See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230600795

On the relationship between emotional intelligence and

entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions

Article  in  International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research · September 2009

DOI: 10.1108/13552550910995452

CITATIONS READS
194 3,695

5 authors, including:

Leonidas A Zampetakis Konstantinos Kafetsios

University of Crete Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
59 PUBLICATIONS   2,366 CITATIONS    122 PUBLICATIONS   3,277 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nancy Bouranta Vassilis S. Moustakis

University of Piraeus Technical University of Crete
32 PUBLICATIONS   973 CITATIONS    145 PUBLICATIONS   2,851 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Regional patterns of employability in the Greek labour market View project

Social perception of emotions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leonidas A Zampetakis on 26 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2554.htm

Emotional
On the relationship between intelligence
emotional intelligence and
entrepreneurial attitudes and
595
intentions
Received 11 December 2007
Leonidas A. Zampetakis Revised 22 April 2008
Department of Production Engineering and Management, Accepted 25 August 2008
Technical University of Crete, Chania, Crete, Greece
Konstantinos Kafetsios
Department of Psychology, University of Crete, Rethymnon, Crete, Greece
Nancy Bouranta
Department of Business Administration, University of Piraeus, Piraeus, Greece
Todd Dewett
Department of Management, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, USA, and
Vassilis S. Moustakis
Department of Production Engineering and Management,
Technical University of Crete, Chania, Crete, Greece

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to propose and empirically test a theoretical model positing relationships
among emotional intelligence (EI), creativity, proactivity, and attitudes towards entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial intent.
Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire survey was completed by a random sample
(n ¼ 280) of business, engineering and science students across three Greek universities. Results were
based on structural equation modelling analysis.
Findings – Results provide strong support for the proposition that students’ creativity and
proactivity fully mediate the positive effect of trait EI on attitudes towards entrepreneurship. Attitudes
towards entrepreneurship fully mediated the effects of creativity and proactivity on entrepreneurial
intent.
Originality/value – The paper demonstrates that EI is positively related to three important
antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions and provides the literature with another important piece of
the puzzle concerning entrepreneurial motivation. This evidence adds to the academic literatures on
entrepreneurship and trait EI, and offers several practical implications for entrepreneurship education.
Keywords Creative thinking, Entrepreneurialism, Personality, Linear structure equation modelling
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research
The research reported in this paper was partially supported by a research grant (PENED2003 – Vol. 15 No. 6, 2009
contract 03ED3) from the Greek Secretariat of Research and Technology (GSRT). The views, pp. 595-618
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
opinions and results are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily correspond 1355-2554
to official GSRT views. DOI 10.1108/13552550910995452
IJEBR Introduction
15,6 Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial culture are receiving an increased amount of
attention in both academic research and practice. Entrepreneurship is linked with
value creation and, as such, is thought to have a significant impact on economic
growth, continuous business renewal, and employment (Tang and Koveos, 2004).
Thus, it is apparent why there is also an increased interest in educational programmes
596 designed to encourage entrepreneurship and to provide a better infrastructure for
business start-ups (Vesper and Gartner, 1997). However, despite the high level of
activity, there is concern about the effectiveness of such policies (Gibb, 2002). It is quite
possible that a better understanding of the factors that influence attitudes towards
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intent could facilitate the successful
development of these initiatives, especially for university students who, in
comparison to individuals without university education, are more likely to pursue
self-employment that has significant impact on economic growth (Robinson and
Sexton, 1994).
Understanding factors related to entrepreneurial intentions is important since
intentions are reliable predictors of entrepreneurial action (Krueger et al., 2000). The
link between intention and action is explicated by, the social psychological theory of
planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), one of the most comprehensive models of action. In
this model, intentions fill a central role as key predictors of behaviour and mediators of
attitudes towards the act (starting a business in our case), subjective norms, and
perceived self-efficacy. The present study explored three such correlates of
entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions that have received little attention in the
literature. Specifically, we examined the relationships between emotion-related
dispositions (trait emotional intelligence (EI)), proactivity, and creativity and their
capacity to inform university students’ entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions.
Although prior research has provided equivocal results with regards to whether
individual dispositions are strong predictors of entrepreneurial behaviour (Forbes,
1999), recent meta-analytic work suggests that personality variables may play an
important role in developing alternative models to the entrepreneurial process (Frank
et al., 2007; Rauch and Frese, 2007; Zhao and Seibert, 2006). Furthermore, emerging
evidence suggests that personality may play a somewhat larger role in the origins of
entrepreneurship than it does in business success in general (Hermann et al., 2007).
The study presented in this paper examined an important emotion disposition, trait
EI (or emotional self-efficacy). Trait EI refers to a collection of emotion-related
self-perceptions (emotion perception, emotion management, empathy, impulsivity) and
emotional self-efficacy[1], that is, the confidence in ones’ capabilities to perform various
(and often unanticipated) tasks (Bandura, 1997). Although the role of general
self-efficacy has been acknowledged in the entrepreneurship literature (Rauch and
Frese, 2007), we know of no research that has empirically investigated relationships
between emotional self-efficacy and entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions. Trait EI
may be particularly important in apprehending and managing stress, as several
studies have now concluded (e.g. Mikolajczak et al., 2006; Tsaousis and Nikolaou,
2005). Regulating stress may be one of the possible pathways that links trait EI with
positive attitudes towards entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intentions.
Individuals high in emotional self-efficacy are likely to preservere when problems
arise and search for challenges and therefore challenging opportunities; they may also Emotional
show a higher degree of personal initiative and actively search for information. intelligence
In addition to emotional self-efficacy, the present study examined two related
correlates of entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions: proactivity and creativity.
Proactivity refers to active attempts made by the individual to effect changes in his or
her environment (Bateman and Crant, 1993). Creativity is the production of novel and
useful ideas (Amabile, 1996). Emotional self-efficacy is thought to be related to 597
proactivity and creativity, and all these traits should be particularly related to
entrepreneurial intentions, but the absence of research connecting these constructs is
noteworthy.
In sum, the study extends prior work by testing a model of the effect of students’
trait EI, creativity, and proactivity on attitudes towards entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial intent (Figure 1). As such, the present study is a response to calls for
investigators to model the antecedents and indirect effects of entrepreneurial
motivation as well as the underlying mechanisms (Rauch and Frese, 2007). To provide
a framework for understanding our predictions we next review literature on EI,
proactivity, creativity, and entrepreneurial intent.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Emotional intelligence conceptualisation and measurement
Although it is difficult to provide a definition of EI that is accepted by all, at a
theoretical level EI reflects the extent to which a person attends to, processes, and acts
upon information of an emotion nature intra-personally and inter-personally (Salovey
and Mayer, 1990). At the operational level mainly, there are ensuing debates that have
led to two distinct perspectives: ability and trait EI.
The ability approach (or cognitive emotional ability) assesses individual differences
in the interface of emotion (mood manipulation, emotion regulation, etc.) with cognitive
processes (such as memory, judgment and behaviour; Mayer et al., 2002; Mayer and
Salovey, 1997). On the other hand, trait EI (or emotional self-efficacy), assess individual
differences in emotion-related dispositions. Emotional self-efficacy incorporates

Figure 1.
Representation of the
hypothesized theoretical
model
IJEBR abilities within a more general framework of individual self-perceived emotionality
15,6 and emotional self-efficacy (e.g. Petrides and Furnham, 2001). Trait EI is typically
measured with self-report questionnaires and pertains to the realm of personality
whereas EI abilities are assessed with maximum performance measures (Mayer et al.,
2002).
Although sometimes presented as though they were in competition with one
598 another, the ability and trait EI perspectives may, in fact, be complementary. In
keeping with human factors research, measures of ability (e.g. cognitive ability tests)
more accurately predict maximum performance, whereas non-ability measures (e.g.
personality tests) correlate more with typical performance (e.g. Marcus et al., 2007).
Thus, one might alternately use instruments that assess one or the other aspect of the
construct depending on whether one seeks to predict what people can do or what
people will do. Hence, in terms of predicting entrepreneurial attitudes, EI ability tests
will capture what an individual is capable of whereas measures of trait EI (Petrides and
Furnham, 2001) will assess how individuals normally think and behave.

Consequences of emotional self-efficacy

To date, researchers have made few efforts to assess emotion dispositions role in the
entrepreneurial process. In a conceptual paper on entrepreneurship education,
Shepherd (2004) argued about the critical role of emotional factors and EI in general in
potential business failure. It was suggested that regulating stress may be one possible
pathway linking EI with positive attitudes towards entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial intents in order for students not to be “scared away” from pursuing
entrepreneurship. However, although it is reasonable to posit that trait EI, reflecting
emotional self-efficacy, is related to the entrepreneurial process, direct evidence is
limited and no research has modelled the underlying process.
The current study had entrepreneurial intentions as the key outcomes of emotional
self-efficacy, and related attitudes. In recent years, the importance of intentions as
behaviour antecedents (such as founding a business) has been emphasised and a
number of entrepreneurial intention models have been proposed (Krueger et al., 2000;
Lee and Wong, 2004). In general, intentions are assumed to influence behaviour (Ajzen,
1991) and are useful in understanding students’ entrepreneurial and career-related
behaviour (Krueger et al., 2000). Although there is no research on the emotions
associated with the idea of starting a business, we argue that attitudes towards
entrepreneurship encompass affective components. From a theoretical viewpoint, the
multi-component theory views attitudes as involving an affective and a cognitive
component (Edwards, 1990). The affective component refers to the feelings or emotions
associated with an attitude object and the cognitive component concerns beliefs or
thoughts associated with an attitude object. Individuals high in emotional self-efficacy
exhibit high tolerance to stress and environmental stressors (Mikolajczak et al., 2006;
Tsaousis and Nikolaou, 2005). Therefore they are likely to persevere when problems
arise and search for challenges. This self-perceived dispositional tendency may be
particularly relevant to attitudes towards starting a business, with individuals high on
emotional self-efficacy developing more positive attitudes towards starting their own
business by exhibiting lower risk aversion. According to our previous discussion we
put forward the following hypothesis regarding the relationship between trait EI and
attitudes towards entrepreneurship:
 H1. Trait EI will be positively related to an individual’s attitudes towards Emotional
entrepreneurship (see Figure 1). intelligence
However, the link between trait EI and entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions may
not be only direct, but also associated with related proactive and creative dispositions.
Emotional self-efficacy may be a significant antecedent of proactive behaviour. The
self efficacy literature suggests that global competence beliefs about one’s capability to
perform particular tasks, is related to proactive behaviour (see Parker et al., 2006). 599
Moreover, students with high EI could be more stress tolerant so they experience more
confidence and control over the requirements of a business start up which in turn,
enables them to show a higher degree of personal initiative, and actively search for
information. Research concerning the consequences of EI in work outcomes indicates
that individuals with high EI seem to be more aware of how certain outcomes influence
their behaviour and are more adept at regulating their emotions (George, 2000). For this
reason, we choose for the following hypothesis to be tested:
H2. Trait EI will be positively related to student proactivity.
As far as creativity is concerned, there is a growing literature examining relationships
between emotional processes and creative outcomes (Amabile et al., 2005; George and
Zhou, 2002; Zhou and George, 2003). This line of research posits that creativity may be
particularly susceptible to emotion influences. Since emotional self-efficacy
encompasses reasoning about emotions (even at a minimal, self-reflective level), it
could be plausible that individuals high in EI may report higher creativity scores. For
example, it has been found that when experiencing negative affect, employees who are
aware of that affective state and who are in a situation that clearly calls for creativity,
will interpret their negative mood as a need to find a creative solution (George and
Zhou, 2002). Perceived emotional intelligence (assessed with the same trait EI scale
used in our study) was also related to state affectivity and emotional reactivity over
and above personality traits (Mikolajczak et al., 2006). Moreover, there is evidence that
positive moods increase awareness and enhance the breadth and flexibility of thinking
(Isen, 1999). Therefore, students with knowledge of their emotions could be able to
channel negative and/or positive affect into appropriately identifying and solving
problems relevant to a business start up. Another pathway may be cognitive. For
example, there is evidence that positive trait affectivity (that is associated with higher
EI, Lopes et al., 2006) may lead to higher creativity and proactivity (Amabile et al.,
2005). Recent research work has demonstrated the incremental value of trait EI over
personality and other psychological constructs in predicting affective variables
(Petrides et al., 2007). Positive affect has also been shown to be a significant mediator of
trait EI effects on job satisfaction (Kafetsios and Zampetakis, 2008). The positive affect
of individuals high on emotional self-efficacy may inform proactive and creative
dispositions. Based on this logic, we put forward the following hypothesis regarding
the relationship between trait EI and creativity:
H3. Trait EI will be positively related to students’ self-reported creativity.

Consequences of proactivity and creativity

In addition to links with emotional dispositions, creativity and proactivity have known
relationships with entrepreneurial intent. Crant (1996) for example, reported a strong
IJEBR positive association between business students’ proactivity and intentions to own a
15,6 business. A recent study by Zampetakis and Moustakis (2006) has found evidence that
engineering students’ creative self-perception may predict increased levels of
entrepreneurial intent, implying that the tie between creativity and entrepreneurial
intentions may be closer than is currently thought. However, the authors called for
further research to enhance confidence in the generalisation of those findings. The
600 aforementioned literature implies that students with high scores on proactivity and
creativity would have stronger attitudes towards entrepreneurship. According to our
previous discussion, we put forward the following hypotheses:
H4. Student proactivity will be positively related to students’ attitudes towards
entrepreneurship.
H5. Student creativity will be positively related to students’ attitudes towards
entrepreneurship.
H6. Student proactivity will be positively related to students’ entrepreneurial
intent.
H7. Student creativity will be positively related to students’ entrepreneurial
intent.
Furthermore, Dollinger et al. (2005) recently argued that students who actively seek out
and process information, are more likely to have an increased creative potential.
According to Dollinger et al. (2005), individuals who actively seek out information
internalise new and interesting possibilities for who they might become which can
enhance their creativity. Majaro (1992) argued that formulating a search strategy aids
creative thinking. He stated, “being proactive also calls for a measure of creative
thinking” (Majaro, 1992, p. 233). Additionally, Binnewies et al. (2007) suggest that
personal initiative (a construct related to proactivity) is important in the beginning of
the creative process and for idea creativity. Therefore, students’ active search for
information is associated with an increase in self-perceived creativity. Founded on this
logic, we put forward the following hypothesis:
H8. Student creativity will be positively related to students’ self reported
creativity.
Finally, since a “high” attitude towards entrepreneurship actually indicates that the
respondent is more in favor of self-employment than organisational employment
(Kolvereid, 1996) we hypothesize that:
H9. Attitudes towards entrepreneurship will be positively related to an
individual’s entrepreneurial intent.
The use of latent variables in structural equation modelling (SEM) permits a powerful
test of the relationships between EI, proactivity, creativity, attitudes towards
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intent. Analysing the hypotheses simultaneously
leads to more accurate estimates of the relationships among the constructs and avoids
bias associated with single indicator models. The present study thus employs SEM to
examine the process model depicted in Figure 1. Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988)
two-stage process of analysis was followed: the measurement model was examined in Emotional
stage 1 of the analysis; structural verification of the model was tested in stage 2. intelligence
Mediational hypothesis
Given the general distinction between distal and proximal antecedents, we
conceptualise the impact of EI as distal. As a distal variable trait EI influences
entrepreneurial attitudes through proximal antecedents (e.g. proactivity and 601
creativity). In addition, we conceptualise creativity and proactivity as having both
direct and indirect effects to entrepreneurial intent through attitudes towards
entrepreneurship. Based on this thinking, we hypothesise (we make no prediction as to
whether partial of full mediation exists):
H10. Trait EI will have an indirect effect on entrepreneurial intentions.
H11. Creativity and proactivity will have direct and indirect effects on
entrepreneurial intent.

Methods
Participants and procedures
The sample consisted of 280 undergraduate students from three public universities in
Greece: Technical University of Crete (n ¼ 107, 61.7 per cent male), Piraeus Business
University (n ¼ 144, 42.4 per cent male) and Agricultural University of Athens
(n ¼ 29, 41.4 per cent male). Surveys were administrated individually to students
through personal contact by three study authors. Students were randomly located
during leisure activities and asked to voluntarily participate in a research project
regarding factors influencing entrepreneurship as a career choice. There were no
monetary incentives or extra course credits. Data collection took place during 2007
spring semester and lasted four weeks. In sum, the sample consisted of 139 male
students (49.6 per cent), the mean sample age was 22.68 years (SD ¼ 4:5). A total of 36
per cent of the subjects reported that one of their parents owned a full time business
most of the time while they were growing up. The questionnaire contained 52 items
representing the theoretical constructs along with demographic data (age, gender and
whether or not parents owned a business). Items referring to the same construct were
positioned in different locations throughout the questionnaire. Furthermore,
approximately half of the items were negatively worded.

Measurement of theoretical constructs

Trait emotional intelligence. We assessed trait EI using the Greek version of the Trait
Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire – Short Form (TEIQue-SF). This is a 30-item
questionnaire designed to measure global trait EI. It is based on the long form of the
TEIQue (Petrides and Furnham, 2001). Items were measured on a seven-point Likert
scale ranging from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1), while 15 items of the
scale were negatively worded. Example items are: “expressing my emotions with
words is not a problem for me;” “I usually find it difficult to regulate my emotions”
(reverse coded); “I’m usually able to influence the way other people feel;” “many times, I
can’t figure out what emotion I’m feeling” (reverse coded). The TEIQue-SF provides
highly reliable global trait EI scores that correlate meaningfully with a wide range of
diverse criteria, including coping styles, life satisfaction, personality disorders,
IJEBR perceived job control, and job satisfaction (Petrides et al., 2007; Petrides and Furnham,
15,6 2001, 2004). According to Petrides and Furhnam (2004), Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of
reliability for the scale is usually above 0.80 and has never dropped below 0.70 in any
of their studies. Cronbach’s alpha for this construct was 0.83 in the current study.
Proactivity. We assessed the proactivity using a shortened six-item version of
Baterman and Crant’s (1993) original scale described in Claes et al. (2005). The six items
602 were translated into the Greek language by native speakers. A re-translation into
English by other bilingual individuals revealed that the translation was accurate and
that the wording had similar connotations. Example items are: “I am always looking
for better ways to do things;” “If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me from
making it happen;” “If I see something I don’t like, I fix it.” Responses were made on a
seven-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1). The
alpha for the six-item proactivity scale was found to be adequate in past studies
(0.79-0.86, Claes et al., 2005). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.71.
Creativity. This construct was assessed with 12 items from Zhou and George’s
(2001) measure of creativity. The items were translated into the Greek language by
native speakers. For each item, participants indicated their agreement on a seven-point
scale (strongly disagree – 7 to strongly agree – 1). Example items include: “I usually
don’t have new and innovative ideas” (reverse coded); “I come up with creative
solutions to problems;” “I come up with new and practical ideas to improve my
performance.” Six items of the scale were negatively worded. Cronbach’s alpha for this
construct was 0.89.
Attitudes towards entrepreneurship. We assessed this construct with two items: “I
like the idea of being an entrepreneur” and “I am seriously considering becoming an
entrepreneur.” Responses were made on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from
strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.88.
Entrepreneurial intentions. We adopted Krueger et al.’s (2000) understanding of
entrepreneurial intention as the commitment to start a new business. We assessed this
construct with two items: “I intend to start my own business in the near future” and “I
intend to work hard at starting my own business.” Responses were made on a
seven-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1).
Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.88.

Analytical strategy
In the present study, Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS version 7.0) (Arbuckle,
2006) was used. The estimation method employed was maximum likelihood (ML). Prior
analysis data screening was performed and data were tested for deviation from
normality. On the basis of previous recommendations (Little et al., 2002), we formed
item parcels in order to control for inflated measurement errors due to multiple items in
order to improve the psychometric properties of the variables. Item parcelling involves
the averaging of groups of two or more items into subsets, which, in turn, are treated as
indicators of the latent construct (see Little et al., 2002). Parcels of constructs were
created based on results of exploratory factor analysis. We assigned items to indicators
based on the relative size of their factor loadings in order to evenly distribute items
across indicators. For example, the item with the highest loading was used to define the
first indicator; the item with the next highest loading defined the second indicator, etc.
We created five parcels for the trait EI construct (each with six items) and four parcels
for the creativity construct (each with three items). All parcels had adequate internal Emotional
consistency reliabilities ranging from 0.72-0.85. intelligence
Following recommendations by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), we tested our
proposed model using a two-stage analytic procedure. In the first step, we fitted a
measurement model to the data, and in the second step, we tested the underlying
structural model. During the first step, a measurement model that allowed the
underlying latent constructs to correlate freely and constrained each item to load only 603
to the factor for which it was a proposed indicator was assessed. To further assess
discriminant validity of the proposed constructs, we compared the measurement model
with a model that constrained the correlations among the constructs to unity and
examined the change in chi-square (x 2). Evidence that common method variance does
not account for the observed relationships would be provided if a five-factor model,
representing each variable as a separate construct, is superior to a one-factor model.
Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) procedures were followed to evaluate convergent
validity. Convergent validity is established if the average variance extracted for each
factor accounts for 0.50 or more of the total variance. Moreover, Anderson and Gerbing
(1988) noted that convergent validity is demonstrated by statistically significant path
coefficients. We employed several statistics to assess model fitness (Shook et al., 2004):
.
Root mean square error approximation (RMSEA): 0 ¼ an exact fit, , 0.05 ¼ a
close fit, 0.05-0.08 ¼ a fair fit, 0.08-0.10 ¼ a mediocre fit, and . 0.10 ¼ a poor
fit (AMOS also computes a 90 per cent confidence interval around RMSEA).
.
Comparative fit index (CFI): best if above 0.9.
.
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI): best if above 0.9.
.
Akaike information criterion (AIC).
.
Root mean square residual (RMR) best fit for values less than 0.10.

For model comparisons, smaller values in AIC represent a better fit of the model
(Burnham and Anderson, 2004).
In addition, based on the recommendations of Shrout and Bolger (2002), we used
bootstrapping procedures to test the significance of mediation. Unlike traditional
methods, which assume mathematical distributions, bootstrapping is a nonparametric
approach to hypothesis testing whereby one estimates the standard errors empirically
using the available data. Operationally, in bootstrapping, multiple samples are drawn,
with replacement, from the original data set, and the model is re-estimated on each
sample, which results in a number of path estimates that is equal to the number of
samples drawn from the original data set. Following current recommendations, we
resampled 1,000 times and used the percentile method to create 95 per cent confidence
intervals (Shrout and Bolger, 2002).

Results
Data screening and descriptive statistics
According to rules proposed by West et al. (1995), moderately non-normal data (univariate
kurtosis ,7 and univariate skewness ,2) are acceptable. That is to say, the robust
standard errors provide generally accurate estimates. In our data, the univariate skewness
of each variable was ,0.967 in absolute value. The univariate kurtosis of each variable
was ,1.045 in absolute value. Therefore, non-normality was not a major issue. No
IJEBR evidence of multicollinearity was present as the highest variance inflation factor (VIF)
15,6 was 2.5, a value well below the suggested cut-off of 4.0 (see Grewal et al., 2004).
In Table I, we present means, standard deviations and intercorrelations. It is notable
that trait EI was significantly related to creativity, proactivity, attitudes towards
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intent. Gender was not significantly related to
the variables studied. Having a parent that owned a full-time business was
604 significantly related to proactivity (2 0.173, p , 0.001), attitudes towards
entrepreneurship (2 0.379, p , 0.001), and intent (2 0.365, p , 0.001).

Assessment of the measurement model

In our measurement model, one factor loading for each latent construct was fixed to 1 for
model identification. Table II displays the fit statistics for the measurement model.
Overall, the hypothesized measurement model fit the data quite well when evaluated in
terms of the recommended cut offs or the combination cut off approach (Shook et al.,
2004). For purposes of comparison, we contrasted the hypothesized measurement model
with two constrained nested models in which certain factors were set to load on a single
factor. In particular, we created a one-factor model, in which all of the hypothesized
factors were set to load on a single underlying factor, and a four-factor model. We created
the four-factor model by having the attitudes towards entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial intentions load on a single factor. In each case, the hypothesized
measurement model fit the data better than any of the alternatives, both in terms of the fit
statistics and when directly contrasted with a change in chi-square test and AIC.
Additionally, the average variance extracted for the factors was as follows: 0.52 for
emotional intelligence, 0.66 for creativity, 0.56 for proactivity, 0.79 for entrepreneurial
intent, and 0.77 for attitudes. The average variance extracted offers the information
about the amount of variance that is captured by the construct in relation to the
amount of variance due to measurement error. Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggested
that the latent construct has a reliable measurement structure when the value of
average variance extracted is over 0.50. In this study, the values for the five research
constructs ranged from 0.52 to 0.79. These indicated that all five research variables
achieved a range of fairly good to very good reliabilities among indicators to measure
the latent. Furthermore all path coefficients were significant at the p , 0.001 level. In
summary, the results suggest that the proposed factor structure presents a statistically
adequate and sufficient fit to the data.

Assessment of structural models

According to Baron and Kenny (1986), the necessary conditions that must be met in
order to claim that mediation is occurring are: the predictor variable is significantly
related to the mediator; the mediator variable is significantly related to the outcome
variable; and finally the relationship between the predictor and outcome diminishes
when the mediator is in the model. In our study, trait EI significantly correlates to
mediator variables (proactivity and creativity) and outcome variables (entrepreneurial
attitudes and intentions). Furthermore, the mediator variables significantly correlate
with outcome variables. However, we made no prediction whether partial of full
mediation exists. Furthermore, due to the complexity of the relationships of the
proposed model, several comparative models specifying total effects (direct and
indirect), complete mediation and partial mediation should be considered.
 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gendera 1.5 0.50 –

2. Entrepreneurial parentsb 1.64 0.48 0.06 –
3. Trait EI 4.93 0.63 0.10 20.09 (0.83)
4. Creativity 4.85 0.87 20.06 20.104 0.47 * * (0.89)
5. Proactivity 5.32 0.77 0.04 20.17 * * 0.44 * * 0.42 * * (0.71)
6. Attitudes towards entrepreneurship 4.38 1.72 20.05 20.38 * * 0.18 * * 0.28 * * 0.31 * * (0.88)
7. Entrepreneurial intentions 4.21 1.72 20.07 20.36 * * 0.21 * * 0.31 * * 0.36 * * 0.84 * * (0.88)
a b
Notes: n ¼ 280; Internal reliabilities are in parentheses; Gender is coded such that 1 = male and 2 = female; Parents that own a business are coded such
as 1 = “One of my parents owns a business” and 2 = “None of my parents owns a business”; *p , 0.05 (two-tailed), * *p , 0.001 (two-tailed)
intelligence
Emotional

sample
Descriptive statistics and
intercorrelations for total
605

Table I.
 15,6

606

statistics
IJEBR

Table II.
Measurement models fit
Model x2 df Dx 2 RMSEA CFI TLI RMR AIC

Hypothesized five-factor measurement model 293.54 * 142 0.062 (90% CI: 0.052-0.072) 0.941 0.929 0.072 389.54
One-factor measurement model 714.24 * 152 420.69 * 0.115 (90% CI: 0.107-0.124 0.780 0.735 0.575 790.24
Four-factor measurement model 365.71 * 143 72.17 * 0.075 (90% CI: 0.065-0.084) 0.913 0.896 0.288 459.71
Notes: n ¼ 280; x 2 – chi-square statistic; RMSEA – Root Mean Square Error Approximation; CFI – Comparative Fit Index; TLI – Tucker-Lewis Index;
RMR – Root Mean Square Residual; AIC – Akaike Information Criterion; *p , 0.001
 This procedure involves nested model comparison among comparative models. Emotional
Under this framework, the researcher specifies an initial model, and then uses a intelligence
sequence of tests based on p-values to decide whether the model should be simplified or
expanded. However, performing a series of comparisons among conceptual structural
models was a troublesome task in our case since there are in total 512 comparative
models. An alternative is provided by Raftery (1993) and Arbluckle (2006, pp. 353-365).
More specifically, one can search through the vast set of possible models for the best 607
ones and compare individual nested models through the employment of heuristic
specification research strategies. In the present research, we employed a stepwise
strategy in model selection, which included both forward selection and backward
elimination features. According to this strategy, arrows in the structural equation
model are sequentially added and deleted with the criterion for making a change that
the AIC favours the change. Furthermore, under this framework, it is meaningful to
speak of the probability of a model. Raw AIC values can be easily transformed to the
so-called Akaike weights, which can be directly interpreted as conditional probabilities
for each model (Burnham and Anderson, 2004). We performed the model selection
procedure and tested the selected model and paths using AMOS ver. 7.0 (Arbuckle,
2006). The results of the specification procedure indicated that there was 81.2 per cent
probability (in terms of Akaike weights) that the best model is the one presented in
Figure 2. This model revealed a good fit to the data: x 2 ð144; n ¼ 280Þ ¼ 293:76,
p ¼ 0:000; RMSEA ¼ 0:061 (90 per cent CI: 0.051-0.071); CFI ¼ 0:941; TLI ¼ 0:931;
RMR ¼ 0:074 and AIC ¼ 385:76.

Assessment of proposed hypotheses

According to H1, trait EI will be positively related to an individual’s attitudes towards
entrepreneurship (see Figure 1). Examining the findings for direct and indirect
relationships (see Table III) the model postulated that the effects of trait EI on attitudes

Figure 2.
Revised structural model
 15,6

608
IJEBR

Table III.

confidence intervals
associated 95 per cent
indirect effects and the
Standardised direct and
Outcome
Attitudes towards
entrepreneurship Proactivity Creativity Entrepreneurial intent
Predictor Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect

Trait EI – 0.26 * 0.55 * – 0.34 * * 0.18 * – 0.29 *

(0.17-0.34) (0.41-0.69) (0.14-0.51) (0.06-0.33) (0.20-0.38)
Proactivity 0.31 * 0.05ns – – 0.33 * – 0.1ns 0.33 *
(0.13-0.47) (20.02-0.13) (0.12-0.54) (20.07-0.28) (0.18-0.48)
Creativity 0.16 * * – – – – – 20.01ns 0.15 * *
(0.02-0.32) (20.12-0.09) (0.05-0.29)
Attitudes towards entrepreneurship – – – – – – 0.98 *
(0.82-0.99)
Notes: The upper and lower bounds of the 95 per cent confidence interval (shown in parentheses) were based on the findings from a bootstrapping
analysis using the percentile method; *p , 0.01; * *p , 0.1; nsnon-significant
were fully mediated by proactivity and creativity. The standardized indirect effect of Emotional
trait EI on entrepreneurial attitudes was 0.26 (p ¼ 0:002, two tailed). This is partially intelligence
supporting H1, a point we return to in the discussion section.
According to H2 and H3, trait EI is positively related to student proactivity
students’ self-reported creativity respectively. Our results indicated that trait EI had
significant direct effects on proactivity (0.55, p ¼ 0:002, two tailed) and creativity (0.34,
p ¼ 0:004, two tailed). Thus support for Hypotheses 2 and 3. Furthermore, we found 609
that the standardized total effect of trait EI on entrepreneurial intent was 0.29 (95 per
cent percentile confidence interval: 0.20-0.38, p ¼ 0:002, two tailed).
According to H4 and H5, student proactivity and creativity will be positively
related to attitudes towards entrepreneurship respectively. Proactivity had statistically
significant direct effect (0.31, p ¼ 0:002, two tailed) on entrepreneurial attitudes.
Creativity had a statistically significant direct effect on entrepreneurial attitudes (0.16,
p ¼ 0:03, one tailed). Thus support for H4 and H5.
According to H6 and H7, student proactivity and creativity will be positively
related to entrepreneurial intent, respectively. However bootstrapping indicated that
the direct effects of proactivity and creativity on entrepreneurial intent was not
statistically significant [(0.1, p ¼ 0:293) and (2 0.01, p ¼ 0:863) respectively). Thus H6
and H7 were not supported. This finding raises some concern regarding previous
research regarding the direct effects of proactivity and creativity on entrepreneurial
intent (see Crant, 1996; Zampetakis and Moustakis, 2006). It is plausible that attitudes
towards entrepreneurship fully mediate the effects of proactivity and proactivity on
entrepreneurial intent.
H8, postulated that proactivity will be positively related to students self reported
creativity. The direct effect of proactivity on creativity was significant (0.33, p ¼ 0:002
two tailed). Thus support for H8. Furthermore, attitudes towards entrepreneurship had
a significant effect on entrepreneurial intent (0.98, p ¼ 0:002, two tailed), that is
support for H9.
Finally, our analyses indicated that H10 was supported (that is indirect effects of
trait EI on entrepreneurial intent), while H11 was partially supported (only indirect
effects of proactivity and proactivity on entrepreneurial intent were found). The
standardized indirect effect of proactivity on entrepreneurial intent was 0.33 (95 per
cent percentile confidence interval: 0.18-0.48, p ¼ 0:002, two tailed). The standardized
indirect effect of creativity on entrepreneurial intent was 0.15 (95 per cent percentile
confidence interval: 0.18-0.48, p ¼ 0:03, one tailed).
In sum the proportion of variance in creativity, proactivity, entrepreneurial
attitudes and intentions that is explained by the collective set of predictors is 31
percent (95 per cent CI: 0.16-0.46), 35 percent (95 per cent CI: 0.23-0.49), 17 percent (95
per cent CI: 0.8-0.3) and 92 percent (95 per cent CI: 0.84-0.98) respectively. In Table IV,
we present the proposed hypotheses of the present study.

Discussion
To date, there are few studies that examined factors related to entrepreneurs’
emotionality (i.e. Cardon et al., 2005; Goss, 2007). To our knowledge, the present study
is the first to examine the relationships between emotional self-efficacy and
entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions. Given that our ultimate interest is in the
development of future entrepreneurs, we tried to empirically test the relationships
IJEBR
Hypothesis Supported for the sample
15,6
H1 Emotional self-efficacy is positively related to an Partially supported
individual’s attitudes towards entrepreneurship
H2 Emotional self-efficacy is positively related to Yes
student proactivity
610 H3 Emotional self-efficacy is positively related to Yes
student creativity
H4-H5 Student proactivity and creativity are related Yes
positively to attitudes towards entrepreneurship
H6-H7 Student proactivity and creativity are related No
positively to entrepreneurial intent
H8 Student proactivity is positively related to student Yes
creativity
H9 Student attitudes towards entrepreneurship are Yes
positively related to student entrepreneurial intent
Table IV. H10 Student emotional self-efficacy has an indirect effect Yes
Structural equation on student entrepreneurial intent
model assessment of the H11 Student creativity and proactivity have direct and Partially supported
proposed hypotheses indirect effects on entrepreneurial intentions

between trait EI, proactivity, creativity, and entrepreneurial attitudes, and intentions.
The cross-sectional research presented herein, despite limitations that are discussed
later in this section, can provide some essential insights regarding the connection
between the aforementioned variables. The current study tested a model that links
emotional self-efficacy with proactivity, creativity, attitudes towards entrepreneurship
and entrepreneurial intent. At a theoretical level we wanted to address key parts of a
model that adheres to theory of planed behaviour.
Our findings revealed that trait EI, as an index of emotional self-efficacy, may be an
important personality antecedent to entrepreneurial attitudes and intention.
Nonetheless, this link is indirect, mediated by disposition to be proactive and
creative. We discuss the different parts of the empirical model in turn.
We expected that trait EI would be related to entrepreneurial attitudes and
intentions and this was supported at a bivariate level of analysis. As it is posited by
classical social psychological literature on the topic (e.g. Edwards, 1990),
entrepreneurial attitudes, like all attitudes, carry emotional information. This
empirical finding also has important implications for research on entrepreneurship
discussed later in this section. Nonetheless, the relationship between trait EI and
proactive and creative dispositions was considerably higher and consequently,
proactivity and creativity mediated the links with entrepreneurial attitudes and
intentions. As outlined in the introduction, there are several psychological processes
that are reflected in this research. Students with higher trait EI and emotional
self-efficacy, are characterised by positive affectivity and tolerance to stress that may
drive the proactivity. Cognitive processes may also be involved here as it was evidence
by distinct relationships with creativity path linking to entrepreneurial attitudes and
intentions. Future research could very well focus on testing the cognitive and affective
processes responsible for the evidenced connections on the trait level.
What is interesting is that the formulation of entrepreneurial intent follows different
patterns for males and females. Based on our results, for female students (n ¼ 141) it
seems that the most probable model in terms of Akaike weights (80 per cent Emotional
probability) is one where trait EI has almost equivalent direct effects on both creativity intelligence
and proactivity; proactivity has a direct effect on creativity; and finally creativity had a
direct effect on attitudes towards entrepreneurship. There was no direct effect of
proactivity on attitudes towards entrepreneurship. On the other hand, for male
students (n ¼ 139) the most likely model (77.3 per cent) is one where trait EI has a
direct effect on proactivity, creativity and attitudes towards entrepreneurship. 611
However, trait EI had a stronger effect on proactivity compared to creativity (almost
double). Additionally, proactivity had a direct effect on creativity, while there were no
effects of proactivity and creativity on attitudes towards entrepreneurship.
Our results also highlight distal factors to do with familial variables. Statistically
significant differences were found between students depending on whether or not they
come from families that owned a business. Students having parents who owned a
business reported higher proactivity, entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions
providing evidence on the relative importance of interactions between role models
and entrepreneurial intent (Kirkwood, 2007). In particular, based on our results for
students with parents that owned a business (n ¼ 100) it seems that the most plausible
model in terms of Akaike weights (54.5 per cent probability) is one where only direct
effects exist: EI has a strong direct effect on proactivity; proactivity directly effects
creativity and finally, creativity affects attitudes towards entrepreneurship. For
students whose parents do not own a business (n ¼ 180), the most likely model (82.1
per cent) is one where both direct and indirect effects exist: trait EI has a significant
effect on proactivity and creativity; proactivity influences creativity; and finally both
creativity and proactivity directly affect attitudes towards entrepreneurship.

Theoretical and practical implications

At a broader theoretical level, the present study implicitly acknowledges the emotional
angle to the entrepreneurship literature and contributes to the literature suggesting the
potential use of emotional self-efficacy in entrepreneurship studies in general. Since
attitudes encompass both cognitive and affective components (Edwards, 1990) one
could argue that the study considers the individuals’ emotional preferences, with the
possibility of raising their entrepreneurial intent. This contributes to the
entrepreneurship literature and to practice suggesting that in order to effectively
increase attitudes towards entrepreneurship it is important to target both the cognitive
and affective bases of entrepreneurial attitudes.
It seems logical that increasing students’ emotional self-efficacy not only facilitates
learning from possible failure (Shepherd, 2004), but may also foster business start up
as a career option. There is currently little work on the factors that facilitate EI
development (e.g. Boyatzis, 2006; Clarke, 2006) but there are some starting points. For
example, Jaeger (2003) illustrated that postgraduate student’s trait EI can be improved
through curricular and pedagogical design. Furthermore, Slaski and Cartwright (2003)
observed a dramatic increase in trait EI and a decrease of stress-related factors in a
group of 60 British managers who received explicit EI training (which included a series
of short lectures, group discussions, role playing, and sharing of emotional
experiences), compared to a matched control sample that received no training.
Another study by Dulewicz and Higgs (2004) showed that life experiences, such as
participating in demanding competitive group situations, can lead to an increase in
IJEBR self-reported EI-related traits such as interpersonal sensitivity, influence, and
15,6 intuitiveness. However, before embarking on similar training programs with young
professionals one should consider that it is quite plausible that emotion information
processes associated with positive affect and openness could also be involved in the
emotional self-efficacy, creativity and proactivity relationship.
Programmes to enhance entrepreneurial orientation, with the aim of encouraging
612 young people in general and university students in particular to start their own
businesses, have received increasing attention (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003).
However, entrepreneurship education research is still at the exploratory stage. The
results from this study point to key antecedents of entrepreneurial attitudes and
reinforce the idea that entrepreneurship education should focus not only in the
technical aspects of entrepreneurship (e.g. business planning) but to the person as a
whole (Segal et al., 2005; Littunen, 2000).
Furthermore, our results point to different patterns among female and male
students, concerning the effects of emotional self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intent.
More specifically, while for both genders trait EI had direct effects on both proactivity
and creativity and proactivity influenced creativity, it seems that for female students,
attitudes towards entrepreneurship are directly influenced solely by creativity. For
male students attitudes are directly influenced solely by trait EI. Results are in line
with evidence suggesting that males and females follow different processes (Brindley,
2005; McClelland et al., 2005). Furthermore recent research on women owners of small
businesses suggested that in comparison to men, women may be more innovative in
their business start ups, in an effort to better coordinate family and business work
responsibilities (Sarri and Trihopoulou, 2005). As far as the male students are
concerned, it seems that male students high in trait EI are more likely to have positive
attitudes towards entrepreneurship. Male students formulate positive attitudes
towards entrepreneurship because high trait EI enables them to cope with the feelings
caused by the risk of starting a new business. For male students there seems to be no
direct effect of proactivity and creativity on attitudes towards entrepreneurship. This
reflects the possibility that male students are more confident in their knowledge and
understanding of starting a business than female students, as suggested by past
research (Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998).
In addition, the results indicate potential influences of role models in the way EI has
an effect on entrepreneurial orientation (i.e. Kirkwood, 2007). It seems that
entrepreneurial role models may channel emotional self-efficacy mainly towards
proactive behaviour. Research indicates that entrepreneurs are more self-confident and
resilient in the face of stress and successfully cope with negative emotions (Zhao and
Seibert, 2006). Since characteristics of people interested in setting up their own
business usually are quite similar to those of the founders (Brandstatter, 1997) this
implies that students with a parent who owns a business may use emotions to
represent metacognitive knowledge about their own needs – so they act “proactively
creative.” Living within a family that runs a business, the student may accumulates
necessary resources concerning ventures and build up resistance concerning the
potential stressors involved. However, students with high emotional self-efficacy
would be more actively involved in information seeking, trying to prevent or minimise
potential stressors. This in turn facilitates creativity perceptions, making attitudes
towards entrepreneurship more favourable. On the other hand, a student for whom no
parent owns a business and who has high emotional self-efficacy needs to be both Emotional
proactive and creative in order to find potential stressors and overcome them. This is intelligence
likely, since in this case there is no feedback from the immediate family environment.
Therefore, creativity and proactivity are both needed.
Finally, the present study also contributes to the line of entrepreneurship research
indicating that personality variables may have an important role to play in developing
theories of the entrepreneurial process including such areas as entrepreneurial 613
intentions (Rauch and Frese, 2007; Zhao and Seibert, 2006). In addition, our findings
reaffirm proactivity and creativity as important antecedents of entrepreneurial intent;
however, their effects are fully mediated by attitudes towards entrepreneurship.

Limitations and directions for future research

The analyses we have offered have some limitations. Most notably, the method used to
assess the key variables was self-report, and part of the co-variance between the
predictor and outcome variables could be due to the common method variance. Clearly
longitudinal research is needed in this area. Moreover, assessment of actual EI abilities
would be beneficial for sustaining the validity of our findings. Furthermore, tracking
back the path of cause and effect with a correlational study is always a dubious
activity. How can we be sure that trait causes entrepreneurial attitudes and not the
effects of acting as an entrepreneur, particularly when trait EI is given through
self-reports? One cannot be sure. Therefore, our research can be considered an
exploratory effort and must be regarded critically since it does not take into account
the dynamics involved in the start up process. Therefore, for theoretical and
methodological reasons we have to assume that the results of the present study show
traits both as causes and effects of entrepreneurial motivation and behaviour.
However, it should be noted that people choose and shape their environment according
to their preferences, rooted in their personality, and that any environmental influence is
filtered by dispositions.
According to Frank et al. (2007) personality can have varying levels of significance in
the decision to start a new business, in behaviour involved in the start up process, and
in the success of the business. In the present study, we do not claim that the personality
traits examined are sufficient to explain success in entrepreneurship. However, there is
recent evidence suggesting that personality explains a higher proportion of variance in
start up intentions compared to start up realisation and business success (Rauch and
Frese, 2007; Zhao and Seibert, 2006). It is plausible that trait EI could be one such
personality trait. Therefore, our results can be considered as a first step towards the
early encouragement and development of autonomous and self-determined personalities
and thus encourage students to pursue their career ideas more actively.
In sum, the underlying assumption that trait EI influences proactive and creative
behaviour in the development of entrepreneurial attitudes cannot be confirmed with
the cross-sectional data employed in the present study. There is support in the research
literature, however, for the view that traits are the driving force behind entrepreneurial
activities and interests (Frank et al., 2007; Rauch and Frese, 2007; Zhao and Seibert,
2006) rather than the other way around. Therefore, if we assume that attitudes,
intentions, and aspirations for future business start up are likely precursors for
becoming an entrepreneur after graduation it makes sense to expect a higher share of
those who have them to be found among future entrepreneurs. Nevertheless,
IJEBR longitudinal research that examines who actually becomes, or succeeds, as an
15,6 entrepreneur is an important direction for future research.
Furthermore, future research could use ability measures of EI in order to investigate
which subcomponent of EI is a better predictor of entrepreneurial intent. Further
direction for future research could also be to verify the influence of role models in EI in
general and how this influence differs for students having a male or female
614 entrepreneur as a parent (Kirkwood, 2007). Additionally, the role of gender differences
in the effects of EI on the entrepreneurial process merits further investigation along
with the potential influences of cross-cultural diversity. Finally, a second source of data
would be particularly useful in order to assess actual creative and EI ability. However,
research indicates that people do have some insight into their creative (George and
Zhou, 2002) and EI abilities (Petrides and Furnham, 2004) therefore results of the
present survey could be informative, although no actual abilities are measured.

Conclusions
Despite its relatively recent introduction to the management literature, the available
data indicate that EI may have considerable utility for understanding
entrepreneurship-relevant outcomes and procedures. This study examined the
relationships among trait EI (or emotional self-efficacy), proactivity, creativity,
attitudes towards entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intent in a sample of
undergraduate business, engineering and science students. The model supported by
our data may prove helpful for entrepreneurship educators and policy makers trying to
foster the entrepreneurial motivation among university students. The model provides
evidence that students are more likely to formulate the intentions of starting their own
business, when they are high in trait emotional self efficacy – the belief that can
successfully feel, recognise, regulate, control, and evaluate their own and others
emotions. As such, the data reported in the current article may be particular valuable
for entrepreneurship educators, career counsellors and policy makers as they provide
important insights into antecedents and mechanisms that may underlie
entrepreneurial intent.

Note
1. The terms “trait EI” and “emotional self-efficacy” are used interchangeably

References
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behaviour”, Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 179-211.
Amabile, T.M. (1996), Creativity in Context: Update to Social Psychology of Creativity, Westview
Press, Boulder, CO.
Amabile, T.M., Barsade, S.G., Mueller, J.S. and Staw, B.M. (2005), “Affect and creativity at work”,
Administrative Science Quartely, Vol. 50, pp. 367-403.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, pp. 411-23.
Arbuckle, J.L. (2006), AMOS 7.0. User Guide, SmallWaters Corporation, Chicago, IL.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman & Co., New York, NY.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social Emotional
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82. intelligence
Bateman, T.S. and Crant, J.M. (1993), “The proactive component of organizational behaviour:
a measure and correlates”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 14, pp. 103-18.
Binnewies, C., Ohly, S. and Sonnentag, S. (2007), “Taking personal initiative and communicating
about ideas: what is important for the creative process and for idea creativity?”, European 615
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 432-55.
Boyatzis, R.E. (2006), “Intentional change theory from a complexity perspective”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 607-23.
Brandstatter, H. (1997), “Becoming an entrepreneur: a question of personality structure?”, Journal
of Economic Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 157-77.
Brindley, C. (2005), “Barriers to women achieving their entrepreneurial potential: women and
risk”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 144-61.
Burnham, K.P. and Anderson, D.R. (2004), “Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in
model selection”, Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 261-304.
Cardon, M.S., Zietsma, C., Saparito, P., Matherne, B.P. and Davis, C. (2005), “A tale of passion:
new insights into entrepreneurship from a parenthood metaphor”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 20, pp. 23-45.
Claes, R., Beheydt, C. and Lemmens, B. (2005), “Unidimensionality of abbreviated proactive
personality scales across cultures”, Applied Psychology: An International Journal, Vol. 54,
pp. 476-89.
Clarke, N. (2006), “Emotional intelligence training: a case of caveat emptor”, Human Resource
Development Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 422-41.
Crant, M.J. (1996), “The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 34, pp. 42-50.
Dollinger, S.J., Dollinger, S.M.C. and Centeno, L. (2005), “Identity and creativity”, Identity:
An International Journal of Theory and Research, Vol. 5, pp. 315-39.
Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M. (2004), “Can emotional intelligence be developed?”, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 95-111.
Edwards, K. (1990), “The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 202-16.
Forbes, D.P. (1999), “Cognitive approaches to new venture creation”, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 415-39.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 39-50.
Frank, H., Lueger, M. and Korunka, C. (2007), “The significance of personality in business
start-up intentions, start-up realization and business success”, Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 227-51.
George, J.M. (2000), “Emotions and leadership: the role of emotional intelligence”, Human
Relations, Vol. 53, pp. 1027-55.
George, J.M. and Zhou, J. (2002), “Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good
ones don’t: the role of context and clarity of feelings”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87,
pp. 687-97.
IJEBR Gibb, A. (2002), “In pursuit of a new enterprise and entrepreneurship paradigm for learning:
creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of
15,6 knowledge”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 4, pp. 233-69.
Goss, D. (2007), “Enterprise ritual: a theory of entrepreneurial emotion and exchange”, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 18, pp. 1-18.
Grewal, R., Cote, J.A. and Baumgartner, H. (2004), “Multicollinearity and measurement error in
616 structural equation models: implications for theory testing”, Marketing Science, Vol. 23
No. 4, pp. 519-29.
Isen, A.M. (1999), “Positive affect and creativity”, in Russ, S.W. (Ed.), Affect, Creative Experience,
and Psychological Adjustment, Brunel/Mazel, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 3-17.
Jaeger, A.J. (2003), “Job competencies and the curriculum: an inquiry into emotional intelligence
in graduate professional education”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 44 No. 6,
pp. 615-39.
Kafetsios, K. and Zampetakis, L.A. (2008), “Emotional intelligence and job satisfaction: testing
the mediatory role of positive and negative affect at work”, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 44, pp. 710-20.
Kirkwood, J. (2007), “Igniting the entrepreneurial spirit: is the role parents play gendered?”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 39-59.
Kolvereid, L. (1996), “Organisational employment versus self employment: reasons for career
choice intentions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 23-31.
Kourilsky, M.L. and Walstad, W.B. (1998), “Entrepreneurship and female youth: knowledge,
attitudes, gender differences, and educational practises”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 13, pp. 77-88.
Krueger, N.F.J., Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000), “Competing models of entrepreneurial
intention”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15, pp. 411-32.
Lee, S.H. and Wong, P.K. (2004), “An exploratory study of technopreneurial intentions: a career
anchor perspective”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 19, pp. 7-28.
Little, T.D., Cunningham, W.A., Shahar, G. and Widaman, K.F. (2002), “To parcel or not to
parcel? Exploring the question, weighing the merits”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 9,
pp. 151-73.
Littunen, H. (2000), “Entrepreneurship and the characteristics of the entrepreneurial personality”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 295-310.
Lopes, P.N., Cote, S. and Salovey, P. (2006), “An ability model of emotional intelligence:
implications for assessment and training”, in Drukat, V., Sala, F. and Mount, G. (Eds),
Linking Emotional Intelligence and Performance at Work, Lawrence Erlbaum, London,
pp. 153-80.
McClelland, E., Swail, J., Bell, J. and Ibbotson, P. (2005), “Following the pathway of female
entrepreneurs: a six country investigation”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour & Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 84-107.
Majaro, S. (1992), “Strategy search and creativity: the key to corporate renewal”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 230-8.
Marcus, B., Goffin, R.D., Johnston, N.G. and Rothstein, M.G. (2007), “Personality and cognitive
ability as predictors of typical and maximum managerial performance”, Human
Performance, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 275-85.
Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1997), “What is emotional intelligence?”, in Salovey, P. and Sluyter, D.
(Eds), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Implications for Educators,
Basic Books, New York, NY, pp. 3-31.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R. (2002), MSCEIT User’s Manual, Multi-Health Systems Emotional
Inc., Toronto.
intelligence
Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O. and Menil, C. (2006), “Predicting resistance to stress: incremental
validity of trait emotional intelligence over alexithymia and optimism”, Psicothema,
Vol. 18, pp. 79-88.
Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M. and Turner, N. (2006), “Modeling the antecedents of proactive
behaviour at work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 636-52. 617
Peterman, N. and Kennedy, J. (2003), “Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptions of
entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 129-44.
Petrides, K.V. and Furnham, A. (2001), “Trait emotional intelligence: psychometric investigation
with reference to established trait taxonomies”, European Journal of Personality, Vol. 15,
pp. 425-48.
Petrides, K.V. and Furnham, A. (2004), “The role of trait emotional intelligence in a
gender-specific model of organizational variables”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 552-69.
Petrides, K.V., Pérez-González, J.C. and Furnham, A. (2007), “On the criterion and incremental
validity of trait emotional intelligence”, Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 26-55.
Raftery, A.E. (1993), “Bayesian model selection in structural equation models”, in Bollen, K.A.
and Long, J.S. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage Publications, Newbury
Park, CA, pp. 163-80.
Rauch, A. and 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, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 353-85.
Robinson, P.B. and Sexton, E.A. (1994), “The effect of education and experience on
self-employment success”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9, pp. 141-57.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), “Emotional intelligence”, Imagination, Cognition, and
Intelligence, Vol. 9, pp. 185-211.
Sarri, K. and Trihopoulou, A. (2005), “Female entrepreneurs’ personal characteristics and
motivation: a review of the Greek situation”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 24-36.
Segal, G., Borgia, D. and Schoenfeld, J. (2005), “The motivation to become an entrepreneur”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 42-57.
Shepherd, D.A. (2004), “Educating entrepreneurship students about emotion and learning from
failure”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 274-87.
Shook, C.L., Ketchen, D.J., Hult, G.T.M. and Kacmar, K.M. (2004), “An assessment of the use of
structural equation models in strategic management research”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 397-404.
Shrout, P.E. and Bolger, N. (2002), “Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies: new
procedures and recommendations”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 4, pp. 422-45.
Slaski, M. and Cartwright, S. (2003), “Emotional intelligence training and its implications for
health, stress, and performance”, Stress and Health, Vol. 19, pp. 233-9.
Tang, L. and Koveos, P.E. (2004), “Venture entrepreneurship, innovation entrepreneurship and
economic growth”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 3, pp. 161-71.
Tsaousis, I. and Nikolaou, I. (2005), “Exploring the relationship of emotional intelligence with
physical and psychological health functioning”, Stress and Health, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 77-86.
IJEBR Vesper, K.H. and Gartner, W.B. (1997), “Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12, pp. 403-21.
15,6 West, S.G., Finch, J.F. and Curran, P.J. (1995), “Structural equation models with non-normal data
variables: problems and remedies”, in Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling:
Concepts, Issues, and Applications, Sage, London, pp. 56-75.
Zampetakis, L.A. and Moustakis, V. (2006), “Linking creativity with entrepreneurial intentions:
618 a structural approach”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 413-28.
Zhao, H. and Seibert, S.E. (2006), “The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial
status: a meta-analytical review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91, pp. 259-71.
Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2001), “When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the
expression of voice”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 582-696.
Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2003), “Awakening employee creativity: the role of leader emotional
intelligence”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 545-68.

Further reading
Crant, M.J. (2000), “Proactive behaviour in organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26,
pp. 435-62.
Sternberg, R.J. and Lubart, T.I. (1996), “Investing in creativity”, American Psychologist, Vol. 51,
pp. 677-88.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E. and Hills, G.E. (2005), “The mediating role of self-efficacy in the
development of entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6,
pp. 1265-72.

Corresponding author
Leonidas A. Zampetakis can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats