The influence of collectivistic personal values on the formation of entrepreneurial intentions

https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242620903007 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 2020, Vol. 38(5) 449 –473 © The Author(s) 2020 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0266242620903007 journals.sagepub.com/home/isb S mall Firms is b j The influence of collectivistic personal values on the formation of entrepreneurial intentions Juan Alberto Hueso Universidad de Sevilla, Spain Inmaculada Jaén Universidad de Sevilla, Spain Francisco Liñán Anglia Ruskin University, UK; Universidad de Sevilla, Spain Whysnianti Basuki Solent University, UK Abstract This article analyses the specific role of collectivistic personal values as an antecedent of entrepreneurial intention. While previous studies have focused on individualistic values, the influence of collectivistic values has remained largely ignored. We study this influence on a sample of 413 university students from the United Kingdom and Spain. The results are consistent in both countries, suggesting that an emphasis on collectivistic personal values triggers an indirect, negative effect on entrepreneurial intentions through both personal attitude and perceived behavioural control. However, it also induces an indirect positive effect through subjective norms. The study indicates that not only individualistic values but the complete personal-value structure is influential in explaining the formation of entrepreneurial intentions. Keywords collectivistic values, entrepreneurial intention, personal values, structural equation modelling, theory of planned behaviour Corresponding author: Francisco Liñán, Department of Applied Economics, Universidad de Sevilla, Av. Ramón y Cajal, 1. E41018 Sevilla, Spain. Emails: [email protected]; [email protected] 903007ISB0010.1177/0266242620903007International Small Business JournalHueso et al. research-article2020 Article 450 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 38(5) Introduction In contemporary research, intention models have frequently been employed in entrepreneurship studies. Intention is considered as the most immediate and important variable for the prediction of the future behaviour of entrepreneurs (Adam and Fayolle, 2015). The literature on entrepreneurial intentions is extensive with multiple papers analysing entrepreneurial intention models (Liñán and Fayolle, 2015). However, much remains to be ascertained regarding the manner in which entrepreneurial intentions are formed. The contemporary literature (Liñán and Fayolle, 2015; Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014) has called for more empirical studies to provide an explanatory understanding of the underlying mechanisms within the entrepreneurial process. Personal values represent potentially relevant variables in this respect (Morales et al., 2019); within psychology research, they are important in explaining human actions (Bardi and Schwartz, 2003). These values have been regarded as one of the most significant drivers in guiding intentions and subsequent behaviour (Herek, 1986; Maio et al., 2001; Murray et al., 1996). According to Fayolle et al. (2014), personal values play a major role in entrepreneurship. In particular, much research has studied the individualistic personal values of entrepreneurs, by focusing on the consequences of entrepreneurial success, competitiveness, innovation and efficiency (Birch, 1981; Birch and MacCracken, 1983; Hayton et al., 2002; Peterson, 1988; Reynolds and Freeman, 1986; Wagner and Moch, 1986). Yet, individuals may stress the importance of a variety of basic values (Schwartz, 1992). Despite the main interests in individualistic values of entrepreneurship researchers (Morales et al., 2019), collectivistic values are also important as motivational goals and guiding principles for individuals. In this respect, a specific research theme has focused on the moral responsibility and ethical behaviour of entrepreneurs (Amable, 2010; Anderson and Smith, 2007; Brenkert, 2009; Harris et al., 2009; Scharff, 2016). It is argued that an emphasis on collectivistic values may see the entrepreneur influencing moral and ethical norms in new situations and contexts (Kaptein, 2017). This implies a greater consideration of the consequences for others, both for those in close relationships and for society in general. In this vein, collectivistic values can encourage entrepreneurs to infuse their ventures with an element of sustainability, solidarity, business ethics, corporate social responsibility, gender equality and loyalty, among other factors (Barnett and Karson, 1987; Costa et al., 2001; Hemingway, 2005; Shephard, 2008). Thus, the collectivistic values of potential entrepreneurs are important for the definition of their identity as entrepreneurs and, consequently, their intention to start a venture. Nevertheless, there is still a paucity of research on how personal values, in general, influence the decision-making processes of potential entrepreneurs. One of the few studies carried out in this field is that of Yang et al. (2015), though their focus was solely on the influence of personal values on personal attitudes (PAs). In this study, the role of collectivistic personal values in the formation of the entrepreneurial intention is investigated. According to Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour (TPB), entrepreneurial intention is developed from three motivational antecedents. The influence of the collectivistic personal values on all three antecedents – PA, subjective norms (SNs), and perceived behavioural control (PBC) – is analysed. Empirical analysis was conducted in two regions, from different countries (the United Kingdom and Spain), with these being clearly different in terms of history and culture. Nonetheless, they are both large, developed economies, exhibiting similar entrepreneurship rates. In 2017, 9.3% of the working-age population in the United Kingdom was expected to start a business within the next three years (Hart et al., 2018). Despite the rate in Spain being lower, at 6.8% (Peña et al., 2018), the two economies have relatively high rates of potential entrepreneurship, suggesting that creating a business is considered a valued career option. Furthermore, the two countries share similar characteristics in that they both enjoy innovationdriven and mature economies (Liñán et al., 2013). These economies are shifting towards the Hueso et al. 451 service sector and catering for an increasingly more affluent population. As noted by Bosma et al. (2008), they are both focused on knowledge generation and the development of innovative, opportunity-seeking entrepreneurial activity. Following this introduction, the article proceeds as follows. First, the theoretical framework is presented, and our hypotheses regarding how collectivistic values affect the formation of the entrepreneurial intention are developed. The methodology and results are presented in the subsequent sections, with the article finishing with the discussion and conclusion sections, wherein a reflection upon these results is included. Theoretical framework Collectivistic personal values and the entrepreneurial intention This article is based on an integration of values and intention theories. The Theory of Human Values, developed by Schwartz (1992), stresses the importance of personal values in affecting decision and action. Values are defined as desirable goals serving as guiding principles in life (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz and Bardi, 2001). These personal values orient decision-making and boost value-congruent behaviour (Bardi and Schwartz, 2003; De Dreu and Nauta, 2009; Schwartz, 2010, 2012). In this theory, it is assumed that values tend to be relatively stable over time (Bardi et al., 2009), and therefore, exert a long-lasting effect on motivation and intention (Morales et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2015). Widely used in the taxonomies of values found in the literature, Schwartz’s theory is deemed the most well developed (Yang et al., 2015). Schwartz’s (1994) value theory is based on a circular structure made up of 10 different basic values: power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, selfdirection, universalism, benevolence, conformity, tradition and security. These basic values may be grouped into four dimensions: self-enhancement, openness to change, self-transcendence and conservation. The first two value-dimensions are more closely related to an individualistic orientation (Konsky et al., 2000). That is, they tend to be accentuated by individuals who consider themselves more as unique human beings deserving attention and satisfaction. In contrast, conservation and self-transcendence are associated with a less individualistic or more collectivistic orientation Figure 1. The theory of basic human values. Source: Based on Schwartz (1992, 1994). 452 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 38(5) (Konsky et al., 2000). These tend to be emphasised by people who largely consider themselves as part of a group. A graphic representation of this theory is presented in Figure 1. This research is focused on those collectivistic values included in the conservation and selftranscendence dimensions. As such, we analyse the role of conformity, tradition and security (conservation), universalism and benevolence (self-transcendence). The conservation dimension underlines order, self-restriction, preservation of the past and resistance to change. In turn, the selftranscendence dimension captures the values that emphasise concern for the welfare and interests of others (Schwartz, 2012). Finally, these collectivistic values are linked to entrepreneurial intention. Since intentions are central to the entrepreneurship process, they represent the first step in a succession of decisions and actions leading to becoming an entrepreneur (Bird, 1988; Kautonen et al., 2015), so an entrepreneurial intention model is applied. Intentions depict the transformation of beliefs, perceptions and other exogenous factors into the outcome that immediately precedes the action itself (Ajzen, 2001). In short, intentions represent the most accurate proxy for the corresponding behaviour (Fayolle et al., 2014; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Liñán and Chen, 2009; Miller et al., 2009; Schwarz et al., 2009). TPB, in particular, is the most commonly used framework in entrepreneurship research (Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014). It explains the intention to enact a behaviour as a result of the following three antecedents: PA towards this act, SNs and PBC. First, PA refers to the degree to which a person has a positive or negative evaluation, or appraisal, of entrepreneurial behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Second, SNs denote the support expected from the people of reference (family, friends and so forth) if the individual decides to perform this behaviour, and third, PBC indicates the perceived ease or difficulty in undertaking entrepreneurial action. More positive perceptions of these antecedents lead to a higher level of entrepreneurial intentions (Lee et al., 2011). Accordingly, TPB is the second pillar upon which our theoretical framework is built. According to TPB, other cognitive-level variables should affect intention indirectly, through its antecedents (Krueger, 2007). Personal values represent an example of such an indirect influence and, in particular, our focus centres on the values within the conservation and self-transcendence dimension. The conservation dimension The conservation dimension, proposed by Schwartz (1992), accentuates the personal values of tradition, conformity and security; individuals that emphasise these values tend to avoid situations of uncertainty and change. It could be argued that these individuals have a deeply rooted sociocultural orientation (Yang et al., 2015), tending to subordinate their own personal interests in favour of socially imposed expectations. Individuals prioritising the personal value of tradition attach high importance to respect, commitment and acceptance of customs related to culture or religion (Schwartz and Boehnke, 2004). Similarly, the assertion of conformity entails maintaining control over actions, inclinations and impulses that impost upon others. Violation of social norms or expectations is also avoided (Schwartz and Boehnke, 2004). In addition, the personal value of security implies the avoidance of risky situations or of those implying uncertainty and change in the close environment (Yang et al., 2015). The entrepreneur is identified with continuously challenging the status quo (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000) and the rupture of social expectations (De Clercq and Voronov, 2009). Such individuals fail to accord with the values of the conservation dimension. Likewise, individuals who emphasise the conservation dimension are reluctant to perform actions that imply breaking with customs and tradition (Yang et al., 2015). Therefore, this information indicates that individuals highlighting conservation values might exhibit an unfavourable PA towards entrepreneurship. Thus, the following hypothesis can be established: Hueso et al. 453 H1a. Individuals accentuating conservation values (conformity, tradition and security) will exhibit a less favourable PA towards entrepreneurship. Individuals who emphasise the conservation dimension attach great importance to the opinion of key referents (parents, teachers, friends, etc.) and to the surrounding environment (religion, customs, traditions and so forth; Schwartz and Boehnke, 2004). Hockerts (2017) affirms that a feeling of belonging to this close environment generates expectations of a relationship of reciprocity. As such, among the members of the closest groups and significant members therein, a ‘moral obligation’ of loyalty and support for group decisions is evident (Mair and Noboa, 2006). Therefore, just as individuals feel compelled to support the other members of their closest group of referents, so they would expect mutual support for their decisions. In this way, this ‘moral obligation’ of loyalty and reciprocity with close referent people would cause individuals to expect support when they decide to create a firm. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis: H1b. Individuals accentuating conservation values (conformity, tradition and security) will exhibit more positive SNs regarding entrepreneurship. Generally, individuals take one of two approaches to their decision-making process (Crowe and Higgins, 1997), by adopting one of the following regulatory foci: promotion or prevention. On the one hand, under a promotion regulatory focus, the individual is concerned with the advancement, growth, accomplishments, hopes and aspirations that can be attained by performing a given behaviour. On the other, the prevention regulatory focus is concerned with safety, responsibilities and obligations, in an effort to avert negative and/or uncertain outcomes. For the individual prioritising the conservation dimension, it is harmony and stability of society, relationships and of the self that constitute crucial factors (Schwartz, 1994). In this respect, security is associated with an emphasis on ‘avoiding risky situations’ and ‘avoiding everything that might go wrong’. Furthermore, tradition and conformity imply respect for traditions and social norms (Schwartz, 1994). The perspective of creating a venture means making decisions and behaving in ways that break with traditions and social norms. Thus, for people who accentuate conservation values the process of business creation is a potential source of ‘social sanction’. Individuals accentuating the conservation dimension are likely to follow a prevention regulatory focus rather than one of promotion. Consequently, they should be more conscious regarding the inherent difficulties that starting up a company involves (Brockner et al., 2004; Higgins, 1998). These individuals are more likely to see new venture creation as a difficult and complex process. Accordingly, individuals emphasising conservation values may feel less capable of successfully starting up a firm. These arguments lead us to propose the following hypothesis: H1c. Individuals accentuating conservation values (conformity, tradition and security) will exhibit a less favourable PBC. The self-transcendence dimension The dimension of self-transcendence encompasses the personal values of benevolence and universalism (Schwartz, 1992). Accentuating the benevolence value indicates that an individual tries to help other members of the closest group (relatives, ethnic group, close friends and so on) and contributes to the welfare within the family and other primary groups (Schwartz, 2012). Subjects highlighting the personal value of universalism stress the importance of tolerance, social justice and equality (Schwartz, 1992). Notwithstanding, entrepreneurship is strongly characterised by an 454 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 38(5) ‘egoistic passion’ (Locke and Baum, 2007), which opposes the spirit of altruism, respect, tolerance and the protection of the welfare of others (Hirschi and Fischer, 2013).1 Self-transcendent individuals are expected to appreciate the contribution to general social well-being as a major element valuing the rewards of time spent with their family and significant others (Schwartz, 1992). In contrast, starting a new venture implies a high commitment in terms of effort, resources and time; so, for those emphasising the self-transcendence value dimension, entrepreneurship represents a large opportunity cost (Yang et al., 2015). These individuals may have a less favourable PA towards entrepreneurship; accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed: H2a. Individuals accentuating self-transcendence values (benevolence and universalism) will exhibit a less favourable PA towards entrepreneurship. Regarding the SNs, self-transcendent individuals considering the possibility of creating a new venture have, among other motivations, the notion of helping others, both within the closest group (benevolence) and in broader society (universalism) (Schwartz, 1992). For this reason, individuals considering new venture creation as a way to help others expect those around them to share that vision of entrepreneurship. As such, these potential entrepreneurs expect support from those who benefit from the success of the new firm. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed: H2b. Individuals accentuating self-transcendence values (benevolence and universalism) will exhibit more positive SNs regarding entrepreneurship. Finally, stressing self-transcendental personal values implies recognition of the importance of contributing positively to the improvement of the close environment (Holland and Shepherd, 2013). This concern, regarding improving the environment and helping others, might generate a burden in the form of greater responsibility. These individuals should be more aware of the possible effects of their behaviour on those close to them, on society in general and on the natural environment. This represents additional variables for consideration in the eventual process of venture creation. By taking these variables into account, the business venture process represents a more complex and difficult target to achieve as such, the individual might perceive a lower level of behavioural control. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is formulated: H2c. Individuals accentuating self-transcendence values (benevolence and universalism) will exhibit a less favourable PBC. Research model Figure 2 presents an overview of our research model and the proposed hypotheses. This represents our conceptual framework in which the motivational antecedents mediate the relationship of the conservation and self-transcendence dimension values, on the one hand, and the entrepreneurial intention, on the other. Methodology Sample This study is based on survey data collected in two different regions: Hampshire in the United Kingdom and Catalonia in Spain; the two regions share similar economic and social conditions. In the United Kingdom, the data come from a local university in the county of Hampshire, while in Hueso et al. 455 the Spanish subsample, it originates from several universities in the Catalonian region. Information of a more descriptive nature is presented in Table 1. Given that young adults in the 25- to 35-year age range with a higher level of education consistently exhibit the highest entrepreneurship participation rates (Singer et al., 2018), university students constitute our sample. Trained to experiment with their ideas in real-life situations, students learn and adapt them as they leverage who and what they know to create valuable opportunities (Singer et al., 2018). Questionnaires were distributed to students who attended business-related courses, the British and Spanish samples presented similar characteristics. The target sample was made up of students enrolled in undergraduate and master programmes, with an initial of 479 responses obtained. There were 61 respondents above the age of 35, with these cases removed from the analysis due to their motivations and experience likely differing from those in the younger, target group. In addition, five questionnaires were excluded due to their high level of missing data. Figure 2. Collectivistic personal values in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions. Table 1. Descriptive analysis. Descriptive statistics UK (N = 200) Spain (N = 213) Both (N = 413) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Age (years) 25.70 4.081 26.89 3.957 26.32 4.056 Gender: female = 0; male = 1 0.49 0.501 0.43 0.497 0.46 0.499 Entrepreneurship centre (yes = 1; no = 0) 0.08 0.264 0.12 0.327 0.10 0.299 Ever self-employed? (yes = 1; no = 0) 0.29 0.453 0.14 0.353 0.21 0.410 Schooling level of the fathera3.07 0.980 2.54 1.304 2.80 1.186 Schooling level of the mothera3.04 1.002 2.62 1.303 2.82 1.183 Family entrepreneur (yes = 1; no = 0) 0.65 0.480 0.62 0.486 0.63 0.483 Socio-economic groupb2.85 0.825 2.99 0.682 2.92 0.756 SD: standard deviation. a1 = primary education, 2 = secondary education, 3 = vocational training, 4 = university, 5 = other. b1 = lower, 2 = lower-middle, 3 = middle, 4 = upper-middle, 5 = upper. 456 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 38(5) The final sample included 413 usable questionnaires with 200 questionnaires collected in the United Kingdom and 213 obtained from Spain. As shown in Table 1, the general characteristics of the two subsamples were similar. The most notable differences related to the self-employment experience, which was substantially higher for the UK respondents (29% of UK respondents had this experience vs 14% in Spain). In the same vein, the UK respondents reported a slightly higher educational level than their parents. With regard to parents with university qualifications, the percentage was similar (approximately 30%) in the two subsamples. In Spain, it was more common that parents were found to have only primary education (around 30% of the respondents, whereas the corresponding percentage was less than 5% in the United Kingdom), with the same trend regarding secondary studies or vocational training (only 16%–19% of respondents in Spain reported a parent in one of these categories vs 25%–30% for their UK counterparts). Measures The dependent variable is the entrepreneurial intention, which was measured through the wellestablished Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire (EIQ; Liñán and Chen, 2009; Liñán et al., 2016). The scale was made up of five statements, with the response range varying from 0 to 6, where 0 meant ‘Totally disagree’, while 6 signified ‘Totally agree’. As an example, one item was ‘I am willing to make any effort to become an entrepreneur’. One item was intentionally reversed to prevent acquiescence bias. The EIQ was also employed to measure the TPB antecedent variables: PA, SNs and PBC. Likert-type scales with a response range of 0 to 6 were also applied here, where 0 was ‘not at all desirable’ or ‘totally disagree’ and 6 indicated ‘totally desirable’ or ‘totally agree’. For the PA, both the desirability of six specific outcomes and the expectation that these outcomes could be met through entrepreneurship were assessed. Example items for these outcomes include ‘starting a new business would involve being creative and innovative’ and ‘to what extent is being creative and innovative desirable for you in general?’ These responses were then multiplied to obtain a valuation of entrepreneurship. Similarly, the SNs measure was obtained by multiplying the expected support from significant referent people (immediate family, close friends and colleagues) by the motivation to comply with their opinions. Example items for this scale include ‘to what extent would your close friends agree if you decided to start a venture?’ and ‘how do you value the opinion of your close friends in this regard?’ In the case of PBC, a Likert-type scale with six statements was used, with responses ranging from 0 (‘totally ineffective’) to 6 (‘fully effective’). An example item for this scale would be ‘to what extent would you be able to effectively negotiate and maintain favourable relationships with potential investors and banks?’ Personal values were measured using Schwartz’s Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ) (Schwartz et al., 2001). The PVQ measures value priorities and is a scale that comprises 40 statements. The statements describe a person and ask the respondent to state the extent to which that person is similar to her or him. The response range varies from 0 (‘not at all like me’) to 5 (‘very much like me’). An example of these items is, ‘Forgiving people who have hurt her or him is important to her or him. (S)he tries to see what is good in them and not to hold a grudge’. The PVQ measures all 10 personal values as proposed by Schwartz (1992). Specifically, a total of 23 items correspond to the formation of the collectivistic personal values composing the self-transcendence and conservation dimensions and are grouped as follows: conformity (four items), tradition (four items), security (five items), benevolence (four items) and universalism (six items). Hueso et al. 457 Two dummy variables were included. The country dummy was coded as 1 for respondents in the United Kingdom and 0 for those in Spain. This variable would control for any possible country differences in the level of any of the study variables. The level of individualism was also controlled for since the overall Schwartz value structure includes individualistic values, together with collectivistic values (Schwartz, 1992, 1994, 2010, 2012). To compute this variable, the mean of all individualistic values was first calculated for each respondent, with this new variable then dichotomised as either 1 (for respondents with individualism levels higher than the mean) or 0 (for respondents with individualism levels lower than or equal to the mean). Despite the indication by Maxwell and Delaney (1993) that dichotomising continuous variables may be problematic, dichotomisation is carried out here for the individualism variable, given the existence of collinearity. Schwartz et al. (2012) reported the existence of frequent problems of high correlation and multicollinearity between the 10 basic values, particularly when a majority thereof is included together in the analysis. As explained by Falk and Miller (1992), multicollinearity in structural equation modelling is likely to lead to changes in the sign of coefficients, and to a reduction in significance levels.2 In addition, age (in years) and gender (1 = man; 0 = woman) were included as the controls on the TPB antecedents and the entrepreneurial intention. Both age (Bönte et al., 2009; Thorgren et al., 2016) and gender (Hechavarría et al., 2017; Klyver et al., 2013; Murnieks et al., 2020; Shinnar et al., 2012, 2018) have been demonstrated as being substantial predictors of entrepreneurial intent and action, particularly in the student samples (Shirokova et al., 2016; Sieger and Monsen, 2015). Data analysis Structural equation modelling (SEM) was employed to test the hypotheses. This modelling enables the simultaneous examination of the relationships between measured variables and latent variables (Gefen et al., 2000; Hair et al., 2017), and is most suitable when our model specification includes several dependent and exogenous variables, implying the need to estimate several regression equations simultaneously (Hair et al., 2017). More specifically, a partial least squares SEM (PLS-SEM or PLS path modelling) was applied. When the aim involves the development of new theories and exploratory research, then this statistical technique is more suitable than covariance-based SEM techniques (such as ‘Linear Structural Relations’ (LISREL; Gefen et al., 2000; Hair et al., 2017). As indicated by Sánchez-Franco and Roldán (2005), PLS analysis provides results for both the measurement model (reliability and validity of indicators) and the structural model (hypothesised relationships). SmartPLS (v. 3.2.6) software was applied in the analysis. Results Measurement model The proposed model (Figure 2) was run for the full sample, including the country and individualism control variables, with the results presented in Figure 3. The PA construct was defined as formative, since the specific motivations to become an entrepreneur had not to correlate with each other, and the aggregate attitude was formed as the summative evaluation of each of the motives (Hair et al., 2017). All the remaining constructs were measured as reflective, and in the case of the formative construct, meaningful and significant weights indicated sufficient reliability. The measurement model was verified for the full sample following the standard practice in the field (Hair et al., 2017). The reversed item in the entrepreneurial intention scale was dropped due to its low loading. Similarly, the second item (pa2) in the PA construct was eliminated, since the 464 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 38(5) and Solesvik (2016) found that women and men benefit differently from entrepreneurship education. These differences could be explained by the initial personal-value structure and valuechanges during education. Value-transmitting training activities therefore, may be devised to contribute towards modifying the value structure of the participants. This reflects previous research that emphasised the importance of developing a more conscious entrepreneurial mind set (Krueger, 2007; McGrath and MacMillan, 2000; McMullen and Shepherd, 2006). Nevertheless, further research that would enable the most promising combination of values is still required, not only for the promotion of entry into entrepreneurship, but also for fostering responsible and sustainable behaviour as an entrepreneur. The comparison with the general GUESSS results for the United Kingdom and Spain has shown that our sample of younger postgraduate students exhibit higher intentions than is the case for a wider sample of older students (possibly having returned to education after some experience at work). This raises another interesting point regarding the predictive ability in the TPB. A higher entrepreneurial intention need not turn into action. Scholars, such as Liñán and Chen (2009) and Van Gelderen et al. (2015), typically find that motivational antecedents explain 40%–60% of the variance in the entrepreneurial intention, and though this renders the TPB framework the most accurate model for the prediction of intentions (Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014), Kautonen et al. (2015) report that the ability of this model to predict behaviour is considerably lower, typically in the range of 20%–30%. Hence, a substantial proportion of unexplained behaviour still requires clarification. The value structure, including both individualistic and collectivistic value dimensions, may hold the key to unlock this question. In this respect, contemporary research has analysed the role of security as a job motivation (Delanoë-Gueguen and Liñán, 2019), closely linked to the personal value of security. Such results indicate that security motivation not only decreases intention, but also has a direct negative effect on behaviour. Again, further research should be undertaken to explore the role of personal values, both collectivistic and individualistic, in the intention–behaviour link. Limitations This study, like any other, is not without its limitations. The sample is restricted to two regions in two different developed countries. Cultural studies have shown that individualistic values tend to prevail in these countries, while collectivistic values predominate in developing countries (Schwartz and Bardi, 2001). A sample that originates from a less developed economy may yield disparate results. Similarly, even though young adults are more inclined to start a new venture, other groups of the population are also relevant in this respect. The results found here may be inconsistent with those from a sample of an older population, or one with different characteristics (e.g. a lower level of education). For these reasons, future research should test the proposed research model on various countries and population segments prior to any generalisations being drawn. Conclusion To the best of our knowledge, this is one of few studies that analyses the relationship between collectivistic personal values and entrepreneurial intention. The results offer certain relevant insights concerning the importance of these values in the entrepreneurial process. These values are negatively related to attraction and perceived control towards entrepreneurship but positively related to SNs. This influence persists, despite controlling for the level of individualism within respondents and hence, collectivistic values exert an influence of their own on the formation of entrepreneurial intentions, over and above that of the more widely studied individualistic values. These results, if Hueso et al. 465 confirmed, may substantially transform the study of values in entrepreneurship. The search for the key values that increase intention could well prove futile. Instead, it may turn out to be the specific combination of all individualistic and collectivistic values that is relevant in this process. Furthermore, the implications of accentuating values, such as universalism and benevolence, may be related to social entrepreneurship intentions and behaviour. This article therefore, opens up several highly interesting avenues for further research and we trust that the entrepreneurship research community will find them to be worthy of exploration. Funding The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This manuscript has been partly funded by the following projects: VIE: Values and Entrepreneurial Intention (Andalusia regional government Ref.: P08-SEJ-03542) and ELITE: emergence of high-impact entrepreneurs (Spanish national government Ref.: ECO2016-75655-P). ORCID iD Francisco Liñán https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6212-1375 Notes 1. Social entrepreneurship could be a possible exception here. However, our argument refers to entrepreneurship in general. 2. The analysis was carried out with the continuous individualist-value dummy variable, but strong collinearity was present. For this reason, a dichotomic individualistic dummy variable had to be used. 3. The figures are corrected to make the response range comparable to that in our sample, since the GUESSS survey reply options range from 1 to 7, while our questionnaire options range from 0 to 6. 4. We are most grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this issue. References Adam A and Fayolle A (2015) Bridging the entrepreneurial intention-behaviour gap: The role of commitment and implementation intention. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 25(1): 36–54. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2): 179–211. Ajzen I (2001) Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 27–58. Ajzen I and Fishbein M (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Amable B (2010) Morals and politics in the ideology of neo-liberalism. Socio-Economic Review 9(1): 3–30. Anderson AR and Smith R (2007) The moral space in entrepreneurship: An exploration of ethical imperatives and the moral legitimacy of being enterprising. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 19(6): 479–497. Arieli S, Sagiv L and Cohen-Shalem E (2016) Values in business schools: The role of self-selection and socialization. Academy of Management Learning & Education 15(3): 493–507. Armitage CJ and Conner M (2001) Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology 40(4): 471–499. Autio EH, Keeley R, Klofsten M, et al. (2001) Entrepreneurial intent among students in Scandinavia and in the USA. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies 2(2): 145–160. Bardi A and Goodwin R (2011) The dual route to value change: Individual processes and cultural moderators. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42(2): 271–287. Bardi A and Schwartz SH (2003) Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29(10): 1207–1220. 466 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 38(5) Bardi A, Lee JA, Hofmann-Towfigh N, et al. (2009) The structure of intraindividual value change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97(5): 913–926. Barnett JH and Karson MJ (1987) Personal values and business decisions: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Business Ethics 6(5): 371–382. Belchior RF and Liñán F (2017) Individual and cultural values as psychosocial cognitive antecedents and moderators of entrepreneurial intentions. In: Santos SC, Caetano A, Mitchell C, et al. (eds) The Emergence of Entrepreneurial Behaviour: Intention, Education and Orientation. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp.66–87. Birch DL (1981) Who creates jobs? The Public Interest 65: 3–14. Birch DL and MacCracken SJ (1983) The small business share of job creation: Lessons learned from the use of a longitudinal file. Unpublished report, MIT Program on Neighborhood and Regional Change, USA. Bird B (1988) Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review 13(3): 442–453. Bönte W, Falck O and Heblich S (2009) The impact of regional age structure on entrepreneurship. Economic Geography 85(3): 269–287. Bosma N, Acs ZJ, Autio E, et al. (2008) Global entrepreneurship monitor, 2008 executive report. Report, Global Entrepreneurship Research Consortium (GERA), London, UK. Brenkert GG (2009) Innovation, rule breaking and the ethics of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 24(5): 448–464. Brockner J, Higgins ET and Low MB (2004) Regulatory focus theory and the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing 19(2): 203–220. Costa PT Jr, Terracciano A and McCrae RR (2001) Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81(2): 322–331. Crowe E and Higgins ET (1997) Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 69(2): 117–132. De Clercq D and Voronov M (2009) The role of cultural and symbolic capital in entrepreneurs ability to meet expectations about conformity and innovation. Journal of Small Business Management 47(3): 398–420. De Dreu CKW and Nauta A (2009) Self-interest and other-orientation in organizational behavior: Implications for job performance, prosocial behavior, and personal initiative. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(4): 913–926. Delanoë-Gueguen S and Liñán F (2019) A longitudinal analysis of the influence of career motivations on entrepreneurial intention and action. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 36(4): 527–543. Dey P and Steyaert C (2016) Rethinking the space of ethics in social entrepreneurship: Power, subjectivity, and practices of freedom. Journal of Business Ethics 133(4): 627–641. Falk R and Miller NB (1992) A Primer for Soft Modeling. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press. Fayolle A, Liñán F and Moriano JA (2014) Beyond entrepreneurial intentions: Values and motivations in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 10(4): 679–689. Fishbein M and Ajzen I (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fretschner M and Weber S (2013) Measuring and understanding the effects of entrepreneurial awareness education. Journal of Small Business Management 51(3): 410–428. Gefen D, Straub D and Boudreau MC (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 4(1): 7. Gielnik MM, Frese M, Kahara-Kawuki A, et al. (2015) Action and action-regulation in entrepreneurship: Evaluating a student training for promoting entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Learning and Education 14(1): 69–94. Gupta VK, Turban DB and Pareek A (2013) Differences between men and women in opportunity evaluation as a function of gender stereotypes and stereotype activation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 37(4): 771–788. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, et al. (2017) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Harris JD, Sapienza HJ and Bowie NE (2009) Ethics and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 24(5): 407–418. Hueso et al. 467 Hart M, Bonne K, Levie J, et al. (2018) Global entrepreneurship monitor, United Kingdom 2017 monitoring report. Report, Global Entrepreneurship Research Consortium (GERA), London, UK. Hayton JC, George G and Zahra SA (2002) National culture and entrepreneurship: A review of behavioral research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 26(4): 33–52. Hechavarría DM, Terjesen SA, Ingram AE, et al. (2017) Taking care of business: The impact of culture and gender on entrepreneurs’ blended value creation goals. Small Business Economics 48(1): 225–257. Hemingway CA (2005) Personal values as a catalyst for corporate social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics 60(3): 233–249. Herek GM (1986) The instrumentality of attitudes: Toward a neofunctional theory. Journal of Social Issues 42(2): 99–114. Higgins ET (1998) Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 30(30): 1–46. Hirschi A and Fischer S (2013) Work values as predictors of entrepreneurial career intentions. Career Development International 18(3): 216–231. Hockerts K (2017) Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions:. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 41(1): 105–130. Holland DV and Shepherd DA (2013) Deciding to persist: Adversity, values, and entrepreneurs decision policies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 37(2): 331–358. Kaptein M (2017) The Living Code: Embedding Ethics into the Corporate DNA. London: Routledge. Kautonen T, Van Gelderen M and Fink M (2015) Robustness of the theory of planned behavior in predicting entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39(3): 655–674. Klyver K, Nielsen SL and Evald MR (2013) Women’s self-employment: An act of institutional (dis)integration? A multilevel, cross-country study. Journal of Business Venturing 28(4): 474–488. Kolvereid L and Isaksen E (2006) New business start-up and subsequent entry into self-employment. Journal of Business Venturing 21(6): 866–885. Konsky C, Eguchi M, Blue J, et al. (2000) Individualist-collectivist values: American, Indian and Japanese cross-cultural study. Intercultural Communication Studies 9(1): 69–84. Krueger NF (2007) The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence. In: Cuervo Á, Ribeiro D and Roig S (eds) Entrepreneurship. Berlin: Heidelberg, pp.185–206. Krueger NF, Reilly MD and Carsrud AL (2000) Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing 15(5): 411–432. Lee L, Wong PK, Der Foo M, et al. (2011) Entrepreneurial intentions: The influence of organizational and individual factors. Journal of Business Venturing 26(1): 124–136. Liñán F and Chen Y (2009) Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33(3): 593–617. Liñán F and Fayolle A (2015) A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: Citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 11(4): 907–933. Liñán F, Moriano JA and Jaén I (2016) Individualism and entrepreneurship: Does the pattern depend on the social context? International Small Business Journal 34(6): 760–776. Liñán F, Nabi G and Krueger N (2013) British and Spanish entrepreneurial intentions: A comparative study. Revista de Economía Mundial 33: 73–103. Locke EA and Baum JR (2007) Entrepreneurial motivation. In: Baum JR, Frese M and Baron RA (eds) The Organizational Frontiers: The Psychology of Entrepreneurship. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.93–112. McGrath RG and MacMillan IC (2000) The Entrepreneurial Mindset: Strategies for Continuously Creating Opportunity in an Age of Uncertainty. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. McMullen JS and Shepherd DA (2006) Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review 31(1): 132–152. Maio GR, Olson JM, Allen L, et al. (2001) Addressing discrepancies between values and behavior: The motivating effect of reasons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 37(2): 104–117. 468 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 38(5) Mair J and Noboa E (2006) Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social venture are formed. In: Mair J, Robinson J and Hockerts K (eds) Social Entrepreneurship. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.121–135. Maxwell SE and Delaney HD (1993) Bivariate median splits and spurious statistical significance. Psychological Bulletin 113(1): 181–190. Miller BK, Bell JD, Palmer M, et al. (2009) Predictors of entrepreneurial intentions: A quasi-experiment comparing students enrolled in introductory management and entrepreneurship classes. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship 21(2): 39–62. Morales C, Holtschlag C, Masuda AD, et al. (2019) In which cultural contexts do individual values explain entrepreneurship? An integrative values framework using Schwartz’s theories. International Small Business Journal 37(3): 241–267. Moriano JA, Gorgievski M, Laguna M, et al. (2012) A cross-cultural approach to understanding entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Career Development 39(2): 162–185. Morris MH, Schindehutte M, Walton J, et al. (2002) The ethical context of entrepreneurship: Proposing and testing a developmental framework. Journal of Business Ethics 40(4): 331–361. Murnieks CY, Cardon MS and Haynie JM (2020) Fueling the fire: Examining identity centrality, affective interpersonal commitment and gender as drivers of entrepreneurial passion. Journal of Business Venturing 35(1): 1–17. Murray SL, Haddock G and Zanna MP (1996) On creating value-expressive attitudes: An experimental approach. In: Seligman C, Olson JM and Zanna MP (eds) The Psychology of Values: The Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.107–133. Myyry L, Juujärvi S and Pesso K (2013) Change in values and moral reasoning during higher education. European Journal of Developmental Psychology 10(2): 269–284. Peña I, Guerrero M, González-Pernía JL, et al. (2018) Global entrepreneurship monitor informe GEM españa 2017-2018. Report, University of Cantabria, Spain. Peterson R (1988) Understanding and encouraging entrepreneurship internationally. Journal of Small Business Management 26(2): 17. Racko G, Strauss K and Burchell B (2017) Economics education and value change: The role of programnormative homogeneity and peer influence. Academy of Management Learning and Education 16(3): 373–392. Reynolds PD and Freeman S (1986) Pennsylvania New Firm Study, Vol. 2: New Firm Contributions to Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA: Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Sánchez-Franco MJ and Roldán JL (2005) Web acceptance and usage model: A comparison between goaldirected and experiential web users. Internet Research 15(1): 21–48. Santos SC, Landström H and Fayolle A (2017) The Emergence of Entrepreneurial Behaviour: Intention, Education and Orientation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Scharff C (2016) The psychic life of neoliberalism: Mapping the contours of entrepreneurial subjectivity. Theory, Culture & Society 33(6): 107–122. Schlaegel C and Koenig M (2014) Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: A meta-analytic test and integration of competing models. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38(2): 291–332. Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25: 1–65. Schwartz SH (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues 50(4): 19–45. Schwartz SH (2010) Basic values: How they motivate and inhibit prosocial behavior. In: Mikulincer M and Shaver PR (eds) Prosocial Motives, Emotions, and Behavior: The Better Angels of Our Nature. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp.26–52. Schwartz SH (2012) An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2(1): 11. Schwartz SH and Bardi A (2001) Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32(3): 268–290. Hueso et al. 469 Schwartz SH and Boehnke K (2004) Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality 38(3): 230–255. Schwartz SH, Cieciuch J, Vecchione M, et al. (2012) Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103(4): 663–688. Schwartz SH, Melech G, Lehmann A, et al. (2001) Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32(5): 519–542. Schwarz EJ, Wdowiak MA, Almer-Jarz DA, et al. (2009) The effects of attitudes and perceived environment conditions on students entrepreneurial intent: An Austrian perspective. Education + Training 51(4): 272–291. Shane S and Venkataraman S (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review 25(1): 217–226. Shephard K (2008) Higher education for sustainability: Seeking affective learning outcomes. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 9(1): 87–98. Shinnar RS, Giacomin O and Janssen F (2012) Entrepreneurial perceptions and intentions: The role of gender and culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36(3): 465–493. Shinnar RS, Hsu DK, Powell BC, et al. (2018) Entrepreneurial intentions and start-ups: Are women or men more likely to enact their intentions? International Small Business Journal 36(1): 60–80. Shirokova G, Osiyevskyy O and Bogatyreva K (2016) Exploring the intention–behavior link in student entrepreneurship: Moderating effects of individual and environmental characteristics. European Management Journal 34(4): 386–399. Sieger P and Monsen E (2015) Founder, academic, or employee? A nuanced study of career choice intentions. Journal of Small Business Management 53: 30–57. Sieger P, Fueglistaller U, Zellweger T, et al. (2018) Global student entrepreneurship 2018: Insights from 54 countries. Report, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland. Singer S, Herrington M and Menipaz E (2018) Global entrepreneurship monitor, global report 2017-2018. Report, Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, UK. Thorgren S, Sirén C, Nordström C, et al. (2016) Hybrid entrepreneurs’ second-step choice: The nonlinear relationship between age and intention to enter full-time entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing Insights 5: 14–18. Triandis HC and Gelfand MJ (2012) A theory of individualism and collectivism. In: van Lange PAM, Kruglanski AW and Higgins ET (eds) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.498–520. Van Gelderen M, Kautonen T and Fink M (2015) From entrepreneurial intentions to actions: Self-control and action-related doubt, fear, and aversion. Journal of Business Venturing 30(5): 655–673. Wagner JA and Moch MK (1986) Individualism-collectivism: Concept and measure. Group & Organization Studies 11(3): 280–304. Westhead P and Solesvik MZ (2016) Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention: Do female students benefit? International Small Business Journal 34(8): 979–1003. Yang KP, Hsiung HH and Chiu Y-J (2015) The comfort zone of the value circumplex for entrepreneurship: A structural analysis. Career Development International 20(6): 663–683. Author biographies Juan Alberto Hueso is a PhD student at the University of Seville. He obtained his bachelor’s degree in Economics. His research interests are related to personal values in the identity formation of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial intention. He has participated in projects sponsored by the Spanish national government (ELITE) and the OECD and actively participates in the European University Network on Entrepreneurship (ESU). Inmaculada Jaén holds a PhD degree in economics from the University of Seville. She is an assistant professor of economics in the Department of Applied Economics, University of Seville, and a member of the research group ‘SMEs and Economic Development’. She has participated in several research projects, funded by the 470 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 38(5) regional and national administrations, as well as the OECD. Dr Jaén is a part of the ELITE project (Ref.: ECO2016-75655-P) financed by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness in Spain. She has published a number of contributions in academic journals and edited books. Francisco Liñán is a professor in entrepreneurship and innovation at Anglia Ruskin University (UK), as well as associate professor at the University of Seville (Spain). His research interests include entrepreneurship, the entrepreneurial process and entrepreneurship education. His work has been published in journals such as International Small Business Journal, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development and Small Business Economics. He has participated in projects funded by the Spanish national government, the EU and the OECD. He is Research Editor at Entrepreneurship Education & Pedagogy and Editorial Board Member at Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice and International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. Whysnianti Basuki holds an MSc in social sciences in accounting and management science from the University of Southampton, and an MBA and a PhD from Southampton Solent University. Her PhD topic was ‘gender factors in strategic managerial behaviour in small and medium-sized enterprises’. She is an active member of the ESU Network on Entrepreneurship and her research interests include entrepreneurship and gender. Appendix Table 3. Measurement model indicators. Indicators Loadings Alpha CR AVE Entrepreneurial intention ei1 0.904 0.938 0.939 0.843 ei2 0.916 ei4 0.946 ei5 0.906 Subjective norms sn1 0.869 0.783 0.837 0.692 sn2 0.883 sn3 0.735 Perceived behavioural control pbc1 0.737 0.850 0.858 0.570 pbc2 0.715 pbc3 0.765 pbc4 0.765 pbc5 0.743 pbc6 0.800 Personal attitude pa1 0.349a− − − pa3 0.254a pa4 0.342a pa5 0.112a pa6 0.422a CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance extracted. aIndicator weights for the formative construct (PA). Hueso et al. 471 Table 4. Means, SDs and correlations between latent variables for the full sample. Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. 1. Conformity 3.273 0.876 1.000 2. Tradition 2.378 0.856 0.349 1.000 3. Security 3.482 0.827 0.157 −0.025 1.000 4. Benevolence 3.963 0.647 −0.093 −0.021 −0.334 1.000 5. Universalism 3.955 0.738 −0.251 −0.013 −0.275 0.366 1.000 6. PA 3.631 1.081 −0.172 −0.224 −0.030 −0.118 −0.156 1.000 7. SNs 3.550 1.397 0.093 −0.029 −0.009 0.059 0.005 0.321 1.000 8. PBC 4.131 1.015 −0.023 −0.024 0.026 −0.186 −0.160 0.501 0.247 1.000 9. EI 3.332 1.691 −0.106 −0.007 −0.053 −0.120 −0.162 0.527 0.214 0.505 1.000 10. Individual dummy 0.494 0.501 −0.323 −0.329 −0.192 −0.297 −0.424 0.264 0.073 0.152 0.230 1.000 11. Country dummy 0.484 0.500 −0.009 −0.151 0.219 −0.271 −0.283 0.175 −0.005 0.132 0.123 0.215 1.000 SD: standard deviation; PA: personal attitude; SNs: subjective norms; PBC: perceived behavioural control; EI: entrepreneurial intention. 472 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 38(5) Table 5. Means, SDs and correlations between latent variables for the Spanish sample. Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Conformity 3.194 0.844 1.000 2. Tradition 2.397 0.806 0.387 1.000 3. Security 3.269 0.869 0.267 0.110 1.000 4. Benevolence 4.015 0.655 −0.139 0.025 −0.296 1.000 5. Universalism 4.036 0.766 −0.264 −0.051 −0.278 0.384 1.000 6. PA 3.426 1.114 −0.098 −0.174 −0.080 −0.117 −0.170 1.000 7. SNs 3.553 1.411 0.005 −0.067 −0.032 0.070 −0.011 0.441 1.000 8. PBC 4.005 1.076 0.039 −0.019 0.051 −0.220 −0.180 0.484 0.289 1.000 9. EI 3.128 1.630 0.018 −0.009 −0.081 −0.083 −0.200 0.524 0.287 0.464 1.000 10. Individual dummy 0.390 0.489 −0.306 −0.324 −0.250 −0.317 −0.444 0.196 0.075 0.050 0.159 1.000 SD: standard deviation; PA: personal attitude; SNs: subjective norms; PBC: perceived behavioural control; EI: entrepreneurial intention. Hueso et al. 473 Table 6. Means, SDs and correlations between latent variables for the UK sample. Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Conformity 3.358 0.903 1.000 2. Tradition 2.358 0.908 0.324 1.000 3. Security 3.711 0.713 0.057 −0.100 1.000 4. Benevolence 3.906 0.636 −0.061 −0.162 −0.288 1.000 5. Universalism 3.868 0.698 −0.265 −0.065 −0.167 0.225 1.000 6. PA 3.853 1.001 −0.235 −0.215 −0.042 −0.085 −0.094 1.000 7. SNs 3.547 1.385 0.172 0.001 0.024 0.044 0.031 0.183 1.000 8. PBC 4.265 0.930 −0.080 0.013 −0.077 −0.083 −0.072 0.434 0.197 1.000 9. EI 3.551 1.731 −0.214 0.030 −0.086 −0.103 −0.067 0.558 0.147 0.550 1.000 10. Individual dummy 0.605 0.490 −0.352 −0.294 −0.255 −0.176 −0.322 0.328 0.077 0.222 0.262 1.000 SD: standard deviation; PA: personal attitude; SNs: subjective norms; PBC: perceived behavioural control; EI: entrepreneurial intention.