Skip to main content
Log in

Knowledge context and entrepreneurial intentions among students

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current paper analyzes the role of the individual and regional knowledge context in forming university students’ entrepreneurial intentions. As access to knowledge resources is crucial for the growth and survival of knowledge-based start-ups, we argue that an individual’s decision in favor or against becoming an entrepreneur should critically depend on the multilevel context providing her with access to strategically relevant knowledge. A unique dataset for German students and regions allows us to analyze a variety of personal and regional determinants of entrepreneurial intentions among students. At the individual level we find that role models facilitating the transfer of tacit knowledge and the expectation that strong ties will provide know-how and know-who positively impact entrepreneurial intentions. At the regional level we find that a high regional start-up rate in knowledge-based industries and a high growth rate of regional knowledge production positively influence entrepreneurial intentions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Some authors alternatively use the term “self-employment intentions” (e.g., Souitaris et al. 2007).

  2. A possible explanation for this missing integration is that authors from different disciplines tend to neglect the findings of other disciplines that differ in their premises, theoretical background, and empirical methods. As Klein et al. (1999) note, the training that young researchers receive is seldom multilevel in nature. Hence, individual-level attributes and behavior may seem uninteresting or even irrelevant to the macro-trained theorist, whereas macrolevel influences may appear intractable and of little interest to the micro-trained scholar. “The micro scholar may be unable or simply disinclined to see the forest for the trees, whereas the macro scholar may be unable or disinclined to see the trees that make up the forest” (Klein et al. 1999, p. 244).

  3. There are relatively few papers that try to integrate both levels of analysis. Among these exceptions are Wagner and Sternberg (2004) and Mueller (2006).

  4. A more detailed discussion of the features and the significance of our student sample is provided in Sect. 3.1.

  5. This line of reasoning reflects the famous global–local paradox which says that, paradoxically, in a globalized world the factors that make the difference in international competition are not those which are ubiquitously available but those which are bound to a specific location and cannot easily be replicated or imitated elsewhere (Storper 1997).

  6. In recent contributions to knowledge spillover theory (e.g., Audretsch et al. 2008), entrepreneurial motivation and qualification have been treated as exogenous factors. However, prior research has revealed that individuals with extensive general and entrepreneurship-specific human capital are more likely to identify and (successfully) exploit entrepreneurial opportunities (Bates 1990; Gimeno et al. 1997; Davidsson and Honig 2003; Ucbasaran et al. 2008; Unger et al. 2011). Hartog et al. (2010), for instance, show that the possession of certain cognitive abilities is related to entrepreneurial career choice and performance.

  7. One could think of an individual’s formal education, work experience, etc. These are—similar to other personal characteristics of the individual—considered as control variables in the subsequent empirical analysis.

  8. The importance of such strong ties for the success of newly founded businesses has been shown in empirical work by Brüderl and Preisendörfer (1998).

  9. We focus on strong ties here, because Brüderl and Preisendörfer (1998) have found that support from strong ties is more important for the success of newly established businesses than support from weak ties.

  10. Of course, family, friends or other ties can also support the prospective founder by direct material support unrelated to knowledge. The expectation of material support is therefore considered as a control variable in the empirical analysis.

  11. A further advantage is that the high-quality information received by strong ties can typically be accessed in a timely fashion.

  12. Obviously, this should hold true in particular for highly qualified nascent entrepreneurs starting knowledge-based ventures.

  13. Even examples of failure may be stimulating, if you have an idea what went wrong and think you could make it better.

  14. Note, however, that we have no information on whether students’ actual start-up ideas are indeed knowledge based or not.

References

  • Acs, Z. J., & Armington, C. (2004). The impact of geographic differences in human capital on service firm formation rates. Journal of Urban Economics, 56(2), 244–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. E., Rosen, B., & Woodward, W. (1987). The impact of social networks on business foundings and profit: A longitudinal study. In N. C. Churchill, J. A. Hornaday, O. J. Krasner, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. Wellesley: Babson College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arenius, P., & De Clercq, D. (2005). A network-based approach on opportunity recognition. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arenius, P., & Minniti, M. (2005). Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 233–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armington, C., & Acs, Z. J. (2002). The determinants of regional variation in new firm formation. Regional Studies, 36(1), 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Bönte, W., & Keilbach, M. (2008). Entrepreneurship capital and its impact on knowledge diffusion and economic performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 687–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Dohse, D. (2007). Location: A neglected determinant of firm growth. Review of World Economics, 143(1), 79–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Dohse, D. & Niebuhr, A. (2010). Cultural diversity and entrepreneurship: A regional analysis for Germany. Annals of Regional Science 45(1), 55–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86(3), 630–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2007). The theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1242–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005a). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34(8), 1191–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005b). Mansfield's missing link: The impact of knowledge spillovers on firm growth. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1/2), 207–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartik, T. J. (1989). Small business start-ups in the United States: Estimates of the effects of characteristics of states. Southern Economic Journal, 55(4), 1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, T. (1990). Entrepreneur human capital inputs and small business longevity. Review of Economics & Statistics, 72(4), 551–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, T. (1995). Self-employment entry across industry groups. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(2), 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BBR. (2001). Aktuelle Daten zur Entwicklung des Städte, Kreise und Gemeinden. Bonn: Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhave, M. P. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(3), 223–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brüderl, J., & Preisendörfer, P. (1998). Network support and the success of newly founded businesses. Small Business Economics, 10(3), 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busenitz, L. W., & Lau, C.-M. (1996). A cross-cultural cognitive model of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 20(4), 25–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlton, D. W. (1983). The location and employment choices of new firms: A econometric model with discrete and continuous endogenous variables. Review of Economics & Statistics, 65(3), 440–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassidy, T., & Lynn, R. (1989). A multifactorial approach to achievement motivation: The development of a comprehensive measure. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62(4), 301–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chlosta, S., Patzelt, H., Klein, S., & Dormann, C. (2010). Parental role models and the decision to become Self-employed: The moderating effect of personality. Small Business Economics. doi:10.1007/s11187-010-9270-y.

  • Collins, C. J., Hanges, P. J., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of achievement motivation to entrepreneurial behavior: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 17(1), 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2005). Founders’ human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: A competence-based view. Research Policy, 34(6), 795–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P. (2001). New economy innovation systems: Biotechnology in Europe and the USA. Industry & Innovation, 8(3), 267–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A. C., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1986). Entrepreneurship and paths to business ownership. Strategic Management Journal, 7(1), 53–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A. C., Gimeno-Gascon, F. J., & Woo, C. Y. (1994). Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 371–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cope, J., Jack, S., & Rose, M. B. (2007). Social capital and entrepreneurship: An introduction. International Small Business Journal, 25(3), 213–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, E. J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2002). Self-employment as a career choice: Attitudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and utility maximization. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 26(3), 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, T., & Holtz-Eakin, D. (2000). Financial capital, human capital, and the transition to self-employment: Evidence from intergenerational links. Journal of Labor Economics, 18(2), 282–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duranton, G., & Puga, D. (2001). Nursery cities: Urban diversity, process innovation, and the life cycle of products. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. S., & Jovanovic, B. (1989). An estimated model of entrepreneurial choice under liquidity constraints. Journal of Political Economy, 97(4), 808–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. S., & Leighton, L. S. (1989). Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship. American Economic Review, 79(3), 519–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P., & Audretsch, D. B. (1999). Innovation in cities: Science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. European Economic Review, 43(2), 409–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M., & Falck, O. (2007). New business formation by industry over space and time: A multidimensional analysis. Regional Studies, 41(2), 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgellis, Y., Sessions, J. G., & Tsitsianis, N. (2005). Windfalls, wealth, and the transition to self-employment. Small Business Economics, 25(5), 407–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gimeno, J., Folta, T. B., Cooper, A. C., & Woo, C. Y. (1997). Survival of the fittest? Entrepreneurial human capital and the persistence of underperforming firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 750–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser, E. L. (2007). Entrepreneurship and the city. NBER Working Paper 13551. Washington DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Glaeser, E. L., Kallal, H. D., Scheinkman, J. A., & Shleifer, A. (1992). Growth in cities. Journal of Political Economy, 100(6), 1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansemark, O. C. (2003). Need for achievement, locus of control and the prediction of business start-ups: A longitudinal study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(3), 301–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartog, J., van Praag, M., & van der Sluis, J. (2010). If you are so smart, why aren’t you an entrepreneur? Returns to cognitive and social ability: Entrepreneurs versus employees. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00274.x.

  • Hatch, N. W., & Dyer, J. H. (2004). Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 25(12), 1155–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henley, A. (2004). Self-employment status: The role of state dependence and initial circumstances. Small Business Economics, 22(1), 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23(6), 723–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holcomb, T. R., Ireland, R. D., Holmes, R. M., Jr, & Hitt, M. A. (2009). Architecture of entrepreneurial learning: Exploring the link among heuristics, knowledge, and action. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33(1), 167–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. (1969). The economy of cities. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johannisson, B. (1998). Personal networks in emerging knowledge-based firms: Spatial and functional patterns. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 10(4), 297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketels, C. (2004). European Clusters. In L. Hagbarth (Ed.), Structural change in Europe. Bollschweil: Hagbarth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., Tosi, H. L., & Cannella, A. A. (1999). Multilevel theory building: Benefits, barriers, and new developments. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 243–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolvereid, L. (1996a). Organizational employment versus self-employment: Reasons for career choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 20(3), 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolvereid, L. (1996b). Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 21(1), 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, P. (1998). What’s new about the new economic geography? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14(2), 7–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. Y., Florida, R., & Acs, Z. J. (2004). Creativity and entrepreneurship: A regional analysis of new firm formation. Regional Studies, 38(8), 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. H., & Wong, P. K. (2004). An exploratory study of technopreneurial intentions: A career anchor perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 7–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. E., Jr. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, C. H., & Moser, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal investigation of the impact of family background and gender on interest in small business ownership. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(2), 29–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger, G., & Heger, D. (2005). Die Bereitstellung von Standardauswertungen zum Gründungsgeschehen in Deutschland und Österreich für externe Datennutzer. Mannheim: ZEW.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelacci, C., & Silva, O. (2007). Why so many local entrepreneurs? Review of Economics & Statistics, 89(4), 615–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minniti, M. (2005). Entrepreneurship and network externalities. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 57(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship in the region: Breeding ground for nascent entrepreneurs? Small Business Economics, 27(1), 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P. D., Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., & Greene, P. G. (2004). The prevalence of nascent entrepreneurs in the United States: Evidence from the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics. Small Business Economics, 23(4), 263–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P., Storey, D. J., & Westhead, P. (1994). Cross-national comparisons of the variation in new firm formation rates. Regional Studies, 41, 443–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocha, H. O., & Sternberg, R. (2005). Entrepreneurship: The role of clusters theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence from Germany. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 267–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71–S102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggles, S., Sobek, M., Alexander, T., Fitch, C., Goeken, R., Hall, P., et al. (2003). Integrated public use Microdata series: Version 3.0. http://www.ipums.org.

  • Schneider, S. L., & Lopes, L. L. (1986). Reflection in preference under risk: Who and when may suggest why. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12(4), 535–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, M., Houghton, S. M., & Aquino, K. (1999). Cognitive biases, risk perception, and venture formation: How individuals decide to start companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 113–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 9–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 566–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stam, E. (2007). Why butterflies don’t leave: Locational behavior of entrepreneurial firms. Economic Geography, 83(1), 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, W. H., Jr., & Roth, P. L. (2001). Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 145–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storper, M. (1997). The regional world: Territorial development in a global economy. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2008). Opportunity identification and pursuit: Does an entrepreneur’s human capital matter? Small Business Economics, 30(2), 153–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unger, J. M., Rauch, A., Frese, M., & Rosenbusch, N. (2011). Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 341–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J. (2005). Nascent and infant entrepreneurs in Germany: Evidence from the regional entrepreneurship monitor (REM). Discussion Paper No. 1522. Bonn: Institute for Labor Studies (IZA).

  • Wagner, J., & Sternberg, R. (2004). Start-up activities, individual characteristics, and the regional milieu: Lessons for entrepreneurship support policies from German Micro Data. Annals of Regional Science, 38(2), 219–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zander, I. (2004). The microfoundations of cluster stickiness—Walking in the shoes of the entrepreneur. Journal of International Management, 10(2), 151–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ZEW Start-Up Panel. (2006). http://www.zew.de/en/forschung/datenbanken.php3. Accessed 07 Dec 2010.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dirk Dohse.

Appendix: Study measures

Appendix: Study measures

Entrepreneurial intention (measure based on Kolvereid 1996b; seven-point Likert scale from 1 = “I completely disagree” to 7 = “I completely agree”; α = 0.81).

(1) “There is no doubt that I will become self-employed as soon as possible.”, (2) “I plan on becoming self-employed within 5 years of the successful completion of my studies.”; (3) “I plan on becoming self-employed some time after the successful completion of my studies”.

Access to know-how (seven-point Likert scale from 1 = “no support” to 7 = “great support”).

“To what extent would the following social groups support you if you became self-employed after your studies? (Please answer even though you do not plan on becoming self-employed)”. Respondents reported the extent to which three different sources, including family, steady partner, and friends would provide “information and good advice (regarding business development and management).”

Access to know-who was measured analogously to access to know-how, but includes “procurement of contacts” as type of support.

Access to material support was measured analogously to access to know-how and access to know-who, but includes “material support (e.g., funding, office equipment,…)” as type of support.

Need for achievement (measure adopted from Cassidy and Lynn 1989; seven-point Likert scale from 1 = “I completely disagree” to 7 = “I completely agree”).

(1) “Hard work is something I like to avoid.” (r), (2) “I frequently think about ways I could earn a lot of money.”, (3) “I believe I would enjoy having authority over other people.”, (4) “I find satisfaction in exceeding my previous performance even if I don’t outperform others.”, (5) “I care about performing better than others on a task.”, (6) “I would rather do tasks at which I feel confident and relaxed than ones which appear challenging and difficult.” (r), (7) “I would like an important job where people look up to me.”

Need for independence (seven-point Likert scale from 1 = “I completely disagree” to 7 = “I completely agree”).

“In group and projectized work…” (1) “having freedom of choice over when I do my work is important to me.”, (2) “I prefer to determine the content of my work as far as possible on my own.”, (3) “I would rather set the sequence of my work tasks on my own.”, (4) “I dislike being subordinated to other people.”

Risk-taking propensity (measure adopted from Schneider and Lopes 1986).

“In the following you will be confronted with 5 situations in which you please either decide on being paid a safe amount of money or instead participating in a lottery. Your answers for these situations should be independent of each other. In every situation please imagine that you can dispose of a total wealth of EUR 1,000.”

  1. (1)

    an 80% chance of winning EUR 400, or receiving EUR 320 for sure,

  2. (2)

    receiving EUR 300 for sure, or a 20% chance of winning EUR 1,500,

  3. (3)

    a 90% chance of winning EUR 200, or receiving EUR 180 for sure,

  4. (4)

    receiving EUR 160 for sure, or a 10% chance of winning EUR 1,600,

  5. (5)

    a 50% chance of winning EUR 500, or receiving EUR 250 for sure.

(r) = reverse coded

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dohse, D., Walter, S.G. Knowledge context and entrepreneurial intentions among students. Small Bus Econ 39, 877–895 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9324-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9324-9

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Navigation