14_jwe_3-4 UDC: 005.411; 005.32-055.1/.3; 005.511-057.87 JEL: L26, I25 COBISS.SR-ID: 211194892 ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER Nascent Entrepreneurs: Gender, Culture, and Perceptions Şeşen Harun1, European University of Lefke, Northern Cyprus Pruett Mark, University of South Carolina Upstate, U.S. A B S T R A C T We assess gender differences in 1526 nascent entrepreneurs (college students) across four countries to test a model of entrepreneurial intentions incorporating gen- der, culture, and perceptions about entrepreneurship motives and barriers. In contrast to prior research on surviving entrepreneurs, we study people who may be at the very beginning of entrepreneurial careers. The model proves significant—we find support for hypotheses regarding the im- pact of gender, culture, and perceptions of motives and barriers. There are substantial differences between men and women. Culture affects students’ intentions, women have lower levels of entrepreneurial intentions, motives generally have a positive influence on intentions, barriers have a negative influence, men appear more influenced by mo- tives, and women appear more influenced by barriers. The results in China provide interesting exceptions in the analyses and suggest directions for future research specific to that country. As a whole, the study results suggest directions for future research on entrepreneurial intentions. We also discuss implications of the study for entrepreneurship education. KEY WORDS: gender, culture, students, entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial intentions, entrepreneurship education, motives, barriers 1 Associate Professor 2 Journal of Women's Entrepreneurship and Education (2014, No. 3-4, 1-21) Introduction Entrepreneurship literature on gender and culture is growing but more is needed (Radović-Marković, 2013). Previous research on gender and culture is mostly on existing entrepreneurs. There is little gender-oriented, cross-cultural comparative research on nascent entrepreneurs (a recent exception is Kew, Herrington, Litovsky and Gale, 2013) and cross-cultural studies focused on college students are rare (e. g., Pruett, Shinnar, Toney, Llopis, and Fox, 2009). Thus, we survey university students from the United States, China, Belgium, and Turkey who may be at the beginning of entrepreneurial careers to study how gender, culture, and perceptions of motives and barriers influence entrepreneurial intentions. After summarizing literature to develop a basic model of entrepre- neurial intentions and hypotheses about gender, culture, and perceptions of motives and barriers, we discuss our method, findings, and conclusions, in- cluding implications for research and for education. Literature and Model Figure 1: Model of Entrepreneurial Intentions The Issue of Gender Men are more likely to be entrepreneurs (e.g., Kickul, Wilson, Mar- lino and Barbosa, 2008; Minniti, Bygrave and Autio, 2005; Minniti and Nardone, 2007; Wilson, Marlino and Kickul, 2004). And, women have dif- ferent entrepreneurship behaviors and motives (e.g., Robichaud, McGraw, Cachon, Bolton, Codina, Eccius-Wellmann, and Walsh, 2013). These gender differences may have various causes. Men seem more inclined to take risks (Sexton and Bowman-Upton, 1990) and may have a Şeşen, H., et al., Nascent Entrepreneurs, JWE (2014, No. 3-4, 1-21) 3 greater locus of control (Mazzarol, Volery, Doss and Thein, 1999), more confidence (Bandura, 1992) or higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Sanchez and Licciardello, 2012; Zhao, Seibert and Hills, 2005). Self-efficacy, de- fined as the self-confidence that someone has the necessary skills or abilities to be an entrepreneur, may be more important for younger people (Wilson et al., 2004). We, too, believe experience and time should reduce gender dif- ferences—they should be more evident in nascent entrepreneurs, such as students at the beginning of their careers. Thus, H1. Gender negatively affects entrepreneurial intentions of females. The Issue of Culture Culture, the distinctive mental programs shared by a group of people (Hofstede 1980), influences entrepreneurship (e.g., Avolio, 2012; Kew et al., 2013; Langowitz and Minniti, 2007). Cultural socialization of young people can teach gender stereotypes (Gupta and Bhawe, 2007; Jose and Orazio, 2012; Miller and Budd, 1999), collectivism may affect intentions (Holland, 2014), and women lack entrepreneurial role-models in some cul- tures (Klyver and Grant, 2010). Table 1: Cultural Differences Among Study Countries Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions US China Belgium Turkey PD Power distance (higher score: society accepts inequality of power) 40 80 65 66 In Individualism (higher score: society fo- cuses on individual more than group) 91 20 75 37 MF Masculinity/feminity (higher score: competitive, focused on extrinsic rewards) 62 66 54 45 UA Uncertainty avoidance (high score: low tolerance of ambiguity and risk) 46 30 94 85 Note: Data retrieved from Hofstede Centre, www.geert-hofstede.com As shown in Table 1, Hofstede’s (1980) model of culture has four di- mensions: power-distance (egalitarian versus acceptance of inequality), in- dividualism versus collectivism (I versus We orientation), masculinity-femi- ninity (competitiveness and extrinsic rewards versus cooperation and intrin- 4 Journal of Women's Entrepreneurship and Education (2014, No. 3-4, 1-21) sic rewards), and uncertainty avoidance (tolerance of ambiguity in decision- making). These distinctive cultural attributes may affect entrepreneurship. High power-distance may limit entrepreneurial opportunity and freedom for many, making entrepreneurship less likely than in a low power-distance so- ciety. An individualistic society may encourage pursuit of individual en- trepreneurial aspirations, while a collectivist one may discourage them. A culture which avoids uncertainty is likely to discourage entrepreneurial risk- taking and ambiguity. Last, a masculine culture appears likely to encourage competitive thinking, perhaps making entrepreneurship more likely. Thus: H2a. Cultural individualism is positively related to entrepreneurial in- tentions. H2b. Cultural uncertainty avoidance is negatively related to entrepre- neurial intentions. H2c. Cultural power distance is negatively related to entrepreneurial intentions. H2d. Cultural masculinity is positively related to entrepreneurial in- tentions. Perceptions of Motives and Barriers In addition to the influence of gender and culture on entrepreneurial intentions, individuals perceive motives and barriers, which may be intrinsic (e.g., desire for independence and risk aversion) or extrinsic (money and economic climate). Prior research with students shows that barriers and mo- tives do matter (Birdthistle, 2008; Finnerty and Krzystofik, 1985; Sandhu, Sidique and Riaz, 2011). We argue that pre-existing perceptions of motives and barriers should be especially important for nascent entrepreneurs since they lack much experience, thus: H3. The strength of perceptions regarding motives is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions. H4. The strength of perceptions regarding barriers is negatively re- lated to entrepreneurial intentions. Men and women are likely to differ in their perceptions. Men are like- ly to perceive a larger network of entrepreneurial contacts (Klyver and Grant, 2010) and to have different motives (Humbert and Drew, 2010). Es- pecially, they may have more self-confidence (Kirkwood, 2009) and a lower fear of failure (Shinnar, Giacomin and Janssen, 2012). Thus: Şeşen, H., et al., Nascent Entrepreneurs, JWE (2014, No. 3-4, 1-21) 5 H5a. Perceptions of motives will have a greater impact for men than for women on entrepreneurial intentions. H5b. Perceptions of barriers will have a greater impact for women than for men on entrepreneurial intentions. Culture also may interact with perceptions of motives and barriers. Cultural individualism should encourage the pursuit of entrepreneurial mo- tives. Uncertainty avoidance and power distance should raise the importance of barriers, and a masculine culture that encourages competition should strengthen individuals’ valuation of motives. Thus: H6a. Higher cultural individualism will increase the impact of motive perceptions on entrepreneurial intentions. H6b. Higher cultural uncertainty avoidance will increase the impact of barrier perceptions on entrepreneurial intentions of students. H6c. Higher cultural power distance will increase the impact of bar- rier perceptions on entrepreneurial intentions of students. H6d. Higher cultural masculinity will increase the impact of motive perceptions on entrepreneurial intentions of students. Method Participants Our sample consisted of 1526 university students (317 Americans, 333 Chinese, 417 Belgian, and 459 Turkish). 69.6% were from business de- partments, the rest were from arts, sciences, engineering, education, and other departments. 47.6 % were female. 17.6% of respondents were 1st-year students, 18.1% were 2nd-year, 27.8% were 3rd-year, 20.6 % were 4th-year, and 16.3% were graduate students. Questionnaires and Measures Our questionnaire was developed from one used previously by other authors (Genesca and Veciana, 1984; Veciana, Aponte and Urbano, 2005). American and Chinese students were asked in English, Belgians in French, and Turkish students in Turkish to provide data on various individual fac- tors, educational environment, and perceptions of motives and barriers. For example, scale answers for entrepreneurial intention ranged from 1 (no, never) to 4 (yes, I have a definite plan to start my own business), and five- 6 Journal of Women's Entrepreneurship and Education (2014, No. 3-4, 1-21) point Likert scales from ‘very unimportant’ to ‘very important’ measured beliefs about 16 motives and 20 barriers. We factor analyzed the data to ag- gregate motives and barriers, a process used by other researchers (e.g., Pruett et al., 2009). This gave five motive factors: pursuit of profit/social status, independence, creation, personal development, and professional dis- satisfaction and five barrier factors: lack of support structure and fiscal/ ad- ministrative costs, lack of knowledge/experience, economic climate/ lack of entrepreneurial competencies, self-confidence, and risk aversion. To test factor construct validity, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conduct- ed and yielded acceptable fit. Findings: Regression Analysis Table 2 below shows binary correlations. The masculinity/femininity dimension is excluded from further analysis due to multicollinearity (a very low tolerance score), so Hypotheses H2d and H6d were not tested. Table 3 shows the results of regressing culture, gender, and motive/barrier percep- tions on entrepreneurial intentions. Table 4 shows results for regressions separated by gender and country to explore H5a and H5b. Table 3 supports several hypotheses. H1 is supported—females have lower entrepreneurial intentions. Using a dummy variable with the value 1 for women, the coefficient for gender is significant and negative. H2a is not supported—cultural individualism is not positively related to intentions. The coefficient for individualism is significant, but in the op- posite direction. Higher individualism is related to lower intentions. H2b is not supported—uncertainty avoidance is not negatively related to entrepreneurial intentions. The coefficient for uncertainty avoidance is significant, but in the opposite direction. When cultural uncertainty avoid- ance is higher, entrepreneurial intentions are higher. H2c is supported—power distance is negatively related to entrepre- neurial intentions. The coefficient for uncertainty avoidance is significant and negative. When cultural power distance is higher, entrepreneurial inten- tions are lower. H3 is partly supported—the strength of perceived motives is positive- ly related to intentions. In the regression, two of five motive factors are sig- nificantly and positively related to intentions—the pursuit of profit and so- cial status, and the desire to create. Şeşen, H., et al., Nascent Entrepreneurs, JWE (2014, No. 3-4, 1-21) 7 H4 is partly supported—the strength of perceived barriers is negative- ly related to intentions. Three of five barriers are significantly and negative- ly related to intentions—economic climate/lack of entrepreneurial compe- tencies, lack of self-confidence, and risk-aversion. Table 4 shows partial support for H5a and H5b. H5a is partly support- ed—motive perceptions affect men more than women, with at least one sig- nificant motive in each country. In Belgium, profit and social status is sig- nificant for males. In Turkey, independence is significant and in the US and Turkey creation is significant. Strangely, in Chinese males, independence is negatively related to entrepreneurial intentions. For women, motives do not explain entrepreneurial intentions. The sole exception is the desire to create for women in Turkey. Otherwise, across four distinct countries/cultures, women’s perceptions of motives are unrelated to their entrepreneurial intentions. However, barrier perceptions do help explain female intentions. H5b is partly supported—perceptions of barriers have a greater impact on the in- tentions of women. In three of four countries, males are negatively influ- enced by economic climate and lack of entrepreneurial competencies, and in Turkey risk aversion. For females, the story depends on intrinsic barriers. US and Belgian females are negatively affected by lack of self-confidence. For Turkish females, the standardized coefficients show that the negative in- fluence of risk-aversion is greater than the positive influence of the desire to create. Except in China, fear seems to matter for females. Overall, across countries the significant perceptions for woman are in- trinsic, and mostly barriers. Male intentions are influenced by a mix of ex- trinsic and intrinsic motives and barriers. Hypotheses 6a-6c are not supported—cultural dimensions do not in- crease the impact of motive and barrier perceptions on entrepreneurial inten- tions. We did a regression with interaction variables for individualism, un- certainty avoidance and power distance (e.g., Individualism* MotiveFac- tor1, the same for motive 2 and so on), but none of the interaction variables were significant. Table 2: Binary Correlations for Country, Gender, Motives, Barriers, and Intentions Mean S.D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Country 1 2. Gender .041 1 3. Profit, status 3.55 .73 .243** -.005 1 4. Desire for indep. 4.24 .72 .152** .077** .408** 1 5. Creation 3.99 .84 .257** .127** .385** .480** 1 6. Pers’l devel. 3.77 .99 .221** .060* .448** .355** .299** 1 7. Prof’l dissat. 3.40 .86 .254** .152** .305** .331** .275** .382** 1 8. Lack of support 3.37 .77 .063* .215** .249** .187** .204** .218** .320** 1 9. Lack knowledge/exp. 3.59 .91 .064* .217** .233** .225** .208** .249** .302** .588** 1 10. Econ.climate/comp. 3.99 .74 .115** .199** .278** .349** .257** .232** .304** .413** .465** 1 11. Lack self-conf. 3.30 .89 -.009 .210** .266** .189** .195** .191** .284** .520** .559** .399** 1 12. Risk aversion 3.33 .93 .046 .184** .209** .106** .105** .191** .309** .427** .431** .438** .461** 1 13. Entrep’l intentions 1.63 1.06 .516** -.118** .272** .150** .225** .251** .131** -.054* -.050 -.035 -.114** -.133** 1 N = 1291 to 1536, missing cases excluded pairwise *p<.05, **p<.01. Table 3: Hierarchical Regression Coefficients for Entrepreneurial Intentions of Students B Standardized Β coefficients for full model Step 1 Gender Step 2 Individualism Step 3 UncerAvoid Step 4 Power Dist Step 4 Motives Step 5 Barriers Intercept 2.003** 3.029** 2.357** 8.521** 7.692** 8.060** 19.278 Gender (dummy var) -.252** -.410** -.373** -.434** -.439** -.339** -7.132 Culture Individualism -.014** -.017** -.050** -.048** -.046** -24.303 Uncertainty avoidance .011** .019** .018** .017** 16.875 Power distance -.075** -.071** -.070** -.877 Motives Profit, social status .66 .126** 0.87 Independence -.015 .000 .000 Creation .106** .112** .089 Personal devel. .022 .035 .033 Prof. dissatisfaction -0.53 .008 .006 Barriers Support structure, costs .009 .007 Knowledge & exper. -.038 -.033 Econ. clim., lack. comp. -.102 -.072 Self-confidence -.083** -.069 Risk aversion -.105 -.093 Change in F 18.330** 196.508** 116.466** 478.428** 4.673** 16.633** Change in R² .014 .131 .071 .213 .010 .030 Total model R² .014 .145 .216 .428 .438 .469 Note. Dependent variable Student Entrepreneurial Intentions, n = 1526 *p<.05, **p<.01 Table 4: Motive and Barrier Impacts on Entrepreneurial Intentions, Separated by Gender and Country β Male Female American Chinese Belgian Turkish American Chinese Belgian Turkish Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Pursuit of profit and social status .012 .063 .151 .201 .162 .179* .064 .128 -.077 -.016 -.100 .005 .147 .163 -.028 .067 Desire for inde- pendence -.053 -.013 -379* -.348* .008 .033 .167* .167* .176 .114 -.137 -.029 .170 .138 .047 .030 Creation .284** .300** .035 .074 .099 .122 .267** .207** .094 .117 .074 .084 -.116 -.089 .171* .157* Personal devel- opment .130 .133 -.088 -.149 .066 .079 -.053 -.038 .101 .145 .098 .180 .035 .063 .052 .097 Professional dis- satisfaction -.070 -.031 .031 .033 -.154 -.110 -.149* -.029 .049 .005 .017 .008 -.094 -.111 -.165* -.061 Lack of support, structure and fis- cal or administra- tive costs -.153 .104 .012 .125 -.078 -.233 .130 .119 Lack of knowledge and experience .041 .107 -.063 .041 -.196 .127 -.021 -.065 Economic climate and lack of entre- preneurial compe- tencies -.118 -.321* -.213** -.171* -.042 -.224 -.025 -.055 Lack of self- confidence -.137 .040 .027 -.153 -.232* -.116 -.319** -.147 Risk aversion .010 .036 -.015 -.194* -.131 .104 -.082 -.239** F 3.268** 2.793** 1.347 1.921* 1.917 1.919* 7.118** 6.451** 1.833 2.588* .521 .966 1.414 2.217* 2.349* 3.984** R²change .096 .062 .165 .113 .048 .046 .147 .096 .075 .053 .028 .075 .063 .117 .046 .098 ∆R² .096 .158 .165 .279 .048 .094 .147 .243 .075 .128 .028 .103 .063 .180 .046 .144 Note. All columns are standardized β values. *p<.05, **p<.013 Şeşen, H., et al., Nascent Entrepreneurs, JWE (2014, No. 3-4, 1-21) 11 Findings: ANOVA for Motives and Barriers Table 5 shows mean scores and ANOVA results for perceptions of en- trepreneurship motives; Table 6 shows mean scores and ANOVA results for perceptions of entrepreneurship barriers. As noted earlier, students’ percep- tions of motives reduced to five factors: pursuit of profit and social status, desire for independence, desire to create, personal development, and professional dissatisfaction. The gender difference was insignificant for all countries regarding the extrinsic motive of pursuit of profit and social status. For all intrinsic motive factors, there is a significant difference between genders in at least one country. For the desire for independence, in all countries the scores of females exceeded males, but the difference was significant only in Belgium. For creation, the differences between genders were significant—female students viewed creation as more important than did males in all four countries. For personal development, the differences between male and female students were insignificant in the US, China, and Belgium, but in Turkey the female students differed significantly, seeing personal development as more important than did the male students. For professional dissatisfaction as a motive, female students’ scores were higher than those of males in all countries—the difference was significant in Turkey and Belgium. For Table 6, students’ barrier perceptions reduced to five factors: lack of support structure and fiscal or administrative costs, lack of knowledge and experience, economic climate and lack of entrepreneurial competencies, lack of self-confidence, and risk aversion. Men and women differ significantly on all barrier dimensions and females’ barrier perceptions consistently exceed males’ except in China, where there are no gender differences in barrier perceptions. Table 5: ANOVA for Motives for Starting a Business Factor Pursuit of profit and social status Desire for independence Creation Personal development Professional dissatisfaction Country M SD F M SD F M SD F M SD F M SD F US Male 3.59 0.683 1.342 4.37 0.738 1.851 3.84 0.795 12.952*** 3.98 0.921 2.545 3.48 0.795 1.285 Female 3.50 0.649 4.48 0.639 4.18 0.833 3.81 0.864 3.58 0.777 China Male 3.19 0.641 0.128 3.65 0.888 0.772 3.30 0.734 2.738* 3.33 0.918 1.030 2.84 0.636 0.893 Female 3.23 0.707 3.85 0.963 3.49 0.849 3.54 0.961 2.95 0.803 Turkey Male 3.92 0.723 0.094 4.45 0.574 0.711 4.25 0.770 5.678** 4.13 0.834 11.765*** 3.55 0.887 13.043*** Female 3.91 0.649 4.51 0.534 4.40 0.638 4.36 0.701 4.01 0.768 Belgium Male 3.31 0.684 1.022 4.00 0.675 12.897*** 3.82 0.838 12.695*** 3.36 1.029 0.064 3.17 0.725 11.874*** Female 3.24 0.703 4.24 0.584 4.12 0.729 3.33 0.972 3.43 0.765 *p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.001. Table 6: ANOVA for Barriers to Starting a Business Factor Lack of support structure and fiscal or administra- Lack of knowledge and experience Economic climate and lack of entrepreneurial Lack of self-confidence Risk aversion Country M SD F M SD F M SD F M SD F M SD F US Male 3.31 0.738 10.356*** 3.61 0.925 12.820*** 4.01 0.782 9.775** 3.33 1.187 4.997** 3.40 0.812 5.785** Female 3.62 0.914 3.97 0.726 4.26 0.533 3.59 0.712 3.64 0.810 China Male 3.22 0.545 0.864 3.51 0.776 0.252 3.64 0.829 0.200 3.16 0.619 0.531 3.21 0.854 0.629 Female 3.36 0.634 3.54 0.798 3.72 0.875 3.28 0.719 3.15 0.799 Turkey Male 3.18 0.859 46.985*** 3.42 1.02 53.494*** 3.93 0.825 46.968*** 2.99 0.958 56.146*** 3.01 1.120 64.091*** Female 3.72 0.828 4.07 0.885 4.39 0.614 3.66 0.951 3.79 0.970 Belgium Male 3.23 0.694 8.878** 3.32 0.851 7.804** 3.76 0.660 21.086*** 3.07 0.759 10.756*** 3.24 0.817 5.587** Female 3.44 0.609 3.56 0.773 4.06 0.562 3.33 0.702 3.44 0.755 *p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.001. 14 Journal of Women's Entrepreneurship and Education (2014, No. 3-4, 1-21) Findings: Additional Analyses Table 7 presents scores by country of male and female students’ per- ceptions of the business start-up knowledge in the curriculum, the extent to which universities stimulate entrepreneurship, and students’ entrepreneurial disposition and intentions. Men and women differ significantly in nine of the sixteen comparisons. Table 7: University, Disposition, and Intentions Country Male Female Factor M SD M SD F p Skills included in curriculum US 2.54 0.892 2.17 0.911 13.022 .000 China 2.52 0.735 2.53 0.847 0.210 .811 Turkey 2.52 0.879 2.77 0.780 8.432 .000 Belgium 1.80 0.757 1.92 0.742 2.618 .106 University stimu- lation US 2.45 0.667 2.29 0.675 4.254 .040 China 2.58 0.731 2.61 0.731 0.173 .841 Turkey 2.39 0.856 2.39 0.956 0.001 .973 Belgium 2.07 0.671 2.23 0.756 5.346 .021 Entrepreneurial disposition US 4.64 1.402 3.72 1.557 29.587 .000 China 3.75 1.466 3.67 1.350 0.180 .836 Turkey 5.24 1.335 4.40 1.229 9.311 .000 Belgium 4.00 1.398 3.61 1.319 7.138 .008 Entrepreneurial intentions US 1.42 0.813 0.92 0.803 29.201 .000 China 1.34 0.872 1.03 0.713 2.983 .049 Turkey 1.93 0.871 1.37 0.785 8.201 .000 Belgium 1.13 0.768 0.95 0.822 4.855 .028 Skills in curriculum—Chinese and Belgian males and females have similar perceptions about the extent to which their curricula provide knowledge to prepare them to start businesses, with average scores some- where between a little and some. However, there are significant differences in the US and Turkey. University stimulation—US and Belgian males are significantly more positive than females about the extent to which their universities stimulate Şeşen, H., et al., Nascent Entrepreneurs, JWE (2014, No. 3-4, 1-21) 15 students to start businesses, with average scores between a little and some, while Chinese and Turkish students do not differ significantly by gender. Entrepreneurial disposition—in three of four countries males had sig- nificantly greater entrepreneurial disposition (their internal sense of how en- trepreneurial they are). There was no gender difference in China. Entrepreneurial intentions—in all four countries men had significantly higher levels of intention than did women. Discussion and Implications The analyses generally support our model. They show substantial dif- ferences between men and women. Culture affects students’ intentions, women have lower levels of entrepreneurial intentions, motives generally have a positive influence on intentions, barriers have a negative influence, men appear influenced by motives, and women appear influenced by barri- ers. Gender, Culture, Perceptions, and Intentions The regression test of the full model showed that gender, cultural di- mensions, and motive and barrier perceptions are significantly related to en- trepreneurial intentions. Further, in separate regressions by country and gender, the model is significant in seven of eight instances (Chinese women were the only group for which the model did not have any significant ex- planatory power). In most cases, the significant factors were psychological or intrinsic ones. Belgian males were the only group for which the extrinsic profit-status motive was significant. Males in three countries (the U.S, Chi- na, and Turkey) saw the extrinsic barrier of economic cli- mate/entrepreneurial competencies as significant. When other barriers and motives were significant, they were intrinsic—desire for independence or to create something, lack of self-confidence, and risk-aversion. Self-confidence or risk-aversion barriers were significantly related to women’s entrepreneur- ial intentions in three of four countries. In other research, Kew et al. (2013) find that teens and young adults are less likely to believe in their entrepreneurial skills in Asia, Europe, and the United States (the regions represented in our study). Those authors also find that fear of failure is important—35-45% of the youths in those three regions say that fear of failure would prevent them from starting a business 16 Journal of Women's Entrepreneurship and Education (2014, No. 3-4, 1-21) (Kew et al., 2013: p 35). Unlike our study, Kew et al. did not assess the im- pact of gender on responses. Barriers and Motives For barriers, as shown in the ANOVA, there is a uniform difference across three countries (Turkey, the US, and Belgium)—in each case, women perceive each barrier as significantly more important than do men. In all fif- teen barrier gender comparisons, women rate barriers higher. Further, the regression standardized beta (β) scores show that the impact of barriers is greater for women. More women believe barriers matter, and they believe barriers matter more, except in China, where there are no significant gender perception differences. For motives, the results are different. When men and women differ, they differ on the psychological/intrinsic motives for entrepreneurship, not the material/extrinsic ones. Women rate intrinsic motives as stronger. Across countries, there are no gender differences in the importance of the profit/status motive. In Belgium, independence matters more to women, in Turkey personal development matters more to women, and in Turkey and Belgium professional dissatisfaction matters more to women. In all coun- tries, the creation motive is significantly more important to women, and it is the only motive/barrier on which Chinese women differ. Implications for Future Research First, results in China unique—there are no significant gender differ- ences on many dimensions, and the motive and barrier perceptions of Chi- nese women have no relationship to intentions. Chinese males seem more likely to pursue entrepreneurship but have no greater entrepreneurial dispo- sition. Do men overstate their entrepreneurial intentions? Do other factors limit women’s entrepreneurial intentions even when they have entrepreneur- ial disposition? Further gender research in China is needed. Second, men and women perceive barriers and motives differently— do women overrate barriers or do men underrate them? Do men underrate intrinsic motives? New research is needed on these differences, especially their sources and their impact on intentions and behavior. Third, psychology deserves a role—this paper began by noting the scarcity of cross-cultural research on gender, perceptions, and intentions. We need research to connect gender, culture, education, and psychology. Şeşen, H., et al., Nascent Entrepreneurs, JWE (2014, No. 3-4, 1-21) 17 Implications forEntrepreneurship Education Our study suggests that addressing gender differences may help re- solve the continuing debate about the effectiveness, content, and purpose of entrepreneurship education (Dhaliwal, 2010; Fayolle, 2008; Giacomin et al., 2011; Hoelscher, 2012; Jose and Orazio, 2012; Katz, 2003; Khadija, Usman, and Mohsin, 2012; Kirkwood, 2009; Lo, Sun, and Law, 2012; Nabi, Holden and Walmsley, 2010; Packham, Jones, Miller, Pickernell and Brychan, 2010; Peterman and Kennedy, 2003; Petridou, Sarri and Kyrgidou, 2009; Wu and Wu, 2008; Yordanova and Tarrazon, 2010). Education should focus more on the psychology of barriers. Intrinsic and psychological factors affect student perceptions (especially for women), but university education focuses on knowledge and specific skills, not ex- plicitly on students’ psychological understanding and confidence. Psycho- logical and social skills are crucial for entrepreneurs (Taatila, 2010), so per- haps developing self-reliant students should be a central purpose of entre- preneurship education (Van Gelderen, 2010). To us, this seems more im- portant than technical skills. Education should emphasize intrinsic motives. Although women care more than men about intrinsic motives, this does not lead to an increase in female entrepreneurial intentions. Perhaps education should find ways to emphasize the value of intrinsic motives more than it apparently does. Education should address cultural differences, for those differences af- fect both men and women. For example, education in a culture which does not value individuality should address the psychological and practical con- flicts which an entrepreneurially-minded student is likely to face. How can we give all students, male and female, a better understanding of their own culturally-influenced thinking? By focusing on the impact of gender and culture, entrepreneurship ed- ucation is likely to raise students’ entrepreneurial intentions, increase the likelihood that students will actually pursue entrepreneurship, and improve their chances of success and satisfaction. References [1] Avolio, B. (2012). Why women enter into entrepreneurship? An emerging conceptual framework based on the Peruvian case. Journal of Women’s Entre- preneurship and Education, (3-4): 43-63. 18 Journal of Women's Entrepreneurship and Education (2014, No. 3-4, 1-21) [2] Bandura, A. (1992). Social cognitive theory of social referencing. In Social Referencing and the Social Construction of Reality in Infancy, Plenum, ed. S. Feinman, 175–208, New York, NY. [3] Birdthistle, N. (2008). “An examination of tertiary students’ desire to found an enterprise.” Education + Training, 50 (7): 552-567. [4] Dhaliwal, S. (2010). “Training women to win: A practical perspective on the training needs of women entrepreneurs.” International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 2 (3): 287-290. [5] Fayolle, A. (2008). “Entrepreneurship education at a crossroads: Towards a more mature teaching field.” Journal of Enterprising Culture, 16 (4): 325-337. [6] Finnerty, J. and A.T Krzystofik. (1985). “Barriers to small business for- mation.” Journal of Small Business Management, 23 (3), 50-58. [7] Genesca, E. and Veciana, J. (1984). “Actitudes hacia la creacion de empresas.” Informacion Comercial Espanola, No. 611, 147-55. [8] Giacomin, O., Janssen, F., Pruett, M., Shinnar, R., Llopis, F., and Toney, B. (2011). “Entrepreneurial intentions, motivations and barriers: Differences among American, Asian and European students.” International Entrepreneur- ship and Management Journal, 7 (2): 219-238. [9] Gupta, V.K. and Bhawe, N.M. (2007). “The influence of proactive personality and stereotype threat on women’s entrepreneurial intentions.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13 (4): 73-85. [10] Hoelscher, M. (2012). “Entrepreneurship education: Lessons learned.” Journal of Women’s Entrepreneurship and Education, (1-2): 125-129. [11] Holland, N. (2014). “Cultural and socio economic experiences of female en- trepreneurs in Brazil and the United States: An exploratorial and empirical analysis.” Journal of Women’s Entrepreneurship and Education, (1-2): 3-37. [12] Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage, Newbury Park, CA. [13] Humbert, A.L. and Drew, E. (2010). “Gender, entrepreneurship and motiva- tional factors in an Irish context.” International Journal of Gender and Entre- preneurship, 2 (2): 173-196. [14] Jose, S.C. and Orazio, L. (2012). “Gender differences and attitudes in entre- preneurial intentions: the role of career choice.” Journal of Women’s Entre- preneurship and Education, (1-2): 7-27. [15] Katz, J. (2003). “The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entre- preneurship education.” Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 283-300. [16] Kew, J., Herrington, M., Litovsky, Y., and Gale, H. (2013). GEM and YBI Youth Report: The State of Global Youth Entrepreneurship, published by Global Entrepreneurship Monitor and Youth Business International. [17] Khadija, M., Usman, Y., and Mohson, A. (2012). Entrepreneurial attributes among postgraduate students of a Pakistani university. Journal of Women’s Entrepreneurship and Education, (3-4): 86-101. Şeşen, H., et al., Nascent Entrepreneurs, JWE (2014, No. 3-4, 1-21) 19 [18] Kickul, J., Wilson, F., Marlino, D. and Barbosa, S.D. (2008). “Are misalign- ments of perceptions and self-efficacy causing gender gaps in entrepreneurial intentions among our nation’s teens?” Journal of Small Business and Enter- prise Development, 15 (2): 321-335. [19] Kirkwood, J. (2009). #Is a lack of self-confidence hindering women entrepre- neurs?” International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1(2): 118-133. [20] Klyver, K. and Grant, S. (2010). “Gender differences in entrepreneurial net- working and participation.” International Journal of Gender and Entrepre- neurship, 2 (3): 213-227. [21] Langowitz, N. and Minniti, M. (2007). “The entrepreneurial propensity of women.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31 (3): 341-364. [22] Lo, C., Sun, H. and Law, K. (2012). Comparing the entrepreneurial intention between female and male engineering students. Journal of Women’s Entrepre- neurship and Education, (1-2): 28-51. [23] Mazzarol, T., Volery, T., Doss, N. and Thein, V. (1999). “Factors influencing small business start-ups.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 5 (2): 48-63. [24] Miller, L. and Budd, J. (1999). “The development of occupational sex-role ste- reotypes, occupational preferences and academic preferences in children at ag- es 8, 12 and 16.” Educational Psychology, 19 (1): 17-35. [25] Minniti, M. and Nardone, C. (2007). “Being in someone else’s shoes: the role of gender in nascent entrepreneurship.” Small Business Economics, 28: 223- 238. [26] Minniti, M., Bygrave, W.D., Autio, E. (2005). Global Entrepreneurship Moni- tor (GEM), Executive Report. Babson College and London Business School, Wellesley, MA. [27] Nabi, G., Holden, R. and Walmsley, A. (2010). “Entrepreneurial intentions among students: towards a re-focused research agenda.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 17 (4): 537-551. [28] Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., Pickernell, D. and Brychan, T. (2010). “At- titudes towards entrepreneurship education: a comparative analysis.” Educa- tion + Training, 52 (8/9): 568-586. [29] Peterman, N.E. and Kennedy, J. (2003). “Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28 (2), 129-144. [30] Petridou, E., Sarri, A. and Kyrgidou, L.P. (2009). “Entrepreneurship education in higher educational institutions: the gender dimension.” Gender in Manage- ment: An International Journal, 24 (4), 286-309. [31] Pruett, M. Shinnar, R., Toney, B., Llopis, F., and Fox, J. (2009). “Explaining entrepreneurial intentions of university students: A cross-cultural study.” In- ternational Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 15 (6): 571- 594. 20 Journal of Women's Entrepreneurship and Education (2014, No. 3-4, 1-21) [32] Radović-Marković, Mirjana. (2013). „Female entrepreneurship: Theoretical approaches.“ Journal of Women’s Entrepreneurship and Education, (1-2): 1-9. [33] Robichaud, Y., McGraw, E., Cachon, J., Bolton, D., Codina, J., Eccius- Wellmann, C., and Walsh, A. (2013). „Female entrepreneurs’ motives and SME’s growth: An international study.“ Journal of Women’s Entrepreneurship and Education, (3-4): 1-27. [34] Sanchez, J. and Licciardello, O. (2012). “Gender differences and attitudes in entrepreneurial intentions: The role of career choice.” Journal of Women’s En- trepreneurship and Education, (1-2): 7-27. [35] Sandhu, M.S., S.F. Sidique, and S. Riaz. (2011). “Entrepreneurship barriers and entrepreneurial inclination among Malaysian postgraduate students.” In- ternational Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 17(4): 428-449. [36] Sexton, D. and Bowman-Upton, N. (1990). “Female and male entrepreneurs: Psychological characteristics and their role in gender related discrimination.” Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1): 29-36. [37] Shinnar, R.S., Giacomin, O. and Janssen, F. (2012). “Entrepreneurial percep- tions and intentions: The role of gender and culture.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(3): 465-493. [38] Taatila, V. (2010). „Learning entrepreneurship in higher education.“ Education + Training, 52(1): 48-61. [39] Van Gelderen, M. (2010). “Autonomy as the guiding aim of entrepreneurship education.” Education + Training, 52(8/9): 710-721. [40] Veciana, J., Aponte, M., and Urbano, D. (2005). “University students’ atti- tudes toward entrepreneurship: A two countries comparison.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1 (2), 165-182. [41] Wilson, F., Marlino, D. and Kickul, J. (2004). “Our entrepreneurial future: Ex- amining the diverse attitudes and motivations of teens across gender and ethnic identity. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 9(3): 177-97. [42] Wu, S. and Wu, L. (2008). The impact of higher education on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in China.” Journal of Small Business and En- terprise Development, 15 (4): 752-774. [43] Yordanova, D.I. and Tarrazon, M.A. (2010). “Gender differences in entrepre- neurial intentions: Evidence from Bulgaria.” Journal of Developmental Entre- preneurship, 15 (3): 245-261. [44] Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E. and Hills, G.E. (2005). “The mediating role of self- efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (6): 1265-72. Şeşen, H., et al., Nascent Entrepreneurs, JWE (2014, No. 3-4, 1-21) 21 Preduzetnik u nastajanju: Pol, kultura i percepcije A P S T R A K T Procenjivali smo polne razlike kod 1526 preduzetnika (studenata) u nastajanju, u četiri zemlje, sa ciljem testiranja modela preduzetničkih namera uz uključivanje polnih i kulturnih aspekata, kao i percepcija o preduzetničkim motivima i preprekama. Za razliku od prethodnog istraživanja usmerenog na preduzetnike u fazi preživljavanja, mi proučavamo ljude koji su na samom početku preduzetničke karijere. Model, prema našim nalazima, pruža značajnu podršku hipotezama o uticaju pola, kulture i percepcija o motivima i barijerama. Postoje značajne razlike između muškaraca i žena. Kultura utiče na namere studenata, žene imaju niži nivo preduzetničkih namera, motivi uglavnom imaju pozitivan uticaj na namere, prepreke imaju negativan uticaj, muškarci su više podložni uticaju motiva, dok su žene više podložne uticaju prepreka. Rezultati u Kini predstavljaju interesantne izuzetke u analizama i sugerišu smernice za buduća istraživanja specifična za tu zemlju. U celini, rezultati istraživanja sugerišu pravce za naredna istraživanja o preduzetničkim namerama. Između ostalog, diskutovali smo o implikacijama studije na preduzetničko obrazovanje . KLJUČNE REČI: pol, kultura, studenti, preduzetništvo, preduzetničke namere, preduzetničko obrazovanje, motivi, barijere Article history: Received: 13 July, 2014 Accepted: 19 October, 2014