1 ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
WITH NON-ENTREPRENEUR PARENTS
Ika Rahma Susilawati
Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Brawijaya University Malang, East Java - Indonesia
ikarahma@ub.ac.id
Abstract
This research aimed to knowing the entrepreneurial intention of college student which is the family (parent) are have no major career as an entrepreneur and also to examine the determinant factors influencing the entrepreneurial intention from dimensions of : personal character or trait (stress hardiness and self-efficacy), social support, universities support (perceived of college support). Research was conducted using survey methods (quantitative) on the UB students under 2012 forces with requirement is non-entrepreneur parents. The sampling method is done by accidental sampling. There was 415 from 795 questionnaires that can be used as the research data. 233 remains are excluded because they have an entrepreneurial parents, 147 are eliminates because incomplete responds of queastionnaires. Data were analyzed by multiple regression analysis and results show that there are a significant influence when hardiness (X1.1), self-efficacy (X1.2), social support (X3), and university support (X4) simultaneously amounted to 13%, while 87% remains are influenced by another variables. Whereas the influence of each independent variables showed that Hardiness is the only one variable that have no significance impact to the student entrepreneurial intention, otherwise, university support had dominant impact to the entrepreneurial intention amounted to 30,8% contribution.
Keyword: personal trait, social support, university support, entrepreneurial intentions
1. Introduction
The Entrepreneurial Career Intention
Availability of employment remains a critical issue in the State of Indonesia. Central Statistics Agency (BPS), the period of August 2010 showed that the number of unemployed nationally in Indonesia reached 7.41% or 8.59 million of the total labor force as many as 116.53 million. Every year the number of unemployed intellectuals increased by 20%. A large number of graduates from higher education institutions especially universities do not promise employment intellectuals accepted 100% by industry demand and employment. Inequality amount of labor supply with job availability varies inversely where labor supply is increasing while the market demand requires increased competition. Data shows, the percentage of unemployed graduates grouped Diploma I - III reached 12.78%, the highest, followed by unemployed graduates grouped reaching 11.92%. Unemployment percentage rate at least it contained a group of primary school graduates down, 3.81% (http://disnakertransduk.jatimprov.go.id/ketenagakerjaan).
2 direction of development of the organization. Dream to become the "Entrepreneurial University", announced beginning in 2010an aims to "challenge themselves" capable of provision of skills, opportunities, support and motivation for all students to spark interest in the growth and entrepreneurial career choice as a promising opportunity as well as an alternative to reduce the number of unemployed the people of productive age.
It is not an easy thing to change the paradigm of student workers with prestigious companies to entrepreneurial high level of uncertainty. This study aims to look at how the current level of student intentions towards entrepreneurship a career option. It also saw the influence of personal characteristics (which in this case specific personality trait such as hardiness and self-efficacy), social support, universities support toward the entrepreneurial intentions of UB college students. Subjects of research here is more focused on students whose parents are non-entrepreneur, as many studies have shown the influence of entrepreneurial career in the family or parents in particular, influence the choice of entrepreneurship in their career.
2. Main Body
Stress Hardiness
Personal characteristics are distinguish one from another. In many aspects of life, Personal characteristics affect how individuals respond and behave differently. Hardiness is a personal characteristic of the individual. Many rationalism thaught assumes that people who have high levels of resistance were able to respond and resolve the stressfull conditions effectively, whereas people with low levels of stress resistance, often stuck in a depressed condition and is unable to demonstrate the quality of self-optimal. Hardiness is one of personality traits, which describes a person's predisposition to be resistant to the harmful effects of stressors and adapt effectively and be able to follow the demands of the environment (Hull, Van Treuren, & Virnelli, 1987). Hardy individuals have a deep commitment to various life domains (eg, family, friends, work, etc.). They believe that they have control over what happens in their lives, they tend to perceive difficult situations as "challenges" rather than as a threat. That's why hardiness able to explain how some people do not seem to be affected by the stressful environment (Eschleman, Bowling, and Alarcon, 2010).
Kobasa et al (1982); Maddi et al (2002) agree that hardiness is a personality trait that is being researched and discussed the influence of various factors related to stress and job performance. Hardiness is a multidimensional construct in which there are three main components of commitment, control, and challenge (Shepperd & Kashani, 1991). Commitment is the extent to which a person is bound to / involved in various domains of life such as family, friends, work. Commitment is an important dimension because it can give a person a sense of purpose and helpful in enhancing the development of social relations that may be needed when a person is in a pressing situation. However, the most important is a strong commitment to himself that people can survive in pressing situations. The second dimension is the dimension of control that describes the extent to which a person's belief in their ability to control events / events that happened in his life. Perception of control makes people feel that they can manage / organize the environment to be safe for him, and they can anticipate future threats to their existence. The low perception of self-control is often seen as a source of stress (Van der Doef & Maes, 1999). The third dimension is Challenge (Challenge), reflecting the extent to which a person generally perceives difficult situations as a challenge rather than a threat. This dimension is important because it contributes to a person's ability to be flexible and adaptive to situations that could potentially lead to pressure (Eschleman, Bowling, and Alarcon, 2010).
3 General Self-Efficacy
Perceived self-efficacy is defined as the belief of a person in his or her ability to organize and execute certain behaviours that are necessary in order to produce given attainments (Bandura 1982). The self-efficacy theory posits that efficacy beliefs influence the type of activity people choose to engage in, the level of effort they spend, and their perseverance in the face of difficulties. The self-efficacy theory emphasizes domain-specificity, implying that the strongest relationships exist between beliefs regarding a specific behaviour performance and the actual performance of that behaviour. However, various and numerous experiences of failure and success in different domains of functioning may generate more generalized beliefs of self-efficacy that have explanatory value as well.
Some studies examined how individual self-efficacy plays a role in entrepreneurial intentionality. It is suggested that the concept of self-efficacy plays an important role in the development of entrepreneurial intentions and action (Scherer, Adams, Carley, & Wiebe, 1989; Scherer, Adams, & Wiebe, 1990; Boyd, & Vozikis, 1994).
Measurement instrument used a efficacy scale of Sherer et al (1982) "The general self-efficacy scale" which was later modified and developed to adjust with the language and customs value in the local studied area. 11 best items selected through trials and used in this study, in which there are items that are favorable and unfavorable. Scale used has a value of reliability coefficient of 0.683.
Social Support
Social support often deemed as a resource that can protect dan help people from the effects of stress (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Social support is a human interaction in which socio-emotional, instrumental, and recreational resources are exchanged (Bravo, 1989; Bravo, Canino, Rubio-Stipec, and Serrano-García, 1991; Cohen and Syme, 1985; Depner, Dayton, 1984; Mitchell and Trickett, 1980; Thoits, 1982). This construct plays an important moderating role in mental health outcomes because of its potential to protect people from a variety of physical and psychological disorders (Cobb, 1976). Social support appears to be associated to stress, depression, and mental health problems (Gottlieb, 1985). For instance, lack of social support showed a his/her positive association with psychosomatic symptoms (Newby-Fraser and Schlebusch, 1997) and high levelsof perceived social support were associated with low levels of depression (Zimet,Dahlem, Zimet, and Farley, 1988).
Social support have a positive correlation with motivation and a person’s drive to reach something they wants. In the pattern of behavior intention, it helps people to feel stronger and have more power in actuating the expected behavior. Bigger and wider social support, including family, friends, and significant others then higher intention will be reached. The measurement of social supports is critical to investigators interested in the study of social and interpersonal processes that moderate outcomes of mental health interventions. Working in a Latino context, Bravo (1989) identified various components of the social support construct suggesting the multidimensional nature of the phenomenon. For instance, social support may be divided in three types: resources of the support network, behaviors that offer support, and evaluation (Vaux, 1988). These aspects of support are related to the characteristics of the support networks, the specific behaviors that bring about help, and the personal evaluation of the support resources. In addition, Vaux (1988) reported six dimensions of social support: emotional, advice, practical support, socialization, material support, and feedback. Other aspects of support considered as moderately stable factors overtime were problems with relatives, problems with friends, support from relatives, confidants, or friends, and social integration (Kendler, 1997).
Social support scale used is the development of a combination of several dimensions of versions Vaux (1988) and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support with the dimensions of your friends, family and significant other (zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988). The scale consists of 3 sections and each item contained 9 statements coupled with 3 open question boxes to add information that was not mentioned in the scale. Value of the reliability coefficient of 0.955.
4 Education in general is confirmed to have a positive impact on entrepreneurship (Robinson & Sexton, 1994). Robinson et al. (1994) found in their study that there is a strong relationship between education and the probability of becoming an entrepreneur and the probability of having success as an entrepreneur. However, they did not differentiate between the various kinds of education and disregarded the possibility of specifically designed entrepreneurship education programmes. Base and Virick found that education can affect student’s attitude toward entrepreneurship and their entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Lack of entrepreneurial education exposure can leads to low level of entrepreneurial intention of students (Franke & Luthje, 2004). Brazeal (1994) recommended that education in entrepreneurship can improve the perceived feasibility for entrepreneurial business through increased knowledge base of students, confidence building, and promoting self–efficacy. Entrepreneurial educational support are source of entrepreneurial attitude and overall intentions to become future entrepreneur (Souitaris et al, 2007)
Linan (2004) found that there are four different kinds of entrepreneurship education programmes. The first, "Entrepreneurial Awareness Education", aims to increase knowledge about entrepreneurship and to influence attitudes that may impact intentions. The second category is described as "Education for Start-Up". These programmes are geared toward people who generally already have an entrepreneurial idea and need to solve practical questions about becoming self-employed. The third category, "Education for Entrepreneurial Dynamism", focuses on people who are already entrepreneurs and want to promote dynamic behaviours after the start-up phase. The last category "Continuing Education for Entrepreneurs" describes life-long learning programmes and focuses on experienced entrepreneurs. (Linan, 2004). Along with the different types of entrepreneurship education, there are four research streams of entrepreneurship education research (Bechard & Gregoire, 2005). The first 11 stream focuses on the role of entrepreneurship programmes on the individual and society. The second research stream is concerned with the systemisation of entrepreneurship programmes, for example, the use of multimedia environments or curriculum development. The third stream researches the content and its delivery in entrepreneurship programmes, and the fourth stream concentrates on the needs of individual participants in entrepreneurship programmes (Bechard et al., 2005).
The university support scale was developed from the 6-dimensional entrepreneurship support "tool for universities to self-assess” used by the LEED Programme of the OECD ( www.oecd-ilibrary.org/from-strategy-to-practice). It was modified and created became 48 items. The reliability coefficient was 0.977.
Entrepreneurial Intention
The decision to start a new firm is assumed to be planned for some time and thus preceded by an intention to do so. However, in some cases this intention is formed only shortly before the actual decision and in some other cases the intention never leads to actual behavior. Hence, entrepreneurial intentions are assumed to predict, although imperfectly, individuals’ choice to found their own firms. Study of entrepreneurial not separated from traits and demographic variables which differentiating entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs (Gartner, 1989). Both line of analysis have allowed the identification of significant relationships among certain traits or demographic characteristics of the individual. And the fulfillment of entrepreneurial behaviors. Entrepreneurship may be viewed as a process that occur over time (Gartner et al, 1994). Entrepreneurial intention would be the first step in the evolving long term process of venture creation (Lee and Wong, 2004). The intention to start up, then would be aprevious and determinant element toward performing entrepreneurial behavior (Fayolle and Gailly, 2004). Ajzen explained that intentions toward a behavior would be the single best predictor of that behavior (Linan & Chen, 2006).
5 planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) was used as the basic theory. There are 13 items with a range of assessment statement 1 to 7. All are favorable and has a reliability coefficient of 0.947.
Theoretical Framework
Research Methodology
Sample
Research conducted using survey methods (quantitative) on the UB students 2008-2011 forces with requirement is non-entrepreneur parents. Data was collected by accidental sampling individually and collectively by spread it in Brawijaya University area and spots, also gained it by class to class approach. There are 795 respondents joined in this first screening sample.
800 questionnaires are spreads, 795 were back. Only 415 questionnaires that can be include in further process (non-entrepreneurial parents). 233 questionnaires were responded by the students with entrepreneurial parents and 147 can not be used because of various incomplete questionnaires responds.
Data Analysis
Descriptive analysis and multiple regression analysis were used to assess the contribution of personal trait such as hardiness, self-efficacy, social support, and university support toward the students entrepreneurial intentions.
Research Findings
Descriptive Analysis
1. Mean score of Entrepreneurial Intention Students with parent non-entrepreneurs is equal to 4,896 (from the range 1-7), it’s means that in general students have a high average intention to become an entrepreneur / self-employed.
2. This is reinforced by the number of students who said “yes” on aitem: “have you ever really seriously consider becoming an entrepreneur?”, 302 respondents answered “Yes” (72.77%) and 113 answered “No” (27.23%)
3. University Support variable, additional data is obtained in which the mean (mean) level of knowledge of student related to socialization programs supporting entrepreneurial in university and college students that is equal to 3.48 (range 1-7), meaning that the overall level of knowledge students were classified as moderate.
STUDENTS ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION
STRESS
HARDINESS
GENERAL SELF-EFFICACY
6 Perceived value of university support by the Brawijaya University students shoed that entrepreneurial education dimension (through courses, assignments / academic educational programs) amounted to 4.17; start up support dimensions (i.e. mentoring for student entrepreneurship, training / workshops / seminars entrepreneurship) had 4.07 mean score, and the dimensions of evaluation (of the entrepreneurship program itself) mean score was 4.01. While other dimensions such as strategy (vision, mission, use of technology for dissemination and promotion, reward system) mean score was 3.82; finance & resources (financial support, entrepreneurial lecturer and staff) mean score was 3.76, as well as the infrastructure dimension (provision of infrastructure to support student entrepreneurship development) mean score was 3.43; both of the lowest means score dimensions contains of two posibilities causal. First, the university still have a limited financial, resources and infrastructure supports to built the entrepreneurial circumstances in university, or second, it still less socialization of the programs by university to the college students
University Support Dimensions
Overall Response Mean Rank order
Entrepreneurship Education 4,17 1
Start up Support 4,07 2
Evaluation 4,01 3
Strategy 3,82 4
Finance & resources 3,76 5
Infrastructure 3,43 6
4. The dimensions of Social support as a significant variable affecting the entrepreneurial intentions of college students showed this composition :
Social Support Dimensions Overall Mean Response Rank order
Family 5 1
Foremost / most important person
4,76 2
Friends 4,46 3
From the table above, it was known that the greatest form of support perceived by students is the support of a family, support of the most important / closest (spouse, friend, etc.) and friends as the smallest contribution to the formation of entrepreneurial intentions. The table below describes the shape / form of support:
Shape of Social Support :
No Support Type Family Friends Foremost / most
important person
1 Psychological support, motivation 5.6 4.91 5.29
2 Guidance/advice/criticism 5.46 4.83 5.2
3 Compliment/Praise/Recognition 5.077 4.58 5.007
4 Financial support 5 2.95 4.01
5 Supporting Facilities 4.93 3.5 4.16
6 Idea / Thought contribution 4.92 5.06 5.005
7 Physical support / strength 4.79 4.49 4.6
8 Promotion / Information Share 4.64 4.89 4.79
7 From the table above, it can sorted by the rank of dominant type of supports perceived by the college students are :
No Shape of social support Social Environment
Family Friends Foremost / most important person
1 Psychological support, motivation 1 3 1
2 Guidance/advice/criticism 2 5 2
3 Compliment/Praise/Recognition 3 6 3
4 Financial support 4 9 9
5 Supporting Facilities 5 8 8
6 Idea / Thought contribution 6 1 4
7 Physical support / strength 7 7 7
8 Promotion / Information Share 8 4 5
9 Networking 9 2 6
*This rank are based on the score of mean response.
Table above shows that the greatest perceived social support from family is a Psychological Support and motivation; Guidance, Advice and Criticism; Compliment, Praise or Recognition; Financial support; and supporting facilities. The top five of the most perceived support from family. While the support by Friends have different forms but also have deep meaning for students begins from Ideas/Thought contribution; Networking; Psychological support and motivation; Promotion / Information share, and guidance / advice / criticism. Of people who are considered closest in student’s life had a different form of support which is also based on the order of magnitude of perceived psychological support / motivation; Guidance, advice and criticms; Compliments/ Praise and recognition; Ideas / thought contribution, and last is the promotion / Information share about the business context. In addition, 21 respondents added “Pray” as a form of support that they feel is important to them; 3 other respondents added “parental love and affection”.
Discussion of Demographic or Personal Data
1. Respondents Composition
No Faculty Total
1 Farms / Animal Husbandry 4
2 Economic & Business 8
3 Law 30
4 Culture Science 28
5 Administration Science 10
6 Social & Political Science 179
7 Medical 7
8 Agricultural 9
9 Fisheries & marine science 15
10 Engineering 48
11 Agricultural Technology 54
12 Mathematic & Natural Science 4 13 Information Technology & Computer Science 19
Total 415
8 2. Year of entry level students (Students forces) Data
Students Forces Table
Year of Entry Frecuency Percentage
2008 7 2%
2009 75 18%
2010 129 31%
2011 192 46%
Unidentified 12 3%
Total 415 100%
From the table above, the biggest amount of student consecutively begin from 2011 that contributed 46%, 2010 with 31%, 2009 with 18%, dan 2008 the smallest one contributed 2% students, and it remains 3% unidentified data.
3. Sex/Gender
No. Sex Total Percentage (%)
1 Male 189 45,54
2 Female 221 53,25
3 Unidentified 5 1,20
Total 415 100
From the table above, it shows respondent proportion as much as 53,25% are Female and 45,54% are Male students. Otherwise, 1,2% are unidentified sex information.
4. Parents Work Status
Father
Work status 2008 2009 2010 2011 Unidentified Total Percentage (%)
Not working 0 5 7 12 24 5.78
Working 6 59 98 150 313 75.42
Retired 1 11 24 30 66 15.90
Unidentificated 12 12 2,89
Total 7 75 129 192 12 415 100
Mother
Work status 2008 2009 2010 2011 Unidentified Total Percentage (%)
Not working 3 36 67 102 208 50.12
Working 4 33 58 86 181 43.61
Retired 0 6 4 4 14 3.37
Unidentificated 12 12 2.89
9 From both of the tables above, it showed that as much as 75,42% students have working father (a productive employee), then 15,90% have a retired fathers, and 5,78% have an unemployee fathers. Unidentified data about parents working status much as 2,89%. Whereas mothers work status shows that as much as 50,12% students have an unemployee mothers, as much as 43,61% have an employee mothers and 3,37% had mothers whose had been retired from their job.
5. Parents Occupational Information
FATHER
Occupational 2008 2009 2010 2011 Unidentified Total Persentage (%)
Civil Servant 4 24 49 77 154 37,11
Employee of
state-owned Entreprise 1 17 19 15 52 12,53
Private employee 1 17 32 56 106 25,54
Entrepreneur 0 0 0 0 0 0
Others 0 12 17 29 58 13,98
Not Working 1 4 11 12 28 6,75
Total 7 74 128 189 17 415 100
MOTHER
Occupational 2008 2009 2010 2011 Unidentified Total Persentage (%)
Civil Servant 3 22 37 51 113 27,23
Employee of state-owned
Entreprise 0 2 3 6 11 2,65
Private employee 0 8 13 24 45 10,84
Entrepreneur 0 0 0 0 0 0
Others 1 7 7 14 29 6,99
Not Working 3 36 69 97 205 49,40
Total 7 75 129 192 12 415 100
Dari table diatas diketahui bahwa proporsi pekerjaan orangtua : ayah paling banyak bekerja sebagai Pegawai negeri Sipil sebesar 37,11%, tertinggi kedua bekerja sebagai pegawai swasta sebesar 25,54%, ketiga dikategorikan dalam lain-lain (buruh, petani, pekerja kontrak dan lainnya) sebesar 13,98% dan pegawai BUMN sebanyak 12,53%, ayah tidak bekerja sebanyak 6,75%. Pekerjaan ibu sebanyak 49,40% tidak bekerja, sisanya merupakan pegawai Negeri Sipil sebesar 27,23%, pegawai swasta sebanyak 10,84%, dan pegawai BUMN sebanyak 2,65%.
From the table above, known that the proportion of parental occupation: most fathers work as civil servants amounted to 37.11%, the second highest employed in the private sector amounting to 25.54%, categorized in others (i.e workers, farmers, extension workers and others ) amounted to 13.98% and 12.53% as many state employees, the father does not work as much as 6.75%. Whereas as much as 49.40% mother does not work, the rest is a civil servant by 27.23%, and 10.84% as private sector employees, and state employees as much as 2.65%.
HYPOTHESIS TESTING:
self-10 efficacy (X1.2), the environmental variable namely social support (X3), and organizational variables in the form of university support (X3), simultaneously toward the entrepreneurial intentions of students
Ha2: stress hardiness had a significant effect on entrepreneurial intentions of students
Ha3: self-efficacy had a significant effect on entrepreneurial intentions of students
HA4: social support had a significant effect on entrepreneurial intentions of students
HA5: university support has a significant effect on entrepreneurial intentions of students
DATA EXPOSURE :
Table 1
Independent variable Dependent variabel F Sig. F Description
Hardiness (X1.1) Self-Efficacy (X1.2) Social support (X3) University support (X4)
Entrepreneurial
Intention (Y) 15,273 0,000 Significant
R-square = 0,130
Source : table 1; F tabel = F(4,410,5%) = 2,394
Based on regression analysis results, that are simultaneously personality trait (hardiness and self-efficacy), social support, and university support had significant influence on entrepreneurial intentions of Brawijaya University students in general. This is indicated by the calculated F value of 15.273 and a significance value (0.000) <5% coefficient alpha. The coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.130 indicates that the simultaneous influence of hardiness, self-efficacy, social support, and the support of the university's entrepreneurial intentions UB students by 13%, the remaining 87% is influenced by other variables outside research.
Table 2
Independent variable Dependent
variabel t Sig. t Description
Hardiness (X1.1)
Intensi Kewirausahaan
(Y)
0,866 0,387 Not significant
Self-Efficacy (X1.2) 3,149 0,002 Significant
Social support (X3) 3,743 0,000 Significant
University Support (X4) 3,800 0,000 Significant
From the table above, note that :
1)
T score for Hardiness (X1.1) is equal to 0.866 and a significance value of 0.387. Because the t score is smaller than t table (0.866 <1.966) or a value greater significance of alpha 5% (0.387> 0.050), H0 hypothesis is accepted and it can be said that Hardiness (X1.1) had no significant effect on the entrepreneurial intention (Y) at a significance level of 5%.2)
T score for Self-Efficacy (X1.2) is equal to 3.149 and a significance value of 0.002. Because the score of t is greater than t table (3.049> 1.966) or the significance score is less than alpha 5% (0.002 <0.050), then the hypothesis H0 is rejected and it can be said that the Self-Efficacy (X1.2) have a significant effect on the entrepreneurial intention (Y) at a significance level of 5%.11
4)
T score for University Support (X4) is equal to 3.800 and a significance value of 0.000. Because t score is greater than t table (3.800> 1.966) or the significance value is less than alpha 5% (0.000 <0.050), then the hypothesis H0 is rejected and it can be said that the University support (X4) had a significant effect on Entrepreneurial Intention (Y) at a significance level of 5%.Regression equation results are presented in the table below.
Table 3. Regression Equation Results
Independent Variable Dependent Variable
Regression Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized
Constant
Entrepreneurial Intention (Y)
26,211
Hardiness (X1.1) -0,105 -0,052
Self-Efficacy (X1.2) 0,388 0,187
Social Support (X3) 0,101 0,192
University Support (X4) 0,055 0,193
Interpretation can be explained from the regression model formed above are:
1. Constant value of 26.211 states that without the influence of Hardiness (X1.1), Self-Efficacy (X1.2), Social Support (X3), and University Support (X4), then score the answers Entrepreneurial Intention (Y) is equal to 26.211.
2. Hardiness coefficient (X1.1) = -0.105 is negative and stated that any increase in score answers Hardiness (X1.1) by 1 unit, then score the answers Entrepreneurial Intention (Y) will be decreased by 0,105. In other words, the higher Hardiness (X1.1) experienced by the students, it will reduce the rate of Entrepreneurial Intention (Y) on the student. The influence of these variables impact 8.3% on Entrepreneurial Intention
3. Self-Efficacy coefficient (X1.2) = 0.388 and it is positive, states that any increase in score answers Self-Efficacy (X1.2) by 1 unit, then score the answers Entrepreneurial Intention (Y) will be increased by 0.388. In other words, the higher Self-Efficacy (X1.2) experienced by the students, it will increase the rate of Entrepreneurial Intention (Y) on the student. The influence of these variables influence by 30.0% to Entrepreneurial Intention.
4. Social Support coefficient (X3) = 0.101 is positive and stated that any increase in score answers Social Support (X3) by 1 unit, then score of Entrepreneurial Intention (Y) will be increased by 0.101. In other words, the higher the Social Support (X3) experienced by the students, it will increase the rate of Entrepreneurial Intention (Y) on the student. The influence of these variable was 30.8% to Entrepreneurial Intention.
5. University Support coefficient (X4) = 0.055 is positive and stated that any increase in University Support score (X4) by 1 unit, then the Entrepreneurial Intention score (Y) will be increased by 0.055. In other words, the higher the University Support (X4) experienced by the students, it will increase the rate of Entrepreneurial Intention (Y) on the student. This variable also become the most dominant variable influenced the Entrepreneurial Intention (Y), because it has the highest standardized coefficient. The influence of these variables influence by 30.9% to variable Entrepreneurial Intention.
Conclusion & Discussion
12 most dominant influence among other variables, which is then followed by social support variables, and self-efficacy, whereas hardiness has no significant direct impact on entrepreneurial intentions. The extant literature acknowledges a variety of factors as responsible for the formation of entrepreneurial intention. Scholars have grouped them into two macro-categories, identifying the individual and the contextual domains (Bird, 1988). The first one includes demographics, personal traits, psychological characteristics, prior knowledge and individual skills, individual and social network ties. The second one is the contextual domain encompasses environmental support, Influences of environmental and organizational factors. In some research on entrepreneurial intentions, university support including support in the environmental domain (contextual domain). University support has an influence on entrepreneurial activity (Morris & Lewis, 1995 Fini et al., 2008). Scholars have argued that specific university support mechanisms are relevant in fostering technology and knowledge transfer activities and, supporting entrepreneurial action (Fini et al., 2009). The set of policies and instruments that have been put in place by universities in order to support academic entrepreneurship is quite varied, Including technology transfer offices and faculty consultants (Mian, 1996), university incubators and physical resources (Mian, 1997), university venture funds (Lerner, 2005), and is mostly educational support to Enhance the prior knowledge and practice facilitators tor the entrepreneurial activities. Noel (1998) found that entrepreneurship education is strongly related to entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurship majors with higher expressing intentions to start their own businesses. Dyer (1994) and Wilson et al (2007) argued that entrepreneurship education can also increase of students' interest in entrepreneurship as a career. Souitaris et al (2007) found that entrepreneurship programs Significantly raised students' wiki norms and intentions toward entrepreneurship by inspiring them to choose entrepreneurial careers. All of these findings reinforce the role of the university in support of improving entrepreneurial intentions and career options to students.
Social support is a significant second variable role in improving student entrepreneurial intention at Brawijaya University. This is consistent with Saphero statement stating that the attitude toward entrepreneurship depend on exogenous factors like demographics, traits, skills, culture and social and financial support (Basu & Virick, 2008).
The third variable that contributes directly to the entrepreneurial intentions are self-efficacy (individual domains). This is in line with the results of several previous studies (Izquierdo & Buelens, 2008; Baum et al., 2001; Zhao et al., 2005). Bird's intentionality added models of entrepreneurial self-efficacy as useful construct to explain the dynamic process of evaluation and choice that surrounds the development of entrepreneurial intentions and the subsequent decision to engage in entrepreneurial behavior (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994). while Hardiness found to have no significant effect on the formation of entrepreneurial intention at UB students. included in the domain of individual hardiness along with self-efficacy. High and low values hardiness someone not directly influence the entrepreneurial intention. consistent with this "trait approach", many of the personal traits have been extensively included in entrepreneurial studies but despite the theoretical rationale, they have resulted in a little explanatory power, failing to predict entrepreneurship (Gartner, 1989). many research about that show hardiness hardiness have positive relations with other personality traits that are expected to protect people from stress, social support, active coping and performance (Eschleman, Bowling, and Alarcon, 2010), also have impact on positive thinking and cognitive style health (Allred & Smith, 1989). findings proved the least effect of hardiness directly to entrepreneurial intention.
REFERENCES :
Ajzen, I. 1987. “Attitude, Traits and Actions : Dispositional Prediction of Behavior in Personality and Social Psychology”, Advances in Experimental and Social Psychology, Academy Press, San Diego, 1 - 63
Akhmed, I., et al. 2010. Determinants of Students’ Entrepreneurial Career Intentions : Evidence from Business Graduates. European Journal of Social Science. Volume 15/No. 2
Allred, K. D., & Smith, T. W. 1989. Hardy Personality : Cognitive and Physiological Responses to Evaluative Threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 56, No. 2, 257-266
13 Bartone, P. T., 1995. A Short Hardiness Scale. Paper Presented at meeting of American Psychological Society, New York.
Baum, R.J., Locke, E., & Smith, K.G. 2001. A multidimensional model of venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2): 292–303.
Bird, B. 1988. Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas: The Case for Intentinon. The Academy of Management
Review, 13(3): 442–453.
Boyd, N. G., and Vozikis, G. S., 1994. The Influence of Slef-Efficacy on the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions and Actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 63-77.
Davidsson, P. 1995. Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intentions. Paper for RENT IX Workshop, Piacenza, Italy
Eschleman, K. J., Bowling, N. A., Alarcon, G. M., 2010. A Meta-Analytic Examination of Hardiness. International Journal of Stress Management. American Psychological Association,Vol. 17, No. 4, 277– 307 1072-5245/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0020476
Fayolle, A. and Gailly, B. 2004. “Using The Theory of Planned Behavior to Assess Entrepreneurship Teaching programs: a first experimentation”, Intent2004 conference, Naples (Italy), July 5-7
Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Marzocchi, G. L., Sobrero, M., 2009. The Foundation of Entrepreneurial Intention. The DRUID summer conference. CBS-Denmark, June 17-19, 2009
Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. 2009. Factors Fostering Academics to Start up New Ventures : an Assessment of Italian Founders' Incentives, Journal of Technology Transfer, forthcoming
Fitriati, R. 2012. Entrepreneurship Education : toward Models in Several Indonesia’s University. Proceeding . The 4thInternational Conference on Indonesian Studies : ”Unity, Diversity, and Future”.
Gartner, W. B. 1989. “Who is an Entrepreneur?” is the Wrong Question”, entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 13 (4), pp. 47-68
Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K.G., Gatewood, E. and Katz, J.A. 1994. Finding the Entrepreneur in Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 13 (4), pp.47-68
Greenleaf, A. T. 2011. Human Agency, Hardiness, and Proactive Personality: Potential Resources for Emerging Adults In The College-to-Career Transition. Dissertation. University of Iowa. http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd.3310
Kobasa, S. C. 1979. Stressful life events, personality, and health: An Inquiry into Hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1-11
Krueger, N. 1993. “The Impact of Prior Entrepreneurial Exposure on Perceptions of New Venture Feasibility and Desirability, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, pp. 5-21
Lee, S.H., and Wong, P.K. 2004. “An Exploratory Study of Technopreneurial Intention: a career anchor perspective”. Journal of Business venturing., 19, 7-28
Lerner, J. 2005. The university and the start-up: lessons from the past two decades. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1–2): 49–58
14 Lorz, M. the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Intention. Dissertation. University of St. Gallen
Maddi, S. R. 2007. Relevance of Hardiness Assessment and Training to The Millitary Context. Military Psychology, 19 (1), page 61-70
Mian, S.A. 1996. Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms. Research Policy, 25(3): 325–335
Mian, S.A. 1997. Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: an integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 12: 251–285
Morris, M., & Lewis, P. 1995. The determinants of entrepreneurial activity. European Journal of Marketing, 29(7): 31–48
Noel, T. 1998. Effects of entrepreneurial education on intent to open a business: An exploratory study. Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education 5: 3-13.
Rahardjo, W. 2005. Kontribusi Hardiness dan Self-Efficacy terhadap Stres Kerja. Proceeding. National Seminar of PESAT at Gunadarma University
Scherer, R. F., Adams, J, S., Carley, S. S., & Wiebe, F. A. 1989. Role model performance effects on the development of entrepreneurial career preference. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13 (3), 53-71
Scherer, R. F., Adams, J. S.,& Wiebe, F. A. 1990. Developing entrepreneurial behavior : A Social learning theory perspective. Journal of Organizational Change and management, 2, 16-27
Shepperd, J. A., & Kashani, J. H., 1991. The Relationship of Hardiness, Gender, and Stress to Health Outcomes in Adolescents, Journal of Personality, Duke University Press, 59:4 CCC 0022-3506/91
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandate, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., and Rogers, R. W., 1982. The self-efficacy scale : Construction and validation. Psychological Reports,51, 663-671
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. 1995. General Self-Efficacy Scale. http://userpage.fuberlin.de/-health/selfscal.htm
Souitaris, V., S. Zerbinati, and A. Al-Laham. 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.
Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley. 1988. Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support
Widyarini, I., & Pratiwi, A., 2010. Kewirausahaan dan Resiliensi : Pemetaan Faktor dan Aspek Resiliensi Untuk Penyusunan Alat Ukur Psikologis Potensi Resiliensi Wirausahawan. Proceeding. The 2ndIndonesia International Conference on Innovation, Entrepreneurship & Small Bussiness (IICIES)
Wilson, F., J. Kickul, and D. Marlino. 2007. Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. & Hills, G. 2005. The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial
intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6): 1265–1272.
15 406.
8,32 Juta Penduduk Masih Menganggur Hasil Survei BPS (online). Desember 2nd 2010. http://disnakertransduk.jatimprov.go.id/ketenagakerjaan/222-832-juta-penduduk-masih-menganggur-hasil-survei-bps. Accessed march 1st, 2013
