurship, as entrepreneurs
need to be able to recognize opportunities, generate
ideas and innovate (Schumpeter, 1934). It therefore
190 ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 12, No 3
Creativity and entrepreneurial intention in the young
comes as no surprise that creativity has been proposed
as an antecedent of entrepreneurial intentions (Gorman
et al, 1997). Hamidi et al (2008), for instance, find that
the more creative individuals are, the more likely they
are to engage in entrepreneurship. Creativity can also
influence the degree and type of novelty that entrepre-
neurs introduce to the economy, promoting innovative
entrepreneurship (Koellinger, 2008). Creativity, innova-
tion and entrepreneurship are, hence, inextricably
linked. Yet scholars also indicate that this link may be
responsive to social and individual variations (Drennan
et al, 2005; Krueger et al, 2000; Schmitt-Rodermund,
2004). The roles of family (Drennan et al, 2005) and
education (Davidsson, 1995) have been highlighted in
extant studies. However, entrepreneurial intention
models have largely ignored the creativity–entrepre-
neurial intention link and the potential social and
individual influences on this relationship.
To shed some light on the influence of creativity on
the entrepreneurial intention of young people, as well as
the roles that family and education may play in mobiliz-
ing this link, we draw on extant literature on the
cognitive perspective of entrepreneurship and creativity
theory. We propose that the more creative young people
consider themselves to be, the higher their entrepre-
neurial intentions. In addition, we argue that young
people’s creativity mediates1 the effect of creativity
supported in their family and in the university environ-
ment on their entrepreneurial intention. Drawing on
entrepreneurship literature, we also propose that entre-
preneurship course attendance moderates (see note 1)
the effect that young people’s creativity has on entrepre-
neurial intention. We test our hypotheses across 180
randomly selected undergraduate students in a British
business school.
The paper is structured as follows. Building on
entrepreneurial cognition and creativity literature, we
first present our entrepreneurial intention model and
discuss our hypotheses. We then describe our methodol-
ogy and discuss our results. The paper concludes with
the implications of our results for theory and practice.
Drawing on the limitations of our study, we also high-
light future research opportunities.
Theoretical foundations
Creativity–entrepreneurial intention: a conceptual
model
Entrepreneurial intention refers to a conscious state of
mind that directs a person’s attention to fulfilling the
goal of venture creation (Bird, 1988). Intentions have
been highlighted as a predictor of entrepreneurship
(Krueger et al, 2000). Hence, understanding the factors
that trigger entrepreneurial intentions has occupied
much of the entrepreneurship literature. Early research
on the factors that influence the decision to start a new
business focused primarily on personality traits (Low
and MacMillan, 1988). Yet entrepreneurship literature
has not identified a unique set of personality traits that
characterize the entrepreneur (Shaver, 1995). Studies
have, therefore, focused on Ajzen’s (1991) theory of
planned behaviour (TPB) and Shapero and Sokol’s
(1982) entrepreneurial event (SEE) model to understand
the drivers of entrepreneurial intentions (Souitaris et al,
2007). Drawing insights from the TPB, attitudes towards
entrepreneurship, subjective norms and perceived
behavioural control have been identified as antecedents
of entrepreneurial intentions (Krueger et al, 2000).
Similarly, the SEE model highlighted perceptions of the
desirability and feasibility of starting a business, as well
as the propensity to act upon opportunities, as key
drivers of entrepreneurial intentions (Shapero and Sokol,
1982). To shed further light on triggers of entrepre-
neurial intentions, scholars have also turned their
attention to cognitive dimensions of entrepreneurship. In
this realm, studies highlight the influence of ‘knowledge
structures that people use to make assessments, judge-
ments or decisions involving opportunity evaluation and
venture creation’ (Mitchell et al, 2002, p 97) on entre-
preneurial intention. An entrepreneur is ‘an individual
who recognizes or discovers an opportunity to create
something new (e.g., a new product or service, new
market, new production or raw material, or new way of
organizing existing technologies), and who then uses
various means to exploit or develop this opportunity’
(Baron and Ward, 2004, p 554). The underlying premise
of entrepreneurial cognition studies is that some indi-
viduals are more likely than others to engage in
entrepreneurial conduct due to their cognitive orienta-
tion on the nature of the venturing process (Baron,
2004). Cognitive approaches to entrepreneurship hence
emphasize a person’s creativity as an important, yet
understudied antecedent of entrepreneurial intention
(Ward, 2004).
Building on existing findings in cognitive entrepre-
neurship, entrepreneurial intention and creativity
literature, Figure 1 presents our proposed model on the
link between creativity and young people’s entrepre-
neurial intentions. Drawing on cognitive
entrepreneurship studies, we argue that entrepreneurial
intention in young people is dependent on the extent to
which they perceive themselves as creative. Previous
empirical studies have highlighted the importance of the
family and the university in influencing young people’s
creativity. Entrepreneurship course attendance has also
been identified as a factor that is likely to influence
entrepreneurial intention. In the following sections, we
191
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 12, No 3
Creativity and entrepreneurial intention in the young
Figure 1. The conceptual model.
present the hypotheses that describe the relationships
conceptualized in our model. We begin by discussing
the role of creativity as a key driver of entrepreneurial
intention.
Creativity and young people’s entrepreneurial intention
Entrepreneurship has long been described as an act of
creativity (Schumpeter, 1934). Schumpeter (1934) was
one of the first to propose that opportunities are created
when new resource combinations result in superior
products, services or processes. Yet recognizing and
developing new opportunities relies on individuals’
ability to see new connections between ideas or con-
cepts (Davidsson, 2002). The entrepreneurial cognition
literature has sharpened our understanding on the
cognitive properties that help individuals to become alert
to and recognize opportunities (Baron, 2004). Creativity
has been featured as playing a key role in this process
(Hills et al, 1999). Creativity is a broad term that has
received different conceptualizations in diverse fields,
such as art, music, science, education, advertising and
management (El-Murad and West, 2004). In entrepre-
neurship studies, Amabile’s (1996) definition of
creativity (the production of novel and useful ideas) is
often adopted, since ‘novel and useful ideas are the
lifeblood of entrepreneurship’ (Ward, 2004, p 174).
Sternberg (2004) suggests that entrepreneurs, more so
than non-entrepreneurs, have mental frameworks that
endorse ‘thinking outside the box’ when it comes to
opportunity recognition. Baron (2004) similarly argues
that entrepreneurs tend to be more proficient than others
at object or pattern recognition. Ames and Runco (2005)
also note that entrepreneurs are able to produce a large
number of ideas and often have unusual and novel ideas.
Entrepreneurs tend to apply conceptual combinations,
analogical reasoning, abstraction, problem formulation
and other processes in order to come up with new ideas
(Ward, 2004). Not surprisingly, creativity has therefore
been indicated as a trigger of entrepreneurial intention
(Hills et al, 1999). Gorman et al (1997) and Feldman
and Bolino (2000), for example, propose that individuals
with a strong creativity anchor are motivated to become
self-employed. Sternberg (2004) similarly argues that
creative intelligence – the capacity to think outside the
box – may influence an individual’s decision to form a
new venture. Hmieleski and Corbett (2006) also find
that improvisation, a construct that is associated with
creativity, accounts for a significant amount of variance
in entrepreneurial intentions. Hamidi et al (2008)
provide further evidence that high creativity scores yield
a strong positive effect on entrepreneurial intentions,
and argue that individual creativity should be incorpo-
rated in models of entrepreneurial intentions.
On the basis of these findings, we argue that the more
students perceive themselves as creative, the higher their
entrepreneurial intention. Therefore, we posit the
following hypothesis:
H1: Students’ individual creativity is positively
related to entrepreneurial intention.
The role of family and university
Although creativity was traditionally considered as a
personality trait, studies increasingly underline the fact
that creativity is responsive to the context in which an
individual develops (Simonton, 2000). Creativity is
therefore portrayed as the result of an interactive process
in interpersonal settings (Walton, 2003). For instance,
studies highlight the role of the family in influencing
individuals’ creativity (Amabile, 1996) and shaping
entrepreneurial attitudes (Drennan et al, 2005). Low
levels of authoritarianism and restrictiveness, along with
an encouragement of independence, have been found to
characterize families that are most likely to foster
creativity in their children (Miller and Gerard, 1979).
Such adaptive families promote knowledge structures
around divergent thinking, problem solving, imagina-
tion, flexibility and playfulness, and tend to equip their
children with more developed creativity scripts (Deacon
and Thomas, 2000). Gardner and Morgan’s (1990) study
among university students reveals that students with
high individual creativity scores tend to come from
families that promote creativity. In addition, creativity
researchers posit that educational environments influ-
ence young people’s creativity (Amabile, 1996). Studies
highlight, for instance, the effects of teacher characteris-
tics and behaviour on pupil creativity in elementary
schools (Amabile, 1996). Turning their attention to
universities, scholars agree that exposing students to
creative role models within the university context
endorses students’ individual creativity (Elzubeir and
Rizk, 2001). Chambers (1977) states that discouraging
Creativity
supported in the
family (FC)
Creativity
supported in the
university (UC)
Individual
creativity (IC)
Entrepreneurial
intention (EI)
Entrepreneurship
course attendance
H3
(a)
(b)
(e)
(d)
(c)
192 ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 12, No 3
Creativity and entrepreneurial intention in the young
student ideas and being too critical about novel concepts
are practices that are likely to hamper creativity amongst
university students.
Based on this discussion, we argue that when creativ-
ity is supported in the family and university
environment, this impacts on young people’s individual
creativity, which in turn influences their entrepreneurial
intention. Thus we propose the following hypothesis:
H2: Students’ individual creativity mediates the
effect of creativity supported in the family and
university environment on entrepreneurial intention.
The moderating role of entrepreneurship course
attendance
Career socialization theory proposes that career
decisions are influenced by educational experiences
(Dyer, 1994). Yet traditionally, business education has
been accused of primarily preparing students for the
corporate world, while impairing creativity and entre-
preneurship in young people (Chamard, 1989). In
response, universities are increasingly being called to
act as a catalyst in mobilizing entrepreneurial intention
amongst young people (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003).
This has triggered an explosion of specialized entrepre-
neurship courses and programmes in universities
around the world, with a view to providing social
experiences that will encourage young people to start
their own businesses (Kuratko, 2005). A number of
studies provide some support for this premise. Peter-
man and Kennedy (2003) found that entrepreneurship
education programmes could significantly change the
entrepreneurial intentions of their participants.
Souitaris et al (2007) also highlighted the fact that
entrepreneurship programmes raised some entrepre-
neurial intentions among students enrolled in an
entrepreneurship programme in one British and one
French university. Similarly, Hamidi et al (2008) found
that students engaged in entrepreneurship programmes
had higher intentions to start their own businesses in
the future.
Yet other studies point to the opposite effect
(Kolvereid and Moen, 1997). Results on the effective-
ness of formal entrepreneurship education, therefore,
remain inconclusive (Cox et al, 2002). Gupta (1992), for
instance, argued that compared with family condition-
ing, formal education had a minimal impact on
entrepreneurial attitudes. University entrepreneurship
programmes tend to emphasize the teaching of technical
skills rather than creative thinking, and this may actually
discourage entrepreneurial intention (for example, see
Gorman et al, 1997). Studies also tend to be inconclu-
sive on whether entrepreneurship programmes actually
promote entrepreneurship or whether this influence is
attributable to selection and self-selection in these
programmes of students with entrepreneurial potential
(Kolvereid and Moen, 1997). Moreover, Pittaway and
Cope (2007) note that the extent to which entrepreneur-
ship education impacts on the level and effectiveness of
graduate entrepreneurship is unclear.
Based on this discussion, we argue that entrepreneur-
ship course attendance moderates the influence of
individual creativity on entrepreneurial intention. We
therefore put forward the following hypothesis:
H3: Entrepreneurship course attendance moderates
the effect of students’ individual creativity on entre-
preneurial intention.
Methodology
The methodology is discussed in terms of our measures,
the questionnaire development, sampling and data
collection process and, lastly, data analysis. We begin by
outlining the measures used in our study.
Measures
Similar to the vast majority of extant studies, the
measurement of key variables is based on self-reporting
(Gorman et al, 1997).
Entrepreneurial intention (EI). We measured entrepre-
neurial intention with two items adapted from Krueger
et al (2000): ‘I like the idea of becoming an entrepre-
neur’ and ‘I intend to start my own business in the near
future’. Responses to both items were made on a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 5
(‘strongly agree’). The coefficient alpha for this scale
was 0.75.
Individual creativity (IC). Self-reporting is often used
when measuring individual creativity (Farmer et al,
2003), since creative individuals have a firm sense of
self as a creative person (Shalley and Gilson, 2004).
Research also indicates that creative people are open to
new experiences and that divergent thinking leads to
novel and useful ideas (Amabile, 1996). Individual
creativity was therefore assessed using three items
adapted from Zhou and George (2001): ‘I think I am a
very creative person’, ‘I like to try novel things despite
the risk of failing’, and ‘I can easily think a lot of
different and useful ideas’. Responses to these items
were made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(‘strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘strongly agree’). We
introduced Amabile’s (1996) definition of creativity to
our respondents at the beginning of the survey to
ensure that creativity meant the same thing to all our
respondents. The coefficient alpha for this scale was
0.60.
193
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 12, No 3
Creativity and entrepreneurial intention in the young
Creativity supported in the family (FC). Creativity
literature suggests that the family may support or stifle
individual creativity (Amabile, 1996). The study used
three items to assess creativity supported in the family:
‘My family members easily adapt to different circum-
stances’ (based on Miller and Gerard, 1979), ‘My family
members are always thinking about new ideas for
making their life easier’ (based on Deacon and Thomas,
2000), and ‘I can freely talk to my family members
about new ideas’ (adapted from Amabile et al, 1996).
The coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.62.
Creativity supported in the university (UC). Creativity
supported in the university was assessed using three
items (adapted from Amabile et al, 1996): ‘In my
university you learn that there is more than one solution
to a problem’, ‘In my university you learn to examine
old problems in new ways’, and ‘In my university the
faculty encourages students to produce new and useful
ideas’. The coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.65.
Entrepreneurship course attendance. To study the
moderating role of entrepreneurship course attendance
(outlined in hypothesis 3), we also asked students to
report whether they had taken an entrepreneurship
module while studying for their undergraduate degree in
business. The business school in this study offers two
elective (second and third year) modules in entrepre-
neurship within the curriculum. Lectures in these
entrepreneurship modules cover theoretical studies on
entrepreneurship, but students’ efforts are largely
focused towards identifying an opportunity (in the form
of a new product or service), developing a business plan
and then presenting this for funding in front of a panel
of potential investors. Hence, pedagogical tools in these
modules included lectures by the module leaders and
guest speakers, readings (textbooks and articles), case
studies, actual and fictional business plans, as well as
student-led presentations of business plans in front of
practising entrepreneurs and potential investors.
Questionnaire development, sampling and the data
collection process
We followed Dillman’s (2000) suggestions for question-
naire development. Our pre-testing of the questionnaire
included reviews by three professors of entrepreneurship
and 10 non-participating students, observation and
‘think-aloud’ protocols, followed by interviews with
respondents and a final check. The sample consisted of
180 randomly selected final year undergraduate students
in business from a British university based in England.
Two of the authors administered the questionnaires.
Students were randomly approached as they exited
lectures and seminars in business subjects, and were
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample
(business school students in a British university located in
England; sample size = 180).
Gender:
Male 50.6%
Female 49.4%
Mean age (SD) 20.17 (1.73)
Nationality:
British 55%
Chinese (excluding Hong Kong) 11.7%
Indian 4.4%
Hong Kong 3.9%
Nigerian 3.3%
Pakistani 2.8%
Kenyan 2.2%
Bahrain 2.2%
French 1.7%
Other 12.8%
Entrepreneurship course 47.8%
asked to participate voluntarily in a research project
regarding factors influencing entrepreneurial intentions.
Questionnaires were completed by the students, with
one of the researchers present in order to answer any
questions. Researchers explained clearly that the
questionnaires would be used for research purposes
only, and that students’ views would not affect their
grades. Table 1 reports the demographic characteristics
of our student sample.
Data analysis
We assessed potential non-response bias by comparing
early and late responses of returned surveys (Armstrong
and Overton, 1977). We did not identify any missing
data. To assess the hypothesized relationships, we used
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). In SEM, param-
eters are estimated by minimizing the difference
between the observed covariances and those implied by
the model. In this study, Analysis of Moment Structures
(AMOS version 4.01) was used to test the hypotheses
(Arbuckle, 1999). The estimation method employed was
maximum likelihood (ML). An underlying assumption
in SEM is that data are normally distributed, so data
screening was performed prior to analysis (West et al,
1995). Our data presented no severe non-normality.
Following recommendations by McCallum et al (1996),
Steiger’s Power Analysis module in STATISTICA 6
(StatSoft, 2001), which estimates model-level power in
SEM, was then applied. The Power Analysis (given that
ε1 = 0.09, α = 0.05, N = 180, df = 40) concluded that if
the final model did not actually have a close fit to the
population, the estimated probability to reject a model
that was actually incorrect was 85.52%.
A two-step modelling approach examined the
measurement model and the structural model in
194 ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 12, No 3
Creativity and entrepreneurial intention in the young
separate stages (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). In the
first stage, the study assessed the discriminant validity
of the proposed constructs by conducting a confirma-
tory factor analysis. This step assessed a measurement
model that allowed the underlying latent constructs to
correlate freely, and constrained each item to load only
to the factor for which it was a proposed indicator. To
assess the discriminant validity of the proposed con-
structs further, the measurement model was compared
with a model that constrained the correlations among
the constructs to unity and examined the change in the
chi-square (χ2). The χ2 difference was used to assess
nested model comparisons by examining the difference
in chi-square values between the two nested models. A
non-significant χ2 value indicates acceptance of the
more parsimonious of the nested models. In contrast, a
significant value demonstrates acceptance of the less
constrained model (Kline, 2005). In addition, the one-
factor model provides a test for common method bias.
Through the nesting process, the relationships between
the constructs are not explained solely or predomi-
nantly by common measurement methods used in
collecting the data (Podsakoff et al, 2003). During the
second step, the analysis combined both the measure-
ment model and the structural model, depicting the
hypothesized relationships between constructs. In
addition, for each estimated structural path coefficient,
the null hypothesis that the estimate is zero was tested
using AMOS critical ratios (also known as z-test)
(Arbuckle, 1999). Taking into account the lack of a
single optimum or universally accepted measure of
model fitness in SEM, several measures of model fit
were applied (Shook et al, 2004).
To examine whether entrepreneurship course attend-
ance has an effect in the model with the best fit to the
data, multi-sample analysis of AMOS was then applied
(Arbuckle, 1999). First the study tested the invariance
of factorial measurement and structure across groups
(Byrne, 2001). The measurement model (see Figure 2),
in which all parameters were freely estimated, was
compared with the one in which all factor loadings, all
factor variances and covariances, error variances and
item intercepts were constrained to be equal across
groups; the Δχ2 was also examined (Ployhart and
Oswald, 2004). Parameters found to be invariant across
groups were cumulatively constrained. Then analysis
proceeded to a latent means test and tested group
differences in structural pathways. This procedure
provides evidence that group differences in structural
pathways are not a function of differences in other
parts of the underlying theoretical structure or instabil-
ity of the model (Byrne, 2001).
Figure 2. Four-factor measurement model.
Note:
Circles represent factors; boxes represent indicators.
Unidirectional arrows depict factors’ effects on indicators and
double-headed arrows signify factor correlations. Standardized
factor loadings (all statistically significant at the 0.001 level)
appear along unidirectional arrows. Measurement errors are
omitted for clarity.
Results
Model fitness
To assess the fitness of the measurement model, we
present the confirmatory factor analysis of the four
underlying constructs and associated goodness of fit
measures (Figure 2). Results suggest an excellent fit to
the data. All factor loadings are significant at the 0.001
level. A model comparison between the unconstrained
measurement model and a model that constrained the
correlations among the constructs to unity produces a
significant difference in χ2, suggesting the presence of
discriminant validity among the selected constructs (Δχ2
= 154.293, Δdf = 6, p < 0.001). In summary, these
results support the multidimensionality of the measure-
ment model.
To assess the structural model, Table 2 presents fit
indices for the proposed four-factor benchmark model
(Model 1 – the partially mediated model; see Figure 1).
0.61
Individual
creativity
(IC)
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q9
Q8
Q7
Q11
Q10
Creativity
supported in the
university (UC)
Entrepreneurial
intention (EI)
0.52
0.61
0.55
0.72
0.62
0.66
0.73
0.45
0.74
0.82
0.37
0.28
0.11
0.29
0.23
0.48
Creativity
supported in the
family (FC)
195
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 12, No 3
Creativity and entrepreneurial intention in the young
Table 2. Fit indices for nested models.
Model df χχ
χχ
χ2AIC CFI RMSEA χχ
χχ
χ2 difference
1. Benchmark Model 1 38 38.2384, ns 94.2384 0.9992 0.0059
2. Additional variance model 40 44.4331, ns 96.4331 0.9858 0.0249
Difference between Models 1 and 2 6.1947*
3. Model 3 40 44.7948, ns 96.7948 0.9847 0.0259
Difference between Models 1 and 3 6.5564*
Note:
N = 180; *
p
< 0.05 (two-tailed).
Table 3. Assessment of hypothesized relationships.
Hypothesis Supported Explanation
for sample
H1 Students’ individual creativity is positively related to Yes The corresponding standardized path coefficient is
entrepreneurial intention. 0.41. The null hypothesis – that the path coefficient is
0 – is rejected at
p
< 0.002.
H2 Students’ individual creativity mediates the effect of Yes Hypothesis is partially supported.
creativity supported in the family and university
environment on entrepreneurial intention.
H3 Entrepreneurship course attendance moderates the effect Yes Path a (Figure 1), indicating the effect of individual
of students’ individual creativity on entrepreneurial intention. creativity on entrepreneurial intention, is stronger for
students who did not attend an entrepreneurship
course.
Additionally, Table 2 presents the fit statistics of two
additional nested models. In Model 2, individual
creativity simply adds to the variance in entrepreneurial
intention accounted for by creativity supported in the
family and in the university. Model 3 evaluates whether
the effects of individual creativity take the role of a
mediator in the family/university and entrepreneurial
intention link. Results indicate that Model 1 provides the
best fit to the data.
Assessment of the hypothesized relationships
Table 3 presents a summary of our results against the
hypotheses of this study. In testing Hypothesis 1, results
indicate that the more students perceive themselves to be
creative, the more likely they are to show high entrepre-
neurial intentions (path (a) in Figure 1, 0.41, p = 0.002).
This supports Hypothesis 1. We then tested whether
students’ individual creativity mediated the effect of
creativity supported in the family and university envi-
ronments on entrepreneurial intention. We found that
creativity supported in the university had no effect on
students’ reported individual creativity (path (c) in
Figure 1 has a standardized path coefficient of 0.03, p =
0.812) or on students’ entrepreneurial intention (path (b)
in Figure 1 has a standardized path coefficient of 0.12, p
= 0.254). In contrast, findings highlight that creativity
supported in the family has a direct effect on students’
reported individual creativity (path (d) in Figure 1 has a
standardized path coefficient of 0.28, p = 0.04). How-
ever, creativity supported in the family does not seem to
pose a direct effect on students’ entrepreneurial intention
(path (e) in Figure 1 has a standardized path coefficient
of 0.21, p = 0.112). Taken together, these results confirm
only part of Hypothesis 2. Specifically, we find that
students’ individual creativity fully mediates the effect
of creativity supported in the family on their entrepre-
neurial intention. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is partially
supported.
We then tested for differences in structural pathways
in terms of entrepreneurship course attendance to
examine whether entrepreneurship course attendance
moderated the effect of students’ individual creativity on
entrepreneurial intention (Table 4).
We find that paths from individual creativity to
entrepreneurial intention (path (a) in Figure 1) are
stronger for students who have not attended an entrepre-
neurship course compared with those who have (Table
4). Results indicate that entrepreneurship course attend-
ance moderates the effect of individual creativity on
entrepreneurial intention, hence providing support for
Hypothesis 3.. Positive paths from creativity supported
in the family to individual creativity (path (d) in Figure
1) are also stronger for students who have not attended
an entrepreneurship course compared with those who
have. Path (c) in Figure 1 is not significant for either
group. Paths (e) and (b) in Figure 1 are not significant
for students who have not attended an entrepreneurship
course; and neither is path (b) in Figure 1 significant for
196 ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 12, No 3
Creativity and entrepreneurial intention in the young
Table 4. Structural paths for entrepreneurship course
attendance (standardized estimates).
Structural Entrepreneurship course attendance
path
Ye s
p
No
p
a 0.30 0.05*
0.55
0.01*
b
ns
–
ns
–
c
Not significant
d 0.29 0.08*
0.32
0.09*
e
0.40
0.02*
ns
–
Note:
*(two-tailed); ns = not significant.
students who have attended an entrepreneurship course.
Path (e) in Figure 1 is statistically significant for stu-
dents who have attended an entrepreneurship course. In
sum, results suggest that for students who have attended
an entrepreneurship course, individual creativity par-
tially mediates the effects of creativity supported in the
family on entrepreneurial intention. For those who have
not attended an entrepreneurship course, the findings
show a fully mediated relationship. For both groups,
creativity supported in the university seems to have no
effect on their self-reported creativity and entrepre-
neurial intention.
Discussion, implications and directions for
future research
This study contributes to our understanding of entrepre-
neurial intention in young people by helping to explain
further the link between young people’s creativity and
their intention to start a business. Our proposed concep-
tual framework highlights the role of the family and the
university in this relationship, and also underlines the
potential moderating influence of entrepreneurship
course attendance. Overall, our results support the
notion that the more creative young people consider
themselves to be, the higher their entrepreneurial
intentions. This provides further support for
conceptualizations in the cognitive entrepreneurship
literature that underline the somewhat ignored link
between individual creativity and entrepreneurial
intentions (Hmieleski and Corbett, 2006; Ward, 2004).
Not surprisingly, in our study, creativity supported in the
family had a direct effect on young people’s individual
creativity. This mirrors writings in the creativity litera-
ture that highlight the role of the family in shaping an
individual’s creativity (Amabile, 1996). Our results
further show that for young people who consider
themselves as creative and exhibit higher entrepreneurial
intentions, family role models seem to exert a direct
influence on their entrepreneurial intentions. This
supports studies on the link between family role models
and entrepreneurial intentions (Walstad and Kourilsky,
1998). Interestingly, in contrast, for young people who
consider themselves as less creative and who have lower
entrepreneurial intentions, their self-reported creativity
fully mediates the influence of the creativity supported
in their families on their entrepreneurial intentions.
Contrary to the promise that business school educa-
tion will be geared towards creativity and will foster
entrepreneurship (Plaschka and Welsch, 1990; Solomon
and Fernald, 1991), in our study, creativity supported in
the university was found to have no effect on students’
individual creativity or on their entrepreneurial inten-
tion. Disappointingly, as Heinonen and Poikkijoki
(2006, p 8) point out, ‘…a typical university setting is
unlikely to include many entrepreneurial elements…The
budding entrepreneur needs not only knowledge (sci-
ence), but also new ways of thinking, new kinds of skills
and new modes of behaviour (arts).’ Interestingly, the
path from individual creativity to entrepreneurial
intention was stronger for students who had not attended
an entrepreneurship course at their university compared
with those who had. The two elective modules in
entrepreneurship offered in this business school focused
students’ efforts towards developing a business plan
around a new product/service and then competing for
funding in front of potential investors. Perhaps this
overemphasis on the business plan approach and the
potential pitfalls/risks/failure involved in starting a new
venture may actually discourage young people from
starting up their own businesses (Gorman et al, 1997).
On a broader theoretical level, this study highlights
the need to incorporate individual creativity in studies of
entrepreneurial intention. Results presented herein
extend studies that depict cognitive factors as key
influences on the decision to engage in business start-up
activity (Ward, 2004). In particular, creativity should be
considered as a factor that can influence young people’s
entrepreneurial intentions. Several implications for
entrepreneurship educators, career counsellors and
policy makers can be gleaned from our findings. First, to
unlock the entrepreneurial intentions of young people, it
is important that universities should seek to nurture
individual creativity, since students’ creativity can
mediate the link between the creativity that they have
experienced in their families and their entrepreneurial
intention. We agree with Dewett and Gruys (2007) that
creativity should occupy a more central role in business
education. A cognition-based entrepreneurial instruction
pedagogy may help to foster students’ creativity and
overcome the shortcomings of the traditional ‘business-
plan-only’ approach (Mitchell and Chesteen, 1995).
Similar to Peterman and Kennedy (2003) and Jack and
Anderson (1999), our study supports entrepreneurship
education focusing not only on the technical aspects of
entrepreneurship, but also on the person as a whole.
197
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 12, No 3
Creativity and entrepreneurial intention in the young
Entrepreneurship education can help to enhance stu-
dents’ need for achievement and locus of control
(Hansemark, 1998), their perception of self-efficacy and
the likelihood of entrepreneurial action at some point in
the future (Fayolle, 2005); but it should also aid the
development of young people’s creativity. Mobilizing
creativity in young people may not only influence their
intention to start a business, but also, potentially, the
degree and type of novelty that they introduce to the
economy (Koellinger, 2008).
Although our study sheds some light on the influence
of creativity on the entrepreneurial intention of young
people, it has several limitations that further research
can seek to address. First, our study was limited to a
sample of business school students in a British univer-
sity based in England. To extend the generalizability of
our results, we encourage scholars in this area to
examine our proposed model with students in other
disciplines and across different universities, regions and
countries. Future research could also look into the
influence of creativity training programmes on entrepre-
neurial intentions. Finally, our study highlighted
interesting insights into the role that the family, univer-
sity and entrepreneurship course attendance may play in
mobilizing the creativity–entrepreneurial intention link
in young people. Yet our understanding of why and how
these factors interact could be further explored. Further
research can delve deeper in understanding these
relationships by employing a qualitative approach.
Note
1Based on Baron and Kenny (1986), a mediator explains the
relationship between an independent/predictor variable and a
dependent/criterion variable. Mediators often represent proper-
ties of a person that transform the predictor variables in some
way. A moderator is a variable that affects the strength of the
relationship between an independent variable and a dependent
variable.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991), ‘Theory of planned behavior’,
Organizational
Behavior & Human Decision Processes,
Vol 50, pp 179–211.
Amabile, T. M. (1996),
Creativity in Context. Update to Social
Psychology of Creativity
, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., and Herron, M.
(1996), ‘Assessing the work environment for creativity’,
Academy of Management Review
, Vol 29, pp
1154–1181.
Ames, M., and Runco, M. A. (2005), ‘Predicting entrepreneurship
from ideation and divergent thinking’,
Creativity and Innova-
tion Management
, Vol 14, pp 311–315.
Anderson, J. C., and Gerbing, D. W. (1988), ‘Structural Equation
Modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step
approach’,
Psychological Bulletin
, Vol 103, pp 411–423.
Arbuckle, J. L. (1999),
Amos (Version 4.01) [Computer Software],
SmallWaters Corp., Chicago, IL.
Armstrong, J. S., and Overton, T. S. (1977), ‘Estimating non-
response bias in mail surveys’,
Journal of Marketing
Research
, Vol 14, pp 396–402.
Baron, M. B., and Kenny, D. A. (1986), ‘The moderator–mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: concep-
tual, strategic, and statistical considerations’,
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology
, Vol 51, No 6, pp 1173–
1182.
Baron, R. A. (2004), ‘The cognitive perspective: a valuable tool
for answering entrepreneurship’s basic “why” questions’,
Journal of Business Venturing
, Vol 19, pp 221–239.
Baron, R. A., and Ward, T. B. (2004), ‘Expanding entrepreneurial
cognition’s toolbox: potential contributions from the field of
cognitive science’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
, Vol
28, pp 553–575.
Bird, B. (1988), ‘Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for
intention’,
Academy of Management Review
, Vol 13, pp 442–
453.
Byrne, B. M. (2001),
Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS.
Basic Applications Concepts and Programming
, Lawrence
Erlbaum, London.
Chamard, J. (1989), ‘Public education: its effect on entrepre-
neurial characteristics’,
Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship
, Vol 6, pp 23–30.
Chambers, J. A. (1977), ‘College teachers: their effect on
creativity of students’,
Journal of Educational Psychology
, Vol
65, pp 326–334.
Cox, L., Mueller, S., and Moss, S. (2002), ‘The impact of
entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial self-efficacy’,
International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education
, Vol 1, p
2.
Davidsson, P. (1995), ‘Determinants of entrepreneurial inten-
tions’, paper presented at the
RENT IX Workshop, Piacenza,
Italy
.
Davidsson, P. (2002), ‘What entrepreneurship research can do
for business and policy practice’,
International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education
, Vol 1, pp 5–24.
Deacon, S. A., and Thomas, V. (2000), ‘Discovering creativity in
family therapy: a theoretical analysis’,
Journal of Systemic
Therapies
, Vol 19, pp 4–17.
Dewett, T., and Gruys, M. (2007), ‘Advancing the case for
creativity through graduate business education’,
Thinking
Skills and Creativity
, Vol 2, pp 85–95.
Dillman, D. A. (2000),
Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored
Design Method
, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Drennan, J., Kennedy, J., and Renfrow, P. (2005), ‘Impact of
childhood experiences on the development of entrepreneurial
intentions’,
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation
, Vol 6, No 4, pp 231–238.
Dyer, G. W. Jr (1994), ‘Toward a theory of entrepreneurial
careers’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
, Vol 19, pp 7–
21.
El-Murad, J., and West, D. C. (2004), ‘The definition and
measurement of creativity: what do we know?’
Journal of
Advertising Research
, June, pp 188–201.
Elzubeir, M. A., and Rizk, D. E. (2001), ‘Identifying characteristics
that students, interns and residents look for in their role
models’,
Medical Education
, Vol 35, pp 272–277.
Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., and Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003),
‘Employee creativity in Taiwan: an application of role identity
theory’,
Academy of Management Journal
, Vol 46, pp 618–
630.
Fayolle, A. (2005), ‘Evaluation of entrepreneurship education:
behaviour performing or intention increasing?’
International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business
, Vol 2, pp
89–98.
Feldman, D. C., and Bolino, M. C. (2000), ‘Career patterns of
the self employed: career motivations and career out-
comes’,
Journal of Small Business Management
, Vol 38, pp
53–67.
Gardner, K. G., and Morgan, J. D. (1990), ‘Family adaptability,
cohesion and creativity’,
Creativity Research Journal
, Vol 3,
pp 281–286.
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., and King, W. (1997), ‘Some research
perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise
198 ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 12, No 3
Creativity and entrepreneurial intention in the young
education and education for small business management: a
ten-year literature review’,
International Small Business
Journal
, Vol 15, pp 56–78.
Gupta, A. (1992), ‘The informal education of the Indian entrepre-
neur’,
Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship
, Vol 9,
pp 63–70.
Hamidi, D. Y., Wennberg, K., and Berglund, H. (2008), ‘Creativity
in entrepreneurship education’,
Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development
, Vol 15, pp 304–320.
Hansemark, O. C. (1998), ‘The effects of an entrepreneurship
program on need for achievement and locus of control of
reinforcement’,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research
, Vol 4, pp 28–50.
Harding, R., and Bosma, N. (2006),
Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor 2006 Results
, Babson College and London Business
School, Babson Park, Wellesley, MA.
Heinonen, J., and Poikkijoki, S. A. (2006), ‘An entrepreneurial-
directed approach to entrepreneurship education: mission
impossible?’
Journal of Management Development
, Vol 25, pp
80–94.
Hills, G. E., Shrader, R. C., and Lumpkin, G. T. (1999), ‘Opportu-
nity recognition as a creative process’,
Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research
, pp 216–227.
Hmieleski, K. M., and Corbett, A. C. (2006), ‘Proclivity for
improvisation as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions’,
Journal of Small Business Management
, Vol 44, pp 45–63.
Jack, S. L., and Anderson, A. R. (1999), ‘Entrepreneurship
education within the enterprise culture. Producing reflective
practitioners’,
International Journal of Entrepreneurship
Behaviour & Research
, Vol 5, pp 110–125.
Johannisson, B., Landström, H., and Rosenberg, J. (1998),
‘University training for entrepreneurship – an action frame of
reference’,
European Journal of Engineering Education
, Vol
23, pp 477–496.
Kline, R. B. (2005),
Principles and Practice of Structural
Equation Modeling
, Guilford Publications, New York, NY.
Koellinger, P. (2008), ‘Why are some entrepreneurs more
innovative than others?’
Small Business Economics
, Vol 31,
No 1, pp 21–37.
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, pp
154–160.
Krueger, N. F. Jr, Reilly, M. D., and Carsrud, A. L. (2000),
‘Competing models of entrepreneurial intention’,
Journal of
Business Venturing
, Vol 15, pp 411–432.
Kuratko, D. F. (2005), ‘The emergence of entrepreneurship
education: development, trends, and challenges’,
Entrepre-
neurship Theory and Practice
, Vol 29, pp 577–597.
Low, M. B., and MacMillan, I. C. (1988), ‘Entrepreneurship: past
research and future challenges’,
Journal of Management
, Vol
14, pp 139–161.
McCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., and Sugawara, H. M. (1996),
‘Power analysis and determination of sample size for
covariance structure modelling’,
Psychological Methods
, Vol
1, pp 130–149.
McMullan, W. E., and Long, W. A. (1987), ‘Entrepreneurship
education in the nineties’,
Journal of Business Venturing
, Vol
2, pp 261–275.
Miller, B. C., and Gerard, D. (1979), ‘Family influences on the
development of creativity in children. An integrative review’,
Family Coordinator
, Vol 28, pp 295–312.
Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E.
A., and Smith, J. B. (2002), ‘Toward a theory of entrepre-
neurial cognition: rethinking the people side of
entrepreneurship research’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice
, Vol 27, pp 93–104.
Mitchell, R. K., and Chesteen, S. A. (1995), ‘Enhancing entrepre-
neurial expertise: experiential pedagogy and the
entrepreneurial expert script’,
Simulation and Gaming
, Vol 26,
pp 288–306.
Peterman, M. E., and Kennedy, J. (2003), ‘Enterprise education:
influencing students’ perception of entrepreneurship’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
, Vol 28, pp 129–144.
Pittaway, L., and Cope, J. (2007), ‘Entrepreneurship education: a
systematic review of the evidence’,
International Small
Business Journal
, Vol 25, pp 479–510.
Plaschka, G., and Welsch, H. (1990), ‘Emerging structures in
entrepreneurship education: curricular designs and strate-
gies’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
, Vol
14, pp
55–71.
Ployhart, R. E., and Oswald, F. L. (2004), ‘Applications of mean
and covariance structure analysis: integrating correlational
and experimental approaches’,
Organizational Research
Methods
, Vol 7, pp 27–65.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N.
P. (2003), ‘Common method biases in behavioural research: a
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies’,
Journal of Applied Psychology
, Vol 88, pp 879–903.
Robson, P. J. A., Wijbenga, F., and Parker, S. C. (2009), ‘Entre-
preneurship and policy: challenges and directions for future
research’,
International Small Business Journal
, Vol 27, pp
531–535.
Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2004), ‘Pathways to successful
entrepreneurship: parenting, personality, early entrepreneurial
competence, and interests’,
Journal of Vocational Behavior
,
Vol 65, pp 498–518.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934),
The Theory of Economic Develop-
ment: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the
Business Cycle
, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Shalley, C. E., and Gilson, L. L. (2004), ‘What leaders need to
know: a review of social and contextual factors that can foster
or hinder creativity’,
Leadership Quarterly
, Vol 15, pp 33–55.
Shane, S., and Venkataraman, S. (2000), ‘The promise of
entrepreneurship as a field of research’,
Academy of Manage-
ment Review
, Vol 25, pp 217–226.
Shapero, A., and Sokol, L. (1982), ‘The social dimensions of
entrepreneurship’, in Kent, C., Sexton, D., and Vesper, K.,
eds,
The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship
, Prentice Hall,
New York, NY, pp 72–90.
Shaver, K. G. (1995), ‘The entrepreneurial personality myth’,
B&E Review
, April–June, pp 20–23.
Shook, C. L., Ketchen, D. J. Jr, Hult, G. T. M., and Kacmar, K. M.
(2004), ‘An assessment of the use of structural equation
models in strategic management research’,
Strategic
Management Journal
, Vol
25, pp 397–404.
Simonton, D. K. (2000), ‘Creativity: cognitive, personal, develop-
mental and social aspects’,
American Psychologist
, Vol 55, pp
151–158.
Smith, J. B., Mitchell, J. R., and Mitchell, R. K. (2009), ‘Entrepre-
neurial scripts and the new transaction commitment mindset:
extending the expert information processing theory approach
to entrepreneurial cognition research’,
Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice
, Vol 33, pp 815–844.
Solomon, G. T., and Fernald, L. W. Jr (1991), ‘Trends in small
business management and entrepreneurship education in the
United States’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
, Vol
15,
pp 25–39.
Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., and Al-Laham, A. (2007), ‘Do
entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention
of science and engineering students? The effect of learning,
inspiration and resources’,
Journal of Business Venturing
, Vol
22, pp 566–591.
StatSoft Inc (2001),
STATISTICA (Data Analysis Software
System), Version 6
, website: www.statsoft.com.
Sternberg, R. J. (2004), ‘Successful intelligence as a basis for
entrepreneurship’,
Journal of Business Venturing
, Vol 19, pp
189–201.
Walstad, W. B., and Kourilsky, M. L. (1998), ‘Entrepreneurial
attitudes and knowledge of black youth’,
Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice
, Vol 23, pp 5–29.
Walton, A. P. (2003), ‘The impact of interpersonal factors on
creativity’,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
and Research
, Vol 9, pp 146–162.
199
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 12, No 3
Creativity and entrepreneurial intention in the young
Ward, T. B. (2004), ‘Cognition, creativity and entrepreneurship’,
Journal of Business Venturing
, Vol 19, pp 173–188.
Warren, L., Kitagawa, F., and Eatough, M. (2010), ‘Developing
the knowledge economy through university linkages’,
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
, Vol
11, No 4, pp 293–306.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., and Curran, P. J. (1995), ‘Structural
Equation Models with non normal data variables: problems
and remedies’, in Hoyle, R. H., ed,
Structural Equation
Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications
, Sage, London,
pp 56–75.
Wilson, K. (2004),
Entrepreneurship Education at European
Universities and Business Schools
, Working Paper, Euro-
pean Foundation for Entrepreneurship Research,
Hilversum.
Zhou, J., and George, J. M. (2001), ‘When job dissatisfaction
leads to creativity: encouraging the expression of voice’,
Academy of Management Journal
, Vol 44, pp 682–696.
