Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating psychological approaches to entrepreneurship: the Entrepreneurial Personality System (EPS)

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Understanding the psychological nature and development of the individual entrepreneur is at the core of contemporary entrepreneurship research. Since the individual functions as a totality of his or her single characteristics (involving the interplay of biological, psychosocial, and context-related levels), a person-oriented approach focusing on intraindividual dynamics seems to be particularly fruitful to infer realistic implications for practice such as entrepreneurship education and promotion. Applying a person-oriented perspective, this paper integrates existing psychological approaches to entrepreneurship and presents a new, person-oriented model of entrepreneurship, the Entrepreneurial Personality System (EPS). In the empirical part, this model guided us to bridge two separate research streams dealing with entrepreneurial personality: research on broad traits like the Big Five and research on specific traits like risk-taking, self-efficacy, and internal locus of control. We examine a gravity effect of broad traits, as assumed in the EPS framework, by analyzing large personality data sets from three countries. The results reveal a consistent gravity effect of an intraindividual entrepreneurial Big Five profile on the more malleable psychological factors. Implications for entrepreneurship research and practice are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As MIDUS has only two waves of data collection, the window of entry into self-employment is not four consecutive waves as in the HILDA and the GSOEP but refers only to wave 2.

  2. Others identify a two-factor solution where two to three items load on a factor that can be labeled as internal locus of control and six items loading on a factor that can be labeled as external locus of control (e.g., Caliendo et al. 2010).

  3. The number of possible mediation effects in the case of the Big Five traits can be calculated as follows: number of Big Five traits * number of dependent variables * number of characteristic adaptations for each sample (GSOEP = 20, HILDA = 10, MIDUS = 20 possible mediation effects).

  4. The results of these robustness checks are available from the authors on request.

References

  • Allport, G. W. (1923). The Leipzig congress of psychology. American Journal of Psychology., 34, 612–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnaud, N. (2011). Following their parents’ footsteps: Distal and proximal antecedents of succession intentions among adolescent family business offspring. Doctoral dissertation. Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.

  • Arnett, J. J. (2000) Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist 55(5), 469–480.

  • Asendorpf, J. B. (2003). Head-to-head comparison of the predictive validity of personality types and dimensions. European Journal of Personality, 17(5), 327–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Åstebro, T., Chen, J., & Thompson, P. (2011). Stars and misfits: self-employment and labor market frictions. Management Science, 57, 1999–2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2008). Resolving the knowledge paradox: knowledge-spillover entrepreneurship and economic growth. Research Policy, 37(10), 1697–1705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Obschonka, M., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2016). A new perspective on entrepreneurial regions: linking cultural identity with latent and manifest entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics. doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9787-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

  • Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, R. J., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 587–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait method analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchflower, D. G. (2000). Self-employment in OECD countries. Labour Economics, 7, 471–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, J. (1971). Lives through times. Berkeley, CA: Bancroft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: a look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 222–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caliendo, M., Cobb-Clark, D. A., & Uhlendorf, A. (2010). Locus of control and job search. DIW Discussion Papers No. 979.

  • Caliendo, M., Fossen, F., & Kritikos, A. S. (2014). The personality characteristics and the decision to become and stay self-employed. Small Business Economics, 42, 787–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. (2009). The nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion. Academy of Management Review, 34, 511–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cervone, D., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Beyond traits in the study of personality coherence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 27–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb-Clark, D. A., & Tan, M. (2011). Noncognitive skills, occupational attainment and relative wages. Journal of Labor Economics, 18, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb-Clark, D. A., & Schurer, S. (2012). The stability of big-five personality traits. Economics Letters, 115, 11–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Holland, J. L. (1984). Personality and vocational interests in an adult sample. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 390–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1997). The five-factor model of personality and Holland’s RIASEC interest types. Personnel and Individual Differences, 23, 87–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1999). RIASEC types and Big Five traits as predictors of employment status and nature of employment. Personnel Psychology, 52, 701–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehne, M., & Schupp, J. (2007). Persönlichkeitsmerkmale im Sozio-oekonomischen Panel (SOEP)-Konzept, Umsetzung und empirische Eigenschaften. DIW Research Notes, 26, 1–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2011). Age differences in the Big Five across the life span: evidence from two national samples. Psychology and Aging, 23, 558–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fauchart, E., & Gruber, M. (2011). Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: the role of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 935–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falck, O., Heblich, S., & Luedemann, E. (2012). Identity and entrepreneurship: do school peers shape entrepreneurial intentions. Small Business Economics, 39, 39–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frese, M. (1982). Occupational socialization and psychological development: an underemphasized research perspective in industrial psychology. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55, 209–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M. & Rusakova, A. (2005). Personality traits, self-employment and professions. Jena Economic Research Papers 2010-075.

  • Gerlitz, J-Y., & Schupp, J. (2005). Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten Persönlichkeits-merkmale im SOEP [On the measurement of Big-Five-based personality traits in the SOEP], Research Notes 4. Berlin: German Institute for Economic Research (DIW).

  • Gottlieb, G. (2003). On making behavioral genetics truly developmental. Human Development, 46, 337–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, E. K., & Lachman, M. E. (2012). Personality stability is associated with better cognitive performance in adulthood: are the stable more able? Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences & Socia, 67, 545–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grotevant, H. D. (1987). Toward a process model of identity formation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2, 203–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heineck, G., & Anger, S. (2010). The returns to cognitive abilities and personality traits in Germany. Labour Economics, 17, 535–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hisrich, R., Langan-Fox, J., & Grant, S. (2007). Entrepreneurship research and practice: a call to action for psychology. American Psychologist, 62, 575–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoang, H., & Gimeno, J. (2010). Becoming a founder: how founder role identity affects entrepreneurial transitions and persistence in founding. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtz-Eakin, D., Joulfaian, D., & Rosen, H. S. (1994). Entrepreneurial decisions and liquidity constraints. RAND Journal of Economics, 25, 334–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopp, C., & Stephan, U. (2012). The influence of socio-cultural environments on the performance of nascent entrepreneurs: community culture, motivation, self-efficacy and start-up success. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 9-10, 917–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, A. W. (2004). Narrating the entrepreneur. International Small Business Journal, 22, 273–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five inventory: version 4a and 54. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, D. J., Brush, C. G., Green, P. G., & Litovsky, Y. (2011). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM): 2010 Women’s report. Babson Park, MA: Babson College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: the empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 1007–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit. New York: Kelly & Millman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kösters, S., & Obschonka, M. (2011). Public business advice in the founding process: an empirical evaluation of subjective and economic effects. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29, 577–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, N. F. (2007). What lies beneath? The experiential essence of entrepreneurial thinking. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice., 31, 123–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. (1998). The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 763–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). The relationship between the entrepreneurial personality and the Big Five personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 58–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lievens, F., Coetsier, P., De Fruyt, F., & De Maeseneer, J. (2002). Medical students’ personality characteristics and academic performance: a five-factor model perspective. Medical Education, 36, 1050–1056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2011). Personality development across the life span: longitudinal analyses with a national sample from Germany. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 847–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2009). Age differences in personality: evidence from a nationally representative Australian sample. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1353–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, 135–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, D., & Törestad, B. (1993). A holistic view of personality: a model revisited. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 427–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, D. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 159–181). NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., et al. (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 407–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaou, N., & Shane, S. (2014). Biology, neuroscience, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23, 98–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Cherkas, L., Hunkin, J., & Spector, T. (2008). Is the tendency to engage in entrepreneurship genetic? Management Science, 54, 167–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obschonka, M., Hakkarainen, K., Lonka, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2016a). Entrepreneurship as a twenty-first century skill: Entrepreneurial alertness and intention in the transition to adulthood. Small Business Economics.

  • Obschonka, M., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2012). Entrepreneurship from a developmental science perspective. Editorial for the special issue “entrepreneurial development: person and context”. International Journal of Developmental Science, 6, 107–115.

  • Obschonka, M., Schmitt-Rodermund, E., Silbereisen, R. K., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2013). The regional distribution and correlates of an entrepreneurship-prone personality profile in the U.S., Germany, and the UK: a socioecological perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 104–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obschonka, M., Schmitt-Rodermund, E., & Terraciano, A. (2014). Personality and the gender gap: a multi-nation study. PloS One, 9(8), e103805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obschonka, M., Silbereisen, R. K., Cantner, U., & Goethner, M. (2016b). Entrepreneurial self-identity: predictors and effects within the theory of planned behavior framework. Journal of Business and Psychology. doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9385-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obschonka, M., Stuetzer, M., Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., Lamb, M. E., Potter, J., & Audretsch, D. B. (2015). Entrepreneurial regions: do macro-psychological cultural characteristics of regions help solve the “knowledge paradox” of economics? PloS One, 10(6), e0129332. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obschonka, M., Stuetzer, M., Audretsch, D. B., Rentfrow, P. J., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. (2016c). Macro-psychological factors predict regional economic resilience during a major economic crisis. Social Psychological and Personality Science.

  • Oosterbeek, H., Van Praag, M., & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European Economic Review, 54(3), 442–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 19, 2–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radler, B. T., & Ryff, C. D. (2010). Who participates? Accounting for longitudinal retention in the MIDUS national study of health and well-being. Journal of Aging and Health, 22, 307–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007a). Born to be an entrepreneur? Revisiting the personality approach to entrepreneurship. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese, & R. J. Baron (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 41–65). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007b). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: a meta analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 353–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Work experiences and personality development in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 582–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: the comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 313–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rottinghaus, P. J., & Miller, A. D. (2013). Convergence of personality frameworks within vocational psychology. In W. B. Walsh, M. L. Savickas, & P. J. Hartung (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology (pp. 105–131). New York: Routledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savickas, M. L. (2002). Career construction: a developmental theory of vocational behavior. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 149–205). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2004). Pathways to successful entrepreneurship: parenting, personality, entrepreneurial competence, and interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 498–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2007). The long way to entrepreneurship: personality, parenting, early interests, and competencies as precursors for entrepreneurial activity among the ‘termites’. In R. K. Silbereisen & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Approaches to positive youth development (pp. 205–224). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., Nicolaou, N., Cherkas, L., & Spector, T. D. (2010). Genetics, the Big Five, and the tendency to be self-employed. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1154–1162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence: two aspects of personality integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 531–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Specht, J., Bleidorn, W., Denissen, J. J. A., Hennecke, M., Hutteman, R., Kandler, C., Luhmann, M., Orth, U., Reitz, A. K., & Zimmermann, J. (2014). What drives adult personality development? A comparison of theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. European Journal of Personality, 28, 216–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Specht, J., Egloff, B., & Schmuckle, S. (2013). Everything under control? The effects of age, gender, and education on trajectories of perceived control in a nationally representative German sample. Developmental Psychology, 49, 353–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuetzer, M., Obschonka, M., Audretsch, D. B., Wyrwich, M., Rentfrow, P. J., Coombes, M., Shaw-Taylor, L., & Satchell, M. (2016a). Industry structure, entrepreneurship, and culture: An instrumental variable analysis using historical coal mining in Great Britain. European Economic Review, 86, 52–72.

  • Stuetzer, M., Audretsch, D. B., Obschonka, M., Rentfrow, P. J., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. (2016b). Entrepreneurial culture, knowledge spillovers, and the growth of regions.

  • Stuetzer, M., Obschonka, M., & Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2013). Balanced skills among nascent entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 41(1), 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, R. (2000). Entrepreneurial learning and mentoring. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 6, 160–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Super, D. E. (1963). Self-concepts in vocational development. In D. E. Super, R. Starishevsky, N. Matlin, & J. P. Joordan (Eds.), Career development: self-concept theory (pp. 17–32). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turiano, N. A., Pitzer, L., Armour, C., Karlamangla, A., Ryff, C. D., & Mroczek, D. K. (2012). Personality trait level and change as predictors of health outcomes: findings from a national study of Americans (MIDUS). Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences & Socia, 67, 4–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G. G., Frick, J. J., & Schupp, J. (2007). The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP): scope, evolution and enhancements. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 127, 139–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: implications for entrepreneurship Education1. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 387–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 259–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2010). The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: a meta-analytic study. Journal of Management, 36, 381–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Saarland University, 66123, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Martin Obschonka

  2. Center for Applied Developmental Science, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Semmelweisstr 12, 07743, Jena, Germany

    Martin Obschonka

  3. Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University, Coblitzallee 1-9, 68193, Mannheim, Germany

    Michael Stuetzer

  4. Faculty of Economic Sciences and Media, Ilmenau University of Technology, Ehrenbergstr, 29 98684, Ilmenau, Germany

    Michael Stuetzer

Authors
  1. Martin Obschonka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Stuetzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Obschonka.

Appendix

Appendix

Fig. 3
figure 3

Results for the single Big Five traits in the German GSOEP sample. Note. 1a Direct effect model on self-employment status, 1b mediation model self-employment status with locus of control and risk-taking as mediators, 1c direct effect model on entry into self-employment, 1d mediation model on entry into self-employment with locus of control and risk-taking as mediators. All effects are controlled for age, age2, education, and education2. Models 1b and 1d test the effect of a single Big Five trait as independent variable in a mediation setting while controlling for the effects of the other Big Five traits not under consideration. OLS regressions with locus of control and risk-taking as DV presenting unstandardized coefficients on the paths and adjusted R 2 in the upper corner. Logistic regressions with self-employment and entry as DV presenting odds ratios on the paths and McFadden’s R 2. All personality variables are z-standardized. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Results for the entrepreneurial Big Five profile in the German GSOEP sample. Note. 2a Direct effect model on self-employment status, 2b mediation model on self-employment status with locus of control and risk-taking as mediators, 2c direct effect model on entry into self-employment, 2d mediation model on entry into self-employment with locus of control and risk-taking as mediators. All effects are controlled for age, age2, education, and education2. OLS regressions with locus of control and risk-taking as DV presenting unstandardized coefficients on the paths and adjusted R 2 in the upper corner. Logistic regressions with self-employment and entry as DV presenting odds ratios on the paths and McFadden’s R 2. All personality variables are z-standardized. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Results for the single Big Five traits in the Australian Hilda sample. Note. 3a Direct effect model on self-employment status, 3b mediation model on self-employment status with self-efficacy as mediator, 3c direct effect model on entry into self-employment, 3d mediation model on entry into self-employment with self-efficacy as mediator. All effects are controlled for age, age2, education, and education2. Models 3b and 3d test the effect of a single Big Five trait as independent variable in a mediation setting while controlling for the effects of the other Big Five traits not under consideration. OLS regressions with self-efficacy as DV presenting unstandardized coefficients on the paths and adjusted R 2 in the upper corner. Logistic regressions with self-employment and entry as DV presenting odds ratios on the paths and McFadden’s R 2. All personality variables are z-standardized. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Results for the entrepreneurial Big Five profile in the Australian HILDA sample. Note. 4a Direct effect model on self-employment status, 4b mediation model on self-employment status with self-efficacy as mediator, 4c direct effect model on entry into self-employment, 4d mediation model on entry into self-employment with self-efficacy as mediator. All effects are controlled for age, age2, education, and education2. OLS regressions with self-efficacy as DV presenting unstandardized coefficients on the paths and adjusted R 2 in the upper corner. Logistic regressions with self-employment and entry as DV presenting odds ratios on the paths and McFadden’s R 2. All personality variables are z-standardized. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Results for the single Big Five traits in the US MIDUS sample. Note. 5a Direct effect model on self-employment status, 5b mediation model self-employment status with personal mastery and personal constraints as mediators, 5c direct effect model on entry into self-employment, 5d mediation model on entry into self-employment with personal mastery and personal constraints as mediator. All effects are controlled for age, age2, education, and education2. Models 5b and 5d test the effect of a single Big Five trait as independent variable in a mediation setting while controlling for the effects of the other Big Five traits not under consideration. OLS regressions with personal mastery and personal constraints as DV presenting unstandardized coefficients on the paths and adjusted R 2 in the upper corner. Logistic regressions with self-employment and entry as DV presenting odds ratios on the paths and McFadden’s R 2. All personality variables are z-standardized. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

Results for the entrepreneurial Big Five profile in the US MIDUS sample. Note. 6a Direct effect model on self-employment status, 6b mediation model on self-employment status with personal mastery and personal constraints as mediators, 6c direct effect model on entry into self-employment, 6d mediation model on entry into self-employment with personal mastery and personal constraints as mediator. All effects are controlled for age, age2, education, and education2. OLS regressions with personal mastery and personal constraints as DV presenting unstandardized coefficients on the paths and adjusted R 2 in the upper corner. Logistic regressions with self-employment and entry as DV presenting odds ratios on the paths and McFadden’s R 2. All personality variables are z-standardized. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Obschonka, M., Stuetzer, M. Integrating psychological approaches to entrepreneurship: the Entrepreneurial Personality System (EPS). Small Bus Econ 49, 203–231 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9821-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9821-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation