Int Entrep Manag J

DOI 10.1007/s11365-016-0383-x

Refining the linkage between perceived capability

and entrepreneurial intention: roles of perceived
opportunity, fear of failure, and gender

Kuen-Hung Tsai 1 & Hui-Chen Chang 1 &

Chen-Yi Peng 1

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Abstract This study refines the relationship between perceived capability and entre-
preneurial intention by considering the mediating roles of perceived opportunity and
fear of failure and the moderating role of gender. A moderated mediation framework is
developed on the basis of perspectives of the cognitive phenomenon of categorization
and the social role theory. Two samples of Taiwan and China obtained from the
database released by Global Entrepreneurship Monitor were used to test the hypothe-
ses. A logistic regression analysis followed by a bootstrap approach reveals several
interesting results. First, perceived capability positively affects entrepreneurial intention
through perceived opportunity; this indirect linkage is stronger in China than in Taiwan.
Second, compared with the fear of failure, perceived opportunity has a stronger
mediating effect in linking perceived capability and entrepreneurial intention. This
difference is more remarkable in China than in Taiwan. Third, gender partially mod-
erates the mediating effect of perceived opportunity. Specifically, perceived capability
has a stronger indirect effect on entrepreneurial intention through perceived opportunity
among men than among women in Taiwan; however, the difference is not significant
between men and women in China. In addition, age negatively affects perceived
opportunity and entrepreneurial intention.

Keywords Perceived capability . Entrepreneurial intention . Perceived opportunity .

Gender . GEM

* Kuen-Hung Tsai
[email protected]

1
National Tapei University, Taipei, Taiwan
 Int Entrep Manag J

Introduction

Entrepreneurial intention has been considered the most critical factor for predicting a
business start-up. Therefore, exploring the factors associated with the development of
entrepreneurial intention is pivotal in understanding or predicting how a person be-
comes an entrepreneur and has attracted considerable attention in entrepreneurship
research. Over the past decade, numerous studies have investigated the antecedents of
entrepreneurial intention (see the review by Schlaegel and Koenig 2014). Among the
antecedents, perceived capability has been demonstrated as a key predictor of a
person’s intent to start a business (Naktiyok et al. 2010; Ebrahim and Schϕtt 2011;
Noguera et al. 2013; Walker et al. 2013). However, previous studies have not examined
why perceived capability affects entrepreneurial intention. Specifically, studies have
paid little attention to the routes linking perceived capability and entrepreneurial
intention, whereas studies have suggested adopting process perspectives by involving
cognitive variables to enhance the understanding of a business start-up (Baron 2007).
Although extant research has investigated the intermediary factors between entre-
preneurial intention and its antecedents (Liñán 2008; Chang et al. 2014), they have
not examined the role of perceived capability. Filling this gap necessitates further
research to develop a clearer understanding of the formation of entrepreneurial
intention from a cognitive process perspective, particularly when research stream
of entrepreneurial cognition remains in its infancy (Mitchell et al. 2007).
Opportunity and threat perception are cognitive phenomena categorizing a person’s
entrepreneurship decision process (Krueger and Dickson 1994). The Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) has reported these two cognitive perceptions as
critical factors correlated with a person’s willingness to start a business (Kelley et al.
2013). However, apart from serving as predictors of entrepreneurial intention, per-
ceived opportunity and fear of failure have been rarely examined for their mediating
roles. Because opportunity and threat perceptions are driven by perceived competence
(Chell 2013; Krueger and Dickson 1994), the first question warranting investigation is
expressed as follows: Is the effect of perceived capability on entrepreneurial intention
realized through perceived opportunity and fear of failure? Moreover, extant research
has paid attention to the role of gender in perceived opportunity and fear of failure
(DeTienne and Chandler 2007; Rothblum 1990). In entrepreneurship, studies have
demonstrated the gender difference in perceived opportunity and fear of failure toward
entrepreneurship (Cacciotti and Hayton 2014; Dabic et al. 2012; Kelley et al. 2013).
However, the influence of gender difference in the mediating effects of perceived
opportunity and fear of failure on the linkages between entrepreneurial intention and
its explanatory factors are still unknown. As such, on the basis of the preceding
question, the next question raised here is as follows: Is the relationship linking
perceived capability and entrepreneurial intention through perceived opportunity and
fear of failure different between male and female?
This study therefore answers these two research questions by examining the
mediating effects of perceived opportunity and fear of failure on the perceived
capability–intention relationship and the moderating roles of gender in these medi-
ation processes. The examinations are conducted in different contexts to validate the
framework posited in this study. The topics investigated in this study are concentrat-
ed on two research areas: the interaction between personal characteristics and context
Int Entrep Manag J

influence and the integration of the core entrepreneurial intention model and context
analysis. The entrepreneurship literature has paid little effort to the two areas
suggested by Liñán and Fayolle (2015). Our research contributes to the entrepre-
neurship literature in three ways. First, this study increases the understanding of the
processes leading from perceived capability to entrepreneurial intention by extend-
ing the roles of perceived opportunity and fear of failure. Whereas prior research
focuses on investigating the direct effects of perceived capability, perceived oppor-
tunity, and fear of failure on entrepreneurial intention (Arab and Sofiyabadi 2013;
Noguera et al. 2013; Walker et al. 2013), this study examines the structural relation-
ships among these antecedents of intention. Second, this study advances entrepre-
neurial cognition research by examining the moderating role of gender. Past literature
examines gender differences in entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention (Díaz-
García and Jiménez-Moreno 2010; Haus et al. 2013; Wilson et al. 2007); in contrast,
this study argues the mediation relationship between perceived capability and entre-
preneurial intention as a contingency linkage of gender. Third, in methodology, this
study examines the problems by applying a moderated mediation approach associ-
ated with bootstrap procedures, which provide robust tests for the research hypoth-
eses. In addition, to examine the external validity of the results, this study applies a
comparison analysis involving two samples: Taiwan and China. The main reason
behind this comparison is that the two samples have a highly similar national culture,
but are at different stages of economic development. Such a comparison enables
providing insight into the role of economic development in the perceived capability–
intention relationships.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the concep-
tual framework and development of the research hypotheses; Section 3 describes the
research methods; Section 4 presents and discusses the results; and Section 5 presents
the theoretical and practical implications of the findings, compelling directions for
future research, and a brief conclusion.

Conceptual framework and hypotheses

The conceptual framework of this study is formulated on the basis of perspectives of

self-efficacy, the cognitive phenomenon of categorization, and the social role theory
(Fig. 1). The direct route is developed on the basis of the self-efficacy theory, which
posits that intentions of people are strongly influenced by their beliefs about effectively
completing a given task (Bandura et al. 1980) (Fig. 1). The rationale of the indirect
routes is based on the cognitive phenomenon of categorization, which postulates that a
person has critical biases toward simplifying the range of strategic issues that he or she
faces by categorizing as many as possible into Bopportunities^ and Bthreats,^ and then
affects his or her decision making (Dutton and Jackson 1987; Jackson and Dutton
1988). The moderating roles of gender are grounded on the social role theory, which
asserts that gender differences affect the decision and behavior of men and women
(Eagly 1987). According to this view, this study postulates that gender role differences
affect the relationships between perceived capability and entrepreneurial intention.
Specific hypotheses concerning these relationships are detailed in the rest of this section
together with their underlying rationale.
 Int Entrep Manag J

Perceived opportunity

Perceived capability Gender Entrepreneurial intenon

Fear of failure

Fig. 1 A moderated mediation model of the perceived capability-intention relationship

Mediating roles of perceived opportunity and fear of failure

In contrast to existing entrepreneurship research, this study argues the mediating roles
of perceived opportunity and the fear of failure in the perceived capability–intention
relationship. Perceived opportunity, or perceived opportunity, refers to the recognition
of entrepreneurial opportunities (Wasdani and Mathew 2014). Starting a business is a
risky decision-making process. Previous research has suggested that a person’s risk-
taking propensity is influenced by his or her cognitive categorization of the situations
he or she faces (Krueger and Dickson 1994; Krueger et al. 2000). A situation where the
likely outcomes are perceived as positive and that is deemed to be within a person’s
control would be categorized as an Bopportunity^ (Dutton and Jackson 1987; Jackson
and Dutton 1988). Krueger and Dickson’s (1994) experiment showed that opportunity
perception depends on perceived competence. People with perceived competence are
confident about behavioral controls and outcomes. Accordingly, individuals who have
the knowledge, experience, and skills required for entrepreneurship are more likely to
perceive opportunities and thus have a high propensity of risk taking. In turn, according
to the planned behavioral theory, the increasing risk-taking propensity associated with
perceived entrepreneurial opportunities improves a person’s positive attitude toward
entrepreneurship and then enhances his or her entrepreneurial intention. Existing
research suggests that perceived opportunity increases the intent of starting a business
(Arab and Sofiyabadi 2013; Noguera et al. 2013; Walker et al. 2013). Based on these
arguments, this study hypothesizes the following:

H1: Perceived capability positively affects entrepreneurial intention through in-

creased perceived opportunity.

The fear of failure is an emotional response associated with the decision-making of

whether to start a business or not. Much entrepreneurial research has discussed the
influence of the fear of failure on entrepreneurial behavior (Cacciotti and Hayton 2014).
In existing literature, this variable has been described as a negative emotion (Patzelt and
Shepherd 2011), an experience of shame or humiliation as a consequence of failure
(Wood et al. 2013), an appraisal of a person’s ability to accomplish goals (Noguera
et al. 2013), or attitudes toward risk (Koellinger et al. 2013; Shinnar et al. 2012). These
descriptions share the emotional response to Bthreat^ in nature. A person’s feeling of
Int Entrep Manag J

threat is influenced by his or her judgments of the situation that he or she faces.
According to the perspectives of cognitive categorization, a situation where the likely
outcomes are perceived as negative and that is considered to be beyond his or her
control would be labeled as a Bthreat^ (Dutton and Jackson 1987; Jackson and Dutton
1988). Given that the degree of threat perception is negatively influenced by perceived
competence (Krueger and Dickson 1994), people confident about the capabilities
required for running a business may have low threat perception and hence less fear
of failure in entrepreneurship. Existing entrepreneurship literature suggests that less fear
of entrepreneurial failure increases the willingness to run a business (Ebrahim and
Schϕtt 2011; Koellinger et al. 2013; Noguera et al. 2013). Considering these arguments
and evidence, this study hypothesizes the following:

H2: Perceived capability positively affects entrepreneurial intention through a

decreased fear of failure.

Although increased perceived opportunity and reduced fear of failure mediate the
perceived capability–intention relationship concomitantly, the two mediating impacts
may be unequal. The perceived capability–intention relationship through an increase in
perceived opportunity is a promotion-focused process; by contrast, this relationship
grounded on a decrease in the fear of failure is a prevention-focused process. The
former emphasizes the recognition of entrepreneurial opportunities, and the latter is
concerned with avoiding potential failure and loss (Bryant 2007; Trevelyan 2011;
Tumasjan and Braun 2012). In terms of the planned behavioral theory (Ajzen 1991),
positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship are associated with perceived opportunity,
and perceived behavioral control is concerned with the avoidance of potential failure.
Schlaegel and Koenig’s (2014) meta-analytic evidence suggests that positive attitudes
toward entrepreneurship serve a more crucial role than perceived entrepreneurial
control in linking self-efficacy and intention. Accordingly, this study hypothesizes the
following:

H3: The positive effect of perceived capability on entrepreneurial intention through

perceived opportunity is stronger than that through fear of failure.

Moderating role of gender

Understanding gender differences has been a major focus in the entrepreneurship

literature. Numerous studies have suggested that men have higher self-efficacy, risk
tolerance, and willingness to start up a business (Díaz-García and Jiménez-Moreno
2010; Fernández-Serrano et al. 2009; Verheul et al. 2012; Wilson et al. 2007; Zellweger
et al. 2011); however, these results cannot illustrate that the relationship between
perceived capability and entrepreneurial intention is stronger among men than among
women. This study adopts the social role theory to examine the moderating roles of
gender in the two indirect routes from perceived capability and entrepreneurial
intention.
The social role theory recognizes the labor division between women and men; the
former assume responsibilities at home, whereas the latter assume roles outside the
 Int Entrep Manag J

home (Eagly 1987, 1997; Franke et al. 1997). The concomitant gender differences in
social behavior lead to different expectancies for men and women. Thus, the behaviors
of men and women are governed by the stereotypes of their social roles. Men are
expected to be more competitive and aggressive, which aligns with their more instru-
mental role. By contrast, women are expected to be more supportive and expressive,
which inhibits their aggression. Competition and aggression are two critical traits of
entrepreneurs. The two traits may increase the desire of an individual with perceived
capability to search entrepreneurial opportunities and become an entrepreneur.
Furthermore, women are expected to spend more time working with the family and
household responsibilities than are men (Malach-Pines and Schwartz 2008; Roomi
et al. 2009). Family obligations may suppress a woman’s desire to recognize entrepre-
neurial opportunities although she has the same capability level as a man or may
diminish a woman’s willingness to start a business in spite of identifying the entrepre-
neurial opportunities. These arguments support the relationship between perceived
capability and perceived opportunity and that between perceived opportunity and
entrepreneurial intention as being weaker among women than among men. Thus, this
study hypothesizes the following:

H4: The positive effect of perceived capability on entrepreneurial intention through

perceived opportunity is stronger among men than among women.

Family obligations may also reduce the time available for entrepreneurship and then
increase risk perception. Thus, the fear of failing to run a business may still be present
in a woman with a high perceived capability level. Previous research has presented that
women are characterized by lower risk tolerance in entrepreneurship than are men
(Minniti 2009; Sánchez and Hemández-Sánchez 2014). Given that the fear of failure is
positively associated with risk tolerance (Arenius and Minniti 2005), it may be
expected that confidence from perceived capability may alleviate the fear of failure to
only a limited extent in women compared with that in men. Particularly, among
women, the association between perceived capability and the fear of failure is not as
strong as that among men. Considering these arguments, this study hypothesizes the
following:

H5: The positive effect of perceived capability on entrepreneurial intention through

a decreased fear of failure is stronger among men than among women.

Research method

Sample and data

The sample used to test the hypotheses was obtained from the GEM, a well-known
international survey of entrepreneurial activities. The GEM database has been increas-
ingly utilized in academic research (e,g, Bergmann et al. 2014; Liñán et al. 2011;
Ramos-Rodriguez et al. 2015; Williams and Williams 2014). In the current study, data
surveyed by the GEM in Taiwan and China were used to test the hypotheses; these data
were used because the two countries exhibit a highly similar national culture, but
Int Entrep Manag J

different stages of economic development. Specifically, Taiwan is a developed country,

whereas China is a developing country (IMF 2008, p.236). National culture and
economic development are closely associated with entrepreneurial activities
(Fernández-Serrano and Romero 2014; Sández-Escobedo et al. 2014).
Entrepreneurial intentions differ between developing and developed countries
(Iakovleva et al. 2011). As such, the two samples enabled us to test whether the
relationships posited in the framework varied across samples with dissimilar economic
development statuses. This study focused on the surveys of the year 2010 because they
were the most recent database released by the GEM during the research period. The
first survey was conducted by the GEM in the year 2010 in Taiwan. After deleting the
unavailable responses, the sample sizes of Taiwan and China were 1,563 and 2,220,
respectively.
The major variables included in the framework were entrepreneurial intention,
perceived capability, perceived opportunity, fear of failure, and gender. According to
prior research, entrepreneurial intention refers to a person’s propensity to start a new
business. The GEM measures this variable by asking the respondents whether they
expected to start a new business within the next 3 years. Perceived capability in the
database was measured by asking the respondents whether they had the knowledge,
skill, and experience required to start a new business. Perceived opportunity was
measured by asking the respondents whether they perceived strong opportunities for
starting a business in their residential area in the next 6 months. Fear of failure in the
database was measured by asking the respondents whether the fear of failure prevented
them from staring a business. All of these variables were dichotomous and scored as
1 = yes and 0 = no. Gender was a dummy variable, for which 1 = male and 0 = female.
Other than the major variables, this study also included two controls, age and the social
status of new business (SNB), in the model for reducing the confounding effects of
perceived capability on entrepreneurial intention. The first control was age. Prior
studies considered age as an antecedent of entrepreneurial intention (Noguera et al.
2013; Hatak et al. 2015) although their empirical findings were inconsistent. Age was
measured by asking the respondents how old (in years) they were at the time of the
survey. The second factor controlled was the SNB. This study described the SNB
variable as the level of status and respect for a successful business start-up. From the
perspectives of social learning, a person’s attitudes toward entrepreneurship are influ-
enced by the opinions of the society in which he or she lives (Scherer et al. 1989). This
variable is measured by asking the respondents whether those successful in starting a
new business had a high level of status and respect in their countries. The first control
was continuous measures; by contrast, this second control was a dichotomous variable
scored as 1 = yes and 0 = no. The descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among
these variables were reported in Table 1. These relationships between the dependent
variable (entrepreneurial intention) and exploratory variables were further examined in
the following.

Analyses and results

The model for the conceptual framework comprised two mediators (perceived oppor-
tunity and fear of failure) and a dependent variable (entrepreneurial intention), which is
 Int Entrep Manag J

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

EI 1.00
(1.00)
PC 0.22a 1.00
(0.29)a (1.00)
Gender 0.06 a 0.10 a 1.00
(0.08)a (0.13) a (1.00)
Age −0.19 a
0.15 a
−0.06 a 1.00
a a
(−0.25) (−0.08) (0.06)a (1.00)
NBS 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.09 a 1.00
(0.05) (0.01) (0.01) (−0.02) (1.00)
PO 0.14 a 0.10 a 0.08 a −0.15 a 0.05 1.00
(0.23)a (0.27) a (0.05)b (−0.09)a (0.07)a (1.00)
FF −0.01 −0.08 a −0.07 a 0.05 0.08 a 0.02 1.00
(−0.05)b (−0.06) a (−0.04) (0.04) (0.02) (−0.06)a (1.00)
Mean 0.31 0.27 0.50 38.65 0.60 0.31 0.43
(0.32) (0.32) (0.46) (39.06) (0.76) (0.37) (0.37)
SD 0.46 1.91 0.50 12.11 0.49 0.46 0.50
(0.47) (0.47) (0.50) (11.97) (0.42) (0.48) (0.48)

1. EI = Entrepreneurial intention; PC = Perceived capability; NBS = Status of a successful business start-up;

PO = Perceived opportunity; FF = Fear of failure
2. Compared with the statistics for the Taiwan sample, those for the China sample are reported in parentheses
3. Significance level: a, p < 0.01; b, p < 0.05
4. The notations, which correspond to the seven variables, documented in the GEM database are FUTSUP,
SUSKILL, Gender, Age, NBSTATUS, OPPORT, and FEARFAIL, respectively

a dummy variable. This model is an extension of a single-mediator model. For such a

model, mediation processes can be assessed using the bootstrap method suggested by
MacKinnon et al. (2007) in addition to the approach suggested by Baron and Kenny
(1986). The Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure can be briefly described as three
steps: (1) Regressing the dependent variable on the independent variable and the
coefficient estimate of the dependent variable has to achieve a statistical significance;
(2) Regressing the mediator on the independent variable and the coefficient estimate of
the dependent variable needs to be significant; and (3) Regressing the dependent
variable on the dependent variable and the mediator at the same time. In turn,
comparing the coefficient estimate of the independent variable with that found in the
first step. If the coefficient estimate of the mediator is significant and the coefficient
estimate of the independent variable found in (3) (direct effect) is smaller than that
found in (1) (total effect) or nonsignificant, then mediation effect exists. This study
examined the mediation hypotheses by applying the three steps first, followed by the
bootstrap approach. Because the dependent variables in the models were dichotomous
measures and all of them were operationalized by single measure, a logistic regression
Int Entrep Manag J

approach (instead of an ordinary least square analysis or a structural equations tech-

nique) was adopted to estimate the models.
By utilizing the Baron and Kenny’s (1986) steps, Tables 2 and 3 separately represent
the estimation results based on the Taiwanese and Chinese samples. In the two tables,
all the χ2 values indicate that these assumed models have exploratory power. Model 1
shows that perceived capability had a positive effect on entrepreneurial intention
(βT = 1.29, p < 0.01; βC = 1.26, p < 0.01). Models 2 and 3 also suggest that perceived
capability positively affected perceived opportunity (βT = 0.60, p < 0.01; βC = 1.12,
p < 0.01) and negatively affected fear of failure (βT = −0.39, p < 0.01; βC = −0.23,
p < 0.05).1 After incorporating perceived opportunity and fear of failure into Model 1,
Model 4 shows that the effect of perceived capability on entrepreneurial intention
remained significant (β T = 1.20, p < 0.01; β C = 1.10, p < 0.01); however, the
magnitude was lower than that shown in Model 1. In addition, Model 4 reveals that
perceived opportunity positively affected entrepreneurial intention (βT = 0.38, p < 0.01;
βC = 0.69, p < 0.01); however, the negative impact of fear of failure on entrepreneurial
intention failed to achieve statistical significance (βT = −0.08, p > 0.05; βC = −0.07,
p > 0.05). These results support H1, suggesting that perceived capability positively
affects entrepreneurial intention through perceived opportunity; however, they do not
support H2, which states that perceived capability positively affects entrepreneurial
intention through reduced fear of failure.
This study also adopted the bootstrap approach suggested by Preacher and Hayes
(2004, 2008) to examine the mediation tests that were conducted based on the
traditional steps. This approach was executed by resampling and then calculating the
indirect effects of the mediation model (i.e., the cross products of the estimated
coefficients of perceived capability presented in Models 2 and 3 and the estimated
coefficients of perceived opportunity and fear of failure reported in Model 4). The
bootstrap samples were set to 5,000. The results derived for the Taiwan sample
indicated that the estimates of the indirect paths through perceived opportunity and
fear of failure were 0.05 and −0.01, respectively. The 95 % confidence intervals (bias-
corrected confidence intervals) associated with the two estimates ranged from 0.02 to
0.10 and −0.03 to 0.01, respectively. The sample of China was used to test the
hypothesis by employing the same bootstrap procedure. The estimates of the indirect
paths through perceived opportunity and fear of failure were 0.18 and 0.01, respec-
tively, and their 95 % confidence intervals ranged from 0.12 to 0.24 and −0.01 to 0.02,
respectively. Overall, these results suggested that perceived opportunity demonstrated a
mediating effect in linking perceived capability and entrepreneurial intention; by
contrast, the mediating role of fear of failure was not significant, and this result is

1
An endogeneity of the perceived capability (PC) variable may be concerned in Models 2 and 3. A person’s
perception of capability was closely related to his or her knowledge and experience. However, the GEM
database did not include these two variables. Because a person’s knowledge and experience were related to his
or her age and education level, we used age and education as the proxy variables of experience and
knowledge, respectively. According to the traditional procedure of a test for endogeneity in a probit model
(Wooldridge 2002, pp.472–478), we first regressed PC on age, education, and other controls in Models 2 and 3
and calculated the error term. Next, we added the error term as a control in Models 2 and 3 and reran the two
models for the two samples. These regressions were executed using a logistic approach. The estimated
coefficients of the error term in Models 2 and 3 failed to reach the 5 % significance level (βT = −0.07,
p > 0.05; βT = −0.04, p > 0.05; βC = 0.06, p > 0.05; βC = −0.02, p > 0.05). These results suggested that
endogeneity was not a serious concern in this study.
 Int Entrep Manag J

Table 2 The mediating effects of perceived opportunity and fear of failure (Taiwan)

Variable (Dep. Var) Model 1 (EI) Model 2 (PO) Model 3 (FF) Model 4 (EI)

Intercept 0.39 (0.21) − 0.10 (0.20) − 0.43 (0.24) 0.19 (0.22)

PC 1.29 (0.13)** 0.60 (0.13)** − 0.39 (0.12)** 1.20 (0.13)**
Gender 0.14 (0.12) 0.23 (0.11) *
− 0.26 (0.10) *
0.13 (0.12)
Age − 0.05 (0.01)** − 0.03 (0.01)** 0.01 (0.01)* − 0.05 (0.01)**
NBS 0.24 (0.11) *
0.26 (0.11) *
− 0.17 (0.11) 0.21 (0.11)*
OA 0.38 (0.12)**
FF − 0.08 (0.12)
χ2 1762.56** 1857.45** 2109.02** 1752.64**
N 1563 1563 1563 1563

Gender = 1, males; 0, females. Figures in parentheses are estimated standard errors

EI Entrepreneurial intention, PC Perceived capability, NBS Status of a successful business start-up, PO
Perceived opportunity, FF Fear of failure
**, p < 0.01; *, p < 0.05

consistent with those from the tests conducted using the traditional steps. Furthermore,
these bootstrap results supported H3, which states that the mediating effect of perceived
opportunity is greater than that of fear of failure. To examine whether the estimates of
confidence intervals vary with the number of resampling steps, we set the bootstrap
replications to 10,000. These results highly close to those estimated using 5,000
replications.2
To test Hypotheses 4 and 5, we further analyzed the influence of gender on the
mediating roles of perceived opportunity and fear of failure. Conventionally, these
analyses were based on a moderated mediation model. Because the gender variable is a
dummy, we adhered to the procedures suggested by Muller et al. (2005) to assess the
mediating effects of perceived opportunity and fear of failure among men and women
by splitting the samples. The results are reported in Tables 4 and 5. In Table 4, Model 2
shows that perceived capability had a strong positive effect on perceived opportunity,
regardless of gender (βm = 0.56, p < 0.01; βf = 0.65, p < 0.01). Model 4 shows that
perceived opportunity positively affected entrepreneurial intention among men
(βm = 0.46, p < 0.01), but not among women (βf = 0.28, p > 0.05). Furthermore,
Model 3 reveals that perceived capability negatively influenced the fear of failure
among men (βm = −0.62, p < 0.01), but not among women in the subsample
(βf = −0.14, p > 0.05). Model 4 shows that the fear of failure did not significantly
influence entrepreneurial intention in the two subsamples (βm = −0.03, p > 0.05;
βf = −0.13, p > 0.05). In Table 5, Models 2 and 4 separately indicate a positive effect

2
The bootstrap replications were set to 10,000, and the results derived for the sample of Taiwan revealed that
the estimates of the indirect paths through opportunity awareness and fear of failure were 0.05 and −0.02,
respectively. The 95 % confidence intervals (bias-corrected confidence intervals) associated with the two
estimates ranged from 0.03 to 0.10 and −0.02 to 0.01. The sample of China was used to test the hypothesis by
employing the same bootstrap procedure. The estimates of the indirect paths through opportunity awareness
and fear of failure were 0.17 and 0.02 and their 95 % confidence intervals ranged from 0.13 to 0.24 and −0.01
to 0.03, respectively.
Int Entrep Manag J

Table 3 The mediating effects of perceived opportunity and fear of failure (China)

Variable (Dep. Var) Model 1 (EI) Model 2 (PO) Model 3 (FF) Model 4 (EI)

Intercept 0.19 (0.20) − 0..86 (0.24)** − 0.72 (0.22)* 0.13 (0.26)

PC 1.26 (0.10) **
1.12 (0.09) **
− 0.23 (0.09)* 1.10(0.10)**
Gender 0.25 (0.10) *
0.08 (0.09) − 0.13 (0.09) 0.25 (0.10)*
Age − 0.05 (0.01) **
− 0.01 (0.01) *
0.01 (0.01) *
− 0.05 (0.01)**
NBS 0.20 (0.12) 0.34 (0.11) **
− 0.13 (0.11) 0.14 (0.11)
OA 0.69 (0.10)**
FF − 0.07 (0.11)
χ2 2436.50** 2728.12** 2902.70** 2391.30**
N 2220 2220 2220 2220

EI Entrepreneurial intention, PC Perceived capability, NBS Status of a successful business start-up, PO

Perceived opportunity, FF Fear of failure
Gender = 1, males; 0, females
**, p < 0.01; *, p < 0.05

of perceived capability on perceived opportunity (βm = 1.01, p < 0.01; βf = 1.22,

p < 0.01) and that of perceived opportunity on entrepreneurial intention (βm = 0.87,
p < 0.01; βf = 0.52, p < 0.01) among men and women. In addition, Model 3 reports that
perceived capability negatively affected the fear of failure among women (βf = −0.40,
p < 0.01), but not among men (βm = −0.03, p > 0.05). Model 4 reveals nonsignificant
effects of fear of failure on entrepreneurial intention among men and women
(βm = −0.23, p > 0.05; βf = −0.06, p > 0.05). Overall, these results partially support
H4, which states that perceived opportunity has a stronger mediating effect on entre-
preneurial intention among men than among women; however, they do not support H5,
which states that the perceived capability–intention relationship through the fear of
failure is stronger among men than among women.
The bootstrap procedure again was adopted to estimate the 95 % confidence
intervals of the effects of indirect paths. The results after setting 5,000 bootstrap
resamples are reported in Table 6. In terms of the route through perceived opportunity,
the intervals for Taiwanese men and women did not overlap; however, those for
Chinese men and women overlapped. By contrast, the effect for the indirect paths
through the fear of failure included 0 and overlapped, regardless of the samples. These
results confirm those of the previously reported tests.
In addition to the results of the preceding analyses conducted for testing the
hypotheses, Tables 2 and 3 reveal noteworthy statistical results for the controls. First,
Age exerts a negative effect on EI (βT = −0.05, p < 0.01; βC = −0.05, p < 0.01) and OA
(βT = 0.03, p < 0.01; βC = −0.01, p < 0.05). These results suggest that older people
exhibit lower entrepreneurial intentions and perceived opportunity compared with
younger people. Second, for the sample of Taiwan, gender positively affects OA
(βT = 0.23, p < 0.05) and negatively influences FF (βT = −0.26, p < 0.05); but the effect
of gender on EI is nonsignificant. By contrast, the analyses for the sample of China
reveal that gender demonstrates a positive effect on entrepreneurial intention
(βC = 0.25, p < 0.05), but it does not affect OA. Third, NBS exerts a positive effect
Table 4 The gender differences in the mediating roles of perceived opportunity and fear of failure (Taiwan)

Variable Model 1 (EI) Model 2 (PO) Model 3 (FF) Model 4 (EI)

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Intercept 0.75 (0.34)* 0.41 (0.38) 0.30 (0.32) 0.13 (0.37) − 0.84 (0.31)** − 0.59 (0.32)* 0.46 (0.36) 0.23 (0.39)
** ** ** ** ** **
PC 1.39 (0.18) 1.15 (0.19) 0.56 (0.17) 0.65 (0.19) − 0.62 (0.17) − 0.14 (0.17) 1.35 (0.19) 1.12 (0.19)**
** ** ** ** **
Age − 0.05 (0.01) − 0.05 (0.01) − 0.03 (0.01) − 0.04 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) − 0.05 (0.01) − 0.04 (0.01)**
* * *
NBS 0.10 (0.17) 0.39 (0.17) 0.15 (0.16) 0.37 (0.17) − 0.36 (0.15) 0.20 (0.15) 0.09 (0.16) 0.36 (0.17)*
**
OA 0.46 (0.16) 0.28 (0.18)
FF − 0.03 (0.17) − 0.13 (0.17)
χ2 906.96** 853.17** 972.89** 883.40** 1026.72** 1078.23** 899.25** 850.31**
N 778 785 778 785 778 785 778 785

EI Entrepreneurial intention, PC Perceived capability, NBS Status and respect for those successful at a business start-up, PO Perceived opportunity, FF Fear of failure
**, p < 0.01; *, p < 0.05
Int Entrep Manag J
 Int Entrep Manag J

Table 5 The gender differences in the mediating roles of perceived opportunity and fear of failure (China)

Variable Model 1 (EI) Model 2 (OA) Model 3 (FF) Model 4 (EI)

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Intercept 0.43 (0.29) 0.20 (0.27) − 0.82 (0.28) ** − 0.79 (0.26) − 1.07 (0.27)** − 0.57 (0.24)* 0.49 (0.36) 0.52 (0.40)
** ** ** ** ** **
PC 1.25 (0.15) 1.27 (0.14) 1.01 (0.14) 1.22 (0.13) − 0.03 (0.06) − 0.40 (0.12) 1.09 (0.15) 1.14 (0.14)**
** ** * ** **
Age − 0.05 (0.01) − 0.05 (0.01) − 0.02 (0.01) − 0.02 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) − 0.05 (0.01) − 0.05 (0.01)**
* *
NBS 0.24 (0.17) 0.15 (0.16) 0.37 (0.16) 0.31 (0.15) − 0.21 (0.16) 0.07 (0.14) 0.18 (0.17) 0.11 (0.16)
OA 0.87 (0.15) ** 0.52 (0.14)**
FF − 0.23 (0.15) − 0.06 (0.14)
χ2 1158.78** 1277.57** 1290.12** 1436.32** 1313.47** 1584.55** 1121.24** 1264.86**
N 1020 1200 1020 1200 1020 1200 1020 1200

EI Entrepreneurial intention, PC Perceived capability, NBS Status and respect for those successful at a business start-up, PO Perceived opportunity, FF Fear of failure
**, p < 0.01; *, p < 0.05
 Int Entrep Manag J

Table 6 The confidence intervals for the indirect paths from a bootstrap approach

Path Taiwan China

Male Female Male Female

PC → PO → EI 0.06–0.13 −0.01–0.06 0.11–0.28 0.06–0.24

PC → FF → EI −0.06–0.05 −0.04 - 0.01 −0.01–0.03 −0.04–0.02

EI Entrepreneurial intention, PC Perceived capability, PO Perceived opportunity, FF Fear of failure

on OA (βT = 0.26, p < 0.05; βC = 0.34, p < 0.01), suggesting that a high level of social
status and respect for people successful at starting a new business increases a person’s
perceived opportunity.

Discussion and implications

The unexpected results and several interesting findings in the controls warrant further
discussion. First, this study does not demonstrate that perceived capability enhances
entrepreneurial intention through a decreased fear of failure, regardless of the countries
and gender. Specifically, perceived capability reduces the fear of failure for a business
start-up; however, a decreased fear of failure does not increase entrepreneurial inten-
tion. This result is not consistent with the entrepreneurship literature, which considers
fear of failure a crucial sociocultural factor affecting the probability of becoming an
entrepreneur (Koellinger et al. 2013; Noguera et al. 2013; Shinnar et al. 2012). The
unexpected non-significance may be explained by the work of Nabi and Liñán (2013)
that persons with low risk perception may still not intend to start a business if they do
not perceive opportunities. In practice, business start-up is a risky process, those who
would like to start a new business may still be afraid of entrepreneurial failure (Chua
and Bedford 2015). In other words, high entrepreneurial intention is not necessarily
associated with low fear of failure. Therefore, this result may not be surprising.
Second, the results of this study do not indicate that the indirect effect of perceived
capability on entrepreneurial intention through perceived opportunity is stronger among
men than among women in the Chinese sample. This may possibly be explained by the
one-child-per-family policy of China. This policy has created gender equality in the
household division of labor (Chow and Chen 1994). Until 1978, China was a socialist
planned economy that emphasized gender equality. Although its market reform has
increasingly changed gender equality during the 1990s, China had a low gender
inequality in 2011, which was ranked 35th on the United Nations Development
Programme’s Gender Inequality Index (GII) among 142 countries. In China, particu-
larly in the urban areas, an increasing number of women pursue economic status and
are not expected to participate in family responsibilities, unlike previous generations
(Fung 2014). This gender equality development may diminish the difference in entre-
preneurial intent between men and women because they perceive opportunities.
Third, the results of this study indicate that age negatively affects perceived oppor-
tunity and entrepreneurial intention among men and women. Existing literature has
documented positive and negative effects of age on entrepreneurship. The view on the
Int Entrep Manag J

positive effect of age on entrepreneurship is that the quantity of financial and human
capital that a person possesses and that is essential for starting and conducting a
business increases with age (Arenius and Minniti 2005; Parker 2009). By contrast,
self-employment may also decrease with age because entrepreneurship is assessed as a
more risky employment option (Boden 1999; Parker 2009) and as an option that often
requires longer working hours (Blanchflower 2004). Our findings support the latter and
are consistent with literature, which suggests that younger people have greater chances
of becoming entrepreneurs (Arenius and Minniti 2005; Carter et al. 2001).
Fourth, the relationship between gender and entrepreneurial intention is not the focal
topic of this study; however, it has been examined in the entrepreneurship literature.
Haus et al. (2013) reviewed the literature on this topic and concluded that men have
higher entrepreneurial intention than do women. The current study supports this
conclusion by presenting highly noteworthy results. According to our results, the
process linking gender and entrepreneurial intention involves a direct route for the
China sample, but an indirect route through perceived opportunity for the Taiwan
sample. The case for Taiwan particularly offers one possible explanation for the higher
entrepreneurial intention among men; men are more likely to perceive entrepreneurial
opportunities. Specifically, perceived opportunity may serve as a mediator of the
gender–intention relationship in country contexts. This result has not been reported in
existing entrepreneurship research. In addition, this study determines that status and
respect for people who have successfully started a new business indirectly influence
entrepreneurial intention through perceived opportunity. The possible explanation for
this finding may be gleaned from the perspective of vicarious learning (Bandura 1977;
Scherer et al. 1989), which suggests that people who observe the status and respect
those who have a successful business start-up receive may perceive that a chance of
success exists in creating a business, thus prompting them to create a new business.
This study also advances the current knowledge about entrepreneurship research by
disentangling the relationship between perceived capability and entrepreneurial inten-
tion in two ways. First, the entrepreneurship literature in general has recognized that
perceived capability improves entrepreneurial intention. Our research not only confirms
the argument but also qualifies it by analyzing the roles of perceived opportunity. The
results show that perceived capability increases entrepreneurial intention through
perceived opportunity. In other words, persons with skills, knowledge, and experience
have stronger intention to start a new business because they are more likely to find or
create opportunities. This finding suggests that considering perceived opportunity as a
mediator is necessary to deepen the understanding of how perceived capability affects
entrepreneurial intention. Furthermore, the GEM considers perceived capability as self-
efficacy, which represents a person’s beliefs about his or her capability of producing
effects. Existing entrepreneurship research has not focused much on the process leading
from self-efficacy to entrepreneurial intention (Schlaegel and Koenig 2014). Our
finding refines the knowledge about the linkage between self-efficacy and entrepre-
neurial intention by showing the mediating role of perceived opportunity. Second, this
study further clarifies and extends the role of gender in understanding the process of
becoming an entrepreneur. Existing research primarily contributes to understanding the
differences in entrepreneurial intention between men and women (Haus et al. 2013);
however, it rarely reveals how the perceived capability (entrepreneurial self-efficacy)–
intention relationship varies with gender. Our study indicates that the mediating effects
 Int Entrep Manag J

of perceived opportunity may be different among men and women. This finding
implies that by ignoring the role of perceived opportunity and gender, the existing
arguments linking self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention are incomplete. In addi-
tion, the results suggest that the moderating effect of gender on the meditation process
of perceived opportunity may vary among countries. These findings provide a more
comprehensive view of the relationship between perceived capability and entrepreneur-
ial intention. Specifically, without considering the roles of gender and countries, the
view of the perceived capability–intention relationship will be oversimplified. In
addition, this study provides insight into literature by highlighting the role of economic
development. The two samples analyzed in this study represent a developed country
with a low economic growth rate (Taiwan) and a developing country with a high
economic growth rate (China). Our results suggest that perceived opportunity has a
stronger mediating effect in China than in Taiwan. This finding implies that cross-
national studies of entrepreneurial intention should consider the economic development
status of various countries instead of blending them together for producing more
insights to the literature.

Conclusion

This study utilizes the GEM database, an international survey of entrepreneurship and
widely used in entrepreneurship research, and yields compelling results based on two
samples, Taiwan and China. The generalizability of these findings should be validated
through further research in other contexts since entrepreneurial activities may vary
among different cultures (Fernández-Serrano and Romero 2014). For example, from
Hofstede’s (2001) perspective of national culture, a person’s entrepreneurial intention
may have a greater probability of being affected by subjective norms in addition to
perceived capability in a society with high collectivism. In other words, the perceived
capability–intention relationship may be weaker in a society with collectivism than in
that with individualism. Furthermore, this study posits the relationship between age and
entrepreneurial intention as a linear form. However, entrepreneurial intention may
increase with the age until a certain threshold and decrease afterwards. Specifically,
age may exert a nonlinear effect on entrepreneurial intention, which can be examined in
future studies. In addition, perceived capability, perceived opportunity, fear of failure,
and entrepreneurial intention in the GEM database are measured using a single item
with a dichotomous scale. Too few response categories may loosely capture a respon-
dent’s attitude and produce more conservative statistical results (Lozano et al. 2008).
Thus, using multi-item scales with multiple response categories for collecting data on
these variables to validate the framework developed here should be considered in the
future.
In conclusion, this study elaborates the relationship between perceived capability
and entrepreneurial intention by considering the mediating roles of perceived opportu-
nity and fear of failure and the moderating roles of gender. Overall, these results suggest
that perceived capability affects entrepreneurial intention partially through perceived
opportunity, rather than the fear of failure, and this indirect strength may differ between
men and women. These results imply that determining the mediating role of perceived
opportunity and the moderating role of gender is beneficial for understanding the
Int Entrep Manag J

process involved in becoming an entrepreneur. More importantly, these findings

underscore the requirement for a contextual process view to be included in the
entrepreneurship theory. Without a contextual process view, the entrepreneurship
theory is unlikely to be used for developing new insights into the role of perceived
capability (self-efficacy) in entrepreneurial intention.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). Theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
50(2), 179–211.
Arab, Z., & Sofiyabadi, J. (2013). Entrepreneurship indicators with an emphasis on Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor. IJRRAS, 16(2), 288–296.
Arenius, P., & Minniti, M. (2005). Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business
Economics, 24(3), 233–247.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B., & Howells, G. N. (1980). Tests of the generality of self-efficacy
theory. Cognitive Theory and Research, 4(1), 39–66.
Baron, R. A. (2007). Entrepreneurship: a process perspective. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese, & R. A. Baron (Eds.),
The psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 19–40). Mawhah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Bergmann, H., Mueller, S., & Schrettle, T. (2014). The use of global entrepreneurship monitor data in
academic research: a critical inventory and future potentials. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Venturing, 6(3), 242–276.
Blanchflower, D. (2004). Self-employment: more may not be better. Swedish Economic Policy Review, 11(2),
15–73.
Boden, R. (1999). Flexible working hours, family responsibilities, and female self-employment. American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, 58(1), 71–83.
Bryant, P. (2007). Self-regulation and decision heuristics in entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation and
exploitation. Management Decision, 45(4), 732–748.
Cacciotti, G. & Hayton, J.C. (2014). Fear of failure and entrepreneurship: a review and direction for future
research. ERC Research Paper, No. 24.
Carter, S., Anderson, S., & Shaw, E. (2001). Women’s business ownership: a review of the academic, popular
and internet literature, Report to the Small Business Service, RR002/01.
Chang, H.-C., Tsai, K.-H., & Peng, C.-Y. (2014). The entrepreneurial process: an integrated model.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(4), 727–745.
Chell, E. (2013). Review of skill and the entrepreneurial process. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour & Research, 19(1), 6–31.
Chow, E. N., & Chen, K. (1994). The impact of the one-child policy on women and the patriarchal family in
the People’s Republic of China. In E. N. Chow & C. W. Berheide (Eds.), Women, The Family, and Policy:
A Global Perspective. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Chua, H. S., & Bedford, O. (2015). A qualitative exploration of fear of failure and entrepreneurial intent in
Singapore. Journal of Career Development. doi:10.1177/0894845315599255.
Dabic, M., Daim, T., Bayraktaroglu, E., Novak, I., & Basic, M. (2012). Exploring gender differences in
attitudes of university students towards entrepreneurship. International Journal of Gender and
Entrepreneurship, 4(3), 316–336.
DeTienne, D. R., & Chandler, G. N. (2007). The role of gender in opportunity identification.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 31(3), 365–386.
Díaz-García, M. C., & Jiménez-Moreno, J. (2010). Entrepreneurial intention: the role of gender. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(3), 261–283.
Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: links to organizational action. Academy of
Management Review, 12(1), 76–90.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: a social role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
 Int Entrep Manag J

Eagly, A. H. (1997). Sex differences in social behavior: Comparing social role theory and evolutionary
psychology. American Psychologist, 50(12), 1380–1383.
Ebrahim, M., & Schϕtt, T. (2011). Entrepreneurial intention promoted by perceived capabilities, risk
propensity and opportunity awareness: a global study. 56th International Council of Small Businesses,
Stockholm, Sweden.
Fernández-Serrano, J., & Romero, I. (2014). About the interactive influence of culture and regulatory barriers
on entrepreneurial activity. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(4), 781–802.
Fernández-Serrano, J., Liñán, F., & Sántos, F. J. (2009). Cognitive aspects of potential entrepreneurs in
southern and northern Europe: an analysis using GEM-data. Revista De Economica Mundial, 23(1), 151–
178.
Franke, G. R., Crown, D. F., & Spake, D. F. (1997). Gender differences in ethical perceptions of business
practices: a social role theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 920–934.
Fung, E. (2014). The rise of women in China and the one child policy. TCNJ Journal of Student Scholarship,
16(1), 1–6.
Hatak, I., Harms, R., & Fink, M. (2015). Age, job identification, and entrepreneurial intention. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 30(1), 38–53.
Haus, I., Steinmetz, H., Isidor, R., & Kabst, R. (2013). Gender effects and entrepreneurial intention: a meta-
analytical structural equation model. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 130–
156.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations
across nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.
Iakovleva, T., Kolvereid, L., & Stephan, U. (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions in developing and developed
countries. Education + Training, 53(5), 353–370.
IMF (2008). World economic outlook. International Monetary Fund, April.
Jackson, S. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1988). Discerning threats and oppotrunities. Administrative Science Quarterly,
33(3), 370–387.
Kelley, D.J., Brush, C.G., Greene, P.G., & Litovsky, Y. (2013). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2012
Women’s Report. Global Entrepreneurship Research Association.
Koellinger, P., Minniti, M., & Schade, C. (2013). Gender differences in entrepreneurial propensity. Oxford
Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 75(2), 213–234.
Krueger, N., & Dickson, P. R. (1994). How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: perceived self-efficacy
and opportunity recognition. Decision Sciences, 25(3), 385–400.
Krueger, N. F., Jr., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions.
Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5/6), 411–432.
Liñán, F. (2008). Skill and value perceptions: how do they affect entrepreneurial intention. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(3), 257–272.
Liñán, F., & Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. doi:10.1007/s11365-015-356-5.
Liñán, F., Santos, F. J., & Fernández, J. (2011). The influence of perceptions on potential entrepreneurs.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(3), 373–390.
Lozano, L. M., Garcia-Cueto, E., & Muniz, J. (2008). Effect of the number of response categories on the
reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology, 4(2), 73–79.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology,
58, 593–614.
Malach-Pines, A., & Schwartz, D. (2008). Now you see them, now you don’t: gender differences in
entrepreneurship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(7), 811–832.
Minniti, M. (2009). Gender issues in entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 5(7–8),
497–621.
Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Bird, B., Gaglio, C. M., McMullen, J., Morse, E., & Smith, J. (2007). The central
question in entrepreneurial cognition research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 31(1), 1–27.
Muller, D., Judd, C., & Yzerbyt, V. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 89(6), 852–863.
Nabi, G., & Liñán, F. (2013). Considering business start-up in recession time: the role of risk perception and
economic context in shaping the entrepreneurial intent. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour & Research, 19(6), 633–655.
Naktiyok, A., Karabey, C. N., & Gulluce, A. C. (2010). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial
intention: the Turkish case. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(4), 419–435.
Noguera, M., Alvarez, C., & Urbano, D. (2013). Socio-cultural factors and female entrepreneurship.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(2), 183–197.
Int Entrep Manag J

Parker, S. C. (2009). The Economics of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Negative emotions of an entrepreneurial career: self-employment and
regulatory coping behaviors. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 226–238.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple
mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing
indirect effect in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
Ramos-Rodriguez, A. R., Martínez-Fierro, S., Medina-Garrido, J. A., & Ruiz-Navarro, J. (2015). Global
entrepreneurship monitor versus panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics: comparing their intellectual
structures. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(3), 571–597.
Roomi, M. A., Harrison, P., & Beaumont-Kerridge, J. (2009). Women-owned small and medium enterprises in
England. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 16(2), 270–288.
Rothblum, E. O. (1990). Fear of failure: The psychodynamic, need achievement, fear of success, and
procrastination models. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of Social and Evaluation Anxiety (pp. 497–
537). NY: Plenum Press.
Sánchez, J. C., & Hemández-Sánchez, B. R. (2014). Gender, personal traits, and entrepreneurial intentions.
Business and Management Research, 3(1), 31–40.
Sández-Escobedo, M., Díaz-Casero, J. C., Díaz-Aunión, A. M., & Hernández-Mogollón, R. (2014). Gender
analysis of entrepreneurial intentions as a function of economic development across three groups of
countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(4), 747–765.
Scherer, R. F., Adams, J. S., & Wiebe, F. A. (1989). Developing entrepreneurial behaviors: a social learning
theory perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 2(3), 16–27.
Schlaegel, C., & Koenig, M. (2014). Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: a meta-analytic test and
integration of competing models. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38(1), 291–332.
Shinnar, R. S., Giacomin, O., & Janssen, F. (2012). Entrepreneurial perceptions and intentions: the role of
gender and culture. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 36(3), 465–493.
Trevelyan, R. (2011). Self-regulation and effort in entrepreneurial tasks. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 17(1), 39–63.
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(6), 622–636.
Verheul, I., Thurik, R., Grilo, I., & van der Zwan, P. (2012). Explaining preferences and actual involvement in
self-employment: gender and the entrepreneurial personality. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(2),
325–341.
Walker, J. K., Jeger, M., & Kopecki, D. (2013). The role of perceived abilities, subjective norm, and
intentions. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 22(2), 181–202.
Wasdani, K. P., & Mathew, M. (2014). Potential for opportunity recognition along the stages of entrepreneur-
ship. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research. doi:10.1186/2251-7316-2-7.
Williams, N., & Williams, C. C. (2014). Beyond necessity versus opportunity entrepreneurship: some lessons
from English deprived urban neighbourhoods. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
10(1), 23–40.
Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career
intentions: implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 31(3),
387–406.
Wood, M. S., McKinley, W., & Engstrom, C. L. (2013). Endings and visions of new beginnings: the effects of
source of unemployment and duration of unemployment on entrepreneurial intent. Entrepreneurship
Research Journal, 3(2), 171–206.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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(5), 521–536.