King’s Research Portal

DOI:
10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.012

Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link to publication record in King's Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):

Newman, A., Obschonka, M., Schwarz, S., Cohen, M., & Nielsen, I. (2019). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A
systematic review of the literature on its theoretical foundations, measurement, antecedents, and outcomes, and
an agenda for future research. Journal Of Vocational Behavior, 110, 403-419.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.012

Citing this paper

Please note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may
differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination,
volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are
again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright
owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

•Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research.
•You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
•You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research Portal
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to
the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Download date: 10. Mar. 2025

 Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) 403–419

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A systematic review of the literature

T
on its theoretical foundations, measurement, antecedents, and
outcomes, and an agenda for future research
⁎
Alexander Newmana, , Martin Obschonkab, Susan Schwarzc, Michael Cohena,
Ingrid Nielsena
a
Deakin Business School, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia
b
Australian Centre for Entrepreneurship Research, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, QLD 4011, Australia
c
Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: With increased emphasis being placed on entrepreneurial thinking and acting in today's careers,
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy we have witnessed growing research on entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) over the last two
Entrepreneurship decades. The present study provides a systematic review of the literature on the theoretical
Entrepreneurial careers foundations, measurement, antecedents, and outcomes of ESE, and work which treats ESE as a
Social cognitive theory
moderator. Based on the review, an agenda for future research is developed and implications for
Theory of planned behavior
entrepreneurship education and training highlighted. In doing so, the need to consider alter-
native theoretical perspectives to improve understanding of how ESE influences outcomes at
different levels of analysis is highlighted. In addition, the review identifies a need to a) examine
the factors which drive short-term fluctuations and long-term changes in ESE, b) examine the
developmental precursors of ese in childhood, adolescence and early adulthood, c) examine the
negative/curvilinear effects of ESE, d) investigate whether ESE can be treated as a collective level
phenomenon, e) look at the effects of ESE on outcomes outside of entrepreneurial contexts, and f)
improve measurement and research design.

1. Introduction

How individuals think and act entrepreneurially has become an important question for researchers, educators, and policy makers
seeking to support entrepreneurial activities either undertaken independently by individuals or within organizations (Hisrich,
Langan-Fox, & Grant, 2007). Within business research, entrepreneurship is typically defined as the process of discovery/co-creation,
evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities to produce goods and services (Shane, 2012). In today's work world, both being an
independent business founder/entrepreneur (Zacher, Biemann, Gielnik, & Frese, 2012), and engaging in intrapreneurship in estab-
lished organizations (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001) are important as individuals increasingly face unstable career paths. While scholars
argue that the positive influence of entrepreneurial start-ups on job creation has been overrated (Shane, 2009), the modest per-
centage of entrepreneurial start-ups that do succeed have potential to create job opportunities if guided by effective policies.
Meanwhile, intrapreneurship within wage employment also helps organizations innovate and grow, and respond proactively to
social, technological, and economic shifts. Moreover, entrepreneurial skills have been emphasized as part of a general skill set needed
to succeed in dynamic modern occupations (Savickas et al., 2009), e.g. to manage one's career in an uncertain context and to respond

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Newman).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.012
Received 23 October 2017; Received in revised form 14 May 2018; Accepted 22 May 2018
Available online 23 May 2018
0001-8791/ © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
A. Newman et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) 403–419

to new opportunities resulting from technological change. In other words, entrepreneurial thinking and behavior might help gen-
erations of people to be producers of their own positive career development as a means to navigate larger societal changes.
It is generally acknowledged that entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE), which refers to an individual's belief in his/her capability to
perform tasks and roles aimed at entrepreneurial outcomes (Chen, Greene, & Crick, 1998), plays a crucial role in determining whether
individuals pursue entrepreneurial careers and engage in entrepreneurial behavior. While some researchers have looked at general
self-efficacy (a global belief about one's capabilities to solve future tasks of any kind) to understand its effects (see Judge & Bono,
2001; Scholz, Gutiérrez-Doña, Sud, & Schwarzer, 2002), most experts agree that self-efficacy is domain-specific (e.g., targeted to-
wards a certain behavior or outcome such as one's career or creative tasks), consistent with Bandura's (1997) conceptualization of the
construct. The social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994)
emphasizes, for example, that it is occupation-specific self-efficacy (as opposed to generalized self-efficacy) that exerts effects on
career development and performance. One type of occupation-specific self-efficacy is entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE).
The agency perspective, informed by self-efficacy research (Bandura, 1986, 1997), is seen as a leading meta-approach to en-
trepreneurship that helps us to understand an entrepreneur's actions and action-related beliefs (Frese, 2009). Entrepreneurship not
only involves risk-taking, uncertainty, creativity, leadership and proactivity, but also requires persistence and passion. For all these
factors, ESE is highly relevant. As such, ESE has emerged as a key psychological construct in entrepreneurship research (Miao, Qian,
& Ma, 2017), having been found to influence entrepreneurial motivation, intention, behavior and performance, as well as being a
critical target outcome of entrepreneurship training and education. Moreover, due to the growing influence of entrepreneurial
thinking and acting on career development and vocational behavior (Obschonka, Hakkarainen, Lonka, & Salmela-Aro, 2017; Uy,
Chan, Sam, Ho, & Chernyshenko, 2015), the specific topic of ESE is also becoming increasingly relevant to career researchers,
educators and policy makers (World Economic Forum, 2009). In view of the broad relevance of ESE to researchers, educators and
policy makers alike, in the present article we review extant work on ESE, synthesizing prior empirical work on its antecedents,
outcomes and moderators in order to take stock of our knowledge on variables that are related to ESE, as well as to highlight and
address discrepancies in how ESE has been conceptualized and measured. In addition, we integrate the key findings from our review
into a framework to inform entrepreneurial education and training and develop a comprehensive agenda for future research.
Through systematically reviewing the literature on ESE the present study makes a number of contributions to the en-
trepreneurship and vocational behavior literatures, as well as having implications for policy makers and educators. First, despite the
obvious relevance of ESE for entrepreneurship and career development, no systematic literature review on ESE exists. Although a
recent meta-analytical study has looked at the relationship between ESE and the performance of entrepreneurial firms (Miao et al.,
2017), this study did not investigate the effects of ESE on other outcomes of ESE, and the factors that foster ESE.1 In line with other
recent reviews of central career constructs in the field of vocational behavior (e.g. Duffy & Dik, 2013; Johnston, 2018), our systematic
review will allow us to clarify the nomological network of variables to which the construct of ESE is related, highlight how ESE has
been conceptualized and measured in previous research, and identify the key theoretical perspectives that researchers have drawn on
to explain how ESE beliefs develop and influence individuals' attitudes and behaviors.
Second, given that prior research on ESE is fragmented, with researchers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds adopting a wide
variety of methodological and theoretical approaches to examine different research questions, we also contribute to the literature by
developing a framework which synthesizes findings from existing research (see Fig. 1). Such a framework will not only bring much
needed clarity to the key insights derived from prior work, but also provide a basis to inform future research. It will also assist
educators and policy makers to develop training and education solutions that enhance entrepreneurship amongst the next generation
to prepare for a dynamic work world which increasingly values entrepreneurial thinking and behavior (World Economic Forum,
2009) and provide insights for investors evaluating entrepreneurial businesses (Brooks, Huang, Kearney, & Murray, 2014).
Third and most importantly, the present study makes a critical contribution by identifying neglected research fields and incon-
sistencies in the literature, and highlighting opportunities for empirical and theoretical advancement of the research domain.
In the following section, we highlight the methods adopted to search for empirical literature on ESE, before commencing our
review of the literature.

2. Methods

In line with best practice (Short, 2009), we used Web of Science, Google Scholar, and related databases to identify peer-reviewed
articles with entrepreneurial self-efficacy in their title, keywords or abstract that were published from the beginning of 1998 to the
end of 2017. We decided to limit our search to articles published after 1998, when Chen et al.'s (1998) work, which suggests ESE is a
key feature distinguishing entrepreneurs from managers, was published. In addition, to identify further articles on ESE which did not
include the term in their title, abstract or keywords, we undertook an exhaustive backward and forward citation search of the already
identified articles. To ensure the quality of articles used in the literature review, we only included articles if they met the following
criteria: (a) the article was available in an ISI listed peer-reviewed journal, and (b) it focused on ESE rather than general self-efficacy
(Baum & Locke, 2004), self-initiative (Frese, 2009), or locus of control (Kaufmann, Welsh, & Bushmarin, 1995). Given we chose to
focus on the domain specific measure of ESE we did not include a significant body of research which focuses on the antecedents and
outcomes of general self-efficacy in entrepreneurial settings (for example, see Baum & Locke, 2004; Markman, Baron, & Balkin, 2005;

1
We also note that while Rauch and Frese (2007) undertook a meta-analysis of the relationship between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial outcomes, they focused on
general self-efficacy.

404
A. Newman et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) 403–419

Fig. 1. Framework summarizing extant research on entrepreneurial self-efficacy.

Obschonka, Hahn, & Bajwa, 2018).

Two authors independently screened the downloaded articles to decide whether they met the inclusion criteria, and consulted
with one another as to whether to exclude certain articles. A number of articles were excluded as they measured general self-efficacy
rather than ESE. We did not include book chapters, unpublished papers or dissertations as we could not verify the quality of research
given the lack of peer review.
Our literature search left us with a total of 128 studies for inclusion in our review, of which 121 were quantitative, 4 qualitative, 1
meta-analytical, and 2 conceptual in nature. In the following sections we review the literature on ESE. In doing so we examine the
theoretical bases of ESE, pinpoint how ESE has been measured in previous studies, review prior literature on the antecedents and
outcomes of ESE, and studies in which ESE has been treated as a moderator.

3. Literature review

3.1. Theoretical foundations of ESE

Our review identified a number of theoretical perspectives that explain how ESE develops and influences entrepreneurial out-
comes. ESE emerges from the broader concept of self-efficacy rooted in social cognitive theory, which highlights the role of social
context, observation and replication of behavior in social learning for development of self-efficacy beliefs. Self-efficacy, along with
domain-specific constructs such as ESE, has theoretical roots in the agency perspective in which individuals are seen to interact
reciprocally with internal and external environments. Thus, self-efficacy and its derivatives represent a mechanism of agency, driving
motivation, mental states, and behavior (Bandura, 1997, 2006). With agency underlying self-efficacy as a key theoretical approach to
study entrepreneurial actions and beliefs (see Frese, 2009), ESE is seen to influence a range of career choice and performance
outcomes.
To date, ESE research has drawn upon theoretical perspectives from a myriad of fields, including psychology, career development,
and economics. Extant research into ESE's antecedents typically draws upon social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997; Drnovšek,
Wincent, & Cardon, 2010) to understand how ESE develops via mastery experiences, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and
physiological states. These pathways provide mechanisms of action by which work and start-up experience, as well as education and
training, are thought to influence ESE. The pathways also provide a basis to examine firm-level and macro-level cultural and in-
stitutional influences on ESE development.
Research on the outcomes of ESE meanwhile tends to drawn upon both social cognitive theory and the theory of planned behavior
(Ajzen, 1991), to explain the emergence of entrepreneurial intentions, and entrepreneurial actions such as venture creation and
growth. According to the theory of planned behavior, ESE captures the extent of an individual's perceived behavioral control which is
a key determinant of their intention to engage in a certain behavior (Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000). As such, according to this
theory ESE fosters entrepreneurial behavior through heightening an individual's entrepreneurial intentions (Chen et al., 1998;

405
A. Newman et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) 403–419

Schlaegel & Koenig, 2014). In addition, research on ESE has begun to incorporate additional theoretical perspectives, such as ef-
fectuation (e.g. Engel, Dimitrova, Khapova, & Elfring, 2014), self-regulation (Shepherd, Patzelt, & Baron, 2013), and regulatory focus
(Cooper, Peake, & Watson, 2016) theories, to explain the influence of ESE, and in which contexts such influence is likely to have more
or less positive effects.

3.2. Measurement of ESE

Several different measures of ESE were used across the 121 quantitative studies identified in our review, of which 6 focused solely
on scale development or testing. The most widely-used measure has been the 22-item multi-dimensional measure developed by Chen
et al. (1998). Of the 121 studies that measured ESE, 22 used this scale or a modified version of it. The items that form this scale were
derived from content analyses of the previous literature and interviews with entrepreneurs. Factor analysis undertaken on the items
indicated that ESE is made up of 5 sub-dimensions or factors which capture an entrepreneur's self-efficacy in relation to marketing,
innovation, management, risk-taking and financial control. Part of the popularity of Chen et al.'s (1998) measure (approximately one-
fifth of empirical studies of ESE have employed it either in part or in its entirety) is the fact that it has been in existence for longer
than any other self-report ESE scale. Notably, its use has not diminished significantly with time; both Cooper et al. (2016) and Austin
and Nauta (2016) are recent examples of studies that use this measure. The measure has been used with a variety of different samples,
including college students, small business owners, franchisees and entrepreneurs.
Shortly after the study by Chen et al. (1998), DeNoble, Jung, and Ehrlich (1999) developed an alternative 22-item multi-dimensional
measure of ESE that captures “the entrepreneurial skills that are uniquely different from managerial skills” (p.3). This is consistent with
Bandura's (1986) recommendations regarding the development of domain-specific self-efficacy measures. The modifications made by
DeNoble et al. (1999) proved to be well received by other researchers, and 19 of the studies in our survey used either the original measure by
DeNoble et al. (1999) or a modified version of it, making this measure the most frequently used after that of Chen et al. (1998). The measure
itself was developed by content analyzing responses from entrepreneurs to a question asking them to describe the critical issues they faced in
the start-up and early development of their company. The measure comprises six sub-dimensions which capture an entrepreneur's self-
efficacy in relation to developing new product and market opportunities, building an innovative environment, initiating investor relation-
ships, defining core purpose, coping with unexpected challenges, and developing critical human resources.
Aside from the scales developed by Chen et al. (1998) and DeNoble et al. (1999), there have been three additional self-report
measures of ESE developed in the literature and used in multiple studies, although none have proved as popular. Zhao, Seibert, and
Hills (2005) developed a 4-item global measure which measures an individual's self-efficacy in relation to specific entrepreneurial
tasks. Zhao et al. (2005) reported that there is a strong relationship between their measure and that developed by Chen et al. (1998),
and a weaker relationship to measures of general self-efficacy. Only 12 of the studies in our review used Zhao et al.'s (2005) measure,
perhaps because it is not clear what, if any, advantage it has over the more frequently employed measures developed by Chen et al.
(1998) and DeNoble et al. (1999).
Barbosa, Gerhardt, and Kickul (2007) developed a measure of ESE which comprises 4 sub-dimensions. These are opportunity
identification self-efficacy, relationship self-efficacy, managerial self-efficacy and tolerance self-efficacy. However, this multi-di-
mensional measure has only been adopted in two studies to date (Barbosa et al., 2007; Chen & He, 2011).
More recently, McGee, Peterson, Mueller, and Sequeira (2009) argued that “there remain inconsistencies in the definition, di-
mensionality, and measurement of ESE” (p.965). They proposed a refined 19-item multi-dimensional measure of ESE suited for both
nascent and experienced entrepreneurs. McGee et al.'s (2009) measure incorporates four different phases of business creation
(searching, planning, marshalling, and implementation), adding a temporal dimension not present in previous measures. Factor
analysis of the survey items indicated that ESE is made up of 5 sub-dimensions which capture an entrepreneur's self-efficacy in
relation to searching for opportunities, planning, marshalling resources, and implementing in relation to people and financial re-
sources. Compared to other multi-dimensional measures of ESE which capture ESE in relation to general activities undertaken by the
entrepreneur, the McGee et al. (2009) measure captures ESE in different phases of the venture creation and development process. In
our review, 14 of the studies use McGee et al.'s (2009) measure. For example, Spagnoli and Santos (2017) recently examined the
validity and reliability of this measure using data from Italy and Portugal, with results providing support for the use of the scale
outside of the original population for which it was developed.
Although Barakat, Boddington, and Vyakarnam (2014) proposed a measure of ESE comprising 7 sub-dimensions of ESE, it has yet
to be employed in empirical work beyond the original study for which it was designed and is weak methodologically as each of the
sub-dimensions of ESE is captured by only one item. The 7 sub-dimensions of ESE capture an entrepreneur's self-efficacy in relation to
innovation, financial valuation, teamwork, product development, start-up processes, leadership and creativity.
A small number of studies have used data from the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (PSED) to measure ESE (e.g.
Brinckmann & Kim, 2015). As is common with the measurement of complex psychological constructs in national panels, there is a
trade-off between the number of items in the questionnaire and the reach of the questionnaire into the population. Such data sets
typically contain large representative samples, which is made possible in part by reducing the number of questionnaire items. Often
complex constructs are measured using a few items or a single item. While it is possible that construct validity may be compromised
with such an approach, the data from national panels are longitudinal (in contrast to most studies in this area), and are thus a
valuable addition to the usual cross-sectional studies.
Finally, the remaining studies in our survey used ad hoc measures developed for each study (e.g. Schjoedt & Craig, 2017). As these
measures are idiosyncratic, their use does not tend to extend beyond the study for which they were designed. In Table 1 we highlight
the key measures used in previous research and the sub-dimensions of ESE that these measures capture.

406
A. Newman et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) 403–419

Table 1
Key measures of entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Measure Number of items Sub dimensions (ESE in relation to)

Chen et al. (1998) 22 items Marketing (6 items)

Innovation (4 items)
Management (5 items)
Risk-taking (4 items)
Financial control (3 items)
DeNoble et al. (1999) 23 items Developing new product and market opportunities (7 items)
Building an innovative environment (4 items)
Initiating investor relationships (3 items)
Defining core purpose (3 items)
Coping with unexpected challenges (3 items)
Developing critical human resources (3 items)
Zhao et al. (2005) 4 items Global scale (no sub dimensions)
McGee et al. (2009) 19 items Searching (3 items)
Planning (4 items)
Marshalling (3 items)
Implementing: people (6 items)
Implementing: financial (3 items)
Barbosa et al. (2007) 18 items (not clear how many items fall under each sub dimension) Opportunity identification
Relationship
Managerial
Tolerance
Barakat et al. (2014) 7 items (one item for each sub-dimension) Innovation
Financial value
Teamwork
Product development
Start-up processes
Leadership
Creativity

3.3. Antecedents of ESE

A growing literature has identified factors that may foster or inhibit ESE formation. Such work not only shows that ESE is
malleable, but also highlights the usefulness of interventions aimed at encouraging individuals to pursue entrepreneurial careers and
develop entrepreneurial ventures. The following sections examine the key antecedents of ESE including work experience, education
and training, role models and mentors, individual differences, firm characteristics, and the cultural and institutional environment.
When investigating antecedents of ESE, most researchers have drawn on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) to highlight the
pathways by which ESE develops. Such pathways include mastery experience, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and judgement of
one's physiological states (the “affective state” pathway). In the following sections we examine antecedents at the individual, firm and
macro levels and map such antecedents against the pathways specified by Bandura (1997).

3.3.1. Individual level antecedents

3.3.1.1. Work experience. One factor which has been shown to foster ESE is prior work or leadership experience. In particular, there is
growing evidence that prior experience in establishing or running one's own business fosters ESE as it provides opportunities for
mastery experiences and vicarious learning (Lee, Hallak, & Sardeshmukh, 2016; Zhao et al., 2005). Researchers have also established
that more general work experience as an employee enhances individuals' ESE through the same mechanisms (Farashah, 2015;
Hockerts, 2017; Pfeifer, Šarlija, & Sušac, 2016). However, while the quality of work experience in a family business was found to be
positively related to the ESE of family business successors, the length of work experience was not (Sardeshmukh & Corbett, 2011).
Examining the effects of leadership and work experience on middle and high school students' ESE, Kickul, Wilson, Marlino, and
Barbosa (2008) found that although the relationship between leadership experience and ESE was significant for both groups of
students, the relationship between work experience and ESE was only significant for male high school students.

3.3.1.2. Education and training. There is growing evidence that participation in entrepreneurial education and training programs
enhances the ESE of postgraduate students (Kubberød & Pettersen, 2017; Wilson, Kickul, & Marlino, 2007; Zhao et al., 2005),
undergraduate students (Byabashaija & Katano, 2011; Gielnik, Uy, Funken, & Bischoff, 2017; Karlsson & Moberg, 2013; Nowiński,
Haddoud, Lančarič, Egerová, & Czeglédi, 2017), high school students (Sanchez, 2013), and the general population (Kerrick,
Cumberland, & Choi, 2016; Lee et al., 2016). Consistent with social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997), scholars argue that
entrepreneurial education provides opportunities for mastery experiences, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and judgments of
one's own physiological state (Zhao et al., 2005). For example, students' enactive mastery is promoted through the use of business
plans and live case studies. Education and training also provides opportunities for vicarious learning through the observation of
successful role models. Entrepreneurship educators also use social persuasion to enhance students' ESE when providing mentoring to
students and feedback on their assessments. Finally, by learning about the lifestyles of entrepreneurs and how they deal with

407
A. Newman et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) 403–419

challenges, students develop their own psychological coping strategies. These strategies help them maintain motivation and deal with
anxiety, leading to greater confidence in their future chances of success. However, although Shinnar, Hsu, and Powell (2014) found
that undergraduate students' participation in entrepreneurship education led them to develop higher ESE beliefs, they also found that
this was only statistically significant for males.
Recent work has also examined the link between the teaching methods adopted by entrepreneurship lecturers and the ESE of
undergraduate students (Abaho, Olomi, & Urassa, 2015). Abaho et al. (2015) found that the presence of successful entrepreneurs in
classes, personal reading and handout notes, class presentations and imaginary case studies all influenced students' ESE. They also
found that when lecturers had business experience, students had higher levels of ESE as such individuals enhance vicarious learning.
Kassean, Vanevenhoven, Liguori, and Winkel (2015) found a strong relationship between undergraduates' participation in en-
trepreneurial experiential learning activities during their study and their ESE. Gielnik et al. (2015) examined the influence of an
action-based entrepreneurship program on undergraduate students' ESE over time. Compared with a control group, participants in a
training group exhibited higher levels of ESE after a 12-week training program. These findings are consistent with social cognitive
theory in that they highlight the influence of mastery experiences and vicarious learning on ESE.
Researchers have also begun to look at how universities specifically foster ESE amongst students, outside more formal en-
trepreneurship education programs. For example, Saeed, Yousafzai, Yani-De-Soriano, and Muffatto (2015) found that students'
perceptions of educational support for entrepreneurship, support for business development, support for concept development, and
institutional support for entrepreneurship were all positively related to their ESE. Other work has examined the effects of more
vocational entrepreneurship education programs on ESE. For example, Maritz and Brown (2013) found that participation in a vo-
cational entrepreneurship education program led individuals to exhibit higher levels of ESE, especially females and individuals who
did not have entrepreneurial role models in their families. Similarly, Boukamcha (2015) found participation in an entrepreneurship
training program led to higher levels of ESE. Venugopal, Viswanathan, and Jung (2015) found that marketplace literacy training
improved the ESE of low income women.
Finally, research has also established that training interventions designed to enhance participants' emotional competences also
leads to higher levels of ESE compared to a control group who did not undertake the training (Hodzic, Ripoll, Lira, & Zenasni, 2015).
The authors argue this may result from the training heightening their positive affective state, one of the four pathways to self-efficacy
development highlighted by Bandura (2012).

3.3.1.3. Presence of role models and mentors. In line with social cognitive theory, there is growing evidence confirming a positive
relationship between the presence of role models and ESE. Role models not only provide opportunities for vicarious learning (i.e.,
learning from others) but are also a good source of social persuasion, making individuals feel more confident to pursue an
entrepreneurial career (BarNir, Watson, & Hutchins, 2011). In addition, by learning from role models about how they cope with
challenges and stress, individuals are better able to develop strategies to deal with challenges and maintain a positive physiological
state. Several studies have generally confirmed a positive link between student's exposure to entrepreneurial role models and their
ESE (BarNir et al., 2011; Laviolette, Lefebvre, & Brunel, 2012; Vanevenhoven & Liguori, 2016). While Austin and Nauta (2016) found
that female undergraduates' exposure to role models was positively linked to ESE, they surprisingly found that this relationship was
only significant when the role model was male.
Researchers have also found that exposure to entrepreneurial role models in the general population (Farashah, 2015) and in
family business settings (Carr & Sequeira, 2007; Pfeifer et al., 2016) is positively related to individual's ESE, and that an en-
trepreneur's strong ties with friends and family are positively related to their ESE (Chen & He, 2011). Interestingly, while Prodan and
Drnovsek (2010) found that academics' personal networks outside the university were related to their ESE, the presence of academic
role models was not. St Jean and Mathieu (2015) drew on social cognitive career theory to explain the effects of mentoring on ESE.
They found that the quality of mentoring provided to novice entrepreneurs as part of a mentoring scheme was positively related to
their ESE. Similarly, Huyghe and Knockaert (2015) found the presence of role models in the university sector was positively related to
the ESE of potential academic entrepreneurs.

3.3.1.4. Individual differences. The individual difference that has gained the most attention as an antecedent of ESE is gender.
Although research generally indicates that females on average have lower levels of ESE than males (Dempsey & Jennings, 2014; Díaz-
García & Jiménez-Moreno, 2010; Wilson, Kickul, Marlino, Barbosa, & Griffiths, 2009), including studies drawing on data from the
large scale Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) Project, (e.g. Wennberg, Pathak, & Autio, 2013), and that this may be attributed
to less entrepreneurial experience and lower levels of affect towards entrepreneurship, some research suggests the opposite (Coleman
& Kariv, 2014), while other studies find no significant gender differences in ESE (Mueller & Dato-On, 2008; Zhao et al., 2005). As
highlighted in earlier sections, researchers have also found mixed results when examining whether gender moderates the
relationships between both entrepreneurial education and work experience and ESE (Kickul et al., 2008; Shinnar et al., 2014;
Wilson et al., 2007). Other work has found that gender role stereotyping negatively impacts women's ESE and subsequent intention to
start a high-growth business (Sweida & Reichard, 2013), and the extent to which ESE develops amongst female entrepreneurs
depends on the gender congruency of the industry in which they operate (Sweida & Woods, 2015). The mixed findings regarding the
influence of gender on ESE may result from the fact that prior research has utilized dichotomous measures of physiological sex rather
than examining gender as a socially-constructed phenomenon. As noted in a recent review of methodological approaches in gender
and entrepreneurship research, using dichotomous measures to explicate gender differences is problematic as such an approach
assumes that it is masculine traits that drive gender differences rather than the social environment (Henry, Foss, & Ahl, 2016).
Other individual differences that have been investigated as antecedents of ESE include risk-taking preferences, cognitive styles,

408
A. Newman et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) 403–419

entrepreneurial passion, and personality characteristics. In line with social cognitive theory, such differences are likely to affect
individuals' judgements of their own physiological states (the “affective state” pathway), influencing their level of self-efficacy to
undertake entrepreneurial activity. For example, Zhao et al. (2005) found a positive relationship between the risk-taking preference
of MBA students and their ESE, and Zhang and Cain (2017) found a similar relationship for graduate dental students. Whereas
Barbosa et al. (2007) found a positive relationship between the risk-taking propensity of undergraduate students and their oppor-
tunity-identification ESE, they also found a negative relationship between their risk-taking propensity and both relationship and
tolerance ESE. Barbosa et al. (2007) also examined the influence of undergraduate students' cognitive style on their ESE. They found
that those with an intuitive cognitive style had lower levels of ESE in relation to establishing relationships with investors, financial
management of the new venture, and capacity to tolerate ambiguity. They further found that while intuitive individuals who had a
high preference for risk exhibited higher levels of opportunity-identification ESE, those with an analytic cognitive style with a low
preference for risk had greater relationship and tolerance ESE than those with a high risk preference. Similarly, Kickul, Gundry,
Barbosa, and Whitcanack (2009) found that while individuals with an intuitive cognitive style had greater opportunity-identification
ESE, those with an analytic cognitive style had greater ESE in relation to their ability to assess, evaluate, plan and marshal resources.
Researchers have also examined the relationship between entrepreneurial passion and ESE. While both Biraglia and Kadile (2017)
and Murnieks, Mosakowski, and Cardon (2014) found a strong positive relationship between entrepreneurial passion and ESE,
Huyghe, Knockaert, and Obschonka (2016) found a strong relationship between both academics' entrepreneurial passion and ob-
sessive scientific passion and their ESE. Other studies have suggested that the relationship between entrepreneurial passion and ESE is
more complex, with some establishing that it is also an outcome of ESE (Cardon & Kirk, 2015; Dalborg & Wincent, 2015; Gielnik
et al., 2017). Need for achievement and locus of control have also been found to influence the ESE of entrepreneurs in the context of
transitional economies (Luthans & Ibrayeva, 2007). Researchers have also begun to examine the relationship between personality and
ESE, finding a strong link between both conscientiousness and proactive personality and ESE (Otto, Glaser, & Dalbert, 2009; Prabhu,
McGuire, Drost, & Kwong, 2012). Finally, researchers have confirmed a positive relationship between career adaptability and ESE,
especially for individuals with prior exposure to a family business (Tolentino, Sedoglavich, Lu, Garcia, & Restubog, 2014).

3.3.1.5. Other individual-level antecedents. Another antecedent that has been shown to influence ESE is the extent to which an
individual engages in counterfactual thinking, comparing actual events to alternatives that are constructed on an ad hoc basis rather
than based on past experience (Arora, Haynie, & Laurence, 2013). Although Arora et al. (2013) found that counterfactual thinking
was negatively related to entrepreneurs' ESE, they also established that when the entrepreneur experienced high levels of affect and
self-esteem, the negative relationship became positive. A positive relationship has also been found between ‘pull’ entrepreneurship,
defined as the extent to which individuals enter an entrepreneurial career due to its inherent attractiveness, and ESE (Dalborg &
Wincent, 2015). In line with the ‘affective states’ pathway highlighted by Bandura (1986), researchers have also established a link
between both fear of failure and social persuasion through the media and an individual's ESE (Farashah, 2015). They have also
established a positive association between the number of planning activities undertaken by the entrepreneur and their ESE (McCann
& Vroom, 2015), and a negative association between financial constraints face by the entrepreneur and their ESE (Venugopal et al.,
2015). Biraglia and Kadile (2017) found that creativity positively influenced ESE. Finally, Hallak, Brown, and Lindsay (2012) found
that place identity influenced the ESE of entrepreneurs.

3.3.2. Firm and macro level antecedents

Social cognitive theory highlights environmental factors as key factors that influence motivation and behavior through the
pathways of enactive mastery, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and judgement of one's psychological states. Building on this
foundation, researchers have begun to examine how firm and macro-level (institutional and cultural) characteristics influence in-
dividual-level ESE. We examine these studies below.

3.3.2.1. Firm characteristics. Researchers have begun to look at the relationship between firm-level characteristics and entrepreneurs'
ESE. For example, Cooper et al. (2016) found that the firm's strategic orientation and entrepreneurial culture were positively related
to entrepreneurs' innovation-focused ESE, a sub-dimension of ESE, by providing opportunities for vicarious learning. Forbes (2005)
found that decision-making processes that 1) involve a wider group of employees, 2) are more comprehensive, and 3) incorporate
more current information, enhance entrepreneurs' ESE by providing opportunities to engage in active mastery and vicariously learn
from others, act as a source of social persuasion, and lead to more balanced physiological states. Finally, Snell, Sok, and Danaher
(2015) found a positive relationship between a firm's marketing capabilities and the entrepreneur's ESE. They argue that marketing
capabilities enhance entrepreneurs' confidence that they will be able to deal with challenges during entrepreneurial tasks as they lead
individuals to maintain positive judgements of their own physiological states.

3.3.2.2. Cultural and institutional environment. Researchers have also drawn on social cognitive theory to examine how the cultural
and institutional environment influences entrepreneurs' ESE. For example, Luthans and Ibrayeva (2007) argued that the positive
influence of environmental dynamism and hostility on entrepreneurs' ESE occurred as such environments provide greater
opportunities for enactive mastery. Hopp and Stephan (2012) found that performance-based cultural norms and socially
supportive institutional environments are positively related to individual's ESE. They argued that higher levels of ESE result from
greater expectations being placed on individuals for entrepreneurial performance in performance-based cultures (the social
persuasion path) and greater opportunities for vicarious learning in socially supportive institutional environments.

409
A. Newman et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) 403–419

3.4. Outcomes of ESE

A growing literature has examined ESE's effect on a range of entrepreneurial outcomes, as well as moderators of the ESE-outcome
relationship at various stages of the entrepreneurial career process. Such work demonstrates relationships between ESE and in-
dividual outcomes such as entrepreneurial intentions, cognitive states, and various behaviors, as well as firm-level outcomes such as
firm emergence, growth, and innovation. The following sections review outcomes of ESE and contingencies to these outcomes, while
addressing the micro-macro link.

3.4.1. Individual level outcomes

3.4.1.1. Entrepreneurial intentions. The most widely studied outcome of ESE is entrepreneurial intention, defined as the intention of
an individual to start a new business. Most researchers have drawn on Ajzen's (1991) theory of planned behavior to explain the
influence of ESE on entrepreneurial intentions. They argue ESE captures an individuals' perceptions that they are able to handle given
situations (perceived behavioral control). In line with the theory of planned behavior, researchers have found a significant positive
link between ESE and the entrepreneurial intentions of students at secondary school (Kickul et al., 2008; Sanchez, 2013; Wilson et al.,
2009), undergraduate students (Austin & Nauta, 2016; Bagheri & Pihie, 2014; BarNir et al., 2011; Byabashaija & Katano, 2011; Díaz-
García & Jiménez-Moreno, 2010; Engle et al., 2010; Geenen, Urbig, Muehlfelda, van Witteloostuijn, & Gargalianou, 2016; Hallam,
Zanella, Dosamantes, & Cardenas, 2016; Hockerts, 2017; Horvath, 2016; Kassean et al., 2015; Krueger et al., 2000; Lanero, Vazquez,
& Aza, 2016; Lans, Gulikers, & Batterink, 2010; Laviolette et al., 2012; Moriano, Gorgievski, Laguna, Stephan, & Zarafshani, 2012;
Pfeifer et al., 2016; Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015, Prabhu et al., 2012; Saeed et al., 2015; Sanchez, 2011; Schenkel, D'Souza, & Braun,
2014; Segal, Borgia, & Schoenfeld, 2005; Sequeira, Mueller, & McGee, 2007; Sesen, 2013; Sieger & Monsen, 2015) and postgraduate
students (Bacq, Ofstein, Kickul, & Gundry, 2017; Douglas, 2013; Douglas & Fitzsimmons, 2013; Fitzsimmons & Douglas, 2011; Prabhu
et al., 2012; Urban, 2006; Vanevenhoven & Liguori, 2016; Wilson et al., 2009; Zellweger, Sieger, & Halter, 2011; Zhang & Cain,
2017). For example, Zellweger et al. (2011) found that amongst students from family business backgrounds, those with high ESE were
most likely to intend to found their own firms, followed by succession in the family enterprise, with employment the least likely
choice. Although Fitzsimmons and Douglas (2011) found that ESE predicted students' entrepreneurial intentions, the strength of the
relationship was weaker when the perceived desirability of engaging in entrepreneurship was higher. Drawing on regulatory focus
theory (Higgins, 1987), they argue that prospective entrepreneurs are likely to adopt a prevention focus when choosing to exploit an
opportunity, i.e., forming intentions to be an entrepreneur. A later study also by Douglas (2013), found strong positive links between
ESE and growth-oriented entrepreneurial intentions, as compared to independence-oriented entrepreneurial intentions.
Numerous researchers have also found a link between ESE and the entrepreneurial intentions of working people in both developed
and developing countries (Biraglia & Kadile, 2017; Bullough, Renko, & Myatt, 2014; Carr & Sequeira, 2007; Farashah, 2015;
Naktiyok, Karabey, & Gulluce, 2010; Prodan & Drnovsek, 2010). For example, Venugopal et al. (2015) found that ESE predicted
entrepreneurial intentions of low income women in India. However, both Kolvereid and Isaksen (2006) and Boukamcha (2015) found
no evidence of such a link, the latter for individuals undertaking training in a business incubator. A meta-analysis of studies em-
ploying the theory of planned behavior as a basis for entrepreneurial intentions found effects of ESE on such intentions were partly
mediated by the perceived desirability and perceived feasibility of being an entrepreneur (Schlaegel & Koenig, 2014).
Although most studies treat ESE as global or higher-order construct, some researchers have treated ESE as a multi-dimensional
construct, and begun to examine differential effects of sub-dimensions of ESE on entrepreneurial intentions. For example, Naktiyok
et al. (2010) found that whereas ESE in relation to developing new product and market opportunities, building an innovative
environment, defining core purpose, and coping with unexpected challenges, have a significant effect on entrepreneurial intentions,
ESE in relation to initiating investor relations and developing critical human resources do not. Similarly, a longitudinal study in
Poland (Laguna, 2013) found a strong link between ESE and entrepreneurial intentions, especially for the sub-dimension of gauging
confidence in setting up business operations. Finally, Chen and He (2011) found that while opportunity-identification self-efficacy,
relationship self-efficacy, and managerial self-efficacy predicted entrepreneurial intentions, tolerance self-efficacy did not.
In addition to classic entrepreneurial intentions, researchers have begun to examine the relationship between ESE and corporate
entrepreneurial/intrapreneurial intentions, i.e., the intentions of employees to engage in entrepreneurial activity within an organi-
zational context. For example, while Fini and Toschi (2016) found a strong link between ESE and corporate entrepreneurial inten-
tions, Douglas and Fitzsimmons (2013) found a strong relationship between ESE and the intrapreneurial intentions of MBA students.
Researchers have also found strong effects of ESE on academic spin-off or start-up intentions (Huyghe et al., 2016) and on venture
growth expectations on the part of entrepreneurs (Kolvereid & Isaksen, 2017).
Finally, another group of researchers have also begun to highlight key mediating mechanisms linking ESE to entrepreneurial
intentions such as self-regulation (Pihie & Bagneri, 2013), attitudes towards entrepreneurship (Arshad, Farooq, Sultana, & Farooq,
2016; Tsai, Chang, & Peng, 2016) and planned entrepreneurial control (Tsai et al., 2016).

3.4.1.2. Entrepreneurial emotions/mental state. A few studies have examined the effect of ESE on mental processes or states related to
pursuit of an entrepreneurial career. Applying effectuation and situational framing approaches, Engel et al. (2014) found that high-
ESE participants were more likely to frame uncertainty as an opportunity and to adopt effectual logic when faced with a high-
uncertainty venture scenario. Uygur and Kim (2016) found that although ESE did not lead to more selective entrepreneurial
judgement, it led to stronger conviction in entrepreneurial judgement. Researchers have also found a strong correlation between
levels of ESE and entrepreneurial passion (e.g., Cardon & Kirk, 2015; Dalborg & Wincent, 2015), especially passion for founding, and
that ESE sustains the positive influence of entrepreneurship training on passion over time (Gielnik et al., 2017).

410
A. Newman et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) 403–419

Possible negative influences of ESE are a theme in Shepherd et al. (2013). Applying self-regulation theory, they found that ESE
moderates the link between environmental values and the willingness to pursue environmentally harmful ventures. While previous
studies (Farnese, Tramontano, Fida, & Paciello, 2011) suggested that low-ESE individuals under duress were more likely to trespass
moral values (e.g., engage in cheating), Shepherd et al. (2013) suggest that high-ESE founders more highly value exploiting op-
portunities and may reframe such behavior as less harmful or reduce their own responsibility.

3.4.1.3. Entrepreneurial actions/behavior. ESE has been positively linked to various actions and behaviors in the entrepreneurial
career process, such as planning, opportunity recognition, task effort, commitment to goals, and financial investment. In line with the
work on entrepreneurial intentions, this research has typically drawn on the theory of planned behavior. For instance, Cassar and
Friedman (2009) found that ESE predicted greater investment of personal funds in the venture, hours worked, and likelihood of
developing and launching a business, when controlling for factors such as human capital and social capital. Meanwhile, Trevelyan
(2011) argued that ESE encourages higher goals and goal commitment leading to task effort. Indeed, she found that ESE positively
affected entrepreneurs' dedication to action- and decision-type tasks, countering arguments that over-confidence can lead to shortcuts
in effort. Another study examined the link between ESE and persistence, arguing that ESE can make founders more passionate about
inventing, founding, and developing firms (Cardon & Kirk, 2015). Applying theory on positive affect and self-identity, the authors
found that ESE indirectly influences entrepreneurial persistence, fully mediated by entrepreneurial passion for inventing and partially
mediated by passion for founding.
Based on the entrepreneurial cognition literature, Brinckmann and Kim (2015) theorize that ESE enhances belief in one's ability to
plan and to derive benefits from a formal plan. While they found that high-ESE entrepreneurs were no more likely to engage in
planning, those who did were more likely to formalize a written plan. Tumasjan and Braun (2012) integrate regulatory focus theory
to examine opportunity recognition as a crucial step in the venturing process. They found that entrepreneurs' focus on promotion,
such as aspirations and striving for gains, compensated for low levels of ESE to drive opportunity recognition. Meanwhile, en-
trepreneurs' focus on prevention, such as duties and loss avoidance, had no such link. The results suggest limits to ESE, as the authors
propose that ESE reflects initial motivation, while regulatory focus influences motivation as venturing action moves forward.

3.4.2. Firm level outcomes

Prior work examining the relationship between ESE and entrepreneurial outcomes has generally examined the influence of the
founder's ESE rather than adopting an aggregated measure of team members' ESE. This approach is rooted in the notion that firm
outcomes are strongly affected by characteristics of the top manager, especially in nascent firms where the founder and the orga-
nisation may be essentially the same (Hambrick & Mason, 1984).

3.4.2.1. Entrepreneurial performance. Previous research has generally revealed a positive link between the ESE of the founding
entrepreneur and classic measures of entrepreneurial venture performance, including subjective performance perceptions, growth
and innovation (e.g. Hallak et al., 2012; Hallak, Assaker, & Lee, 2015; Hallak, Lindsay, & Brown, 2011; McGee & Peterson, 2017). A
meta-analysis of the relationship between founder ESE and performance drawing on 27 studies of 5065 firms found a moderately
strong effect (β = 0.31) on financial outcomes such as revenue growth and profitability (Miao et al., 2017), with stronger results for
subjective versus objective outcome measures. The study found positive moderators to this link were suggestive but not significant for
experienced versus new entrepreneurs, young versus old firms, and firms in collectivist versus individualist cultures.
Other research has found that contingencies to the ESE-performance link include both individual as well as environmental factors.
For instance, applying theories on goal-setting and self-regulation, Baron, Mueller, and Wolfe (2016) found that self-control mod-
erates the effect of founder ESE on firm growth, with the ESE-growth relationship mediated by goal difficulty. Thus, while high-ESE
founders may set unrealistic goals, the authors argue, self-control restrains this tendency, fueling performance. A previous study
(Hmieleski & Baron, 2008) examined contingency effects of environmental dynamism and dispositional optimism on the ESE-per-
formance link. In dynamic industry environments, the impact of founder's ESE on revenue and employment growth was more positive
for entrepreneurs with moderate rather than high levels of optimism, as high ESE and optimism combined may fuel over-confidence.
Meanwhile, Cumberland, Meek, and Germain (2015) investigated contextual moderators of ESE's five sub-dimensions, and the
influence on revenue and employment growth. They found that ESE pertaining to innovation, management, and financial control, but
not risk-taking and marketing, had a positive impact on venture growth in environments of greater competitive intensity and
technological turbulence. A further study found that family ownership status did not moderate the ESE-performance link (Hallak,
Assaker, & O'Connor, 2014), as the influence of founder's ESE on profits and sales mattered for both family and non-family firms,
especially ESE sub-dimensions regarding core purpose definition and human resource development.
Applying social network theory to Indian entrepreneurs, researchers have also found a positive relationship between an en-
trepreneur's ESE, network size and centrality, and sales growth and product development (Prajapati & Biswas, 2011). Amongst a
similar population, Jain and Ali (2013) found that ESE, as well as entrepreneurial marketing orientation and entrepreneurial attitude
orientation, were significantly linked with sales and profit growth.

3.4.2.2. Venture creation. Another performance outcome is venture creation, also termed venture emergence. Applying cultural
norms and person-culture fit perspectives, Hopp and Stephan (2012) found that community cultural norms affect firm emergence via
ESE. Specifically, performance-based cultures affected ESE and start-up motivation, while socially supportive cultures impacted
motivation but not ESE, suggesting that high-ESE founders meet cultural norms in performance cultures and are more likely to
achieve launch in this context.

411
A. Newman et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) 403–419

Applying goal theory, Hechevarria, Renko, and Matthews (2012) examined the impact of ESE and formalization of a business plan
on venture creation. While higher ESE and formal business planning individually increased venture creation, the interaction of the
two reduced these chances, suggesting that high-ESE founders who engage in planning are less likely to found a venture that has
limited chances of success. Meanwhile, Khan, Tang, and Joshi (2014) found that high ESE as well as goal commitment reduced the
chance of disengagement one year on, with the effect of ESE continuing, even in a context of intense competition. Tegtmeier,
Kurczewska, and Halberstadt (2016) found that female graduates with higher levels of ESE had a greater likelihood of being self-
employed than those with lower ESE. Finally, drawing on GEM data for 42 countries, Wennberg et al., 2013 found that ESE predicted
an individual's entry into entrepreneurship, with effects of ESE more pronounced in less collectivist countries, and countries with high
uncertainty avoidance and high performance orientation.
Although most studies have established a positive influence of founder ESE on venture creation, Dalborg, von Friedrichs, and
Wincent (2015) found no such link amongst individuals who had expressed intentions to start a business. Similarly, Kolvereid and
Isaksen (2006) found no link between ESE and hours worked by nascent entrepreneurs in their new ventures.
Finally, Miles et al. (2016) elevate both ESE and outcomes to the community level to explore how businesses employ en-
trepreneurial marketing processes (EMP) to rebuild community capital after a disaster. They propose that high levels of ESE with high
EMP boosts community resilience, while high ESE/low EMP poses risks, low ESE/high EMP offers moderate resilience, and low ESE/
low EMP offers the least resilience following a crisis.

3.5. ESE as a moderator

ESE also acts as a moderator of other predictors on entrepreneurial outcomes. Based on improvisation theory, Hmieleski and
Corbett (2008) found that high ESE enhanced the effect of entrepreneurs' improvisation on sales growth. Yet the opposite was true for
work satisfaction as an outcome: improvisation negatively affected satisfaction for high-ESE founders, suggesting that ESE can drive
entrepreneurs to burn out. Gielnik et al. (2017) found that ESE sustains the positive influence of entrepreneurship training on
entrepreneurial passion over time, which in turn fosters business creation. Fitzsimmons and Douglas (2011) found that ESE nega-
tively interacted with individual's attitudes towards entrepreneurship (perceived desirability of entrepreneurship) to predict in-
dividuals' entrepreneurial intentions. In particular, they found that individuals with low levels of perceived desirability still develop
intentions to act entrepreneurially when they perceived themselves capable of doing so (high levels of ESE). However, they also found
that individuals with high levels of perceived desirability develop intentions to act entrepreneurially irrespective of whether they
perceive themselves as having the feasibility (ESE) to do so. Sieger and Minola (2017) found that when ESE was higher, the negative
relationship between availability of family financial support and entrepreneurial intentions was weaker. Baum and Bird (2010) found
that ESE interacted with successful intelligence (SI) to predict venture performance via swift action and multiple improvement
actions. As well as mediating the relationship between proactive personality and entrepreneurial intentions, Prabhu et al. (2012)
found that ESE also moderated the relationship. Hsu, Wiklund, and Cotton (2017) found that ESE of entrepreneurs after exiting their
ventures moderated the relationship between perceived financial performance and subsequent entrepreneurial intentions, in such a
way that the higher the ESE, the weaker the negative relationship between perceived financial performance and subsequent en-
trepreneurial intention. Daniel, Di Domenico, and Sharma (2015) found that entrepreneurs running home-based online businesses
engaged in effectuation irrespective of their levels of ESE. Finally, Ahlin, Drnovsek, and Hisrich (2014) found that ESE was positively
related to product innovation and process innovation amongst entrepreneurs in the US and Slovenia, and positively moderated the
link between creativity and both kinds of innovation in the US but not in Slovenia.

4. Agenda for future research

The previous sections reviewed the extant literature on the antecedents and outcomes of ESE. Our review established that authors
have typically drawn on Bandura's social cognitive theory to investigate the individual-level antecedents of ESE, which include work
experience, education and training, presence of role models and mentors, and individual differences. A smaller body of research has
also begun to look at firm and macro-level antecedents of ESE. In line with the majority of entrepreneurship research, we have also
witnessed extensive research on the outcomes of ESE, including individuals' entrepreneurial intentions, emotions and mental states,
actions and behaviors, and also entrepreneurial performance and venture creation at the firm-level. A focus on entrepreneurial
performance and venture creation is important as such outcomes have been linked to economic growth and prosperity. As with the
antecedents of ESE, work on the outcomes of ESE has typically drawn on Bandura's social cognitive theory, and to a lesser degree the
theory of planned behavior, and has only occasionally considered other theoretical perspectives to explain how ESE transmits its
effects.
Our review identified a dearth of research examining the effects of ESE on employee's vocational behavior outside the context of
entrepreneurial ventures. This is surprising, given that firms are increasingly requiring employees to act in an entrepreneurial
manner, working on self-directed, short-term team projects in temporary settings (e.g., in innovation teams). Another limitation
identified by the review is a lack of empirical investigation as to whether and how ESE fluctuates and changes in the short- and long-
term, and the factors that influence such changes. The review also identified that research has predominantly focused on the positive
effects of ESE with limited attention placed on situations where it is less potent, or may even have negative effects. From our review it
is also evident that researchers have not examined whether ESE may exist at the team- or group level. This is surprising given the
increasing phenomenon of entrepreneurial teams and the growth of team-based organizational structures in the contemporary
workplace. Based on our review of the literature we present a framework which synthesizes findings from previous research (see

412
A. Newman et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) 403–419

Fig. 1). Drawing on this framework and the gaps in the literature identified, we set out an agenda for future research in the following
sections.

4.1. Drivers of short-term fluctuations and long-term changes in entrepreneurial self-efficacy

In order to determine whether ESE is better conceptualized as a relatively stable trait or a developmental state, researchers should
seek to ascertain the extent to which ESE fluctuates over the short-term and changes over the long-term, and pinpoint the factors that
cause short-term fluctuations and more long-term systematic changes (Gist & Mitchell, 1992).
In light of work which shows that about half of the variance in motivational factors, such as ESE, is within-person variance (Lord,
Diefendorff, Schmidt, & Hall, 2010), investigating the factors which cause within-person variance (fluctuations) in ESE over a period
of days or weeks should be paid more attention in future research. In examining this, researchers should consider adopting a diary
study design, where participants provide daily or weekly ratings over a period of weeks on ESE and its potential antecedents. Such an
approach will be able to pinpoint situational or personal factors that lead to fluctuations in an individual's ESE. For example,
researchers might investigate whether ESE beliefs vary in response to situational demands faced by the individual. In his recent
article, Bledow (2013) argues that self-efficacy increases as a result of an internal mechanism that mobilizes resources for a task. In
other words, it is a dynamic response to situational demands rather than a static belief. Future research should further investigate this
notion empirically.
Researchers might also investigate the factors that lead to more long-term systematic changes in an individual's ESE. Social
cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1997) offers a rich theory-driven and evidence-based framework to examine such changes that
result from an individuals' interaction with their environment. For example, relatively little is known about which of the four
pathways highlighted in this theory (mastery experiences, role modeling [vicarious learning], social persuasion and affective states)
are most effective in fostering long-term changes in ESE, and whether exposure to entrepreneurial role models and mentors is likely to
have a similar effect on the ESE of more experienced entrepreneurs already engaged in entrepreneurial activity, vis-à-vis adolescents
and young adults. Researchers might also investigate whether an entrepreneur's ESE changes over time as entrepreneurs become
more experienced, experience success or failure, acquire knowledge and develop social networks. This research could also address the
question whether and why serial entrepreneurs might have higher levels of ESE than novice entrepreneurs (Brandle, Berger, Golla, &
Kuckertz, 2018). Examining the role of entrepreneurial experience in fostering (or reducing) ESE is especially encouraged given the
results of a meta-analysis by Sitzmann and Yeo (2013) in which they found that general self-efficacy is primarily a product of past
experience (in this case performance) rather than the precursor of future performance. Theoretically, we might expect career success
to boost ESE, but there is growing recognition that challenging experiences rather than success (Hmieleski & Carr, 2008), and even
business failure (Jenkins, Wiklund, & Brundin, 2014), may foster the development of psychological resources such as ESE amongst
entrepreneurs. Indeed, Bandura and Locke (2003, p.94) propose that business success may lead to varied levels of self-efficacy as
“many who drive themselves to hard-won success are left with self-doubts that they can duplicate the feat.” Therefore future research
should do more to delineate the effects of entrepreneurial experiences (both positive and negative) on ESE.
Future research could also address a certain “gravity effect” of broad and relatively stable personality traits such as the Big Five on
ESE (Obschonka & Stuetzer, 2017). For example, researchers might examine whether individuals with an entrepreneurial ‘big five’
structure develop higher levels of ESE as an expression of their basic personality structure, and whether the long-term influence of
entrepreneurship training and education programs on ESE depends on the individual big five structure due to a gravity effect of these
traits.

4.2. Developmental precursors of ese in childhood, adolescence and early adulthood

We call on researchers to consider a developmental life-span perspective (Baltes & Smith, 2004) to examine how ESE develops
during the early formative years before the beginning of an individual's actual occupational career. Such a perspective emphasizes
that a person's vocational development starts in childhood and adolescence (Hartung, Porfeli, & Vondracek, 2005), with important
early developmental precursors of the entrepreneurial mindset that includes ESE (Obschonka, 2016). Research indicates, for example,
that early, age-appropriate entrepreneurial activities and competencies in childhood and adolescence (e.g., early leadership and early
commercialization and inventive activities) predict ESE in adulthood (e.g., Obschonka, Silbereisen, & Schmitt-Rodermund, 2010).
Researchers should also take a closer look at the role of entrepreneurship education and training programs in fostering ESE
amongst individuals in childhood, adolescence and early adulthood. For example, although it has been argued that entrepreneurial
education programs foster ESE through providing opportunities for mastery, role modeling, verbal encouragement, and awareness of
physiological and emotional states (Boukamcha, 2015; Hodzic et al., 2015; Maritz & Brown, 2013), the relative importance of
different pathways at different life stages has received limited empirical attention. Understanding the pathways by which ESE de-
velops will assist policy makers in determining where to best target entrepreneurship training and education.

4.3. Negative/curvilinear effects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy

Prior work on ESE has predominantly focused on the positive outcomes of ESE with limited attention being paid to its potential
downside. Drawing on the meta-theoretical principle of ‘the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect’ (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013), which sug-
gests that levels of typically beneficial antecedents reach tipping points, after which their relationships with positive outcomes move
from being linear and positive to curvilinear and negative, we might expect ESE to have curvilinear effects on entrepreneurial

413
A. Newman et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) 403–419

outcomes. For example, although ESE is thought to have a positive effect on venture creation and venture performance, very high
levels of ESE might increase extreme risk-taking behavior, which in turn could negatively influence venture survival or performance.
In support of such an assertion, there is growing work on general self-efficacy that suggests its influence may be curvilinear
(Vancouver, Thompson, Tischner, & Putka, 2002). For example, recent work has found that the positive effects of self-efficacy on
employee performance may reach an inflection point at which its effects become negative (Beck & Schmidt, 2012). In addition,
researchers have found that expectancy beliefs such self-efficacy are positively linked to goal choice, yet have a negative relationship
to allocation of effort for chosen goals, given belief in one's capabilities or positive conditions for goal achievement (Sun, Vancouver,
& Weinhardt, 2014; Vancouver, More, & Yoder, 2008).
Future work could link ESE to related constructs such as overconfidence and over-optimism, which occur when individuals'
predictions or expectations do not correspond with outcomes (Simon & Houghton, 2003). Overconfidence and over-optimism, have
been shown to have mixed effects on entrepreneurial and organizational outcomes. For example, individuals high in overconfidence
or over-optimism have been shown to be more likely to enter self-employment but also to exit (Dawson & Henley, 2013; Koellinger,
Minniti, & Schade, 2007), and recent research has found a curvilinear relationship between optimistic overconfidence and success in
the introduction of new products (Simon & Shrader, 2012). In light of such work, future research might examine whether individuals
with high levels of ESE are more likely to display cognitive biases such as overconfidence and examine the negative effects that may
occur as a result. For example, as stressed in Obschonka et al. (2010), individuals with high levels of ESE might experience an illusion
of control at work in that they are overconfident, despite a personal lack of actual entrepreneurial means (e.g., skills and networks).

4.4. Alternative theoretical approaches to the study of entrepreneurial self-efficacy

Although, as highlighted earlier, prior work on the antecedents and outcomes of ESE has typically drawn on social cognitive
theory and the theory of planned behavior, alternative theoretical approaches may help aid our understanding as to why individuals
with higher levels of ESE achieve greater entrepreneurial motivation, behavior, persistence, and performance, and how ESE enables
individuals to deal with uncertain and challenging situations at work. In particular, researchers may consider drawing upon the
conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989) and job-demands resources (JD-R) theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), to
enhance our understanding of how ESE transmits its effects and when it is most influential. For example, under the COR theory, ESE
might be viewed as a personal psychological resource that leads individuals to invest greater resources at work (a gain spiral), which
in turn influences entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial outcomes. Similarly, under the JD-R theory, ESE might be viewed as a personal
resource that buffers the negative effects of the demands that arise from entrepreneurial work environments such as work overload,
time pressure, and team conflict.
In addition to drawing on resource theories, future research might consider integrating theoretical perspectives from the voca-
tional behavior literature such as social cognitive career theory (Lent et al., 1994) and career construction theory (Savickas et al.,
2009), to specify how ESE affects individuals' interest and intention to pursue entrepreneurial projects in organizations, move into an
entrepreneurial career, and succeed in entrepreneurial endeavors.

4.5. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a collective phenomenon

In keeping with the literature on self-efficacy in organizational contexts (Chen & Bliese, 2002), research on ESE should also
consider examining ESE as a group or team-level (collective) construct and assess the factors which lead to the development of
collective ESE. Whereas entrepreneurship scholars already highlighted the potential role of collective ESE (e.g., Krueger Jr, 2003),
empirical research has not yet addressed it. In line with prior work on general self-efficacy, we may expect organizational leadership,
climate, and team characteristics to predict the development and strength of collective ESE within entrepreneurial teams where
several entrepreneurs work together and groups within more mainstream organizations (Chen & Bliese, 2002; Dawkins, Martin, Scott,
& Sanderson, 2015).

4.6. Effects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy beyond the entrepreneurial venture context

Given that existing research on ESE mainly focuses on entrepreneurial intentions and behavior with respect to the founding and
development of entrepreneurial ventures, researchers could broaden the scope of the study of ESE by examining the effects of ESE in
other populations than entrepreneurs, and with respect to other work and career outcomes. As stressed earlier, entrepreneurial
thinking and acting is not only crucial with respect to classical entrepreneurial outcomes such as venture creation and growth, but
also influences intrapreneurship within more established businesses, and can also be considered as a general skill-set that assists the
individual to proactively manage his/her own career in times of uncertainty and change. Future research should therefore examine
the importance of ESE to work and career outcomes amongst populations other than entrepreneurs. Such research could, for example,
draw from recent theoretical developments in social cognitive career theory (Lent & Brown, 2013) and put a special focus on ESE in
career self-management.

4.7. Improving measurement of entrepreneurial self-efficacy

Our review identified a number of concerns with the methodology adopted in previous research on ESE. Most significant was the
lack of consistency in how ESE had been measured. We call on researchers to be consistent in how they measure ESE in future

414
A. Newman et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) 403–419

research as this will ensure for generalizability and comparison across studies. More specifically, although we note that the Chen et al.
(1998) measure has been the most widely tested and validated in the previous literature, we call on researchers to consider using the
DeNoble et al. (1999) and McGee et al. (2009) measures which made improvements on the Chen et al. (1998) measure. In particular,
we advocate the use of the McGee et al. (2009) measure for researchers who wish to examine ESE in different stages of the venture
creation and development process. However, we also call on researchers to develop new measures that assess ESE in relation to
entrepreneurial activity in more mainstream organizational contexts (i.e., outside a new venture setting), and in the context of
entrepreneurial career management (i.e., whether an individual feels confident managing their career in an uncertain, risky en-
vironment).
In terms of research design, we found that prior research typically relied on cross-sectional data to examine the link between ESE
and its antecedents/outcomes. Such a research design does not allow us to infer causality or rule out common method bias. We
therefore call on researchers to collect panel data from multiple sources using longitudinal research designs in order to provide
stronger inferences of causality and rule out common method bias.

5. Conclusion

The present study conducted a systematic review of prior research on entrepreneurial self-efficacy. As well as examining how ESE
has been measured in previous research, extant work on its antecedents and outcomes was also reviewed. In reviewing the literature,
key gaps in the literature were identified and an agenda for future research presented which highlights opportunities for empirical
and theoretical advancement of the field.

References

Abaho, E., Olomi, D., & Urassa, G. (2015). Students' entrepreneurial self-efficacy: Does the teaching method matter? Education and Training, 57, 908–923.
Ahlin, B., Drnovsek, M., & Hisrich, R. (2014). Entrepreneurs' creativity and firm innovation: The moderating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Small Business
Economics, 43, 101–117.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495–527.
Arora, P., Haynie, J., & Laurence, G. (2013). Counterfactual thinking and entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The moderating role of self-esteem and dispositional affect.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 37, 359–385.
Arshad, M., Farooq, O., Sultana, N., & Farooq, M. (2016). Determinants of individuals' entrepreneurial intentions: A gender-comparative study. Career Development
International, 21(4), 318–339.
Austin, M., & Nauta, M. (2016). Entrepreneurial role-model exposure, self-efficacy, and women's entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Career Development, 43,
260–272.
Bacq, S., Ofstein, L., Kickul, J., & Gundry, L. (2017). Perceived entrepreneurial munificence and entrepreneurial intentions: A social cognitive perspective. International
Small Business Journal, 35(5), 639–659.
Bagheri, A., & Pihie, Z. (2014). The moderating role of gender in shaping entrepreneurial intentions: Implications for vocational guidance. International Journal for
Educational and Vocational Guidance, 14, 255–273.
Bakker, A., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
Baltes, P. B., & Smith, J. (2004). Lifespan psychology: From developmental contextualism to developmental biocultural co-constructivism. Research in Human
Development, 1(3), 123–144.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180.
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38, 9–44.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87–99.
Barakat, S., Boddington, M., & Vyakarnam, S. (2014). Measuring entrepreneurial self-efficacy to understand the impact of creative activities for learning innovation.
The International Journal of Management Education, 12, 456–468.
Barbosa, S., Gerhardt, M., & Kickul, J. (2007). The role of cognitive style and risk preference on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13, 86–104.
BarNir, A., Watson, W., & Hutchins, H. (2011). Mediation and moderated mediation in the relationship among role models, self-efficacy, entrepreneurial career
intention, and gender. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 270–297.
Baron, R., Mueller, B., & Wolfe, M. (2016). Self-efficacy and entrepreneurs' adoption of unattainable goals: The restraining effects of self-control. Journal of Business
Venturing, 31, 55–71.
Baum, J., & Bird, B. (2010). The successful intelligence of high-growth entrepreneurs: Links to new venture growth. Organization Science, 21(2), 397–412.
Baum, J., & Locke, E. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 587.
Beck, J., & Schmidt, A. (2012). Taken out of context? Cross-level effects of between-person self-efficacy and difficulty on the within-person relationship of self-efficacy
with resource allocation and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(2), 195–208.
Biraglia, A., & Kadile, V. (2017). The role of entrepreneurial passion and creativity in developing entrepreneurial intentions: Insights from American homebrewers.
Journal of Small Business Management, 55(1), 170–188.
Bledow, R. (2013). Demand-perception and self-motivation as opponent processes: A response to Bandura and Vancouver. Journal of Management, 39(1), 14–26.
Boukamcha, F. (2015). Impact of training on entrepreneurial intention: An interactive cognitive perspective. European Business Review, 27, 593–616.
Brandle, L., Berger, E., Golla, S., & Kuckertz, A. (2018). I am what I am–How nascent entrepreneurs' social identity affects their entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Journal of
Business Venturing Insights, 9, 17–23.
Brinckmann, J., & Kim, S. (2015). Why we plan: The impact of nascent entrepreneurs' cognitive characteristics and human capital on business planning. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 153–166.
Brooks, A., Huang, L., Kearney, S., & Murray, F. (2014). Investors prefer entrepreneurial ventures pitched by attractive men. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 111(12), 4427–4431.
Bullough, A., Renko, M., & Myatt, T. (2014). Danger zone entrepreneurs: The importance of resilience and self-efficacy for entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship:
Theory and Practice, 38(3), 473–499.
Byabashaija, W., & Katano, I. (2011). The impact of college entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention to start a business in Uganda. Journal
of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 16(1), 127–144.
Cardon, M., & Kirk, C. (2015). Entrepreneurial passion as mediator of the self-efficacy to persistence relationship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 39(5),

415
A. Newman et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) 403–419

1027–1050.
Carr, J., & Sequeira, J. (2007). Prior family business exposure as intergenerational influence and entrepreneurial intent: A theory of planned behavior approach.
Journal of Business Research, 60, 1090–1098.
Cassar, G., & Friedman, H. (2009). Does self-efficacy affect entrepreneurial investment? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3, 241–260.
Chen, C., Greene, P., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 295–316.
Chen, G., & Bliese, P. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self-and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(3), 549.
Chen, Y., & He, Y. (2011). The impact of strong ties on entrepreneurial intention: An empirical study based on the mediating role of self-efficacy. Journal of Chinese
Entrepreneurship, 3(2), 147–158.
Coleman, S., & Kariv, D. (2014). ‘Deconstructing’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A gendered perspective on the impact of ESE and community entrepreneurial culture on
the financial strategies and performance of new firms. Venture Capital, 16, 157–181.
Cooper, D., Peake, W., & Watson, W. (2016). Seizing opportunities: The moderating role of managerial characteristics on the relationship between opportunity-seeking
and innovation efficacy in small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 54, 1038–1058.
Cumberland, D., Meek, W., & Germain, R. (2015). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and firm performance in challenging environments: Evidence from the franchise
context. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 20(1), 1550004.
Dalborg, C., von Friedrichs, Y., & Wincent, J. (2015). Risk perception matters: Why women's passion may not lead to a business start-up. International Journal of Gender
and Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 87–104.
Dalborg, C., & Wincent, J. (2015). The idea is not enough: The role of self-efficacy in mediating the relationship between pull entrepreneurship and founder passion–A
research note. International Small Business Journal, 33, 974–984.
Daniel, E., Di Domenico, M., & Sharma, S. (2015). Effectuation and home-based online business entrepreneurs. International Small Business Journal, 33(8), 799–823.
Dawkins, S., Martin, A., Scott, J., & Sanderson, K. (2015). Advancing conceptualization and measurement of psychological capital as a collective construct. Human
Relations; Studies Towards the Integration of the Social Sciences, 68(6), 925–949.
Dawson, C., & Henley, A. (2013). Over-optimism and entry and exit from self-employment. International Small Business Journal, 31(8), 938–954.
Dempsey, D., & Jennings, J. (2014). Gender and entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A learning perspective. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 28–49.
DeNoble, A., Jung, D., & Ehrlich, S. (1999). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The development of a measure and its relationship to entrepreneurial action. In P. D.
Reynolds (Ed.). Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 73–87). Stanford, CA: Center for Entrepreneurial Studies.
Díaz-García, M., & Jiménez-Moreno, J. (2010). Entrepreneurial intention: The role of gender. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(3), 261–283.
Douglas, E. (2013). Reconstructing entrepreneurial intentions to identify predisposition for growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 633–651.
Douglas, E., & Fitzsimmons, J. (2013). Intrapreneurial intentions versus entrepreneurial intentions: Distinct constructs with different antecedents. Small Business
Economics, 41, 115–132.
Drnovšek, M., Wincent, J., & Cardon, M. (2010). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and business start-up: Developing a multi-dimensional definition. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 16, 329–348.
Duffy, R., & Dik, B. (2013). Research on calling: What have we learned and where are we going? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 428–436.
Engel, Y., Dimitrova, N., Khapova, S., & Elfring, T. (2014). Uncertain but able: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and novices' use of expert decision-logic under uncertainty.
Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 1-2, 12–17.
Engle, R., Dimitriadi, N., Gavidia, J., Schlaegel, C., Delanoe, S., Alvarado, I., ... Wolff, B. (2010). Entrepreneurial intent: A twelve-country evaluation of Ajzen's model
of planned behaviour. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 16(1), 35–57.
Farashah, A. (2015). The effects of demographic, cognitive and institutional factors on development of entrepreneurial intention: Toward a socio-cognitive model of
entrepreneurial career. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 13, 452–476.
Farnese, M., Tramontano, C., Fida, R., & Paciello, M. (2011). Cheating behaviors in academic context: Does academic moral disengagement matter? Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 356–365.
Fini, R., & Toschi, L. (2016). Academic logic and corporate entrepreneurial intentions: A study of the interaction between cognitive and institutional factors in new
firms. International Small Business Journal, 34(5), 637–659.
Fitzsimmons, J., & Douglas, E. (2011). Interaction between feasibility and desirability in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing,
26(4), 431–440.
Forbes, D. (2005). The effects of strategic decision making on entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 599–626.
Frese, M. (2009). Towards a psychology of entrepreneurship—An action theory perspective. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 5(6), 437–496.
Geenen, N., Urbig, D., Muehlfelda, K., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Gargalianou, V. (2016). BIS and BAS: Bio behaviorally rooted drivers of entrepreneurial intent.
Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 204–213.
Gielnik, M., Frese, M., Kahara-Kawuki, A., Katono, I., Kyejjusa, S., Ngoma, M., ... Dlugosch, T. (2015). Action and action-regulation in entrepreneurship: Evaluating a
student training for promoting entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14, 69–94.
Gielnik, M., Uy, M. A., Funken, R., & Bischoff, K. M. (2017). Boosting and sustaining passion: A long-term perspective on the effects of entrepreneurship training.
Journal of Business Venturing, 32, 334–353.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211.
Hallak, R., Assaker, G., & Lee, C. (2015). Tourism entrepreneurship performance: The effects of place identity, self-efficacy, and gender. Journal of Travel Research,
54(1), 36–51.
Hallak, R., Assaker, G., & O'Connor, P. (2014). Are family and nonfamily tourism businesses different? An examination of the entrepreneurial self-efficacy–en-
trepreneurial performance relationship. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 38(3), 388–413.
Hallak, R., Brown, G., & Lindsay, N. (2012). The place identity–Performance relationship among tourism entrepreneurs: A structural equation modelling analysis.
Tourism Management, 33, 143–154.
Hallak, R., Lindsay, N., & Brown, G. (2011). Examining the role of entrepreneurial experience and entrepreneurial self-efficacy on SMTE performance. Tourism
Analysis, 16, 583–599.
Hallam, C., Zanella, G., Dosamantes, C., & Cardenas, C. (2016). Measuring entrepreneurial intent? Temporal construal theory shows it depends on your timing.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 22(5), 671–697.
Hambrick, D., & Mason, P. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.
Hartung, P. J., Porfeli, E. J., & Vondracek, F. W. (2005). Child vocational development: A review and reconsideration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(3), 385–419.
Hechevarria, D., Renko, M., & Matthews, C. (2012). The nascent entrepreneurship hub: Goals, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and start-up outcomes. Small Business
Economics, 39, 685–701.
Henry, C., Foss, L., & Ahl, H. (2016). Gender and entrepreneurship research: A review of methodological approaches. International Small Business Journal, 34(3),
217–241.
Higgins, E. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319–340.
Hisrich, R., Langan-Fox, J., & Grant, S. (2007). Entrepreneurship research and practice: A call to action for psychology. American Psychologist, 62(6), 575.
Hmieleski, K., & Baron, R. (2008). When does entrepreneurial self-efficacy enhance versus reduce firm performance? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2, 57–72.
Hmieleski, K., & Carr, J. (2008). The relationship between entrepreneur psychological capital and new venture performance. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. US:
Babson College.
Hmieleski, K., & Corbett, A. (2008). The contrasting interaction effects of improvisational behavior with entrepreneurial self-efficacy on new venture performance and
entrepreneur work satisfaction. Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 482–496.
Hobfoll, S. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
Hockerts, K. (2017). Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 41(1), 105–130.

416
A. Newman et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) 403–419

Hodzic, S., Ripoll, P., Lira, E., & Zenasni, F. (2015). Can intervention in emotional competences increase employability prospects of unemployed adults? Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 88, 28–37.
Hopp, C., & Stephan, U. (2012). The influence of socio-cultural environments on the performance of nascent entrepreneurs: Community culture, motivation, self-
efficacy and start-up success. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24, 917–945.
Horvath, Z. E. (2016). Assessing calling as a predictor of entrepreneurial interest. Society and Economy, 38(4), 513–535.
Hsu, D., Wiklund, J., & Cotton, R. (2017). Success, failure, and entrepreneurial reentry: An experimental assessment of the veracity of self-efficacy and prospect theory.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/etap.12166.
Huyghe, A., & Knockaert, M. (2015). The influence of organizational culture and climate on entrepreneurial intentions among research scientists. Journal of Technology
Transfer, 40, 138–160.
Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., & Obschonka, M. (2016). Unraveling the “passion orchestra” in academia. Journal of Business Venturing, 31, 344–364.
Jain, R., & Ali, S. (2013). Self-efficacy beliefs, marketing orientation and attitude orientation of Indian entrepreneurs. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 22(1), 71–95.
Jenkins, A., Wiklund, J., & Brundin, E. (2014). Individual responses to firm failure: Appraisals, grief and influence of prior failure experience. Journal of Business
Venturing, 29(1), 17–33.
Johnston, C. (2018). A systematic review of the career adaptability literature and future outlook. Journal of Career Assessment, 26, 3–30.
Judge, T., & Bono, J. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—Self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—With job
satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92.
Karlsson, T., & Moberg, K. (2013). Improving perceived entrepreneurial abilities through education: Exploratory testing of an entrepreneurial self-efficacy scale in a
pre-post setting. The International Journal of Management Education, 11, 1–11.
Kassean, H., Vanevenhoven, J., Liguori, E., & Winkel, D. (2015). Entrepreneurship education: A need for reflection, real-world experience and action. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 21, 690–708.
Kaufmann, P., Welsh, D., & Bushmarin, N. (1995). Locus of control and entrepreneurship in the Russian Republic. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20, 43–56.
Kerrick, S., Cumberland, D., & Choi, N. (2016). Comparing military veterans and civilians response to an entrepreneurship education program. Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, 19(1), 9–23.
Khan, S., Tang, J., & Joshi, K. (2014). Disengagement of nascent entrepreneurs from the start-up process. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(1), 39–58.
Kickul, J., Gundry, L., Barbosa, S., & Whitcanack, L. (2009). Intuition versus analysis? Testing differential models of cognitive style on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and
the new venture creation process. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 33, 439–453.
Kickul, J., Wilson, F., Marlino, D., & Barbosa, S. (2008). Are misalignments of perceptions and self-efficacy causing gender gaps in entrepreneurial intentions among
our nation's teens? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15, 321–335.
Koellinger, P., Minniti, M., & Schade, C. (2007). "I think I can, I think I can": Overconfidence and entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(4),
502–527.
Kolvereid, L., & Isaksen, E. (2006). New business start-up and subsequent entry into self-employment. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 866–885.
Kolvereid, L., & Isaksen, E. (2017). Expectations and achievements in new firms. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 24(3), 649–668.
Krueger, N., Jr. (2003). The cognitive psychology of entrepreneurship. Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 105–140). US: Springer.
Krueger, N., Reilly, M., & Carsrud, A. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5/6), 411–432.
Kubberød, E., & Pettersen, I. B. (2017). Exploring situated ambiguity in students' entrepreneurial learning. Education and Training, 59(3), 265–279.
Laguna, M. (2013). Self-efficacy, self-esteem, and entrepreneurship among the unemployed. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 253–262.
Lanero, A., Vazquez, J., & Aza, C. (2016). Social cognitive determinants of entrepreneurial career choice in university students. International Small Business Journal,
34(8), 1053–1075.
Lans, T., Gulikers, J., & Batterink, M. (2010). Moving beyond traditional measures of entrepreneurial intentions in a study among life-sciences students in the
Netherlands. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 15(3), 259–274.
Laviolette, E., Lefebvre, M., & Brunel, O. (2012). The impact of story bound entrepreneurial role models on self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 18(6), 720–742.
Lee, C., Hallak, R., & Sardeshmukh, S. (2016). Innovation, entrepreneurship, and restaurant performance: A higher-order structural model. Tourism Management, 53,
215–228.
Lent, R., & Brown, S. (2013). Social cognitive model of career self-management: Toward a unifying view of adaptive career behavior across the life span. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 557–568.
Lent, R., Brown, S., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 45(1), 79–122.
Lord, R. G., Diefendorff, J. M., Schmidt, A. M., & Hall, R. J. (2010). Self-regulation at work. In S. T. Fiske (Ed.). Annual Review of Psychology, 61 (pp. 543–568).
Chippewa Falls, WI: Annual Reviews.
Luthans, F., & Ibrayeva, E. (2007). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy in Central Asian transition economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 92–110.
Maritz, A., & Brown, C. (2013). Enhancing entrepreneurial self-efficacy through vocational entrepreneurship education programmes. Journal of Vocational Education &
Training, 65, 543–559.
Markman, G., Baron, R., & Balkin, D. (2005). Are perseverance and self-efficacy costless? Assessing entrepreneurs' regretful thinking. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
26, 1–19.
McCann, B., & Vroom, G. (2015). Opportunity evaluation and changing beliefs during the nascent entrepreneurial process. International Small Business Journal, 33,
612–637.
McGee, J., & Peterson, M. (2017). The long-term impact of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial orientation on venture performance. Journal of Small
Business Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12324.
McGee, J., Peterson, M., Mueller, S., & Sequeira, J. (2009). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: Refining the measure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(4), 965–988.
Miao, C., Qian, S., & Ma, D. (2017). The relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and firm performance: A meta-analysis of main and moderator effects.
Journal of Small Business Management, 55(1), 87–107.
Miles, M., Lewis, G., Hall-Phillips, A., Morrish, S., Gilmore, A., & Kasouf, C. (2016). The influence of entrepreneurial marketing processes and entrepreneurial self-
efficacy on community vulnerability, risk, and resilience. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(1), 34–46.
Moriano, J., Gorgievski, M., Laguna, M., Stephan, U., & Zarafshani, K. (2012). A cross-cultural approach to understanding entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Career
Development, 39(2), 162–185.
Mueller, S., & Dato-On, M. (2008). Gender-role orientation as a determinant of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 13, 3–20.
Murnieks, C., Mosakowski, E., & Cardon, M. (2014). Pathways of passion: Identity centrality, passion, and behavior among entrepreneurs. Journal of Management, 40,
1583–1606.
Naktiyok, A., Karabey, C., & Gulluce, A. (2010). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention: The Turkish case. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 6, 419–435.
Nowiński, W., Haddoud, M. Y., Lančarič, D., Egerová, D., & Czeglédi, C. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and gender on
entrepreneurial intentions of university students in the Visegrad countries. Studies in Higher Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1365359.
Obschonka, M. (2016). Adolescent pathways to entrepreneurship. Child Development Perspectives, 10(3), 196–201.
Obschonka, M., Hahn, E., & Bajwa, N. (2018). Personal agency in newly arrived refugees: The role of personality, entrepreneurial cognitions and intentions, and career
adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 105, 173–184.
Obschonka, M., Hakkarainen, K., Lonka, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2017). Entrepreneurship as a twenty-first century skill: Entrepreneurial alertness and intention in the
transition to adulthood. Small Business Economics, 48(3), 487–501.
Obschonka, M., Silbereisen, R. K., & Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2010). Entrepreneurial intention as developmental outcome. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(1), 63–72.

417
A. Newman et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) 403–419

Obschonka, M., & Stuetzer, M. (2017). Integrating psychological approaches to entrepreneurship: The entrepreneurial personality system (EPS). Small Business
Economics, 49(1), 203–231.
Otto, K., Glaser, D., & Dalbert, C. (2009). Mental health, occupational trust, and quality of working life: Does belief in a just world matter? Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 39(6), 1288–1315.
Pfeifer, S., Šarlija, N., & Zekic Sušac, M. (2016). Shaping the entrepreneurial mindset: Entrepreneurial intentions of business students in Croatia. Journal of Small
Business Management, 54, 102–117.
Pierce, J., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39(2), 313–338.
Pihie, Z., & Bagneri, A. (2013). Self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention: The mediation effect of self-regulation. Vocations and Learning, 6, 385–401.
Piperopoulos, P., & Dimov, D. (2015). Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal
of Small Business Management, 53(4), 970–985.
Prabhu, V., McGuire, S., Drost, E., & Kwong, K. (2012). Proactive personality and entrepreneurial intent: Is entrepreneurial self-efficacy a mediator or moderator?
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 18(5), 559–586.
Prajapati, K., & Biswas, S. (2011). Effect of entrepreneur network and entrepreneur self-efficacy on subjective performance. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 20(2),
227–247.
Prodan, I., & Drnovsek, M. (2010). Conceptualizing academic-entrepreneurial intentions: An empirical test. Technovation, 30, 332–347.
Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let's put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners' personality
traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 353–385.
Saeed, S., Yousafzai, S., Yani-De-Soriano, M., & Muffatto, M. (2015). The role of perceived university support in the formation of Students' entrepreneurial intention.
Journal of Small Business Management, 53, 1127–1145.
Sanchez, J. (2011). University training for entrepreneurial competencies: Impact on intention of venture creation. International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, 7, 239–254.
Sanchez, J. C. (2013). The impact of an entrepreneurship education program on entrepreneurial competencies and intention. Journal of Small Business Management,
51(3), 447–465.
Sardeshmukh, S., & Corbett, A. (2011). The duality of internal and external development of successors: Opportunity recognition in family firms. Family Business Review,
24, 111–125.
Savickas, M., Nota, L., Rossier, J., Dauwalder, J., Duarte, M., Guichard, J., ... Van Vianen, A. (2009). Life designing: A paradigm for career construction in the 21st
century. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 239–250.
Schenkel, M., D'Souza, R., & Braun, F. (2014). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy, intent and intensity: Does experiential training enhance or inhibit predisposition? Journal
of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 19(1) (1450005 0-21).
Schjoedt, L., & Craig, J. B. (2017). Development and validation of a unidimensional domain specific entrepreneurial self-efficacy scale. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(1), 98–113.
Schlaegel, C., & Koenig, M. (2014). Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: A meta-analytic test and integration of competing models. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 38, 291–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/etap.12087.
Scholz, U., Gutiérrez-Doña, B., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. European Journal
of Psychological Assessment, 18(3), 242–251.
Segal, G., Borgia, D., & Schoenfeld, J. (2005). The motivation to become an entrepreneur. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 11(1), 42–57.
Sequeira, J., Mueller, S., & McGee, J. (2007). The influence of social ties and self-efficacy in forming entrepreneurial intentions and motivating nascent behavior.
Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 12(3), 275–293.
Sesen, H. (2013). Personality or environment? A comprehensive study on the entrepreneurial intentions of university students. Education and Training, 55(7), 624–640.
Shane, S. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 141–149.
Shane, S. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: Delivering on the promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review,
37(1), 10–20.
Shepherd, D., Patzelt, H., & Baron, R. (2013). “I care about nature, but”: Disengaging values in assessing opportunities that cause harm. Academy of Management
Journal, 56(5), 1251–1273.
Shinnar, R., Hsu, D., & Powell, B. (2014). Self-efficacy, entrepreneurial intentions, and gender: Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education longitudinally. The
International Journal of Management Education, 12, 561–570.
Short, J. (2009). The art of writing a review article. Journal of Management, 35, 1312–1317.
Sieger, P., & Minola, T. (2017). The family's financial support as a “poisoned gift”: A family embeddedness perspective on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small
Business Management, 55(S1), 179–204.
Sieger, P., & Monsen, E. (2015). Founder, academic, or employee? A nuanced study of career choice intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(S1), 30–57.
Simon, M., & Houghton, S. M. (2003). The relationship between overconfidence and the introduction of risky products: Evidence from a field study. Academy of
Management Journal, 46(2), 139–149.
Simon, M., & Shrader, R. C. (2012). Entrepreneurial actions and optimistic overconfidence: The role of motivated reasoning in new product introductions. Journal of
Business Venturing, 27(3), 291–309.
Sitzmann, T., & Yeo, G. (2013). A meta-analytic investigation of the within-person self-efficacy domain: Is self-efficacy a product of past performance or a driver of
future performance? Personnel Psychology, 66, 531–568.
Snell, L., Sok, P., & Danaher, T. (2015). Achieving growth-quality of work life ambidexterity in small firms. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 25(5), 529–550.
Spagnoli, P., Santos, S., & Caetano, A. (2017). A contribution toward the adaptation and validation of the entrepreneurial self-efficacy scale in Italy and Portugal.
Journal of Career Assessment, 25(4), 670–687.
St Jean, E., & Mathieu, C. (2015). Developing attitudes toward an entrepreneurial career through mentoring: The mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Journal of Career Development, 42, 325–338.
Sun, S., Vancouver, J., & Weinhardt, J. (2014). Goal choices and planning: Distinct expectancy and value effects in two goal processes. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 125(2014), 220–233.
Sweida, G., & Reichard, J. (2013). Gender stereotyping effects on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and high-growth entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, 20(2), 296–313.
Sweida, G., & Woods, J. (2015). Comparing the development of entrepreneurial self-efficacy of female entrepreneurs in male and female-dominated industries. Journal
of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 20(3), 1550018.
Tegtmeier, S., Kurczewska, A., & Halberstadt, J. (2016). Are women graduates jacquelines-of-all-trades? Challenging Lazear's view on entrepreneurship. Small Business
Economics, 47, 77–94.
Tolentino, L., Sedoglavich, V., Lu, V., Garcia, P., & Restubog, S. (2014). The role of career adaptability in predicting entrepreneurial intentions: A moderated mediation
model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 403–412.
Trevelyan, R. (2011). Self-efficacy and effort in new venture development. Journal of Management & Organization, 17, 2–16.
Tsai, K., Chang, H., & Peng, C. (2016). Extending the link between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention: A moderated mediation model. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12, 445–463.
Tumasjan, A., & Braun, R. (2012). In the eye of the beholder: How regulatory focus and self-efficacy interact in influencing opportunity recognition. Journal of Business
Venturing, 27, 622–636.
Urban, B. (2006). Entrepreneurship in the rainbow nation: Effect of cultural values and ESE on intentions. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 11(3), 171–186.
Uy, M., Chan, K., Sam, Y., Ho, M., & Chernyshenko, O. (2015). Proactivity, adaptability and boundaryless career attitudes: The mediating role of entrepreneurial
alertness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 86, 115–123.

418
A. Newman et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) 403–419

Uygur, U., & Kim, S. (2016). Evolution of entrepreneurial judgment with venture-specific experience. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10, 169–193.
Vancouver, J., More, K., & Yoder, R. (2008). Self-efficacy and resource allocation: Support for a nonmonotonic, discontinuous model. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93(1), 35–47.
Vancouver, J., Thompson, C., Tischner, C., & Putka, D. (2002). Two studies examining the negative effect of self-efficacy, personal goals, and performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 506–516.
Vanevenhoven, J., & Liguori, E. (2016). The impact of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 315–328.
Venugopal, S., Viswanathan, M., & Jung, K. (2015). Consumption constraints and entrepreneurial intentions in subsistence marketplaces. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 34(2), 235–251.
Wennberg, K., Pathak, S., & Autio, E. (2013). How culture moulds the effects of self-efficacy and fear of failure on entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, 25(9–10), 756–780.
Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 31, 387–406.
Wilson, F., Kickul, J., Marlino, D., Barbosa, S., & Griffiths, M. (2009). An analysis of the role of gender and self-efficacy in developing female entrepreneurial interest
and behavior. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 14, 105–119.
World Economic Forum (2009). Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs: Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st century. Geneva:
Switzerland: World Economic Forum.
Zacher, H., Biemann, T., Gielnik, M., & Frese, M. (2012). Patterns of entrepreneurial career development: An optimal matching analysis approach. International Journal
of Developmental Science, 6(3–4), 177–187.
Zellweger, T., Sieger, P., & Halter, F. (2011). Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family business background. Journal of Business
Venturing, 26, 521–536.
Zhang, P., & Cain, K. W. (2017). Reassessing the link between risk aversion and entrepreneurial intention: The mediating role of the determinants of planned
behaviour. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(5), 793–811.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S., & Hills, G. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
1265–1272.

419